Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse
Previous Article Next Article

An effective rate equation approach to reaction kinetics in small volumes: Theory and application to biochemical reactions in nonequilibrium steady-state conditions

Source: J. Chem. Phys. 133, 035101 (2010); doi:10.1063/1.3454685

Published 16 July 2010

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 87.15.km
    Protein-protein interactions
  • 87.14.ej
    Enzymes
  • 87.15.R-
    Biochemical reactions and kinetics
  • 82.20.Pm
    Chemical rate constants, reaction cross sections, and activation energies
  • 82.20.Uv
    Stochastic theories of rate constants in chemical kinetics
  • YEAR: 2010
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
ISSN:
1553-9628 (online)
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef AIP
R. Grima
School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JR, United Kingdom
Chemical master equations provide a mathematical description of stochastic reaction kinetics in well-mixed conditions. They are a valid description over length scales that are larger than the reactive mean free path and thus describe kinetics in compartments of mesoscopic and macroscopic dimensions. The trajectories of the stochastic chemical processes described by the master equation can be ensemble-averaged to obtain the average number density of chemical species, i.e., the true concentration, at any spatial scale of interest. For macroscopic volumes, the true concentration is very well approximated by the solution of the corresponding deterministic and macroscopic rate equations, i.e., the macroscopic concentration. However, this equivalence breaks down for mesoscopic volumes. These deviations are particularly significant for open systems and cannot be calculated via the Fokker–Planck or linear-noise approximations of the master equation. We utilize the system-size expansion including terms of the order of Omega−1/2 to derive a set of differential equations whose solution approximates the true concentration as given by the master equation. These equations are valid in any open or closed chemical reaction network and at both the mesoscopic and macroscopic scales. In the limit of large volumes, the effective mesoscopic rate equations become precisely equal to the conventional macroscopic rate equations. We compare the three formalisms of effective mesoscopic rate equations, conventional rate equations, and chemical master equations by applying them to several biochemical reaction systems (homodimeric and heterodimeric protein-protein interactions, series of sequential enzyme reactions, and positive feedback loops) in nonequilibrium steady-state conditions. In all cases, we find that the effective mesoscopic rate equations can predict very well the true concentration of a chemical species. This provides a useful method by which one can quickly determine the regions of parameter space in which there are maximum differences between the solutions of the master equation and the corresponding rate equations. We show that these differences depend sensitively on the Fano factors and on the inherent structure and topology of the chemical network. The theory of effective mesoscopic rate equations generalizes the conventional rate equations of physical chemistry to describe kinetics in systems of mesoscopic size such as biological cells. ©2010 American Institute of Physics
History: Received 22 April 2010; accepted 26 May 2010; published 16 July 2010
Permalink: http://link.aip.org/link/?JCPSA6/133/035101/1

REFERENCES (18)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. A. Cornish-Bowden, Fundamentals of Enzyme Kinetics (Portland, London, 1995).
  2. R. Grima and S. Schnell, Essays Biochem. 45, 41 (2008).
  3. D. T. Gillespie, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 58, 35 (2007).
  4. D. T. Gillespie, J. Phys. Chem. 81, 2340 (1977).
  5. N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007).
  6. J. Elf and M. Ehrenberg, Genome Res. 13, 2475 (2003).
  7. R. Grima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 218103 (2009).
  8. R. Grima, BMC Syst. Biol. 3, 101 (2009).
  9. I. M. Jaimoukha and E. M. Kasenally, SIAM (Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.) J. Numer. Anal. 31, 227 (1994).
  10. P. Benner, V. Sima, and M. Slowik, J. Numer. Anal. Indust. Appl. Math 2, 11 (2007).
  11. B. Alberts, D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and J. D. Watson, Molecular Biology of the Cell (Garland, New York, 1994).
  12. S. Ramsey, D. Orrell, and H. Bolouri, J. Bioinf. Comput. Biol. 3, 415 (2005).
  13. L. Cai, N. Friedman, and X. S. Xie, Nature (London) 440, 358 (2006).
  14. A. Singh and J. P. Hespanha, Proceedings of the 45th Conference on Decision and Control, 2006.
  15. C. A. Gómez-Uribe and G. C. Verghese, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 024109 (2007).
  16. S. A. Levin and S. W. Pacala, in Spatial Ecology: The Role of Space in Population Dynamics and Interspecific Interactions, edited by D. Tilman and P. Kareiva (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1997), pp. 271–296.
  17. F. Baras and M. Malek Mansour, Phys. Rev. E 54, 6139 (1996).
  18. D. Bernstein, Phys. Rev. E 71, 041103 (2005).

CITING ARTICLES

For access to citing articles, you need to log in.
For access to citing articles, you need to Log in.
ADVERTISEMENT