Article Outline

Article Information

PubMed

Related Articles

  • …more

Copyright © 2008 The Biophysical Society. All rights reserved.
Biophysical Journal, Volume 94, Issue 9, 3384-3392, 1 May 2008

doi:10.1529/biophysj.107.121756

Biophysical Theory and Modeling

Binding Cooperativity in Phage λ is Not Sufficient to Produce an Effective Switch

Tomáš Gedeon*Go To Corresponding Author Konstantin MischaikowKathryn Patterson* and Eliane Traldi

* Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana
Department of Mathematics, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey
BioMaPS Institute, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, New Jersey

Address reprint requests to Tomáš Gedeon, Tel.: 406-994-5359.

Abstract

In the wild-type phage λ, binding of CI to OR2 helps polymerase bound to PRM transition from a closed to open complex. Activators on other promoters increase the polymerase-DNA binding energy, or affect both the binding energy and the closed-open transition probability. Using a validated mathematical model, we show that these two modes of upregulation have very different effects on the promoter function. We predict that if CI2 bound to OR2 produced equal increase in RNAP-DNA binding constant (compared to wild-type increase in the closed-open transition probability), the lysogen would be significantly less stable.

Introduction

Although it is premature to assert that we have entered the era of synthetic biology, the groundwork for targeted design of functioning living organisms is being laid. The manipulation of DNA within an organism is, by now, a standard laboratory practice. Recent work has shown the feasibility of complete genome transplantation 1. Thus, the tools exist, but to use them effectively requires the ability to design elements of signal transduction and gene regulatory networks. While this has been done 2,3 much remains to be understood both on the level of the construction of the individual components and the design of the networks themselves. The focus of this article is on the former.

Transcriptional control plays a fundamental role in gene expression. The initiation of transcription involves a series of reactions which can be summarized into three steps (note that there are additional controls which occur in later stages of the process of transcription, but are not considered in this article):

Binding. RNA polymerase binds to promoter DNA yielding a closed RNA polymerase promoter complex.
Opening. RNA polymerase unwinds a short segment of DNA yielding an open RNA polymerase promoter complex.
Escape. After abortive cycles of synthesis and release of short RNA products, the RNA polymerase escapes the promoter and enters into productive synthesis of RNA.

The activation and repression of transcription initiation is primarily caused by regulatory proteins and the structure of DNA. Regulated recruitment 4 provides a conceptual model for this process. Considerable progress has been made in understanding the biochemistry of the various reactions in the process 5,6 and in particular, it is clear that while the three steps are physically coupled there is considerable freedom for varying the respective energy profiles. To model these steps in the simplest way, we will treat opening and escape as a single chemical reaction with forward-reaction rate k determined by the regulatory proteins and their interaction with the DNA. Binding will be treated as a reversible reaction with an equilibrium constant KB.

This simplification of the biochemistry allows one to develop thermodynamic models to quantify the rates of transcription initiation 5,7,8 that can be validated against experimental data 9,10. However, the combination of activators, repressors, and the above-mentioned steps implies that control of transcription initiation is a highly nonlinear process, which in turn suggests that systematic mathematical analysis may lead to a deeper understanding of this regulatory mechanism 11. Given the goal of synthetic biology, claims based on the mathematical models must be experimentally verifiable.

More is known about the phage λ machinery than any other gene regulation mechanism 4,12. After infection of E. coli the phage λ follows one of two pathways: lysis, where it uses the bacterial molecular machinery to make many viral copies, kills the host bacterium and leaves to infect other cells; or lysogeny, where it integrates its DNA into the bacterial DNA and divides for generations with the bacterium. The lysogen exhibits great stability, yet it induces readily when the bacteria are irradiated with ultraviolet light.

The primary objective of this article is to use the above-mentioned mathematical models to demonstrate that, in the context of the proper functioning of the phage λ induction, the binding constant KB plays a fundamentally different role from the opening and clearing constant k. In particular, they are not interchangeable; that is, modifications in KB cannot be directly compensated for by modifications in k and vice versa. To make this argument, we begin with a review of a simplified biological model of the phage λ switch and a precise statement of why increases in KB are not equivalent to increases in k. After that, we recall and explain the associated mathematical model and relate it back to the biology. We validate the model by considering several mutants, where our model recovers experimental observations of the lysogen stability. With this justification, we make several mathematical predictions concerning the unequal role played by RNAP binding versus closed-open complex transition in transcription initiation process. These predictions are, in principle, experimentally testable.

The phage λ switch

The central controlling region for the lysogen maintenance is the right operator OR, even though the long range cooperative binding with the OL operator plays a crucial role in stability of the lysogen. For a more complete description of the regulatory mechanisms, the reader is referred to Ptashne 4. OR has three subregions designated OR1, OR2, and OR3 (see Fig. 1). The OR region also contains two disjoint promoters—right promoter (PR) and repression maintenance promoter (PRM). The promoter PR completely overlaps OR1 and partially overlaps OR2, while PRM completely overlaps OR3 and partially overlaps OR2. The gene cI (which codes for the repressor protein CI) and the gene cro (which codes for Cro protein) flank the OR region. Binding of either CI or Cro dimers (CI2, Cro2) to OR2 prevents binding of RNA polymerase (RNAP) to PR, but it does not prevent such binding to PRM. The initiation of transcription of cro occurs only if RNAP binds to PR. Similarly, the initiation of transcription of cI occurs only if RNAP binds to PRM.

The lytic pathway corresponds to a state where Cro2 protein is bound to OR3, blocking the PRM promoter and thus transcription of cI. At the same time, RNAP is free to bind PR, thus maintaining the transcription of cro. The lysogenic pathway corresponds to the state of OR where CI2 binds to both OR2 and OR1, blocking the PR promoter and hence, the transcription of cro. RNAP is free to bind PRM, and thus, maintain the transcription of cI. Even though these pathways are stable, the change from lysogeny to lysis, called induction, is experimentally well documented. When the bacterial population was subjected to irradiation by UV light, the phage λ started to lyse the bacteria and emerged in ∼45min. The irradiation causes RecA protein-mediated cleavage of CI, which lowers its effective concentration 4,13,14,15. There are several key features that make lysogen very stable and the induction switchlike 4:

1. High level of cooperativity between CI molecules: CI forms dimers CI2 in the solution; when bound to neighboring regions OR2 and OR1 (or OR2 and OR3) it forms tetramers, and as was described in Ptashne 4, it forms octamers with CI2 bound to the OL operator, which is fairly distant, at 3.6kb, from OR along the DNA strand.
2. Cooperative binding of CI2 to OR2 and OR1: binding of CI2 to OR1 facilitates binding of another CI2 molecule to OR2.
3. Variable binding affinities of CI2 and Cro2 to different OR regions: CI2 has the highest affinity to OR1, lower for OR2, and lowest for OR3, while Cro2 has the highest affinity to OR3, lower for OR2 and OR1.
4. Cooperative binding of CI2 to OR2 and RNAP at PRM: that is, OR2 bound CI2 increases the forward rate constant k at PRM ∼10-fold without having any significant effect on the binding of the RNA polymerase to the DNA 16.

We refer to the cooperativity in feature 4 as k-cooperativity. In an intriguing article, Li et al. 17 have shown that after an Arg-to-His change in the σ-subunit of RNAP, the wild-type CI2 activates mutant RNAP by increasing KB. We will refer to this cooperativity as KB-cooperativity. This suggests that mutations allowing for an increase in KB were (and are) evolutionarily accessible to the phage. It is therefore likely that k-cooperativity, as opposed to KB-cooperativity, has been selected for functional reasons. Further support for this hypothesis is provided by the fact that not all activators increase k. In fact, in phage λ, the factor CII acting on PRE promoter uses both the KB- and k-cooperativity 18, and the CAP activation of the lac operon in E. coli uses KB-cooperativity 19.

To investigate this hypothesis, we model the dynamics of the entire switch and study the effect of the KB- and k-cooperativity on the stability of the lysogenic state. We show that the stability of the lysogen depends crucially not only on the fact that CI2 interacts cooperatively with RNAP, but also on the fact that this cooperativity increases k rather than KB. In fact, our computations suggest that increasing KB 100-fold while abolishing k-cooperativity yields phage with lysogen that is significantly less stable than the wild-type.



The mathematical model

We make use of a delay differential equation model developed by Santillán and Mackey 20,

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
which, as is explained below, tracks concentrations of cI mRNA, cro mRNA, CI protein, and Cro protein. Concentrations are denoted by square brackets; that is, [CI] is the total concentration of CI protein while [Mcro] is the concentration of cro mRNA.

We will use [Cro2] and [CI2] to denote the concentration of CI and Cro dimers and [RNAP] to denote concentration of the RNA polymerase. The concentration of the right operator is [OR]. The subscript notation indicates that the concentration of cro mRNA is evaluated at tτcro where t is the present time. The time delays τcI and τcro are incorporated to take into account the fact that the production of the proteins from the associated mRNA and the actual process of transcription are not instantaneous.

Equations (3) are based on the assumption that the changes in protein concentrations are linear functions of the corresponding mRNA concentrations. There are two sets of positive decay constants. Since the volume of the growing bacteria increases, concentrations of all chemicals in a cell decrease. This is modeled by the decay constant μ, which is the same in all equations. In addition, each chemical species experiences a specific degradation rate denoted by γ*. Of particular interest is the constant γcI. We will model the effect of UV light, which, as is noted earlier, lowers the effective concentration of CI dimers by an increase in the degradation rate γcI of the CI protein. The are positive translation initiation constants.

The change in concentration of mRNA is described by Eqs. (1). The nonlinear function describes the rate of transcription initiation at the promoter PR. For the sake of clarity, the rate of transcription initiation at the promoter PRM is expressed as the sum of two functions and where the first applies to the state of the operator in which CI2 is bound to OR2 and the second when it is not.

Santillán and Mackey's 20 construction of these functions is based on the work of Ackers et al. 7 and begins with expressions of the probability of binding of RNAP to the promoter in the presence or absence of the regulatory proteins. The probability of a particular macroscopic state s of the operator takes the form

(5)
where
(6)
and the summation in the denominator is taken over all possible states. Since ΔGs denotes the binding energy of the state, KB(s) determines the equilibrium constant for the biochemical reaction that results in binding of the regulatory proteins and/or RNAP to the DNA in a closed form. The right (OR), the left (OL) operator (each of which has three subdomains), and the three promoters (PR, PRM, and PL) are included in the model of Santillán and Mackey 20. Therefore the state s of the operator is a description of which of the nine sites are empty or occupied by which of the three possible molecules CI2, Cro2, or RNAP.

These probabilities need to be multiplied by an appropriate constant, k(s), to incorporate the forward reaction rates of the opening and escape steps to obtain a rate of transcription initiation. Thus, for each state, the transcription initiation rate has the form

(7)
Though clearly a simplification, we assume that the rate constants k(s) take on three values:
kcro, when RNAP is bound to PR;
when RNAP is bound to PRM and CI2 is bound to OR2; and
kcI, when RNAP is bound to PRM and CI2 is not bound to OR2.

Finally, fR is the sum of all combinations of Ackers et al. 7 with the restriction that each state s has a RNAP bound to PR, with OR1 and OR2 unbound. Similarly, is the sum of Ackers et al. 7 for all states s which have RNAP bound to PRM and CI2 bound to OR2, and fRM the sum of Ackers et al. 7 for all states s which have RNAP bound to PRM but CI2 is not bound to OR2.

To compare this model against experimental data requires knowledge of the above-mentioned constants. The experimentally determined values are taken from Santillán and Mackey 20 and presented in Table 1,Table 2.


Interpreting the model

Based on the biochemistry of the phage λ switch, the phenomenological state of lysogeny is associated with low levels of Cro and high levels of CI. Similarly, lysis is associated with low levels of CI and high levels of Cro. With this in mind, we look for equilibria of the system of Eqs. (1) and declare that an equilibrium for which 0≈[Cro]≪[CI] is a lysogenic equilibrium and an equilibrium for which 0≈[CI]≪[Cro] is a lytic equilibrium.

The equilibria of this system are steady (time-independent) states of the system and thus are not dependent on delays. Notice that since both CI and Cro proteins form dimers, the right-hand side of the equations depends on the concentration of dimers. The conversion formula for computing the concentration of dimers from total concentration of monomers is

(8)
(9)
and its derivation is presented in the Appendix

Let

Observe that this provides a measure of the effect of OR2-bound CI2 on the forward reaction rate associated with opening and escape. In particular, ϕ>1 implies that the rate of transcription initiation with OR2-bound CI2 is higher than that without. We refer to this as k-cooperativity.

As indicated before, γcI represents the degradation rate of [CI], induced for example by exposure to UV radiation. Since this is known to trigger induction of phage, we study the equilibria as a function of γcI. Observe that the equilibria satisfy the two equations

where
The intersection of these two curves in the [CI], [Cro] plane determines two protein concentrations at a dynamical equilibrium; the remaining two concentrations [McI] and [Mcro] can be found from Eqs. (3) with the left-hand side set equal to zero.

Observe that Θ is independent of γcI. The set Θ([CI], [Cro])=0 is given by the solid curve in Figure 2a. According to Table 1, for wild-type phage in the absence of UV radiation, γcI=0min−1. The set Φ([CI], [Cro], 0)=0 is plotted in dashed representation in Figure 2a. There is a unique equilibrium, i.e., intersection point of Θ([CI], [Cro])=0 and Φ([CI], [Cro], 0)=0, for which [CI]=0.528μM and [Cro]=1.04×10−5μM. This is a lysogenic equilibrium.

Display large version of this figure
Figure 2
(a) Nullclines for Θ=0 (solid) and Φ=0 with γcI=0min−1 (dash), γcI=0.05min−1 (dots), and γcI=0.35min−1 (dash-dot). (b) Bifurcation diagram of γcI versus [Cro].

As the parameter γcI increases, the Φ=0 curve shifts its position relative to the Θ=0 curve. When γcI is 0.00039min−1, a pair of new intersections corresponding to new equilibria appears. Plotted in dots in Figure 2a is Φ([CI], [Cro], 0.05)=0. The equilibrium with high value of [Cro] and low value of [CI] corresponds to a lytic state and we call it a lytic equilibrium. Observe that there are three equilibria: a lysogenic equilibrium, a lytic equilibrium, and an unstable intermediate equilibrium. Finally, the dash-dot curve represents Φ([CI], [Cro], 0.35)=0, which intersects Θ=0 in a single point corresponding to the lytic equilibrium.

Clearly, the set of equilibria changes as a function of γcI. This is indicated in the bifurcation diagram of Figure 2b, where the equilibrium values of [Cro] are plotted on the vertical axis as a function of γcI. This graph allows us to describe the induction process. When no UV radiation is applied to bacterial population, γcI=0min−1 and the phage occupies lysogenic equilibrium. As γcI is slowly increased, the lysogenic equilibrium moves and the phage state tracks this slowly moving equilibrium. Immediately after γcI crosses the value of 0.343, the lysogenic equilibrium disappears and the state rapidly approaches the lytic equilibrium.

Therefore we define the value γ*WT=0.343min−1 as the wild-type induction value. The dashed lines in Figure 2b shows the values of γcI that correspond to the same dashed curves in Figure 2a.

In later sections, we make use of bifurcation diagrams such as that of Figure 2b, thus we point out some of the important features. For the parameter values 0.00039min−1γcI≤0.343min−1, the wild-type phage λ switch is bistable; that is, there are two stable equilibria, the lysogenic equilibrium (corresponding to the lower branch) and the lytic equilibrium (corresponding to the upper branch). Furthermore, for some initial concentrations, the state of the phage will evolve toward the lysogenic equilibrium, and for other initial concentrations, toward the lytic equilibrium.

We introduced the dimensionless parameter ϕ to have a measure of the change in the forward reaction rate associated with opening and escape. We wish to have a similar measure for the binding probabilities. When the binding of a transcription factor increases RNAP residence time on the promoter, it is reflected in the Ackers model in the cooperative increase of the binding energy of the transcription factor-RNAP pair. We denote the binding energy between CI2 and OR2 by and binding energy between RNAP and PRM by . In the absence of binding cooperation, as is the case in the wild-type phage λ, the binding energy contribution from OR2-bound CI and PRM-bound RNAP to any state s that contains them is

where subscript ind stands for independent binding of the binding factors and ΔGrest(s) is the binding energy of the other factors in state s.

The cooperative binding between CI2 and RNAP is reflected in additional binding energy . If this energy is positive, we refer to this as KB-cooperativity. We express the cooperativity in terms of the binding constant KB(s) (see 6)

where and the state s independent multiplicative factor is

In this formulation, β>1 represents the cooperative binding.

In summary, the k-cooperativity is manifested by the constant ϕ>1 and KB-cooperativity by β>1.

Model validation

To validate our biological interpretation of the equilibria of Eqs. (1), we model the induction scenarios for several different phage mutants which are described in the literature.

OR323 mutant

Little et al. 21 constructed a mutant OR323 in which the OR1 domain was replaced by OR3 and reported the following results:

R1. OR323 can lysogenize.
R2. OR323 has a threshold response, but at lower doses of UV radiation and at a higher level of free phage in the lysogen than the wild-type.
R3. In the lytic state the burst size, i.e., the number of phages per infected cell, of OR323 is lower than that of the wild-type.

This mutation is easily incorporated into the mathematical model. To replace the OR1 binding site by the OR3 binding site we set the binding energy of CI2 to OR1 to be that of CI2 to OR3 (−9.5kcal/mol). Similarly, the binding energy of Cro to OR1 is set to that of Cro to OR3 (−12.0kcal/mol).

The bifurcation curves for the OR323 mutation as compared with the wild-type are presented in Fig. 3. The graph shows the concentration of Cro as a function of γcI. The solid curve represents the wild-type phage, while the dot-dashed curve represents the OR323. The lower branch on both curves corresponds to the lysogenic equilibrium and the upper branch to the lytic equilibrium.

Display large version of this figure
Figure 3
Bifurcation diagrams for wild-type and OR323 and PRM mutants. The concentration of Cro is graphed as a function of γcI. The solid curve represents the wild-type phage, while the dot-dashed curve represents OR323 mutant and the dashed curve represents a phage with mutated PRM binding site which resulted in having PRM=−12.5kcal/mol, ϕ=4.5/.35, and PR=−10.5kcal/mol. For comparison, the wild-type values were PRM=−11.5kcal/mol, ϕ=4.29/.35, and PR=−12.5kcal/mol.

The existence of the lower branch in the dot-dashed curve of Fig. 3 implies that OR323 can lysogenize (compare R1). However, the induction value for the OR323 mutant is , which suggests that a lower level of UV radiation is required to induce lytic growth (compare R2). Observe that when γcI=0min−1 there are three equilibria in the system describing OR323. Thus, a stable lytic equilibrium is present even in the absence of UV radiation, and in the presence of noise, some phages can spontaneously induce and switch to the lytic state. This would manifest itself experimentally in increased number of free phages (compare R2).

Finally, it is possible that the burst size (number of phages per infected cell) is proportional to the transcription level of the lytic pathway in phage's genome, which in turn may be proportional to the level of Cro production in the lytic state. This theory is in agreement with Fig. 3 in which the Cro production in the lytic state for OR323 (the upper dot-dashed branch) is significantly lower than in the wild-type lytic state (the upper solid branch) (compare R3). Of course, the burst size can also be determined by energetics of the cell or by available resources, and therefore the suggested relationship between Cro production and the burst size is, at best, speculative.


PRM mutant

Michalowski and Little 22 (see also 23) obtained multiple mutants of phage λ by subjecting the PRM binding site to mutagenesis. These were then compared to wild-type by three criteria: the ability to grow lytically, the ability to establish and maintain a stable lysogenic state, and the ability to undergo prophage induction. In the experiments, they were particularly careful not to affect the OR2 and OR3 binding sites. Of these isolates, they further analyzed nine which were selected because they were comparable to or more difficult to induce than the wild-type. When compared to wild-type, these nine strains seem to share three properties: they had an equal or increased PRM binding affinity; a decreased PR binding affinity; and an increase in the k-cooperativity between CI2 and RNA polymerase. To model such mutants we set PRM=−12.5kcal/mol, PR=−10.5kcal/mol, and ϕ=4.5/.35, which should be compared to wild-type values PRM=−11.5kcal/mol, PR=−12.5kcal/mol, and ϕ=4.29/0.35. The resulting bifurcation diagrams are presented in Fig. 3. The induction parameter for the mutation is much higher than the wild-type , implying greater stability of the lysogen.


cI-pc mutant

When a pc mutation is introduced to CI, it eliminates the k-cooperativity between CI2 protein bound to OR2 and RNAP 4,24. This mutant forms lysogen in a wild-type bacteria, but suffers from a high rate of spontaneous induction and induction at very low levels of UV light.

To model this mutant we replace the in the function (see Eq. (2)) by kcI. This implies ϕ=1. The associated bifurcation curves are indicated in Fig. 4. Observe that our model predicts that the induction value is dramatically lower ( in wild-type, in the mutant). In the noisy environment of a cell, we expect that this low stability threshold will yield a high spontaneous induction rate.

Display large version of this figure
Figure 4
Results from eliminating positive control (ϕ=1) with values of β=1 (dashed curve, cI-pc mutant), β=10 (dotted curve), and β=100 (dash-dot curve). We graph concentration of Cro as a function of γcI.

KB- and k-cooperativity are not interchangeable

Our most significant prediction is that KB- and k-cooperativity affect the stability of the lysogen differently, and thus are not interchangeable. To demonstrate, this we compare the stability of the lysogen under k-cooperativity, β=1, ϕ=α>1, and against KB-cooperativity, ϕ=1, β=α>1, for different values of α. The analysis of the stability of the cI-pc mutant above provides the first step of this analysis. In this mutant, both ϕ=1 and β=1; thus, all cooperation is abolished and our model predicts that the induction value is dramatically lower.

To test the ability of KB-cooperativity to restore the lysogen stability, we fix ϕ=1 and solve for the equilibria at β=10 and β=100. The bifurcation diagrams are presented in Fig. 4, where they can be compared against the cI-pc mutant and the wild-type (recall that for the wild-type, ϕ≈12 and β=1). Observe that when β=10, the induction value is , which is much lower than . We predict that this produces a very unstable lysogen. Even in the case of unrealistically strong KB-cooperativity, β=100, and the induction value is only .

Fig. 4 clearly indicates that KB- and k-cooperativity are not equivalent. This difference is highlighted in Fig. 5 where isoclines of the induction value γ* are plotted as a function of β and ϕ. The deviation of symmetry across the diagonal β=ϕ indicates the extent to which KB- and k-cooperativity fail to be equivalent in maintaining the stability of the lysogenic state.

Display large version of this figure
Figure 5
Level curves of the induction value γ* as a function of both β and ϕ. Here β>1 represents KB-cooperativity and ϕ>1 represents k-cooperativity.

While Figure 4 and Figure 5 clearly indicate that there is a difference between KB- and k-cooperativity, they provide no explanation for this difference. Since the interactions between the binding factors are mediated through nonlinear functions we do not expect there to be a simple, but complete quantitative description of this difference. However, there are two mathematical results that provide a partial explanation.

The first has to do with the rate of production of CI. Let

for fixed values of β and ϕ. By (Theorem 4.8 in 11), if α>1, then
This means that the rate of transcription of cI mRNA is greater under k-cooperativity than under an equal amount of KB-cooperativity.

The second has do with the biological fact that at low concentrations CI2 upregulates its own transcription, while at high concentrations is downregulates its own transcription 4. In the lysogen OR1 is almost always bound by CI2 protein and thus, the production of Cro is very low. To produce a simple model that can be easily analyzed we assume CI2 is always bound to OR1, and thus the states of interest involve the binding of CI2 to OR2 and OR3. In Example 4.11 in Gedeon et al. 11, it is proven that under these assumptions there exists a unique critical concentration κ, such that if [CI2]<κ, then CI2 is an activator and if [CI2]>κ, then CI2 is a repressor. This implies that the maximal production rate of CI mRNA occurs at [CI2]=κ. As is shown in Example 4.13 in Gedeon et al. 11, κ is larger under k-cooperativity than under an equal amount of KB-cooperativity. In particular, the critical concentration for the wild-type is greater than the critical concentration for the cI-pc mutant.




Conclusions

One of the common features of transcriptional control in bacteria and eukaryotes is “activation by recruitment,” where subtle interactions between the transcription factors and RNAP control the rate of transcription. The three essential steps in this process (binding, opening, and escape) coalesce in the Ackers modeling framework into two sets of constants. One set captures binding energies, while the other models the transcription initiation process which includes both opening and escape. If for some state of the operator the binding of a factor increases the binding probability of RNAP, we call it KB-cooperativity. If, on the other hand, the factor increases the probability of transcription initiation, we call it k-cooperativity.

At the first glance it may appear that these two types of activation are interchangeable. We have shown, using an experimentally validated dynamic model of phage λ that, with respect to induction of the lysogenic state, k- and KB-cooperativity are not substitutable. Without k-cooperativity, the lysogenic state of the phage λ switch is quite unstable and comparable to some known mutants like OR323 21.

Our model produced experimentally verifiable predictions and can serve to test hypothesis about induction of phage λ mutants before they are constructed in the lab. Furthermore, the mathematical techniques and arguments used to obtain these predictions are quite general and thus in the long run we believe that this type of analysis will prove useful for bioengineers who are trying to design novel genetic control units.


Acknowledgments

We thank R. Ebright for valuable discussions about prokaryotic transcription initiation.

T.G. was partially supported by National Science Foundation/National Institutes of Health grant No. 0443863, National Institutes of Health-National Center for Research Resources grant No. PR16445, and National Science Foundation-Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience grant No. 0515290. K.M. was partially supported by National Science Foundation grant No. 0443827 and grants from the U.S. Department of Energy and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. K.P. was partially supported by National Science Foundation/National Institutes of Health grant No. 0443863. E.T. was partially supported by National Science Foundation grant No. 0443827 and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil.

Appendix


Computation of binding energies

For each state of the promoters PR and PL, the transcription initiation rate is

where
and ΔGs is a binding state energy. We calculate these energies using the formula
where
and
All ΔG** values in Table 2 are computed from Darling et al. 25. The detailed explanation of how these energies have been computed can be found in Santillán and Mackey 20. The first sum includes all binding energies of transcription factors to the six binding sites on both left and right operators. The second sum includes all cooperation energies between any two adjacent factors and the third takes into account cooperativity that results from having Cro bound to all three binding sites on either OR or OL. It should be noted that, in the measurements by Darling et al. 25, the cooperative binding energies when Cro is bound to all three subdomains of OR or OL are not equal to the sum of the cooperative binding energies and (see Table 2). The term in the second sum guarantees that when Cro occupies all three subdomains in OR or OL, the cooperative energies and are not included in this sum. The energies are then added in the third sum. The fourth sum adds the RNAP binding energy for the state, and the last one contributes any cross cooperation between CI2 molecules bound to PR and PL.


The differential equation model

In the differential equation model (Eqs. (1), the concentrations on the left-hand side denote total monomer concentration, while on the right-hand side we have dimer concentrations [CI2] and [Cro2]. To accurately represent this, Eqs. (8) embody this dimerization. As demonstrated in Santillán and Mackey 20, these equations arose from the chemical reaction

where a1 is a free monomer form of the protein and a2 represents a dimer of protein a, and k+, and k are the forward and backward rate constants respectively.

In chemical equilibrium with KD=k/k+, we have the relation

(10)
KD is the dissociation constant and [·] represents concentration. In addition, if [a] is the total monomer concentration,
(11)
Equations (10) can be used to solve for [a2], leading to
from which Eqs. (8) follow.

References

1. Lartigue, C., Glass, J.I., Alperovich, N., Pieper, R., Parmar, P.P., Hutchison, C.A., Smith, H.O., and Venter, J.C. (2007). Genome transplantation in bacteria: changing one species to another. Science 317, 632–638. CrossRef | PubMed

2. Elowitz, M.B., and Leibler, S. (2000). A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature 403, 335–338. CrossRef | PubMed

3. Gardner, T.S., Cantor, C.R., and Collins, J.J. (2000). Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature 403, 339–342. CrossRef | PubMed

4. Ptashne, M. (2004). A Genetic Switch: Phage Lambda Revisited. (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press). PubMed

5. Roy, S., Garges, S., and Adhya, S. (1998). Activation and repression of transcription by differential contact: two sides of a coin. J. Biol. Chem. 273, 14059–14062. CrossRef | PubMed

6. Kapanidis, A.N., Margeat, E., Ho, S., Kortkhonjia, E., Weiss, S., and Ebright, R.H. (2006). Initial transcription by RNA polymerase proceeds through a DNA-scrunching mechanism. Science 314, 1144–1147. CrossRef | PubMed

7. Ackers, G.K., Johnson, A.D., and Shea, M.A. (1982). Quantitative model for gene regulation by λ phage repressor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 1129–1133. CrossRef | PubMed

8. Bintu, L., Buchler, N.E., Garcia, H.G., Gerland, U., Hwa, T., Kondev, J., and Phillips, R. (2005). Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: models. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 15, 116–124. CrossRef | PubMed

9. Santillán, M., and Mackey, M.C. (2001). Dynamic regulation of the tryptophan operon: a modeling study and comparison with experimental data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1364–1369. CrossRef | PubMed

10. Santillán, M., and Mackey, M.C. (2004). Influence of catabolite repression and inducer exclusion on the bistable behavior of the lac operon. Biophys. J. 86, 1282–1292. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (199 kb) | PubMed

11. Gedeon, T., K. Mischaikow, K. Patterson, and E. Traldi. 2008. When activators repress and repressors activate: a qualitative analysis of the Shea-Ackers model. Bull. Math. Biol. In press..

12. Dodd, I.B., Shearwin, K.E., and Egan, J.B. (2005). Revisited gene regulation in bacteriophage λ. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 15, 145–152. CrossRef | PubMed

13. Roberts, J.W., Roberts, C.W., and Mount, D.W. (1977). Inactivation and proteolytic cleavage of phage λ repressor in vitro in an ATP-dependent reaction. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 74, 2283–2287. CrossRef | PubMed

14. Bailone, A., Levine, A., and Devoret, R. (1979). Inactivation of prophage λ repressor in vivo. J. Mol. Biol. 131, 553–572. CrossRef | PubMed

15. Sauer, R.T., Ross, M.J., and Ptashne, M. (1982). Cleavage of the λ and P22 repressors by RecA protein. J. Biol. Chem. 257, 4458–4462. PubMed

16. Hawley, D.K., and McClure, W.R. (1982). Mechanism of activation of transcription initiation from the λ PRM promoter. J. Mol. Biol. 157, 493–525. CrossRef | PubMed

17. Li, M., McClure, W.R., and Susskind, M.M. (1997). Changing the mechanism of transcriptional activation by phage λ repressor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 3691–3696. CrossRef | PubMed

18. Marr, M.T., Roberts, J.W., Brown, S.E., Klee, M., and Gussin, G.N. (2004). Interactions among cII protein, RNA polymerase and the λPRE promoter: contacts between RNA polymerase and the −35 region of PRE are identical in the presence and absence of cII protein. Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 1083–1090. CrossRef | PubMed

19. Ptashne, M., and Gann, A. (2002). Genes and Signals. (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press). PubMed

20. Santillán, M., and Mackey, M.C. (2004). Why the lysogenic state of phage λ is so stable: a mathematical modeling approach. Biophys. J. 86, 75–84. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (234 kb) | PubMed

21. Little, J.W., Shepley, D.P., and Wert, D.W. (1999). Robustness of a gene regulatory circuit. EMBO J. 18, 4299–4307. CrossRef | PubMed

22. Michalowski, C.B., and Little, J.W. (2005). Positive autoregulation of cI is a dispensable feature of the phage λ gene regulatory circuitry. J. Bacteriol. 187, 6430–6442. CrossRef | PubMed

23. Michalowski, C.B., Short, M.D., and Little, J.W. (2004). Sequence tolerance of the phage λ PRM promoter: implications for evolution of gene regulatory circuitry. J. Bacteriol. 186, 7988–7999. CrossRef | PubMed

24. Guarente, L., Nye, J.S., Hochschild, A., and Ptashne, M. (1982). Mutant lambda phage repressor with a specific defect in its positive control function. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 2236–2239. CrossRef | PubMed

25. Darling, P.J., Holt, J.M., and Ackers, G.K. (2000). Coupled energetics of λ cro repressor self-assembly and site-specific DNA operator binding II: cooperative interactions of cro dimers. J. Mol. Biol. 302, 625–638. CrossRef | PubMed

Publication Information


Received: September 11, 2007
Accepted: November 30, 2007