A General Model for Binary Cell Fate Decision Gene Circuits with Degeneracy: Indeterminacy and Switch Behavior in the Absence of Cooperativity

Background The gene regulatory circuit motif in which two opposing fate-determining transcription factors inhibit each other but activate themselves has been used in mathematical models of binary cell fate decisions in multipotent stem or progenitor cells. This simple circuit can generate multistability and explains the symmetric “poised” precursor state in which both factors are present in the cell at equal amounts as well as the resolution of this indeterminate state as the cell commits to either cell fate characterized by an asymmetric expression pattern of the two factors. This establishes the two alternative stable attractors that represent the two fate options. It has been debated whether cooperativity of molecular interactions is necessary to produce such multistability. Principal Findings Here we take a general modeling approach and argue that this question is not relevant. We show that non-linearity can arise in two distinct models in which no explicit interaction between the two factors is assumed and that distinct chemical reaction kinetic formalisms can lead to the same (generic) dynamical system form. Moreover, we describe a novel type of bifurcation that produces a degenerate steady state that can explain the metastable state of indeterminacy prior to cell fate decision-making and is consistent with biological observations. Conclusion The general model presented here thus offers a novel principle for linking regulatory circuits with the state of indeterminacy characteristic of multipotent (stem) cells.

[1]  F. Burden,et al.  Stem cell decision making and critical-like exploratory networks. , 2009, Stem cell research.

[2]  John D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002 .

[3]  Avi Ma’ayan,et al.  Systems biology of stem cell fate and cellular reprogramming , 2009, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[4]  Sui Huang,et al.  The potential landscape of genetic circuits imposes the arrow of time in stem cell differentiation. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[5]  D. Tenen,et al.  PU.1 (Spi-1) autoregulates its expression in myeloid cells. , 1995, Oncogene.

[6]  Ingo Roeder,et al.  Towards an understanding of lineage specification in hematopoietic stem cells: a mathematical model for the interaction of transcription factors GATA-1 and PU.1. , 2006, Journal of theoretical biology.

[7]  Janet Rossant,et al.  Interaction between Oct3/4 and Cdx2 Determines Trophectoderm Differentiation , 2005, Cell.

[8]  C. Lim,et al.  Regulated Fluctuations in Nanog Expression Mediate Cell Fate Decisions in Embryonic Stem Cells , 2009, PLoS biology.

[9]  J. Collins,et al.  Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli , 2000, Nature.

[10]  M. Diederich,et al.  GATA‐1: Friends, Brothers, and Coworkers , 2004, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Sui Huang Reprogramming cell fates: reconciling rarity with robustness , 2009, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[12]  D. R. Wilson,et al.  Autoregulation of the human C/EBP alpha gene by stimulation of upstream stimulatory factor binding , 1995, Molecular and cellular biology.

[13]  M. Savageau Michaelis-Menten mechanism reconsidered: implications of fractal kinetics. , 1995, Journal of theoretical biology.

[14]  J. Monod,et al.  Teleonomic mechanisms in cellular metabolism, growth, and differentiation. , 1961, Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology.

[15]  N. Rekhtman,et al.  Direct interaction of hematopoietic transcription factors PU.1 and GATA-1: functional antagonism in erythroid cells. , 1999, Genes & development.

[16]  Carsten Peterson,et al.  Computational Modeling of the Hematopoietic Erythroid-Myeloid Switch Reveals Insights into Cooperativity, Priming, and Irreversibility , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[17]  S. Kauffman,et al.  Mean-field model of genetic regulatory networks , 2006, q-bio/0606022.

[18]  D. Amanatullah,et al.  PU.1 inhibits the erythroid program by binding to GATA‐1 on DNA and creating a repressive chromatin structure , 2005, The EMBO journal.

[19]  Sui Huang,et al.  Bifurcation dynamics in lineage-commitment in bipotent progenitor cells. , 2007, Developmental biology.

[20]  Janet Rossant,et al.  Blastocyst lineage formation, early embryonic asymmetries and axis patterning in the mouse , 2009, Development.

[21]  Sui Huang,et al.  Cell Lineage Determination in State Space: A Systems View Brings Flexibility to Dogmatic Canonical Rules , 2010, PLoS biology.

[22]  B. Frey,et al.  The functional landscape of mouse gene expression , 2004, Journal of biology.

[23]  Pavol Bokes,et al.  A bistable genetic switch which does not require high co-operativity at the promoter: a two-timescale model for the PU.1-GATA-1 interaction. , 2009, Mathematical medicine and biology : a journal of the IMA.

[24]  J. Rossant Stem cells and lineage development in the mammalian blastocyst. , 2007, Reproduction, fertility, and development.

[25]  S. Batalov,et al.  A gene atlas of the mouse and human protein-encoding transcriptomes. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  J Swanson,et al.  Business Dynamics—Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[27]  T. Graf,et al.  Heterogeneity of embryonic and adult stem cells. , 2008, Cell stem cell.

[28]  G. Blobel,et al.  Inhibition of CBP-Mediated Protein Acetylation by the Ets Family Oncoprotein PU.1 , 2002, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[29]  Hannah H. Chang,et al.  Transcriptome-wide noise controls lineage choice in mammalian progenitor cells , 2008, Nature.

[30]  Mikael Huss,et al.  Resolution of cell fate decisions revealed by single-cell gene expression analysis from zygote to blastocyst. , 2010, Developmental cell.

[31]  S A Kauffman,et al.  Monte Carlo simulation of a simple gene network yields new evolutionary insights. , 2008, Journal of theoretical biology.

[32]  T. Enver,et al.  Forcing cells to change lineages , 2009, Nature.

[33]  B. Doble,et al.  The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal , 2008, Nature.

[34]  D. Tenen,et al.  Downregulation of c-Jun Expression by Transcription Factor C/EBPα Is Critical for Granulocytic Lineage Commitment , 2002, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[35]  N. Rekhtman,et al.  PU.1 and pRB Interact and Cooperate To Repress GATA-1 and Block Erythroid Differentiation , 2003, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[36]  Carsten Peterson,et al.  A Computational Model for Understanding Stem Cell, Trophectoderm and Endoderm Lineage Determination , 2008, PloS one.

[37]  Alexei A. Sharov,et al.  Functional Heterogeneity of Embryonic Stem Cells Revealed through Translational Amplification of an Early Endodermal Transcript , 2010, PLoS biology.

[38]  Takashi Hiiragi,et al.  Stochastic patterning in the mouse pre-implantation embryo , 2007, Development.

[39]  Chi-Wei Lu,et al.  Cross-regulation of the Nanog and Cdx2 promoters , 2009, Cell Research.

[40]  G. Daley,et al.  Another horse in the meta-stable state of pluripotency. , 2010, Cell stem cell.

[41]  G. Nicolis,et al.  Dissipative systems , 1986 .

[42]  Sui Huang,et al.  Complex Gene Regulatory Networks - from Structure to Biological Observables: Cell Fate Determination , 2009, Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science.

[43]  M. Ehrenberg,et al.  Stochastic focusing: fluctuation-enhanced sensitivity of intracellular regulation. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[44]  Kim Sneppen,et al.  Physics in molecular biology , 2005 .

[45]  C. Peterson,et al.  Stem cell states, fates, and the rules of attraction. , 2009, Cell stem cell.

[46]  S. Orkin,et al.  PU.1 inhibits GATA-1 function and erythroid differentiation by blocking GATA-1 DNA binding. , 2000, Blood.

[47]  Peter Angel,et al.  The jun proto-oncogene is positively autoregulated by its product, Jun/AP-1 , 1988, Cell.

[48]  Merlin Crossley,et al.  Molecular Analysis of the Interaction between the Hematopoietic Master Transcription Factors GATA-1 and PU.1* , 2006, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[49]  Ofer Biham,et al.  Genetic toggle switch without cooperative binding. , 2006, Physical review letters.

[50]  D. Tenen,et al.  Granulocyte inducer C/EBPalpha inactivates the myeloid master regulator PU.1: possible role in lineage commitment decisions. , 2002, Blood.

[51]  A. Martinez Arias,et al.  Wnt/Notch signalling and information processing during development , 2008, Development.

[52]  Jacques Demongeot,et al.  High-dimensional Switches and the Modeling of Cellular Differentiation 2.2 Mathematical Models , 2022 .

[53]  Carsten Peterson,et al.  Transcriptional Dynamics of the Embryonic Stem Cell Switch , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[54]  Sui Huang,et al.  Understanding gene circuits at cell-fate branch points for rational cell reprogramming. , 2011, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[55]  D. Tenen,et al.  Negative cross-talk between hematopoietic regulators: GATA proteins repress PU.1. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.