Enzyme Localization Can Drastically Affect Signal Amplification in Signal Transduction Pathways

Push–pull networks are ubiquitous in signal transduction pathways in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. They allow cells to strongly amplify signals via the mechanism of zero-order ultrasensitivity. In a push–pull network, two antagonistic enzymes control the activity of a protein by covalent modification. These enzymes are often uniformly distributed in the cytoplasm. They can, however, also be colocalized in space; for instance, near the pole of the cell. Moreover, it is increasingly recognized that these enzymes can also be spatially separated, leading to gradients of the active form of the messenger protein. Here, we investigate the consequences of the spatial distributions of the enzymes for the amplification properties of push–pull networks. Our calculations reveal that enzyme localization by itself can have a dramatic effect on the gain. The gain is maximized when the two enzymes are either uniformly distributed or colocalized in one region in the cell. Depending on the diffusion constants, however, the sharpness of the response can be strongly reduced when the enzymes are spatially separated. We discuss how our predictions could be tested experimentally.

[1]  H. Berg,et al.  Single-cell FRET imaging of phosphatase activity in the Escherichia coli chemotaxis system. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  H. Berg,et al.  Localization of components of the chemotaxis machinery of Escherichia coli using fluorescent protein fusions , 2000, Molecular microbiology.

[3]  M. Elowitz,et al.  Protein Mobility in the Cytoplasm ofEscherichia coli , 1999, Journal of bacteriology.

[4]  Adam P Arkin,et al.  Phosphatase localization in bacterial chemotaxis: divergent mechanisms, convergent principles , 2005, Physical biology.

[5]  Eric Karsenti,et al.  Spatial Coordination of Spindle Assembly by Chromosome-Mediated Signaling Gradients , 2005, Science.

[6]  M. Ehrenberg,et al.  Fluctuations and quality of control in biological cells: zero-order ultrasensitivity reinvestigated. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[7]  P. R. ten Wolde,et al.  Signal detection, modularity, and the correlation between extrinsic and intrinsic noise in biochemical networks. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[8]  A. Arkin,et al.  Stochastic amplification and signaling in enzymatic futile cycles through noise-induced bistability with oscillations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  D. Bray,et al.  Receptor clustering as a cellular mechanism to control sensitivity , 1998, Nature.

[10]  B. Kholodenko Cell-signalling dynamics in time and space , 2006, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[11]  J. Paulsson Summing up the noise in gene networks , 2004, Nature.

[12]  D. Koshland,et al.  Ultrasensitivity in biochemical systems controlled by covalent modification. Interplay between zero-order and multistep effects. , 1984, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[13]  G. Fang,et al.  HURP controls spindle dynamics to promote proper interkinetochore tension and efficient kinetochore capture , 2006, The Journal of cell biology.

[14]  D. Koshland,et al.  An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Eric Karsenti,et al.  Stathmin-Tubulin Interaction Gradients in Motile and Mitotic Cells , 2004, Science.

[16]  B N Kholodenko,et al.  Spatial gradients of cellular phospho‐proteins , 1999, FEBS letters.

[17]  L. Shapiro,et al.  MipZ, a Spatial Regulator Coordinating Chromosome Segregation with Cell Division in Caulobacter , 2006, Cell.

[18]  B N Kholodenko,et al.  Diffusion control of protein phosphorylation in signal transduction pathways. , 2000, The Biochemical journal.

[19]  J. Timmer,et al.  Design principles of a bacterial signalling network , 2005, Nature.

[20]  D. Bray,et al.  Simulated Diffusion of Phosphorylated CheY through the Cytoplasm of Escherichia coli , 2005, Journal of bacteriology.

[21]  J. Ferrell Tripping the switch fantastic: how a protein kinase cascade can convert graded inputs into switch-like outputs. , 1996, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[22]  Karsten Weis,et al.  Visualization of a Ran-GTP Gradient in Interphase and Mitotic Xenopus Egg Extracts , 2002, Science.

[23]  Anirvan M. Sengupta,et al.  Engineering aspects of enzymatic signal transduction: photoreceptors in the retina. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[24]  K. Fujimoto,et al.  Noisy signal amplification in ultrasensitive signal transduction. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  H. Berg,et al.  Binding of the Escherichia coli response regulator CheY to its target measured in vivo by fluorescence resonance energy transfer , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  H Wang,et al.  Characterization of the CheAS/CheZ complex: a specific interaction resulting in enhanced dephosphorylating activity on CheY‐phosphate , 1996, Molecular microbiology.