Noise filtering tradeoffs in spatial gradient sensing and cell polarization response

BackgroundCells sense chemical spatial gradients and respond by polarizing internal components. This process can be disrupted by gradient noise caused by fluctuations in chemical concentration.ResultsWe investigated how external gradient noise affects spatial sensing and response focusing on noise-filtering and the resultant tradeoffs. First, using a coarse-grained mathematical model of gradient-sensing and cell polarity, we characterized three negative consequences of noise: Inhibition of the extent of polarization, degradation of directional accuracy, and production of a noisy output polarization. Next, we explored filtering strategies and discovered that a combination of positive feedback, multiple signaling stages, and time-averaging produced good results. There was an important tradeoff, however, because filtering resulted in slower polarization. Simulations demonstrated that a two-stage filter-amplifier resulted in a balanced outcome. Then, we analyzed the effect of noise on a mechanistic model of yeast cell polarization in response to gradients of mating pheromone. This analysis showed that yeast cells likely also combine the above three filtering mechanisms into a filter-amplifier structure to achieve impressive spatial-noise tolerance, but with the consequence of a slow response time. Further investigation of the amplifier architecture revealed two positive feedback loops, a fast inner and a slow outer, both of which contributed to noise-tolerant polarization. This model also made specific predictions about how orientation performance depended upon the ratio between the gradient slope (signal) and the noise variance. To test these predictions, we performed microfluidics experiments measuring the ability of yeast cells to orient to shallow gradients of mating pheromone. The results of these experiments agreed well with the modeling predictions, demonstrating that yeast cells can sense gradients shallower than 0.1% μm-1, approximately a single receptor-ligand molecule difference between front and back, on par with motile eukaryotic cells.ConclusionsSpatial noise impedes the extent, accuracy, and smoothness of cell polarization. A combined filtering strategy implemented by a filter-amplifier architecture with slow dynamics was effective. Modeling and experimental data suggest that yeast cells employ these elaborate mechanisms to filter gradient noise resulting in a slow but relatively accurate polarization response.

[1]  N. Kampen,et al.  Stochastic processes in physics and chemistry , 1981 .

[2]  Pablo A. Iglesias,et al.  MAPK-mediated bimodal gene expression and adaptive gradient sensing in yeast , 2007, Nature.

[3]  Naama Barkai,et al.  Noise Propagation and Signaling Sensitivity in Biological Networks: A Role for Positive Feedback , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[4]  D. Lauffenburger,et al.  Receptors: Models for Binding, Trafficking, and Signaling , 1993 .

[5]  Kai Simons,et al.  Cell surface polarization during yeast mating , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[6]  H. Meinhardt Orientation of chemotactic cells and growth cones: models and mechanisms. , 1999, Journal of cell science.

[7]  Qing Nie,et al.  A combination of multisite phosphorylation and substrate sequestration produces switchlike responses. , 2010, Biophysical journal.

[8]  Qing Nie,et al.  Modeling Robustness Tradeoffs in Yeast Cell Polarization Induced by Spatial Gradients , 2008, PloS one.

[9]  P. Dayan,et al.  A Bayesian model predicts the response of axons to molecular gradients , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[10]  Timothy C Elston,et al.  Control of MAPK Specificity by Feedback Phosphorylation of Shared Adaptor Protein Ste50* , 2008, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[11]  W. Rappel,et al.  External and internal constraints on eukaryotic chemotaxis , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  D. Drubin,et al.  Origins of Cell Polarity , 1996, Cell.

[13]  Pablo A. Iglesias,et al.  Optimal noise filtering in the chemotactic response of E. coli , 2005 .

[14]  K. Malínská,et al.  Distribution of Can1p into stable domains reflects lateral protein segregation within the plasma membrane of living S. cerevisiae cells , 2004, Journal of Cell Science.

[15]  Kay Hofmann,et al.  A positive feedback loop stabilizes the guanine‐nucleotide exchange factor Cdc24 at sites of polarization , 2002, The EMBO journal.

[16]  Gerald R. Fink,et al.  Guide to yeast genetics and molecular biology , 1993 .

[17]  J. Ferrell,et al.  Interlinked Fast and Slow Positive Feedback Loops Drive Reliable Cell Decisions , 2005, Science.

[18]  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.

[19]  Daniel J. Lew,et al.  Symmetry-Breaking Polarization Driven by a Cdc42p GEF-PAK Complex , 2008, Current Biology.

[20]  N. Wingreen,et al.  Accuracy of direct gradient sensing by single cells , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Gene F. Franklin,et al.  Feedback Control of Dynamic Systems , 1986 .

[22]  W. Crocker,et al.  Polarity , 1910, Botanical Gazette.

[23]  A. Bretscher,et al.  Polarization of cell growth in yeast. , 2000, Journal of cell science.

[24]  Ned S Wingreen,et al.  Accuracy of direct gradient sensing by cell-surface receptors. , 2009, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

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

[26]  Qing Nie,et al.  Modeling Yeast Cell Polarization Induced by Pheromone Gradients , 2007 .

[27]  Onn Brandman,et al.  Feedback Loops Shape Cellular Signals in Space and Time , 2008, Science.

[28]  D. Sherrington Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry , 1983 .

[29]  A. Levchenko,et al.  Models of eukaryotic gradient sensing: application to chemotaxis of amoebae and neutrophils. , 2001, Biophysical journal.

[30]  G. Fink,et al.  The riddle of MAP kinase signaling specificity. , 1998, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[31]  John R. Pringle,et al.  Bni1p, a Yeast Formin Linking Cdc42p and the Actin Cytoskeleton During Polarized Morphogenesis , 1997, Science.

[32]  J. Segall,et al.  Polarization of yeast cells in spatial gradients of alpha mating factor. , 1993, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[33]  James E. Ferrell,et al.  Feedback regulation of opposing enzymes generates robust, all-or-none bistable responses , 2008, Current Biology.

[34]  Ian Postlethwaite,et al.  Multivariable Feedback Control: Analysis and Design , 1996 .

[35]  P. Pryciak,et al.  Membrane Localization of Scaffold Proteins Promotes Graded Signaling in the Yeast MAP Kinase Cascade , 2008, Current Biology.

[36]  C. Daub,et al.  BMC Systems Biology , 2007 .

[37]  G. Sprague,,et al.  Identification of p21-Activated Kinase Specificity Determinants in Budding Yeast: a Single Amino Acid Substitution Imparts Ste20 Specificity to Cla4 , 2003, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[38]  W. Bialek,et al.  Physical limits to biochemical signaling. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  A. Bretscher,et al.  Polarization of cell growth in yeast. I. Establishment and maintenance of polarity states. , 2000, Journal of cell science.

[40]  Qing Nie,et al.  Robust Spatial Sensing of Mating Pheromone Gradients by Yeast Cells , 2008, PloS one.

[41]  J. Thorner,et al.  Regulation of G protein-initiated signal transduction in yeast: paradigms and principles. , 2001, Annual review of biochemistry.

[42]  Lani Wu,et al.  Spontaneous Cell Polarization Through Actomyosin-Based Delivery of the Cdc42 GTPase , 2003, Science.

[43]  Pablo A. Iglesias,et al.  An Information-Theoretic Characterization of the Optimal Gradient Sensing Response of Cells , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[44]  H. Rockoff On the Origins of , 2006 .

[45]  W. Rappel,et al.  Receptor noise limitations on chemotactic sensing , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[46]  Vahid Shahrezaei,et al.  The scaffold protein Ste5 directly controls a switch-like mating decision in yeast , 2010, Nature.

[47]  J. Doyle,et al.  Robust perfect adaptation in bacterial chemotaxis through integral feedback control. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[48]  H. Kitano,et al.  A quantitative characterization of the yeast heterotrimeric G protein cycle , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[49]  P. V. van Haastert,et al.  Biased random walk by stochastic fluctuations of chemoattractant-receptor interactions at the lower limit of detection. , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[50]  D'arcy W. Thompson On Growth and Form , 1945 .

[51]  William Bialek,et al.  Spikes: Exploring the Neural Code , 1996 .

[52]  C. Rao,et al.  Control, exploitation and tolerance of intracellular noise , 2002, Nature.

[53]  J. Davies,et al.  Molecular Biology of the Cell , 1983, Bristol Medico-Chirurgical Journal.

[54]  Indrani Bose,et al.  Singularity in Polarization: Rewiring Yeast Cells to Make Two Buds , 2009, Cell.

[55]  Eugenio Marco,et al.  Endocytosis Optimizes the Dynamic Localization of Membrane Proteins that Regulate Cortical Polarity , 2007, Cell.

[56]  A. Narang Spontaneous polarization in eukaryotic gradient sensing: a mathematical model based on mutual inhibition of frontness and backness pathways. , 2005, Journal of theoretical biology.

[57]  Pablo A Iglesias,et al.  Navigating through models of chemotaxis. , 2008, Current opinion in cell biology.

[58]  Pablo A. Iglesias,et al.  Optimal Noise Filtering in the Chemotactic Response of Escherichia coli , 2006, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[59]  Anthony Bretscher,et al.  Polarization of cell growth in yeast II . The role of the cortical actin cytoskeleton , 2000 .

[60]  Lee Bardwell,et al.  A walk-through of the yeast mating pheromone response pathway , 2004, Peptides.

[61]  Janina Maier,et al.  Guide to yeast genetics and molecular biology. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[62]  R. W. Rodieck The First Steps in Seeing , 1998 .

[63]  James E. Ferrell,et al.  Bistability in cell signaling: How to make continuous processes discontinuous, and reversible processes irreversible. , 2001, Chaos.

[64]  H. Berg,et al.  Physics of chemoreception. , 1977, Biophysical journal.