Decisions on the fly in cellular sensory systems

Significance Cell-signaling pathways are often presumed to convert just the level of an external stimulus to response. However, in contexts such as the immune system or rapidly developing embryos, cells plausibly have to make rapid decisions based on limited information. Statistical theory defines absolute bounds on the minimum average observation time necessary for decisions subject to a defined error rate. We show that common genetic circuits have the potential to approach the theoretical optimal performance. They operate by accumulating a single chemical species and then applying a threshold. The circuit parameters required for optimal performance can be learned by a simple hill-climbing search. The complex but reversible protein modifications that accompany signaling thus have the potential to perform analog computations. Cells send and receive signals through pathways that have been defined in great detail biochemically, and it is often presumed that the signals convey only level information. Cell signaling in the presence of noise is extensively studied but only rarely is the speed required to make a decision considered. However, in the immune system, rapidly developing embryos, and cellular response to stress, fast and accurate actions are required. Statistical theory under the rubric of “exploit–explore” quantifies trade-offs between decision speed and accuracy and supplies rigorous performance bounds and algorithms that realize them. We show that common protein phosphorylation networks can implement optimal decision theory algorithms and speculate that the ubiquitous chemical modifications to receptors during signaling actually perform analog computations. We quantify performance trade-offs when the cellular system has incomplete knowledge of the data model. For the problem of sensing the time when the composition of a ligand mixture changes, we find a nonanalytic dependence on relative concentrations and specify the number of parameters needed for near-optimal performance and how to adjust them. The algorithms specify the minimal computation that has to take place on a single receptor before the information is pooled across the cell.

[1]  Tetsuya J. Kobayashi,et al.  Dynamics of intracellular information decoding , 2011, Physical biology.

[2]  A. Brivanlou,et al.  Signal Transduction and the Control of Gene Expression , 2002, Science.

[3]  Ronald N Germain,et al.  Modeling T Cell Antigen Discrimination Based on Feedback Control of Digital ERK Responses , 2005, PLoS biology.

[4]  Jeff Hasty,et al.  Yeast Dynamically Modify Their Environment to Achieve Better Mating Efficiency , 2011, Science Signaling.

[5]  Erin K O'Shea,et al.  Signal-dependent dynamics of transcription factor translocation controls gene expression , 2011, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[6]  P. Beachy,et al.  Interactions between Hedgehog proteins and their binding partners come into view. , 2010, Genes & development.

[7]  John Kuriyan,et al.  Intersubunit capture of regulatory segments is a component of cooperative CaMKII activation , 2010, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[8]  R. Khan,et al.  Sequential Tests of Statistical Hypotheses. , 1972 .

[9]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[10]  A. Shiryaev On Optimum Methods in Quickest Detection Problems , 1963 .

[11]  J. Schlessinger Cell Signaling by Receptor Tyrosine Kinases , 2000, Cell.

[12]  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.

[13]  George Apostolakis,et al.  Decision theory , 1986 .

[14]  Alex Groisman,et al.  Incoherent Feedforward Control Governs Adaptation of Activated Ras in a Eukaryotic Chemotaxis Pathway , 2012, Science Signaling.

[15]  Paul François,et al.  Phenotypic model for early T-cell activation displaying sensitivity, specificity, and antagonism , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[16]  I. Nemenman,et al.  Optimal Signal Processing in Small Stochastic Biochemical Networks , 2006, PloS one.

[17]  D. Aldous Probability Approximations via the Poisson Clumping Heuristic , 1988 .

[18]  F. Tostevin,et al.  Mutual information between input and output trajectories of biochemical networks. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[19]  N. Wingreen,et al.  Maximum likelihood and the single receptor. , 2009, Physical review letters.

[20]  Ruth J. Williams,et al.  Queueing up for Enzymatic Processing: Correlated Signaling through Coupled Degradation , 2022 .

[21]  Adam Kepecs,et al.  Seeing at a glance, smelling in a whiff: rapid forms of perceptual decision making , 2006, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[22]  K. Kirk,et al.  The CFTR ion channel: gating, regulation, and anion permeation. , 2013, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine.

[23]  Massimo Vergassola,et al.  ‘Infotaxis’ as a strategy for searching without gradients , 2007, Nature.

[24]  Tetsuya J Kobayashi,et al.  Implementation of dynamic Bayesian decision making by intracellular kinetics. , 2010, Physical review letters.

[25]  I. S. Gradshteyn,et al.  Table of Integrals, Series, and Products , 1976 .

[26]  W. Bialek,et al.  Information flow and optimization in transcriptional regulation , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Alexander Hoffmann,et al.  Understanding the temporal codes of intra-cellular signals. , 2010, Current opinion in genetics & development.

[28]  A. N. Sirjaev On the Detection of Disorder in a Manufacturing Process. I. , 1963 .

[29]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  The physics of optimal decision making: a formal analysis of models of performance in two-alternative forced-choice tasks. , 2006, Psychological review.

[30]  S. Redner A guide to first-passage processes , 2001 .

[31]  Philippe Bousso,et al.  Dynamic behavior of T cells and thymocytes in lymphoid organs as revealed by two-photon microscopy. , 2004, Immunity.

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

[33]  J. Gold,et al.  The neural basis of decision making. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.