Analysis of MC Systems Employing Receivers Covered by Heterogeneous Receptors

This paper investigates the channel impulse response (CIR), i.e., the molecule hitting rate, of a molecular communication (MC) system employing an absorbing receiver (RX) covered by multiple non-overlapping receptors. In this system, receptors are heterogeneous, i.e., they may have different sizes and arbitrary locations. Furthermore, we consider two types of transmitter (TX), namely a point TX and a membrane fusion (MF)-based spherical TX. We assume the point TX or the center of the MF-based TX has a fixed distance to the center of the RX. Given this fixed distance, the TX can be at different locations and the CIR of the RX depends on the exact location of the TX. By averaging over all possible TX locations, we analyze the expected molecule hitting rate at the RX as a function of the sizes and locations of the receptors, where we assume molecule degradation may occur during the propagation of the signaling molecules. Notably, our analysis is valid for different numbers, a wide range of sizes, and arbitrary locations of the receptors, and its accuracy is confirmed via particle-based simulations. Exploiting our numerical results, we show that the expected number of absorbed molecules at the RX increases with the number of receptors, when the total area on the RX surface covered by receptors is fixed. Based on the derived analytical expressions, we compare different geometric receptor distributions by examining the expected number of absorbed molecules at the RX. We show that evenly distributed receptors result in a larger number of absorbed molecules than other distributions. We further compare three models that combine different types of TXs and RXs. Compared to the ideal model with a point TX and a fully absorbing RX, the practical model with an MF-based TX and an RX with heterogeneous receptors yields a lower peak CIR, suffers from more severe inter-symbol interference, and gives rise to a higher average bit error rate (BER). This underlines the importance of our analysis of practical TX-RX models since the existing CIR and BER analyses based on the ideal model do not reflect the performance achievable in practice. Numerical results show that different vesicle generation rate results in the same number of molecules harvested by the TX, but a different peak received signal at the RX.

[1]  R. Schober,et al.  Analysis of Receiver Covered by Heterogeneous Receptors in Molecular Communications , 2021, ICC 2022 - IEEE International Conference on Communications.

[2]  Adam Noel,et al.  Membrane Fusion-Based Transmitter Design for Static and Diffusive Mobile Molecular Communication Systems , 2021, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[3]  Robert Schober,et al.  Saturating Receiver and Receptor Competition in Synaptic DMC: Deterministic and Statistical Signal Models , 2021, IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience.

[4]  Hui Li,et al.  Expected Received Signal in Diffusive Molecular Communication With Finite Binding Receptors , 2020, IEEE Communications Letters.

[5]  H. Birkan Yilmaz,et al.  A Survey on Modulation Techniques in Molecular Communication via Diffusion , 2020, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[6]  Vahid Jamali,et al.  Channel Modeling for Diffusive Molecular Communication—A Tutorial Review , 2018, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[7]  H. Berg Random Walks in Biology , 2018 .

[8]  H. Birkan Yilmaz,et al.  Molecular Signal Modeling of a Partially Counting Absorbing Spherical Receiver , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Communications.

[9]  R. Schober,et al.  Symbol Synchronization for Diffusion-Based Molecular Communications , 2017, IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience.

[10]  A. Berezhkovskii,et al.  Boundary homogenization for a sphere with an absorbing cap of arbitrary size. , 2016, The Journal of chemical physics.

[11]  I. Guryanov,et al.  Receptor-ligand interactions: Advanced biomedical applications. , 2016, Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications.

[12]  Robert Schober,et al.  Comprehensive Reactive Receiver Modeling for Diffusive Molecular Communication Systems: Reversible Binding, Molecule Degradation, and Finite Number of Receptors , 2016, IEEE Transactions on NanoBioscience.

[13]  Adam Noel,et al.  Modeling and Simulation of Molecular Communication Systems With a Reversible Adsorption Receiver , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological and Multi-Scale Communications.

[14]  Y. Koucheryavy,et al.  The internet of Bio-Nano things , 2015, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[15]  Klaus Schulten,et al.  Lectures in Theoretical Biophysics , 2015 .

[16]  Tuna Tugcu,et al.  Effect of Receptor Density and Size on Signal Reception in Molecular Communication via Diffusion With an Absorbing Receiver , 2014, IEEE Communications Letters.

[17]  Tuna Tugcu,et al.  Effect of Degradation in Molecular Communication: Impairment or Enhancement? , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological and Multi-Scale Communications.

[18]  Robert Schober,et al.  Analysis and Design of Multi-Hop Diffusion-Based Molecular Communication Networks , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Molecular, Biological and Multi-Scale Communications.

[19]  Andrew W. Eckford,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Recent Advancements in Molecular Communication , 2014, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[20]  Tuna Tugcu,et al.  Three-Dimensional Channel Characteristics for Molecular Communications With an Absorbing Receiver , 2014, IEEE Communications Letters.

[21]  A. Lander,et al.  How Cells Know Where They Are , 2013, Science.

[22]  Vitaly Kuznetsov,et al.  Nested recursions with ceiling function solutions , 2012, 1204.6714.

[23]  Tomasz Lipniacki,et al.  B Cell Activation Triggered by the Formation of the Small Receptor Cluster: A Computational Study , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[24]  Michael J. Ward,et al.  An Asymptotic Analysis of the Mean First Passage Time for Narrow Escape Problems: Part II: The Sphere , 2010, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[25]  Álvaro González Measurement of Areas on a Sphere Using Fibonacci and Latitude–Longitude Lattices , 2009, 0912.4540.

[26]  T. Duke,et al.  Equilibrium mechanisms of receptor clustering. , 2009, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[27]  Erin D Sheets,et al.  Vesicle diffusion close to a membrane: intermembrane interactions measured with fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[28]  Jie Chen,et al.  The Final Value Theorem Revisited - Infinite Limits and Irrational Functions , 2007, IEEE Control Systems.

[29]  R. Chang Physical Chemistry for the Biosciences , 2005 .

[30]  G. L. Hazelbauer,et al.  Cellular Stoichiometry of the Components of the Chemotaxis Signaling Complex , 2004, Journal of bacteriology.

[31]  Nicholas A. Peppas,et al.  Receptors: models for binding, trafficking, and signaling , 1996 .

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

[33]  K. T. Chung,et al.  Electrical permittivity and conductivity of carbon black‐polyvinyl chloride composites , 1982 .

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

[35]  L. L. Cam,et al.  An approximation theorem for the Poisson binomial distribution. , 1960 .

[36]  Larry C. Andrews,et al.  Special Functions Of Mathematics For Engineers , 2022 .

[37]  Alan E. Lindsay,et al.  First Passage Statistics for the Capture of a Brownian Particle by a Structured Spherical Target with Multiple Surface Traps , 2017, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[38]  J. Crowley Simple Expressions for Force and Capacitance for a Conductive Sphere near a Conductive Wall , 2008 .

[39]  S. Hubbard,et al.  Mechanism-based design of a protein kinase inhibitor , 2001, Nature Structural Biology.

[40]  T. Südhof,et al.  Membrane fusion and exocytosis. , 1999, Annual review of biochemistry.

[41]  S. Singer,et al.  The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes. , 1972, Science.

[42]  W. D. Day Tables of Laplace Transforms , 1966 .

[43]  A. Gray Bessel Functions , 1899, Nature.