A Nonlinear Mixed Effects Approach for Modeling the Cell-To-Cell Variability of Mig1 Dynamics in Yeast

The last decade has seen a rapid development of experimental techniques that allow data collection from individual cells. These techniques have enabled the discovery and characterization of variability within a population of genetically identical cells. Nonlinear mixed effects (NLME) modeling is an established framework for studying variability between individuals in a population, frequently used in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, but its potential for studies of cell-to-cell variability in molecular cell biology is yet to be exploited. Here we take advantage of this novel application of NLME modeling to study cell-to-cell variability in the dynamic behavior of the yeast transcription repressor Mig1. In particular, we investigate a recently discovered phenomenon where Mig1 during a short and transient period exits the nucleus when cells experience a shift from high to intermediate levels of extracellular glucose. A phenomenological model based on ordinary differential equations describing the transient dynamics of nuclear Mig1 is introduced, and according to the NLME methodology the parameters of this model are in turn modeled by a multivariate probability distribution. Using time-lapse microscopy data from nearly 200 cells, we estimate this parameter distribution according to the approach of maximizing the population likelihood. Based on the estimated distribution, parameter values for individual cells are furthermore characterized and the resulting Mig1 dynamics are compared to the single cell times-series data. The proposed NLME framework is also compared to the intuitive but limited standard two-stage (STS) approach. We demonstrate that the latter may overestimate variabilities by up to almost five fold. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations of the inferred population model are used to predict the distribution of key characteristics of the Mig1 transient response. We find that with decreasing levels of post-shift glucose, the transient response of Mig1 tend to be faster, more extended, and displays an increased cell-to-cell variability.

[1]  D K Smith,et al.  Numerical Optimization , 2001, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  D. Wilkinson.  Stochastic modelling for quantitative description of heterogeneous biological systems , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[3]  William W. Chen,et al.  Classic and contemporary approaches to modeling biochemical reactions. , 2010, Genes & development.

[4]  Timothy A. J. Haystead,et al.  Regulatory Interactions between the Reg1-Glc7 Protein Phosphatase and the Snf1 Protein Kinase , 2000, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[5]  A. Blomberg,et al.  Continuous light exposure causes cumulative stress that affects the localization oscillation dynamics of the transcription factor Msn2p. , 2011, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[6]  Eugenio Cinquemani,et al.  Identification of biological models from single-cell data: A comparison between mixed-effects and moment-based inference , 2013, 2013 European Control Conference (ECC).

[7]  Matthias Jeschke,et al.  Determinants of Cell-to-Cell Variability in Protein Kinase Signaling , 2013, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[8]  Henrik Madsen,et al.  Population stochastic modelling (PSM) - An R package for mixed-effects models based on stochastic differential equations , 2009, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[9]  D. Hardie,et al.  Elm1p Is One of Three Upstream Kinases for the Saccharomyces cerevisiae SNF1 Complex , 2003, Current Biology.

[10]  Pierre Sens,et al.  Stream Processing of Healthcare Sensor Data: Studying User Traces to Identify Challenges from a Big Data Perspective , 2015, ANT/SEIT.

[11]  Ursula Klingmüller,et al.  Structural and practical identifiability analysis of partially observed dynamical models by exploiting the profile likelihood , 2009, Bioinform..

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

[13]  D. Tzamarias,et al.  The Snf1 kinase controls glucose repression in yeast by modulating interactions between the Mig1 repressor and the Cyc8‐Tup1 co‐repressor , 2004, EMBO reports.

[14]  W. Stahel,et al.  Problems with Using the Normal Distribution – and Ways to Improve Quality and Efficiency of Data Analysis , 2011, PloS one.

[15]  R. Cheong,et al.  Models at the single cell level , 2010, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Systems biology and medicine.

[16]  J. Schaber,et al.  Model-based inference of biochemical parameters and dynamic properties of microbial signal transduction networks. , 2011, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[17]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  Comparison of approaches for parameter identifiability analysis of biological systems , 2014, Bioinform..

[18]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters. III. Monoexponential model: Routine clinical pharmacokinetic data , 1983, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[19]  Katherine C. Chen,et al.  Sniffers, buzzers, toggles and blinkers: dynamics of regulatory and signaling pathways in the cell. , 2003, Current opinion in cell biology.

[20]  D. Botstein,et al.  Mutants of yeast defective in sucrose utilization. , 1981, Genetics.

[21]  R. McCartney,et al.  Yeast Pak1 Kinase Associates with and Activates Snf1 , 2003, Molecular and Cellular Biology.

[22]  J Christopher Love,et al.  Integrated single-cell analysis shows Pichia pastoris secretes protein stochastically. , 2010, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[23]  M. Jirstrand,et al.  Using sensitivity equations for computing gradients of the FOCE and FOCEI approximations to the population likelihood , 2015, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

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

[25]  W. Ebeling.  Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry , 1995 .

[26]  P. Swain,et al.  Intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to stochasticity in gene expression , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[27]  Jerome T. Mettetal,et al.  The Frequency Dependence of Osmo-Adaptation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 2008, Science.

[28]  Frank Allgöwer,et al.  Identification of models of heterogeneous cell populations from population snapshot data , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

[29]  Uri Alon,et al.  Dynamics and variability of ERK2 response to EGF in individual living cells. , 2009, Molecular cell.

[30]  M. Jirstrand,et al.  Mixed Effects Modeling Using Stochastic Differential Equations: Illustrated by Pharmacokinetic Data of Nicotinic Acid in Obese Zucker Rats , 2015, The AAPS Journal.

[31]  R. Germain,et al.  Variability and Robustness in T Cell Activation from Regulated Heterogeneity in Protein Levels , 2008, Science.

[32]  Mikael Sunnåker,et al.  Investigations of a compartmental model for leucine kinetics using non-linear mixed effects models with ordinary and stochastic differential equations. , 2011, Mathematical medicine and biology : a journal of the IMA.

[33]  Khachik Sargsyan,et al.  Sources of Cell-to-cell Variability in Canonical Nuclear Factor-κB (NF-κB) Signaling Pathway Inferred from Single Cell Dynamic Images* , 2011, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[34]  J. Gancedo.  Yeast Carbon Catabolite Repression , 1998, Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews.

[35]  Marie Davidian,et al.  Nonlinear models for repeated measurement data: An overview and update , 2003 .

[36]  Jeffrey W. Smith,et al.  Stochastic Gene Expression in a Single Cell , 2022 .

[37]  Pedro de Atauri,et al.  Dual feedback loops in the GAL regulon suppress cellular heterogeneity in yeast , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[38]  S. Hohmann,et al.  Osmostress-Induced Cell Volume Loss Delays Yeast Hog1 Signaling by Limiting Diffusion Processes and by Hog1-Specific Effects , 2013, PloS one.

[39]  Peter K. Sorger,et al.  Exploring the Contextual Sensitivity of Factors that Determine Cell-to-Cell Variability in Receptor-Mediated Apoptosis , 2012, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[40]  M. Elowitz,et al.  Frequency-modulated nuclear localization bursts coordinate gene regulation , 2008, Nature.

[41]  B. Glick,et al.  Golgi maturation visualized in living yeast , 2006, Nature.

[42]  H. Madsen,et al.  Using Stochastic Differential Equations for PK/PD Model Development , 2005, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[43]  Mark Johnston,et al.  The nuclear exportin Msn5 is required for nuclear export of the Mig1 glucose repressor of Saccharomyces cerevisiae , 1999, Current Biology.

[44]  Frank Allgöwer,et al.  Heterogeneity reduces sensitivity of cell death for TNF-Stimuli , 2011, BMC Systems Biology.

[45]  J Schaber,et al.  Nested uncertainties in biochemical models. , 2009, IET systems biology.

[46]  Yaning Wang,et al.  Derivation of various NONMEM estimation methods , 2008, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[47]  Sabrina L Spencer,et al.  Non-genetic Cell-to-cell Variability and the Consequences for Pharmacology This Review Comes from a Themed Issue on Omics Edited the Distribution of Protein Abundance and Resulting Variability in Phenotype Measuring Cell-to-cell Variation , 2022 .

[48]  M. Johnston,et al.  Regulated nuclear translocation of the Mig1 glucose repressor. , 1997, Molecular biology of the cell.

[49]  R. Savic,et al.  Importance of Shrinkage in Empirical Bayes Estimates for Diagnostics: Problems and Solutions , 2009, The AAPS Journal.

[50]  Marija Cvijovic,et al.  Kinetic models in industrial biotechnology - Improving cell factory performance. , 2014, Metabolic engineering.

[51]  A. Oudenaarden,et al.  A Systems-Level Analysis of Perfect Adaptation in Yeast Osmoregulation , 2009, Cell.

[52]  Jörg Stelling,et al.  Systems analysis of cellular networks under uncertainty , 2009, FEBS letters.

[53]  M. Peter,et al.  Scalable inference of heterogeneous reaction kinetics from pooled single-cell recordings , 2013, Nature Methods.

[54]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  Heterogeneous kinetics of AKT signaling in individual cells are accounted for by variable protein concentration , 2012, Front. Physio..

[55]  David A. Rand,et al.  A hierarchical model of transcriptional dynamics allows robust estimation of transcription rates in populations of single cells with variable gene copy number , 2013, Bioinform..

[56]  Johan Karlsson,et al.  An Efficient Method for Structural Identifiability Analysis of Large Dynamic Systems , 2012 .

[57]  Marija Cvijovic,et al.  Yeast AMP-activated Protein Kinase Monitors Glucose Concentration Changes and Absolute Glucose Levels* , 2014, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[58]  Frank Allgöwer,et al.  A maximum likelihood estimator for parameter distributions in heterogeneous cell populations , 2010, ICCS.

[59]  Olaf Wolkenhauer,et al.  A mathematical analysis of nuclear intensity dynamics for Mig1-GFP under consideration of bleaching effects and background noise in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. , 2011, Molecular bioSystems.

[60]  Heinz Koeppl,et al.  Accounting for extrinsic variability in the estimation of stochastic rate constants , 2012 .

[61]  W. Stahel,et al.  Log-normal Distributions across the Sciences: Keys and Clues , 2001 .

[62]  Olaf Wolkenhauer,et al.  Glucose de‐repression by yeast AMP‐activated protein kinase SNF1 is controlled via at least two independent steps , 2014, The FEBS journal.

[63]  J. Lygeros,et al.  Moment-based inference predicts bimodality in transient gene expression , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[64]  R. McCartney,et al.  Regulation of Snf1 Kinase , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[65]  Roland Eils,et al.  Intra- and Interdimeric Caspase-8 Self-Cleavage Controls Strength and Timing of CD95-Induced Apoptosis , 2014, Science Signaling.

[66]  David Carling,et al.  Activation of yeast Snf1 and mammalian AMP-activated protein kinase by upstream kinases , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.