AC motor: Difference between revisions

From formulasearchengine
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
en>Karn
Line 1: Line 1:
Nice to satisfy you, my name is Figures Held though I don't truly like becoming called like that. To collect coins is 1 of the issues I adore most. She is a librarian but she's usually wanted her own business. Years ago we moved to North Dakota.<br><br>Here is my homepage [http://simple-crafts.com/groups/best-techniques-for-keeping-yeast-infections-under-control/ http://simple-crafts.com/]
'''Metabolic control analysis''' (MCA) is a mathematical framework for describing
[[Metabolic pathway|metabolic]], [[Cell signaling#Signaling pathways|signaling]] and [[genetic pathway]]s. MCA quantifies how variables,
such as [[flux]]es and [[Chemical species|species]] concentrations, depend on [[Network (mathematics)|network]] parameters.
In particular it is able to describe how network dependent properties,
called control [[coefficient]]s, depend on [[Local property|local properties]] called [[Elasticity of a function|elasticities]].<ref>Fell D., (1997) Understanding the Control of Metabolism, Portland Press.</ref><ref>Heinrich R. and Schuster S. (1996) The Regulation of Cellular Systems, Chapman and Hall.
</ref><ref>{{cite pmid|7925313}}</ref>
 
MCA was originally developed to describe the control in metabolic pathways
but was subsequently extended to describe signaling and [[Gene regulatory network|genetic networks]]. MCA has sometimes also been referred to as ''Metabolic Control Theory'' but this terminology was rather strongly opposed by [[Henrik Kacser]], one of the founders{{Citation needed|date=November 2010}}.
 
More recent work<ref>Ingalls, B. P. (2004) A Frequency Domain Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Biochemical Systems , Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 108, 1143-1152.</ref> has shown that MCA can be [[Isomorphism|mapped directly]] on to classical [[control theory]] and are as such equivalent.
 
[[Biochemical systems theory]]<ref>Savageau M.A (1976) Biochemical systems analysis: a study of function and design in molecular biology, Reading, MA, Addison–Wesley.</ref> is a similar [[Formalism_(mathematics)#Formalism|formalism]], though with a rather different objectives. Both are evolutions of an earlier theoretical analysis by Joseph Higgins.<ref>{{cite pmid|13954410}}</ref>
 
== Control Coefficients ==
 
A control coefficient<ref>{{cite pmid|4148886}}</ref><ref>{{cite pmid|4830198}}</ref><ref>Burns, J.A., Cornish-Bowden, A., Groen, A.K., Heinrich, R., Kacser, H., Porteous, J.W., Rapoport, S.M., Rapoport, T.A., Stucki, J.W., Tager, J.M., Wanders, R.J.A. & Westerhoff, H.V. (1985) Control analysis of metabolic systems. Trends Biochem. Sci. 10, 16.</ref> measures the relative [[steady state]] change in a system variable, e.g. pathway flux (J) or metabolite concentration (S), in response to a relative change in a [[parameter]], e.g. [[Enzyme kinetics|enzyme activity]] or the steady-state rate (<math> v_i </math>) of step i. The two main control coefficients are the flux and concentration control coefficients. Flux control coefficients are defined by:
 
<math> C^J_{v_i} = \left( \frac{dJ}{dp} \frac{p}{J} \right) \bigg/ \left( \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial  p}\frac{p}{v_i} \right) = \frac{d\ln J}{d\ln v_i} </math>
 
and concentration control coefficients by:
 
<math> C^S_{v_i}  = \left( \frac{dS}{dp} \frac{p}{S} \right)  \bigg/ \left( \frac{\partial v_i}{\partial p} \frac{p}{v_i} \right) = \frac{d\ln S}{d\ln v_i} </math>
 
=== Summation Theorems ===
The flux control [[summation]] theorem was discovered independently by the Kacser/Burns group and the Heinrich/Rapoport group in the early 1970s and late 1960s. The flux control summation theorem [[Logical implication|implies]] that metabolic fluxes are systemic properties and that their control is shared by all [[Chemical reaction|reactions]] in the system. When a single reaction changes its control of the flux this is compensated by changes in the control of the same flux by all other reactions.
 
<math> \sum_i C^J_{v_i} = 1 </math>
 
<math> \sum_i C^S_{v_i} = 0 </math>
 
== Elasticity Coefficients ==
 
The elasticity coefficient measures the local response of an enzyme or other chemical reaction to changes in its environment. Such changes include factors such as substrates, products or effector concentrations. For further information please refer to the dedicated page at [[Elasticity Coefficient]]s.
 
=== Connectivity Theorems ===
 
The [[Connectivity (graph theory)|connectivity]] theorems are specific relationships between elasticities and control coefficients. They are useful because they highlight the close relationship between the [[Chemical kinetics|kinetic]] properties of individual reactions and the system properties of a pathway. Two basic sets of theorems exists, one for flux and another for concentrations. The concentration connectivity theorems are divided again depending on whether the system species <math> S_n </math> is different from the local species <math> S_m </math>.
 
<math> \sum_i C^J_i \varepsilon^i_S = 0 </math>
 
<math> \sum_i C^{S_n}_i \varepsilon^i_{S_m} = 0 \quad n \neq m </math>
 
<math> \sum_i C^{S_n}_i \varepsilon^i_{S_m} = -1 \quad n = m </math>
 
== Control Equations ==
 
It is possible to combine the summation with the connectivity theorems to obtain [[Closed-form expression|closed expressions]] that relate the control coefficients to the elasticity coefficients. For example, consider the simplest [[Trivial (mathematics)|non-trivial]] pathway:
 
<center> <math> X_o \rightarrow S \rightarrow X_1 </math> </center>
 
We assume that <math> X_o </math> and <math> X_1 </math> are [[Boundary (thermodynamic)|fixed boundary]] species so that the pathway can reach a steady state. Let the first step have a rate <math> v_1 </math> and the second step <math> v_2 </math>. Focusing on the flux control coefficients, we can write one summation and one connectivity theorem for this simple pathway:
 
<center>
<math> C^J_{v_1} + C^J_{v_2} = 1 </math>
 
<math> C^J_{v_1} \varepsilon^{v_1}_S + C^J_{v_2} \varepsilon^{v_2}_S = 0 </math>
</center>
 
Using these two equations we can solve for the flux control coefficients to yield:
 
<center>
<math> C^J_{v_1} = \frac{\varepsilon^{2}_S}{\varepsilon^{2}_S - \varepsilon^{1}_S} </math>
 
<math> C^J_{v_2} = \frac{-\varepsilon^{1}_S}{\varepsilon^{2}_S - \varepsilon^{1}_S} </math>
</center>
 
Using these equations we can look at some simple extreme behaviors. For example, let us assume that the first step is completely insensitive to its product (i.e. not reacting with it), S, then <math> \varepsilon^{v_1}_S = 0 </math>. In this case, the control coefficients reduce to:
 
<center>
<math> C^J_{v_1} = 1 </math>
 
<math> C^J_{v_2} = 0 </math>
</center>
 
That is all the control (or sensitivity) is on the first step. This situation represents the classic [[Rate-determining step|rate-limiting step]] that is frequently mentioned in text books. The flux through the pathway is completely dependent on the first step. Under these conditions, no other step in the pathway can affect the flux. The effect is however dependent on the complete insensitivity of the first step to its product. Such a situation is likely to be rare in real pathways. In fact the classic rate limiting step has almost never been observed experimentally. Instead, a range of limitingness is observed, with some steps having more limitingness (control) than others.
 
We can also derive the concentration control coefficients for the simple two step pathway:
 
<center>
<math> C^S_{v_1} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2}_S - \varepsilon^{1}_S} </math>
 
<math> C^S_{v_2} = \frac{-1}{\varepsilon^{2}_S - \varepsilon^{1}_S} </math>
</center>
 
An alternative approach to deriving the control equations is to consider the [[Perturbation theory|perturbations]] explicitly. Consider making a perturbation to <math> E_1 </math> which changes the local rate <math> v_1 </math>. The effect on the steady-state to a small change in <math> E_1 </math> is to increase the flux and concentration of S. We can express these changes locally by describing the change in <math> v_1 </math> and <math> v_2 </math> using the expressions:
 
<center><math> \frac{\delta v_1}{v_1} = \varepsilon^{1}_{E_1} \frac{\delta E_1}{E_1} + \varepsilon^{1}_S \frac{\delta S}{S} </math>
 
<math> \frac{\delta v_2}{v_2} = \varepsilon^{2}_S \frac{\delta S}{S} </math>
</center>
 
The local changes in rates are equal to the global changes in flux, J. In addition if we assume that the [[enzyme]] elasticity of <math> v_1 </math>  with respect to <math> E_1 </math> is unity, then
 
<center><math> \frac{\delta J}{J} = \frac{\delta E_1}{E_1} + \varepsilon^{1}_S \frac{\delta S}{S} </math>
 
<math> \frac{\delta J}{J} = \varepsilon^{2}_S \frac{\delta S}{S} </math>
</center>
 
Dividing both sides by the fractional change in <math> E_1 </math> and taking the [[Limit (mathematics)|limit]] <math> \delta E_1 \rightarrow 0 </math> yields:
 
<br>
<center><math> C^J_{E_1} = 1 + \varepsilon^{1}_S C^S_{E_1} </math>
 
<math> C^J_{E_1} = \varepsilon^{2}_S C^S_{E_1} </math>
</center>
<br>
From these equations we can choose either to eliminate <math> C^J_{E_1} </math> or <math> C^S_{E_1} </math> to yield the control equations given earlier. We can do the same kind of analysis for the second step to obtain the flux control coefficient for <math> E_2 </math>. Note that we have expressed the control coefficients relative to <math> E_1 </math> and <math> E_2 </math> but if we assume that <math> \delta v_i/v_i = \delta E_i/E_i </math> then the control coefficients can be written with respect to <math> v_i </math> as before.
 
== Three Step Pathway ==
 
Consider the simple three step pathway:
 
<center> <math> X_o \rightarrow S_1 \rightarrow S_2 \rightarrow X_1 </math> </center>
 
where <math> X_o </math> and <math> X_1 </math> are fixed boundary species, the control equations for this pathway can be derived in a similar manner to the simple two step pathway although it is somewhat more tedious.
 
<math>
C^J_{E_1} = \varepsilon^{2}_1 \varepsilon^{3}_2 / D
</math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^J_{E_2} = -\varepsilon^{1}_1 \varepsilon^{3}_2 / D
</math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^J_{E_3} = \varepsilon^{1}_1 \varepsilon^{2}_2 / D
</math>
 
<br>
where D the denominator is given by:
 
<br>
<math>
D = \varepsilon^{2}_1 \varepsilon^{3}_2 -\varepsilon^{1}_1 \varepsilon^{3}_2 + \varepsilon^{1}_1 \varepsilon^{2}_2
</math>
 
Note that every term in the numerator appears in the denominator, this ensures that the flux control coefficient summation theorem is satisfied.
 
Likewise the concentration control coefficients can also be derived, for <math> S_1 </math>
 
<math>
C^{S_1}_{E_1} = (\varepsilon^{3}_2 - \varepsilon^{2}_2) / D
</math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^{S_1}_{E_2} = - \varepsilon^{3}_2 / D
</math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^{S_1}_{E_3} = \varepsilon^{2}_2 / D
</math>
 
<br>
And for <math> S_2 </math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^{S_2}_{E_1} = \varepsilon^{2}_1 / D
</math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^{S_2}_{E_2} = -\varepsilon^{1}_1 / D
</math>
 
<br>
<math>
C^{S_2}_{E_3} = (\varepsilon^{1}_1 - \varepsilon^{2}_1) / D
</math>
 
Note that the denominators remain the same as before and behave as a [[Normalizing constant|normalizing]] factor.
 
== References ==
<references/>
 
== External links ==
*[http://dbkgroup.org/mca_home.htm The Metabolic Control Analysis Web]
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:Metabolic Control Analysis}}
[[Category:Biochemistry methods]]
[[Category:Metabolism]]
[[Category:Mathematical and theoretical biology]]
[[Category:Systems biology]]

Revision as of 08:44, 23 January 2014

Metabolic control analysis (MCA) is a mathematical framework for describing metabolic, signaling and genetic pathways. MCA quantifies how variables, such as fluxes and species concentrations, depend on network parameters. In particular it is able to describe how network dependent properties, called control coefficients, depend on local properties called elasticities.[1][2][3]

MCA was originally developed to describe the control in metabolic pathways but was subsequently extended to describe signaling and genetic networks. MCA has sometimes also been referred to as Metabolic Control Theory but this terminology was rather strongly opposed by Henrik Kacser, one of the foundersPotter or Ceramic Artist Truman Bedell from Rexton, has interests which include ceramics, best property developers in singapore developers in singapore and scrabble. Was especially enthused after visiting Alejandro de Humboldt National Park..

More recent work[4] has shown that MCA can be mapped directly on to classical control theory and are as such equivalent.

Biochemical systems theory[5] is a similar formalism, though with a rather different objectives. Both are evolutions of an earlier theoretical analysis by Joseph Higgins.[6]

Control Coefficients

A control coefficient[7][8][9] measures the relative steady state change in a system variable, e.g. pathway flux (J) or metabolite concentration (S), in response to a relative change in a parameter, e.g. enzyme activity or the steady-state rate (vi) of step i. The two main control coefficients are the flux and concentration control coefficients. Flux control coefficients are defined by:

CviJ=(dJdppJ)/(vippvi)=dlnJdlnvi

and concentration control coefficients by:

CviS=(dSdppS)/(vippvi)=dlnSdlnvi

Summation Theorems

The flux control summation theorem was discovered independently by the Kacser/Burns group and the Heinrich/Rapoport group in the early 1970s and late 1960s. The flux control summation theorem implies that metabolic fluxes are systemic properties and that their control is shared by all reactions in the system. When a single reaction changes its control of the flux this is compensated by changes in the control of the same flux by all other reactions.

iCviJ=1

iCviS=0

Elasticity Coefficients

The elasticity coefficient measures the local response of an enzyme or other chemical reaction to changes in its environment. Such changes include factors such as substrates, products or effector concentrations. For further information please refer to the dedicated page at Elasticity Coefficients.

Connectivity Theorems

The connectivity theorems are specific relationships between elasticities and control coefficients. They are useful because they highlight the close relationship between the kinetic properties of individual reactions and the system properties of a pathway. Two basic sets of theorems exists, one for flux and another for concentrations. The concentration connectivity theorems are divided again depending on whether the system species Sn is different from the local species Sm.

iCiJεSi=0

iCiSnεSmi=0nm

iCiSnεSmi=1n=m

Control Equations

It is possible to combine the summation with the connectivity theorems to obtain closed expressions that relate the control coefficients to the elasticity coefficients. For example, consider the simplest non-trivial pathway:

XoSX1

We assume that Xo and X1 are fixed boundary species so that the pathway can reach a steady state. Let the first step have a rate v1 and the second step v2. Focusing on the flux control coefficients, we can write one summation and one connectivity theorem for this simple pathway:

Cv1J+Cv2J=1

Cv1JεSv1+Cv2JεSv2=0

Using these two equations we can solve for the flux control coefficients to yield:

Cv1J=εS2εS2εS1

Cv2J=εS1εS2εS1

Using these equations we can look at some simple extreme behaviors. For example, let us assume that the first step is completely insensitive to its product (i.e. not reacting with it), S, then εSv1=0. In this case, the control coefficients reduce to:

Cv1J=1

Cv2J=0

That is all the control (or sensitivity) is on the first step. This situation represents the classic rate-limiting step that is frequently mentioned in text books. The flux through the pathway is completely dependent on the first step. Under these conditions, no other step in the pathway can affect the flux. The effect is however dependent on the complete insensitivity of the first step to its product. Such a situation is likely to be rare in real pathways. In fact the classic rate limiting step has almost never been observed experimentally. Instead, a range of limitingness is observed, with some steps having more limitingness (control) than others.

We can also derive the concentration control coefficients for the simple two step pathway:

Cv1S=1εS2εS1

Cv2S=1εS2εS1

An alternative approach to deriving the control equations is to consider the perturbations explicitly. Consider making a perturbation to E1 which changes the local rate v1. The effect on the steady-state to a small change in E1 is to increase the flux and concentration of S. We can express these changes locally by describing the change in v1 and v2 using the expressions:

δv1v1=εE11δE1E1+εS1δSS

δv2v2=εS2δSS

The local changes in rates are equal to the global changes in flux, J. In addition if we assume that the enzyme elasticity of v1 with respect to E1 is unity, then

δJJ=δE1E1+εS1δSS

δJJ=εS2δSS

Dividing both sides by the fractional change in E1 and taking the limit δE10 yields:


CE1J=1+εS1CE1S

CE1J=εS2CE1S


From these equations we can choose either to eliminate CE1J or CE1S to yield the control equations given earlier. We can do the same kind of analysis for the second step to obtain the flux control coefficient for E2. Note that we have expressed the control coefficients relative to E1 and E2 but if we assume that δvi/vi=δEi/Ei then the control coefficients can be written with respect to vi as before.

Three Step Pathway

Consider the simple three step pathway:

XoS1S2X1

where Xo and X1 are fixed boundary species, the control equations for this pathway can be derived in a similar manner to the simple two step pathway although it is somewhat more tedious.

CE1J=ε12ε23/D


CE2J=ε11ε23/D


CE3J=ε11ε22/D


where D the denominator is given by:


D=ε12ε23ε11ε23+ε11ε22

Note that every term in the numerator appears in the denominator, this ensures that the flux control coefficient summation theorem is satisfied.

Likewise the concentration control coefficients can also be derived, for S1

CE1S1=(ε23ε22)/D


CE2S1=ε23/D


CE3S1=ε22/D


And for S2


CE1S2=ε12/D


CE2S2=ε11/D


CE3S2=(ε11ε12)/D

Note that the denominators remain the same as before and behave as a normalizing factor.

References

  1. Fell D., (1997) Understanding the Control of Metabolism, Portland Press.
  2. Heinrich R. and Schuster S. (1996) The Regulation of Cellular Systems, Chapman and Hall.
  3. Template:Cite pmid
  4. Ingalls, B. P. (2004) A Frequency Domain Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Biochemical Systems , Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 108, 1143-1152.
  5. Savageau M.A (1976) Biochemical systems analysis: a study of function and design in molecular biology, Reading, MA, Addison–Wesley.
  6. Template:Cite pmid
  7. Template:Cite pmid
  8. Template:Cite pmid
  9. Burns, J.A., Cornish-Bowden, A., Groen, A.K., Heinrich, R., Kacser, H., Porteous, J.W., Rapoport, S.M., Rapoport, T.A., Stucki, J.W., Tager, J.M., Wanders, R.J.A. & Westerhoff, H.V. (1985) Control analysis of metabolic systems. Trends Biochem. Sci. 10, 16.

External links