- We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

- Journal List
- Biophys J
- v.84(5); May 2003
- PMC1302849

# Feedback Regulation in the Lactose Operon: A Mathematical Modeling Study and Comparison with Experimental Data

^{*}Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4X 2C1; and

^{†}Departments of Physiology, Physics and Mathematics, Centre for Nonlinear Dynamics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H4X 2C1

**This article has been corrected.**See Biophys J. 2007 January 15; 92(2): 699.

## Abstract

A mathematical model for the regulation of induction in the *lac* operon in *Escherichia coli* is presented. This model takes into account the dynamics of the permease facilitating the internalization of external lactose; internal lactose; *β*-galactosidase, which is involved in the conversion of lactose to allolactose, glucose and galactose; the allolactose interactions with the *lac* repressor; and mRNA. The final model consists of five nonlinear differential delay equations with delays due to the transcription and translation process. We have paid particular attention to the estimation of the parameters in the model. We have tested our model against two sets of *β*-galactosidase activity versus time data, as well as a set of data on *β*-galactosidase activity during periodic phosphate feeding. In all three cases we find excellent agreement between the data and the model predictions. Analytical and numerical studies also indicate that for physiologically realistic values of the external lactose and the bacterial growth rate, a regime exists where there may be bistable steady-state behavior, and that this corresponds to a cusp bifurcation in the model dynamics.

## INTRODUCTION

The operon concept (Beckwith, 1987b), introduced by Jacob et al. (1960), has had a profound and lasting effect on the biological sciences. Not long after the operon concept was developed, Goodwin (1965) gave the first mathematical analysis of operon dynamics. Griffith then put forward a more complete analysis of simple repressible (negative feedback, Griffith (1968a)) and inducible (positive feedback, Griffith (1968b)) gene control networks, and Tyson and Othmer (1978) have summarized these results. Extensions considering the stability of inducible operons were published by Selgrade (1979, 1982) and Ji-Fa (1994), but none of these treatments considered the role of the DNA transcription and mRNA translation delays, though Tyson and Othmer pointed out that both should be considered.

Bliss et al. (1982) were some of the first to explicitly consider transcriptional and translational delays in their modeling of the tryptophan operon. Many subsequent workers studying tryptophan dynamics (Sinha, 1988; Sen and Liu, 1989; Xiu et al., 1997) ignored these delays although including other biological details, but the tryptophan delays were considered by Santillán and Mackey, (2001a,b). Maffahy and Savev (1999) modeled *lac* operon dynamics and included transcriptional and translational delays, but Wong et al. (1997) failed to treat these elements of the *lac* operon despite their inclusion of much of the relevant biological detail. Recent work on gene network regulation can be found in Tyson and Mackey (2001).

In this paper we offer a model of the induction process in the *lac* operon, including much of the relevant biological detail considered by Wong et al. (1997) (but neglecting catabolite repression) as well as the transcriptional and translational delays considered by Maffahy and Savev (1999). A more complete mathematical analysis of a reduced version of the model presented here is possible, and was considered by N. Yildirim, D. Horike, and M. C. Mackey (unpublished results). Section 2, “The Model”, develops the model and gives a set of realistic parameters estimated from the biological literature (presented in detail in Appendix B). It also examines the nature of the steady states (as deduced in Appendix C) and briefly considers their stability (Appendix D). Section 3, “Comparison with Experimental Data”, compares the numerical predictions of the model temporal behavior with three sets of data taken from the literature, and the paper ends with a discussion in Section 4, “Conclusions”.

## THE MODEL

To develop our model for regulation of the *lac* operon, it will be helpful to refer to Fig. 1. This control system functions in the following manner. In the absence of glucose available for cellular metabolism, but in the presence of external lactose (*L*_{e}), lactose is transported into the cell by a permease (*P*). Intracellular lactose (*L*) is then broken down into glucose, galactose, and allolactose (*A*) by the enzyme *β*-galactosidase (*B*). The allolactose feeds back to bind with the lactose repressor and enables the transcription process to proceed.

In more detail, the *lac* operon consists of a promoter/operator region and three larger structural genes, *lac*Z, *lac*Y, and *lac*A. Preceding the *lac* operon is a regulatory operon responsible for producing a repressor (*R*) protein. In the absence of allolactose (*A*), the repressor *R* binds to the operator region and prevents the RNA polymerase (which binds to the promoter region) from transcribing the structural genes. However, if allolactose is present, a complex is formed between allolactose and the repressor that makes binding of the repressor to the operator region impossible. In that case, the RNA polymerase bound to the promoter is able to initiate transcription of the structural genes to produce mRNA.

Once the mRNA has been produced, the process of translation is initiated. The *lac*Z gene encodes for the mRNA responsible for the production of *β*-galactosidase (*B*) and translation of the *lac*Y gene produces mRNA ultimately responsible for the production of a membrane permease (*P*). The mRNA produced by transcription of the *lac*A gene encodes for the production of thiogalactoside transacetylase, which is thought to not play a role in the regulation of the *lac* operon (Beckwith, 1987a) and will not be further considered here.

As shown in Appendix A, following Yagil and Yagil (1971), if the amount of repressor *R* bound to the operator *O* is small, then in a large population of cells the fraction of operators not bound by repressor (and therefore free to synthesize mRNA) is given by

where *n* was interpreted as the number of molecules of allolactose required to inactivate the repressor, *K*_{1} is the equilibrium constant for the repressor-allolactose reaction, and *K*_{2} is the equilibrium constant for the operator-repressor reaction, *K* = 1 + *K*_{2} *R*_{tot}, and *R*_{tot} is the total amount of repressor. Notice that there will be maximal repression when *A* = 0, but even at maximal repression there will still be a basal level of mRNA production (“leakage”) proportional to *K*^{−1}. We are now in a position to develop our model for the *lac* operon regulation.

The dynamics of mRNA production are given by Eq. 2,

which is derived as follows. First, note that the production of mRNA from DNA via transcription is not an instantaneous process but requires a period of time, *τ*_{M}, for RNA polymerase to traverse the three structural genes. The rate of change of *M* is a balance between a production term *α*_{M} *f* and a loss term The argument of *f* in the production term is where to account for the time, *τ*_{M}, required to produce the mRNA. The factor accounts for the growth dependent allolactose dilution during the transcriptional period. In the total absence of allolactose, on occasion repressor will transiently not be bound to the operator and RNA polymerase will initiate transcription. Γ_{0} denotes this spontaneous rate of mRNA production. The loss term in Eq. 2, is made up of an mRNA degradation term (*γ*_{M}*M*) and an effective loss due to dilution (*μ*M).

The dynamics of *β*-galactosidase are described by Eq. 3,

Again realize that *β*-galactosidase production through mRNA translation is not instantaneous but requires a time, *τ*_{B}. We assume that the rate of production of *B* is proportional to the concentration of *M* a time *τ*_{B} ago where again the exponential factor takes into account the dilution of mRNA due to cell growth. The loss rate of *B* is given by where as before

For the allolactose dynamics,

the first term in Eq. 4 gives the *β*-galactosidase mediated gain in allolactose from the conversion of lactose following the studies of Huber et al. (1976). The second term accounts for allolactose loss via conversion to glucose and galactose, again mediated by *β*-galactosidase (Martínez-Bilbao et al., 1991; Huber et al., 1994). The last term takes into account the degradation and dilution of allolactose.

The lactose dynamics are more complicated and given by Eq. 5:

The first term in Eq. 5 accounts for the augmentation of intracellular lactose *L* through the permease facilitated transport of *L*_{e}. The proportionality constant *α*_{L} is a decreasing function of extracellular glucose (Saier, 1976). The second term deals with intracellular lactose loss to the extracellular fluid because of the reversible nature of the permease-mediated transport (Saier, 1976; Osumi and Saier, 1982; Postma et al., 1996; Saier et al., 1996). The coefficient *β*_{L} is not dependent on the external glucose levels. The third term accounts for the conversion of lactose to allolactose as well as the hydrolysis of lactose to glucose and galactose via *β*-galactosidase (*B*). The fourth term accounts for the decrease in internal lactose concentration due to degradation and dilution.

To describe the permease dynamics

we have Eq. 6. There, the first term reflects the assumption that permease production is directly proportional (proportionality constant *α*_{P}) to the mRNA concentration a time (*τ*_{P} + *τ*_{B}) in the past, where *τ*_{P} is the translation time between mRNA and permease. The delay is taken to be the sum of the *β*-galactosidase and permease translation times under the assumption that permease production cannot start until *β*-galactosidase production is complete. The exponential factor accounts for dilution of mRNA concentration due to cell growth. The second term accounts for the degradation and dilution of permease.

We have carried out an extensive search of the existing literature for data that would allow us to estimate the model parameters in Eqs. 2–6. The results of our determinations are summarized in Table 1, and the details of how we arrived at these parameter values are contained in Appendix B.

The full model as formulated in Eqs. 2–6 can have one, two, or three steady states depending on the values of the parameters (*μ*, *L*_{e}). The details of how these steady states are determined are contained in Appendix C. The results of these considerations are presented in Fig. 2. There we show in space the region where a nonnegative steady state can exist. Note in particular that for a range of *L*_{e} values, there may be three coexisting steady-state values of the intracellular allolactose levels, and, consequently, of

Whether or not there can be coexisting steady states depends on the growth rate *μ*, and an examination of the dependence of the criteria for the existence of steady states on (*μ*, *L*_{e}) reveals that in space there is a cusp bifurcation occurring that is dependent on the growth rate *μ* and extracellular lactose levels *L*_{e}.

This cusp bifurcation in the model in space is of the following nature. There is a minimal growth rate such that for values of the growth rate *μ* [0, *μ*_{min}], there is a unique steady-state level of allolactose for any given value of external lactose levels *L*_{e}. At *μ* = *μ*_{min}, the concentration of external lactose required for induction is However, as *μ* becomes larger, *μ* [*μ*_{min}, *μ*_{max}, the system may have three steady-state values of at a given external lactose level *L*_{e}. This is the situation depicted in Fig. 2, where we used For this value of *μ*, the lactose concentration required for induction (and marked with an asterisk in Fig. 2) is which compares well with the results of a study using an artificial inducer of the *lac* operon, isopropylthiogalactoside (IPTG) (Baneyx, 1999). There it was found that 50–100 *μ*M IPTG is sufficient as a lower bound to achieve full induction.

A full stability analysis of the steady states of this model is impossible, since the eigenvalue equation determining local stability is a fifth order quasipolynomial containing three delays. Consequently, we have contented ourselves with a numerical examination of the stability properties of the steady states. Briefly, the results of our numerical stimulations presented in Appendix D are as follows. When a single steady state exists, we have found that the numerical behavior is such that the model solutions always converge to that steady state at large times. When there are three coexisting steady states, the numerical solutions to the model either converged to the lower or upper branch of the *S*-shaped curve for various initial conditions. These results, as well as numerous others that are not shown, lead us to conclude that the middle branch of the *S*-shaped steady-state curve (see Fig. 2) corresponds to a steady state that is globally unstable. The nature of the boundary between initial conditions leading to the convergence to the upper or lower branch solution appears to be complicated, and it may well be a fractal basin boundary (Losson and Mackey, 1993).

## COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Given the parameter values determined in Table 1, we numerically solved the model equations to compare the predicted behavior with three distinct experimental data sets.

The first data set is from Knorre (1968), in which changes of the specific *β*-galactosidase concentration after a step change from glucose to lactose growth for *Escherichia coli* ML30 were measured. The second data set is from Pestka et al. (1984). In this paper, Pestka et al. studied specific inhibition of translation of single mRNA molecules and gave data for the specific activity of *β*-galactosidase versus time for *E. coli* 294 in the presence of IPTG. These two data sets and the model simulation determined using MATLAB's dde23 (Shampine and Thompson, 2000) routine are shown in Fig. 3.

*β*-galactosidase activity versus time when

*L*

_{e}= 8.0 × 10

^{−2}mM. The experimental data sets were taken from Knorre (1968) for

*E. coli*ML30 (○) and from Pestka et al. (1984) for

*E. coli*294 (♦). The model simulation

**...**

For this simulation, initial values for the variable were chosen as *A*_{0} = 3.80 × 10^{−2}, *M*_{0} = 6.26 × 10^{−4}, *L*_{0} = 3.72 × 10^{−1}, *P*_{0} = 1.49 × 10^{−2}, and *B*_{0} = 0.0 mM, all of which are close to the steady-state values given in Table 2 when *L*_{e} = 8.0 × 10^{−2} mM. (With this value of *L*_{e}, there is a single unique steady state). To compare these two sets of experimental data with the model simulation predictions, the data were scaled so the steady-state values of measured *β*-galactosidase activities and those produced by the simulation were equal. As seen in Fig. 3, there is relatively good agreement between both sets of experimental data and the model-predicted temporal approach of *β*-galactosidase activity to its steady-state value.

As a third test of the model, a data set from Goodwin (1969) was used. In this paper, the dynamic behavior of *β*-galactosidase was studied in chemostat cultures of *E. coli* synchronized with respect to cell division by periodic phosphate feeding at a period equal to the bacterial doubling time. Experimentally, oscillations in *β*-galactosidase concentration were observed with a period equal to the feeding period.

To mimic the periodic phosphate feeding in our simulation, we assumed that the bacterial growth rate varies as a function of time in manner given by

Here, is the maximal growth rate for the bacteria, T is the period of the feeding and *α* is a positive parameter with dimension min^{−2}. mod(*t*, T) is a function that gives the remainder on division of *t* by T. Selection of this type of function is motivated by the observation that growth rates decrease as nutrient levels fall and sharply increase after the addition of nutrient.

*μ*(*t*) takes its maximal value of when *t* = T × *k*, (*k* = 1, 2, 3, …), which corresponds to the times that phosphate was added. The minimal value of this function, at represents the minimal amount of nutrient left in the vessel. Assuming no nutrient is left minutes before the addition of phosphate and letting *α* can be estimated if the doubling time (*T*) is known:

With a feeding period of *T* = 100 min, we have for , which is the value we have estimated for our model (cf. Appendix B). In Fig. 4, we compare the data on *β*-galactosidase activity from the forced culture as a function of time with the model predictions.

*β*-galactosidase activity in response to periodic phosphate feeding with period

*T*= 100 min, which is the culture doubling time. The experimental data (

^{*}) together with the model simulation (

*solid line*) using the

**...**

With respect to the predicted bistability at sufficiently large growth rates, illustrated in Fig. 2, evidence presented by Novick and Wiener (1957) and Cohn and Horibata (1959) qualitatively substantiate the existence of this behavior for values of the growth rate exceeding *μ*_{min}. However, we are unable to determine if the quantitative ranges of *L*_{e} for which we have predicted bistability correspond to the conditions under which it was seen in Novick and Wiener (1957) and Cohn and Horibata (1959).

## CONCLUSIONS

Here we have developed, and analytically and numerically analyzed, a mathematical model for the regulation of the *lac* operon in *E. coli*. The final model consists of five nonlinear differential delay equations with delays due to the DNA transcription and mRNA translation processes. The model equations describe the dynamics of the permease (*P*) facilitating the internalization of external lactose (*L*_{e}); internal lactose (*L*); *β*-galactosidase (*B*), which is involved in the conversion of lactose to allolactose, glucose, and galactose; the allolactose (*A*) interactions with the *lac* repressor, and mRNA (*M*). We have gone to considerable effort to make valid and reasonable estimates of the 24 parameters in the model. We were successful in identifying 22 of these parameters from published data, but were forced to determine the growth rate *μ* and *γ*_{A} by fitting the model to the data of Knorre (1968).

We have tested our model against two sets of *β*-galactosidase activity versus time data. These data came from the experimental work presented in Knorre (1968), in which changes of the specific *β*-galactosidase concentration after a step change from glucose to lactose growth for *E. coli* ML30 were measured, and the work of Pestka et al. (1984). In this latter paper, data were presented for the specific activity of *β*-galactosidase versus time for *E. coli* 294 in the presence of IPTG. These two data sets and the model simulation are shown in Fig. 3, and there is a remarkable degree of concordance between the data and the model predictions.

As a third test of the model, data from Goodwin (1969) giving the dynamic behavior of *β*-galactosidase was studied in chemostat cultures of *E. coli* synchronized with respect to cell division by periodic phosphate feeding at a period equal to the bacterial doubling time. Experimentally, oscillations in *β*-galactosidase concentration were observed with a period equal to the feeding period. Fig. 4 shows the *β*-galactosidase activity data as well as the model predictions. Again, there is a satisfying degree of agreement.

Analytical and numerical studies of the model also predict that for physiologically realistic values of external lactose and the bacterial growth rate, a regime exists where there may be bistable steady-state behavior, and that this corresponds to a cusp bifurcation in the model dynamics. This prediction is qualitatively confirmed by the observations of Novick and Wiener (1957) and Cohn and Horibata (1959). Although a full analysis of the stability properties of the model is not possible due to its complexity, we have found that the basic properties contained in a reduced version of this model N. Yildirim, D. Horike, and M. C. Mackey (unpublished results) (2002) (which considered only the dynamics of *M*, *B*, and *A*) are apparently retained in this much more complicated model as far as we are able to ascertain analytically and numerically.

This agreement between the model predictions for the lactose operon and existing data, and similar agreement between a mathematical model for the tryptophan operon (Santillán and Mackey, 2001a,b), highlight the desirability and necessity of closer cooperation between experimentalists and modelers to further validate and refine mathematical models of simple and more complicated gene regulatory networks.

To close, we wish to touch on the nature of the mathematical model presented here. The model considered in this paper is formulated with the explicit assumption that one is dealing with large numbers cells (and hence of large numbers of molecules) so that the law of large numbers is operative. However, the situation is quite different if one is interested in the dynamics of small numbers (or single) prokaryotic or eukaryotic cells, for then the numbers of molecules are small. Adequate means to analytically treat such problems do not exist in a satisfactory form as of now (Gillespie, 1992; Kepler and Elston, 2001; Swain et al., 2002), and one is often reduced to mostly numerical studies (Gillespie, 1977; McAdams and Shapiro, 1995; Arkin et al., 1998). The situation is analogous to examining the interactions between small numbers of interacting particles (where the laws of mechanics or electrodynamics hold), and then deriving from these formulations the behavior of large numbers of identical units as is done (not completely successfully even at this point) in statistical mechanics. We view this connection between the “micro” and “macro” levels as one of the major mathematical challenges facing those interested in the understanding of gene control networks.

## Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. Photini Pitsikas for her initial suggestion of this problem, Profs. Claire Cupples and Moisés Santillán for their advice on parameter estimation and general comments, and Mr. Daisuke Horike for many helpful discussions.

This work was supported by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems (Canada), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (grant OGP-0036920, Canada), Le Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l'Aide à la Recherche (grant 98ER1057, Québec), and the Leverhulme Trust (UK).

## APPENDIX A: REPRESSOR DYNAMICS

Let *R* be the repressor, *E* the effector (allolactose in our case), and *O* the operator. The effector is known to bind with the active form *R* of the repressor. We assume, as do Yagil and Yagil (1971), that this reaction is of the form

where they took *n* to be the effective number of molecules of effector required to inactivate the repressor *R*. Furthermore, the operator *O* and repressor *R* are assumed Yagil and Yagil (1971) to interact according to

Let the total operator be *O*_{tot}:

and the total level of repressor be *R*_{tot}:

The fraction of operators not bound by repressor (and therefore free to synthesize mRNA) is given by

If the amount of repressor *R* bound to the operator *O* is small

so

and consequently

where *K* = 1 + *K*_{2}*R*_{tot}. Notice that there will be maximal repression when *E* = 0 but even at maximal repression there will still be a basal level of mRNA production proportional to *K*^{−1}.

## APPENDIX B: PARAMETER ESTIMATION

In the model given by Eqs. 2–6, there are 24 parameters in total that must be estimated to characterize the system completely. In this section, we give the estimation of each of these parameters.

*μ*: The maximal value of the dilution rate*μ*can be estimated from the shortest interdivision time of*E. coli*, which is ~20 min (Watson, 1977). Given this,*μ*_{max}= ln 2/20 min^{−1}= 3.47 × 10^{−2}min^{−1}. We have also estimated a value of*μ*, denoted by together with the value of*γ*_{A}by least-square fitting of the experimental*β*-galactosidase concentration data given in Knorre (1968) using the fminsearch and dde23 (Shampine and Thompson, 2000) routines in MATLAB. We found , indicating that these cultures were growing with a doubling time of 30 min. The results of this estimation were tested for several initial starting points for*μ*and*γ*_{A}, and the estimation procedure always converged to the same values of and*γ*_{A}.*γ*_{A}: The value of*γ*_{A}was estimated as 5.2 × 10^{−1}min^{−1}together with the value of*μ*by using least-square fitting of the experimental*β*-galactosidase activity data given in Knorre (1968) as above.*γ*_{M}: Leive and Kollin (1967) found that the of*β*-galactosidase mRNA was 2 min to give a value of In a comparable experiment, Blundell and Kennell (1974) found to give We have taken the average of these two figures to give*γ*_{B}: The rate of breakdown of*β*-galactosidase was measured by Mandelstam (1957) and found to be 0.05 per h corresponding to 8.33 × 10^{−4}min^{−1}. Rotman and Spiegelman (1954) also reported that the maximal rate of breakdown of*β*-galactoside is 0.005 min^{−1}, and noted that it is possibly much smaller than this value. We have taken the Mandelstam value.*K*: Yagil and Yagil (1971) analyzed a number of published data sets, and from their calculations we find the average value is*n*: Again from Yagil and Yagil (1971), we have an average Hill coefficient of 2.09. We have taken*n*= 2.*K*_{1}: The average dissociation constant of effector-repressor complex was from the results of Yagil and Yagil (1971).*α*_{M}: The steady-state value of*lac*mRNA in the absence of induction is thought to be one molecule per cell. This corresponds to a “concentration” of 2.08 × 10^{−6}mM if we take the*E. coli*volume to be 8 × 10^{−16}liter. When the cells are maximally induced, the*lac*mRNA level is raised a thousand times compared to this uninduced steady-state value (Savageau, 1999). From Eq. 2 at a steady state,(16)From Eqs. 16 and 17,(17)*α*_{M}is 9.97 × 10^{−4}mM–min^{−1}.- Γ
_{0}: The term Γ_{0}was included in our model for the following reason. Assume that the term in question is not there, which is equivalent to taking Γ_{0}0. An examination of Eq. 2 in a steady state yields Let the level of lac mRNA in the maximally induced state be given by . The maximally induced state corresponds to and The uninduced state corresponds to and Thus we have two relations,andTaking the ratio of these two relations gives Θ*K*and from above,*K*= 7200, which would imply a value for Θ which is 7.2 times larger than what is experimentally observed (Θ = 1000). Thus the inclusion of the term Γ_{0}. *α*_{B}: At a steady state, from Eq. 3 we haveKennell and Reizman (1977) reported that steady-state value of(18)*β*-galactosidase is ~20 molecules per cell, which means that Using the value of*γ*_{B}reported by Mandelstam (1957) for nongrowing bacteria,*α*_{A}: Huber et al. (1975) studied the kinetics of*β*-galactosidase and found*V*_{max}= 32.6 U/mg of*β*-galactosidase and*K*_{M}= 0.00253 M when lactose was the substrate. whereas*V*_{max}= 49.6 U/mg of*β*-galactosidase and*K*_{M}= 0.00120 M when allolactose is the substrate. (U is defined as*μ*M of glucose or galactose produced per minute.) Given that the molecular mass of*β*-galactosidase is 540,000 Da, and 1 Da = 1.66 × 10^{−21}mg, 1 mol of*β*-galactosidase is equivalent to 6.02 × 10^{23}× 5.4 × 10^{5}× 1.66 × 10^{−21}= 5.39 × 10^{8}mg of*β*-galactosidase, so 1 mg of*β*-galactosidase is equivalent to 1.85 × 10^{−3}*μ*mol. Therefore,*β*_{A}: From the data of Huber et al. (1975), we have whereas Martínez-Bilbao et al. (1991) gives We have taken the average of*K*_{L}: The volume of one*E. coli*is ~8.0 × 10^{−16}liter and its mass is ~1.7 × 10^{−12}g to yield a density of 2.1 × 10^{3}g/liter. The parameter*K*_{L}in our model corresponds to the parameter*K*_{m,Lac}/*ρ*in Wong et al. (1997) model and the values and the units of these two parameters reported in this paper are*ρ*= 3.0 × 10^{2}g of dry cell weight per liter and*K*_{m,Lac}= 1.4 × 10^{−4}M, which givesTo obtain an estimate for*K*_{L}in M, we can multiply this value by the density of the cell, which gives in agreement with the value of 1.4 ± 0.3 × 10^{−3}M estimated by Martínez-Bilbao et al. (1991). We have taken the latter value.*K*_{A}: This parameter in our model corresponds to*K*_{m,Allo}/*ρ*in the Wong et al. (1997) model, and they took*K*_{m,Allo}2.8 × 10^{−4}M. Hence, Using the procedure followed in the estimation of*K*_{L}, the value of*K*_{A}is calculated to be 1.95 mM.*τ*_{M}: In this model, we are considering the transcription and translation of two genes,*lacZ*and*lacY*. Translation of*lacZ*starts shortly after transcription initiation. For the translation of*lacY*to begin,*lacZ*must be completely transcribed. Knowing that*lacZ*has 1022 amino acids and DNA chain elongation rate is at least 490 nucleotides per second, which is equivalent to 9800 amino acids per minute, according to Bremmer and Dennis (1996), the time for*lacZ*to be completely transcribed is at mostThis is an upper bound on*τ*_{M}.*τ*_{B}:*lacZ*is 1022 amino acids long and the mRNA elongation rate varies between 12 and 33 amino acids per second (Monar et al., 1969; Kennell and Reizman, 1977). Talkad et al. (1976) also reported the translation rate is between 8 and 15 amino acids per second. If we take the mRNA elongation rate as 8 amino acids per second to estimate an upper bound value for*τ*_{B}, we obtainIf the elongation rate is 33 amino acids per second, then Sorensen et al. (1989) estimated an average value for*τ*_{B}of 82 s experimentally, which is 1.37 min. We have taken the upper bound as but used .*γ*_{L}: We assumed implying that the degradation rate for intracellular lactose is negligible when compared with the bacterial growth rate, as did Wong et al. (1997).*γ*_{P}: West and Stein (1973) studied the kinetics of induction of*β*-galactosidase permease in*E. coli*and estimated the mean half life of permease ranges from 1.3 min to 1.9 min, which yields a range for 0.53–0.78 min^{−1}for the degradation rate of permease*γ*_{P}. We have taken an average of these two estimates to give*α*_{L}: Wright et al. (1981) studied on lactose carrier protein of*E. coli*and measured the active transport turnover number as 48 × 60 = 2880 min^{−1}in EDTA-treated cells of the strain ML308-225. We have taken the same value*α*_{L}= 2880 min^{−1}.*α*_{P}: Eq. 6 givesat a steady state. From Kennell and Reizman (1977), we know that The steady-state molar ratio of*β*-galactosidase to permease was given as by in Maloney and Rotman (1973). From this we estimateLee and Bailey (1984) studied the growth rate effects on productivity of recombinant*E. coli*populations and obtained an empirical relation for the transcription rate as a function of the bacterial growth rate. From this relation, we have*α*_{P}= 17.37 min^{−1}when*μ*= 2.21 × 10^{−2}min^{−1}, which is the value we have estimated. We have taken an intermediate value between these two estimates:*β*_{L1}: From Wong et al. (1997), we have*β*_{L1}= 2148 min^{−1}. Lolkema et al. (1991) gave a range for*β*_{L1}as 840–3000 min^{−1}. We have chosen as*β*_{L1}= 2650 min^{−1}.- From Wong et al. (1997), we havebased on the data of Lolkema et al. (1991), Huber et al. (1980), Page and West (1984), and Wright et al. (1981).
- From Wong et al. (1997), we havewhereinfrom Lolkema et al. (1991), Huber et al. (1980), Page and West (1984), and Wright et al. (1981), and
*ρ*is as given before. ThusMultiplying by the density of the cell (2.1 × 10^{3}gm/L) gives us *τ*_{P}:*lacY*is 399 amino acids long and the mRNA elongation rate varies between 8 and 33 amino acids per second (Monar et al., 1969; Kennell and Reizman, 1977; and Talkad et al., (1976). If we take the mRNA elongation rate to be 8 amino acids per second to estimate an upper bound value for*τ*_{P}, we obtainIf the elongation rate is 33 amino acids per second, then We have taken the maximal value to be

## APPENDIX C: STEADY-STATE ANALYSIS OF THE MODEL

In this section, the steady-state analysis of the system is investigated and a necessary condition derived for existence of positive steady state(s). Let be the steady state of the system given by Eqs. 2–6. At a steady state, by definition, there are no temporal changes and thus the steady state(s) are defined implicitly by

where and Moreover, *f*_{1}, *f*_{2}, *g*_{1}, and *g*_{2} are all monotone increasing functions given by

where

For a steady state to make sense in a biological context, it is necessary that it be nonnegative. Now from Eqs. 20 and 23, we easily have

Furthermore, from Eq. 19, can be written in terms of as,

Note that and are nonnegative whenever is nonnegative, and from Eq. 28 we always have Further, from Eq. 21 we can write in terms of :

where

#### Condition I for a nonnegative steady state

#### Condition II for a nonnegative steady state

#### Theorem 1

##### Proof

The left side of Eq. 32 is a monotone increasing function of when *K*_{1} > 0, and has a minimal value of (*α*_{M}/*K*_{0}) + Γ_{0} when Further, it reaches its maximal value of *α*_{M} + Γ_{0} as becomes large. Furthermore, the right side of Eq. 32 is zero when Therefore, for the existence of a positive root, it is trivial that the right of Eq. 32 must be an increasing function of for values of and satisfying Eqs. 31 and 37.

To prove that the condition is a necessary condition for the right side of Eq. 32 to be an increasing function of let

so that

and are Michaelis-Menten type functions and and are positive. Since the condition

is satisfied whenever

holds.

Further, from Eq. 29 we have

and from Condition I, must be satisfied for nonnegative steady states. Thus the right side of Eq. 41 is always positive when Therefore, is an increasing function when in an interval defined by the intersection of the intervals for which Eqs. 31 and 37 are satisfied. This completes the proof.

## APPENDIX D: NUMERICAL STABILITY OF THE MODEL

A full stability analysis of the steady states of this model is impossible, since the eigenvalue equation determining local stability is a fifth order quasipolynomial containing three delays. Consequently, we have contented ourselves with a numerical examination of the stability properties of the steady states.

Briefly, the results of our numerical stimulations are as follows. When a single steady state exists, we have found that the numerical behavior is such that the model solutions always converge to that steady state at large times.

When there are three coexisting steady states as illustrated in Fig. 2, the behavior is slightly more complicated and is illustrated in Fig. 5 when *L*_{e} = 3.0 × 10^{−2}. At this value, the system has the three steady states given in Table 3. As seen from the results in Fig. 5, the numerical model solutions either converged to the lower or upper branch of the *S*-shaped curve (see Fig. 2) for various initial conditions. These results, as well as numerous others that are not shown, lead us to conclude that the middle branch of the *S*-shaped steady-state curve corresponds to a steady state that is globally unstable.

### TABLE 3

Steady states | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

I | 4.31 × 10^{−3} | 2.14 × 10^{−6} | 1.44 × 10^{−6} | 1.01 × 10^{−1} | 2.98 × 10^{−5} |

II | 6.43 × 10^{−2} | 3.46 × 10^{−5} | 2.34 × 10^{−5} | 1.36 × 10^{−1} | 4.83 × 10^{−4} |

III | 1.42 × 10^{−1} | 1.54 × 10^{−4} | 1.04 × 10^{−4} | 1.39 × 10^{−1} | 2.16 × 10^{−3} |

For this simulation, we choose five equally distributed initial *β*-galactosidase levels between 0.24 × 10^{−4} and 0.32 × 10^{−4} mM and kept all other variables at their steady-state values corresponding to the values on the middle branch of the *S*-shaped curve in Fig. 2 when *L*_{e} = 3.0 × 10^{−2} mM, and computed the temporal evolution of the model variables. For initial *β*-galactosidase values equal to or greater than 3.0 × 10^{−5}, the simulated curves converged to 1.04 × 10^{−4}, which is the value on the upper branch of the steady-state curve, whereas for the other initial values, the *β*-galactosidase values converged to 1.44 × 10^{−6}, which is the steady-state value on the lower branch.

However, the relatively simple behavior shown in Fig. 5 is deceptive, as shown in Fig. 6. There we present numerical evidence that the attractor boundary in initial function space separating behaviors where one approaches the lower or upper locally stable steady state of Fig. 2 is not totally straightforward. The potentially rich nature of the boundary is revealed by taking initial functions that oscillate about the unstable branch of the steady-state curve. The ensuing dynamical behavior is highly reminiscent of the existence of a fractal basin boundary that has been noted in other, simpler, differential delay systems (Losson and Mackey, 1993).

## Notes

Necmettin Yildirim's permanent address is Atatürk Üniversitesi, Bilgisayar Bilimleri Uygulama ve Araştırma Merkezi, 25240 Erzurum, Turkey.

## References

- Arkin, A., J. Ross, and H. H. McAdams. 1998. Stochastic kinetic analysis of developmental pathway bifurcation in phage
*λ*-infected*Escherichia coli*cells. Genetics. 149:1633–1648. [PMC free article] [PubMed] - Baneyx, F. 1999. Recombinant protein expression in
*Escherichia coli*. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 10:411–421. [PubMed] - Beckwith, J. 1987a. The lactose operon.
*In*Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, Vol. 2. F. C. Neidhardt, J. L. Ingraham, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, and H. E. Umbarger, editors. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 1444–1452. - Beckwith, J. 1987b. The operon: An historical account.
*In*Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, Vol. 2. F. C. Neidhardt, J. L. Ingraham, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, and H. E. Umbarger, editors. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 1439–1443. - Bliss, R. D., R. P. Painter, and A. G. Marr. 1982. Role of feedback inhibition in stabilizing the classical operon. J. Theor. Biol. 97:177–193. [PubMed]
- Blundell, M., and D. Kennell. 1974. Evidence for endonucleolytic attack in decay of
*lac*messenger RNA in*Escherichia coli*. J. Mol. Biol. 83:143–161. [PubMed] - Bremmer, H., and P. P. Dennis. 1996. Modulation of chemical composition and other parameters of the cell by growth rate.
*In*Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, Vol. 2. F. C. Neidhardt, R. Curtiss, J. L. Ingraham, E. C. C. Lin, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, W. S. Reznikoff, M. Riley, M. Schaechter, and H. E. Umbarger, editors. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 1553–1569. - Cohn, M., and K. Horibata. 1959. Inhibition by glucose of the induced synthesis of the
*β*-galactosidase-enzyme system of*Escherichia coli*: analysis of maintenance. J. Bacteriol. 78:613–623. [PMC free article] [PubMed] - Gillespie, D. T. 1977. Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J. Phys. Chem. 81:2340–2361.
- Gillespie, D. T. 1992. A rigorous derivation of the chemical master equation. Physica A. 188:404–425.
- Goodwin, B. 1965. Oscillatory behaviour in enzymatic control process. Adv. Enz. Regul. 3:425–438. [PubMed]
- Goodwin, B. C. 1969. Control dynamics of
*β*-galactosidase in relation to the bacterial cell cycle. Eur. J. Biochem. 10:515–522. [PubMed] - Griffith, J. S. 1968a. Mathematics of cellular control processes. I. Negative feedback to one gene. J. Theor. Biol. 20:202–208. [PubMed]
- Griffith, J. S. 1968b. Mathematics of cellular control processes. II. Positive feedback to one gene. J. Theor. Biol. 20:209–216. [PubMed]
- Huber, R. E., M. Gupta, and S. Khare. 1994. The active site and mechanism of the
*β*-galactosidase from*Escherichia coli*. Int. J. Biochem. 26:309–318. [PubMed] - Huber, R. E., G. Kurz, and K. Wallenfels. 1976. A quantitation of the factors which affect the hydrolase and transgalactosylase activities of
*β*-galactosidase (*E. coli*) on lactose. Biochemistry. 15:1994–2001. [PubMed] - Huber, R., R. Pisko-Dubienski, and K. Hurlburt. 1980. Immediate stoichiometric appearance of
*β*-galactosidase products in the medium of*Escherichia coli*cells incubated with lactose. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 96:656–661. [PubMed] - Huber, R. E., W. Wallenfels, and G. Kurz. 1975. The action of
*β*-galactosidase*Escherichia coli*on allolactose. Can. J. Biochem. 53:1035–1039. [PubMed] - Jacob, F., D. Perrin, C. Sanchez, and J. Monod. 1960. L'operon: groupe de gène à expression par un operatour. C. R. Acad. Sci. 250:1727–1729. [PubMed]
- Ji-Fa, J. 1994. A Liapunov function for four dimensional positive feedback systems. Quar. Appl. Math. 52:601–614.
- Kennell, D., and H. Reizman. 1977. Transcription and translation initiation frequencies of the
*Escherichia coli*lac operon. J. Mol. Biol. 114:1–21. [PubMed] - Kepler, T. B., and T. C. Elston. 2001. Stochasticity in transcriptional regulation: origins, consequences, and mathematical representations. Biophys. J. 81:3116–3136. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Knorre, W. A. 1968. Oscillation of the rate of synthesis of
*β*-galactosidase in*Escherichia coli*ML 30 and ML 308. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 31:812–817. [PubMed] - Lee, S. B., and J. E. Bailey. 1984. Analysis of growth rate effects on productivity of recombinant
*Escherichia coli*populations using molecular mechanism models. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 67:805–812. [PubMed] - Leive, L., and V. Kollin. 1967. Synthesis, utilization and degradation of lactose operon mRNA in Escherichia coli. J. Mol. Biol. 24:247–259. [PubMed]
- Lolkema, J., N. Carrasco, and H. Kaback. 1991. Kinetic analysis of lactose exchange in proteoliposomes reconstituted with purified
*lac*permease. Biochemistry. 30:1284–1290. [PubMed] - Losson, L., and M. C. Mackey. 1993. Solution multistability in first order nonlinear differential delay equations. Chaos. 3:167–176. [PubMed]
- Maffahy, J. M., and E. Savev. 1999. Stability analysis for a mathematical model of the
*lac*operon. Quar. Appl. Math. 57:37–53. - Maloney, P. C., and S. M. Rotman. 1973. Distribution of suboptimally induced
*β*-D-galactosidase in*Escherichia coli*. J. Mol. Biol. 73:77–91. [PubMed] - Mandelstam, J. 1957. Turnover of protein in starved bacteria and its relationship to the induced synthesis of enzyme. Nature. 179:1179–1181. [PubMed]
- Martínez-Bilbao, M., R. E. Holdswards, L. A. Edwards, and R. E. Huber. 1991. A highly reactive
*β*-galactosidase*Escherichia coli*resulting from a substitution of an aspartic acid for Gly-794. J. Biol. Chem. 266:4979–4986. [PubMed] - McAdams, H. H., and L. Shapiro. 1995. Circuit simulation of genetic networks. Science. 269:650–656. [PubMed]
- Monar, H., D. Goodman, and G. S. Stnet. 1969. RNA chain growth rates in
*Escherichia coli*. J. Mol. Biol. 39:1–29. [PubMed] - Novick, A., and M. Wiener. 1957. Enzyme induction as an all-or-none phenomenon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 43:553–566. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Osumi, T., and M. H. Saier. 1982. Regulation of lactose permease activity by the phosphoenolpyruvate: sugar phosphotransferase system: Evidence for direct binding of the glucose specific enzyme III to the lactose permease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 79:1457–1461. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Page, M. G. P., and I. C. West. 1984. The transient kinetics of uptake of galactosides into
*Escherichia coli*. Biochem. J. 223:723–731. [PMC free article] [PubMed] - Pestka, S., B. L. Daugherty, V. Jung, K. Hotta, and R. K. Pestka. 1984. Anti-mRNA: specific inhibition of translation of single mRNA molecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 81:7525–7528. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Postma, P. W., J. W. Lengeler, and G. R. Jacobson. 1996. Phosphoenolpyruvate-carbohydrate phosphotransferase systems.
*In*Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, Vol. 1. F. C. Neidhart, R. Curtiss, J. L. Ingraham, E. C. C. Lin, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, W. S. Reznikoff, M. Riley, M. Schaechter, and H. E. Umbarger, editors. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 1149–1174. - Rotman, R., and S. Spiegelman. 1954. On the origin of the carbon in induced synthesis of
*β*-galactosidase. J. Bacteriol. 68:419–429. [PMC free article] [PubMed] - Saier Jr., M. H. 1976. Inducer exclusion and regulation of the melibose, maltose, glycerol, and lactose transport systems by the phosphoenolpyruvate: sugar phosphotransferase system. J. Biol. Chem. 251:6606–6615. [PubMed]
- Saier, M. H., T. M. Ramseier, and J. Reizer. 1996. Regulation of carbon utilization.
*In*Escherichia coli and Salmonella: Cellular and Molecular Biology, Vol. 1. F. C. Neidhardt, R. Curtiss, J. L. Ingraham, E. C. C. Lin, K. B. Low, B. Magasanik, W. S. Reznikoff, M. Riley, M. Schaechter, and H. E. Umbarger, editors. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. 1325–1343. - Santillán, M., and M. C. Mackey. 2001a. Dynamic behaviour in mathematical models of the tryptophan operon. Chaos. 11:261–268. [PubMed]
- Santillán, M., and M. C. Mackey. 2001b. Dynamic regulation of the tryptophan operon: a modeling study and comparison with experimental data. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 98:1364–1369. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Savageau, M. A. 1999. Design of gene circuitry by natural selection: analysis of the lactose catabolic system in Escherichia coli. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 27:264–270. [PubMed]
- Selgrade, J. F. 1979. Mathematical analysis of a cellular control process with positive feedback. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 36:219–229.
- Selgrade, J. F. 1982. A Hopf bifurcation in single loop positive feedback systems. Quar. Appl. Math. 40:347–351.
- Sen, A. K., and W. Liu. 1989. Dynamic analysis of genetic control and regulation of amino acid synthesis: the tryptophan operon in
*Escherichia coli*. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 35:185–194. [PubMed] - Shampine, L. F., and S. Thompson. 2000. Solving DDEs with MATLAB. www.radford.edu/~thompson/webddes/.
- Sinha, S. 1988. Theoretical study of tryptophan operon: application in microbial technology. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 31:117–124. [PubMed]
- Sorensen, M. A., C. G. Kurland, and S. Pedersen. 1989. Codon usage determines translation rate in
*Escherichia coli*. J. Mol. Biol. 207:365–377. [PubMed] - Swain, P. S., M. Elowitz, and E. Siggia. 2002. Intrinsic and extrinsic contributions to stochasticity in gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 99:12795–12800. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- Talkad, V., E. Schneider, and D. Kennell. 1976. Evidence for variable rates of ribosome movement in
*Escherichia coli*. J. Mol. Biol. 104:299–303. [PubMed] - Tyson, J. J., and M. C. Mackey. 2001. Molecular, metabolic and genetic control: An introduction. Chaos. 11:81–83. [PubMed]
- Tyson, J. J., and H. G. Othmer. 1978. The dynamics of feedback control circuits in biochemical pathways.
*In*Progress in Biophysics, Vol. 5. R. Rosen, editor. Academic Press, New York. 1–62. - Watson, J. D. 1977. Molecular Biology of the Gene, 3rd ed. W. A. Benjamin, New York.
- West, I. C., and W. D. Stein. 1973. The kinetics of induction of
*β*-galactoside permease. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 308:161–167. [PubMed] - Wong, P., S. Gladney, and J. D. Keasling. 1997. Mathematical model of the
*lac*operon: inducer exclusion, catabolite repression, and diauxic growth on glucose and lactose. Biotechnol. Prog. 13:132–143. [PubMed] - Wright, J. K., I. Riede, and P. Overath. 1981. Lactose carrier protein of
*Escherichia coli*: interaction with galactosides and protons. Biochemistry. 20:6404–6415. [PubMed] - Xiu, Z. L., A. P. Zeng, and W. D. Deckwer. 1997. Model analysis concerning the effects of growth rate and intracellular tryptophan level on the stability and dynamics of tryptophan biosynthesis in bacteria. J. Biotech. 58:125–140.
- Yagil, G., and E. Yagil. 1971. On the relation between effector concentration and the rate of induced enzyme synthesis. Biophys. J. 11:11–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

**The Biophysical Society**

## Formats:

- Article |
- PubReader |
- ePub (beta) |
- PDF (252K)

- Dynamics and bistability in a reduced model of the lac operon.[Chaos. 2004]
*Yildirim N, Santillan M, Horike D, Mackey MC.**Chaos. 2004 Jun; 14(2):279-92.* - Influence of catabolite repression and inducer exclusion on the bistable behavior of the lac operon.[Biophys J. 2004]
*Santillán M, Mackey MC.**Biophys J. 2004 Mar; 86(3):1282-92.* - Determinants of bistability in induction of the Escherichia coli lac operon.[IET Syst Biol. 2008]
*Dreisigmeyer DW, Stajic J, Nemenman I, Hlavacek WS, Wall ME.**IET Syst Biol. 2008 Sep; 2(5):293-303.* - Modeling network dynamics: the lac operon, a case study.[J Cell Biol. 2003]
*Vilar JM, Guet CC, Leibler S.**J Cell Biol. 2003 May 12; 161(3):471-6.* - The lactose repressor system: paradigms for regulation, allosteric behavior and protein folding.[Cell Mol Life Sci. 2007]
*Wilson CJ, Zhan H, Swint-Kruse L, Matthews KS.**Cell Mol Life Sci. 2007 Jan; 64(1):3-16.*

- Synthetic gene circuits for metabolic control: design trade-offs and constraints[Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 201...]
*Oyarzún DA, Stan GB.**Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2013 Jan 6; 10(78)20120671* - A genetic bistable switch utilizing nonlinear protein degradation[Journal of Biological Engineering. ]
*Huang D, Holtz WJ, Maharbiz MM.**Journal of Biological Engineering. 69* - Optimal Control of Gene Mutation in DNA Replication[Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology. 2...]
*Yu J, Li JS, Tarn TJ.**Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology. 2012; 2012743172* - Simulation methods with extended stability for stiff biochemical Kinetics[BMC Systems Biology. ]
*Rué P, Villà-Freixa J, Burrage K.**BMC Systems Biology. 4110* - Robustness portraits of diverse biological networks conserved despite order-of-magnitude parameter uncertainty[Bioinformatics. 2011]
*Soltis AR, Saucerman JJ.**Bioinformatics. 2011 Oct 15; 27(20)2888-2894*

- CompoundCompoundPubChem Compound links
- GeneGeneGene links
- GEO ProfilesGEO ProfilesRelated GEO records
- MedGenMedGenRelated information in MedGen
- PubMedPubMedPubMed citations for these articles
- SubstanceSubstancePubChem Substance links
- TaxonomyTaxonomyRelated taxonomy entry
- Taxonomy TreeTaxonomy Tree

- Feedback Regulation in the Lactose Operon: A Mathematical Modeling Study and Com...Feedback Regulation in the Lactose Operon: A Mathematical Modeling Study and Comparison with Experimental DataBiophysical Journal. May 2003; 84(5)2841PMC

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

See more...