Analysis of non-Markovian effects in generalized birth-death models

Zhenquan Zhang; Meiling Chen; Jiajun Zhang; Tianshou Zhou

doi:10.3934/dcdsb.2020254

Article Contents

2021, Volume 26, Issue 7: 3717-3735. Doi: 10.3934/dcdsb.2020254

This issue Previous Article Flocking and line-shaped spatial configuration to delayed Cucker-Smale models Next Article The coupled 1:2 resonance in a symmetric case and parametric amplification model

Analysis of non-Markovian effects in generalized birth-death models

Key Laboratory of Computational Mathematics, Guangdong Province and School of, Mathematics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China

^* Corresponding author: Tianshou Zhou
^* Corresponding author: Tianshou Zhou

Received: September 30, 2019

Revised: May 31, 2020

Early access: August 2020

Published: July 2021

Abstract Full Text(HTML) Figure(4) Related Papers Cited by

Abstract

Birth-death processes are a fundamental reaction module for which we can find its prototypes in many scientific fields. For such a kind of module, if all the reaction events are Markovian, the reaction kinetics is simple. However, experimentally observable quantities are in general consequences of a series of reactions, implying that the synthesis of a macromolecule in general involve multiple middle reaction steps with some reactions that would not be specified by experiments. This multistep process can create molecular memory between reaction events, leading to non-Markovian behavior. Based on the theoretical framework established in a recent paper published in [39], we find that the effect of non-Markovianity is equivalent to the introduction of a feedback, non-Markovianity always amplifies the mean level of the product if the death reaction is non-Markovian but always reduces the mean level if the birth reaction is non-Markovian, and in contrast to Markovianity, non-Markovianity can reduce or amplify the product noise, depending on the details of waiting-time distributions characterizing reaction events. Examples analysis indicates that non-Markovianity, whose effects were neglected in previous studies, can significantly impact gene expression.

Keywords:

Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 60G07, 60J27; Secondary: 92B05.

Citation:

Full Text(HTML)

Figure 1. Schematic diagram for birth-death reaction process (A), where $ \psi_{1} \left(t\right) $ and $ \psi_{2} \left(t;n\right) $ are interreaction waiting-time distributions, which may be exponential (B) or non-exponential (C). Here $ n $ represents the number of molecules of reactive species $ X $

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 2. Difference between dynamic probability distributions obtained in the original non-Markovian model (curves with empty circles) and in the constructed Markovian model (colored curves), both being used in the modeling of a gene transcription process. Parameter values are set as $ k_{1} = 3,\lambda_{1} = 90,\lambda_{2} = 1 $, and the initial conditions are set as the same in two cases. In the diagram, '$ t = \inf $' means that the distributions after $ t>10 $ are approximately the same, implying that the stationary distribution exists

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 3. Characteristics of stationary protein distribution in a generalized model of constitutive gene expression (A), where solid lines represent theoretical predictions and empty circles represent numerical results obtained by the Gillespie algorithm [11]. Parameter values are set as: (B) $ k_{d} = 1,\lambda_{d} = 1 $ and (C) $ k_{b} = 1,\lambda_{b} = 10 $. In (B) and (C), we use 1000 realizations to obtain numerical results and error bars to indicate the error ranges of the numerical results

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Figure 4. Characteristics of stationary protein distribution in a generalized model of bursty gene expression (A), where solid lines represent theoretical predictions and empty circles represent numerical results obtained by the Gillespie algorithm [11]. Parameter values are set as: (B) $ \mu = 10,\delta = 1 $, $ b = 2,k_{on} = 1,\lambda_{on} = 0.5,k_{off} = 1,\lambda_{off} = 0.1 $ for Markovianity, whereas $ k_{on} = 4,\lambda_{on} = 4 $ and the other parameter values are kept unchanged for non-Markovianity; (C)$ \mu = 10,\delta = 1,b = 2 $, $ k_{on} = 1,\lambda_{on} = 0.5 $, $ k_{off} = 1,\lambda_{off} = 0.1 $ for Markovianity, whereas $ k_{off} = 4,\lambda_{off} = 0.4 $ and the other parameter values are kept unchanged for non-Markovianity. In (B) and (C), we use 1000 realizations to obtain numerical results and error bars to indicate the error ranges of the numerical results

Download: Full-size image PowerPoint slide

Related Papers

Cited by

References

[1]	T. Aquino and M. Dentz, Chemical continuous time random walks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119 (2017), 230601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.230601.
[2]	A. L. Barabasi, The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics, Nature, 435 (2005), 207-211. doi: 10.1038/nature03459.
[3]	M. Barrio, K. Burrage, A. Leier and T. Tian, Oscillatory regulation of Hes1 discrete stochastic delay modelling and simulation, PLoS Comput. Biol., 2 (2006), e117.
[4]	D. Bratsun, D. Volfson, L. S. Tsimring and J. Hasty, Delay-induced stochastic oscillations in gene regulation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 102 (2005), 14593-14598. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0503858102.
[5]	T. Brett and T. Galla, Stochastic processes with distributed delays: Chemical Langevin equation and linear noise approximation, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110 (2013), 250601. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.250601.
[6]	A. Corral, Long-term clustering, scaling, and universality in the temporal occurrence of earthquakes, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92 (2004), 108501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.108501.
[7]	I. De Vega and D. Alonso, Dynamics of non-Markovian open quantum systems, Rev. Modern Phys., 89 (2017), 015001. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015001.
[8]	J. Delvenne, R. Lambiotte and L. E. C. Rocha, Diffusion on networked systems is a question of time or structure, Nat. Commun., 6 (2015), 1-10. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8366.
[9]	W. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, Vol. 2, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2008.
[10]	C. W. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.
[11]	D. T. Gillespie, A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions, J. Comput. Phys., 22 (1976), 403-434. doi: 10.1016/0021-9991(76)90041-3.
[12]	J. P. Gleeson, K. P. OŚullivan, R. A. Baños and Y. Moreno, Effects of network structure, competition and memory time on social spreading phenomena, Phys. Rev. X, 6 (2016), 021019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.021019.
[13]	T. Guérin, O. Bénichou and R. Voituriez, Non-Markovian polymer reaction kinetics, Nat. Chem., 4 (2012), 568-573.
[14]	C. V. Harper, B. Finkenstädt, D. J. Woodcock, S. Friedrichsen, S. Semprini, L. Ashall, et al., Dynamic analysis of stochastic transcription cycles, PLoS Biol., 9 (2011), e1000607. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000607.
[15]	H. W. Hethcote and P. v. d. Driessche, A SIS epidemic model with variable population size and a delay, J. Math. Biol., 34 (1995), 177-194. doi: 10.1007/BF00178772.
[16]	J. C. Jaeger and G. Newstead, An Introduction to the Laplace Transformation with Engineering Applications, Methuen & Co., Ltd., London, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1949.
[17]	T. Jia and R. V. Kulkarni, Intrinsic noise in stochastic models of gene expression with molecular memory, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106 (2011), 058102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.058102.
[18]	H. H. Jo, J. I. Perotti, K. Kaski and J. Kertész, Analytically solvable model of spreading dynamics with non-Poissonian processes, Phys. Rev. X, 4 (2014), 011041. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.4.011041.
[19]	I. Z. Kiss, G. Röst and Z. Vizi, Generalization of pairwise models to non-Markovian epidemics on networks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115 (2015), 078701. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.078701.
[20]	N. Kumar, A. Singh and R. V. Kulkarni, Transcriptional bursting in gene expression: Analytical results for general stochastic models, PLoS Comput. Biol., 11 (2015), e1004292. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004292.
[21]	D. R. Larson, What do expression dynamics tell us about the mechanism of transcription?, Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 21 (2011), 591-599. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2011.07.010.
[22]	N. Masuda, M. A. Porter and R. Lambiotte, Random walks and diffusion on networks, Phys. Rep., 716 (2017), 1-58. doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.07.007.
[23]	A. S. Novozhilov, G. P. Karev and E. V. Koonin, Biological applications of the theory of birth-and-death processes, Briefings in Bioinformatics, 7 (2006), 70-85. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbk006.
[24]	E. Pardoux, Markov Processes and Applications: Algorithms, Networks, Genome and Finance, Vol. 796, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2008. doi: 10.1002/9780470721872.
[25]	J. Peccoud and B. Ycart, Markovian modeling of gene product synthesis, Theor. Popul. Biol., 48 (1995), 222-234. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.1995.1027.
[26]	J. M. Pedraza and J. Paulsson, Effects of molecular memory and bursting on fluctuations in gene expression, Science, 319 (2008), 339-343. doi: 10.1126/science.1144331.
[27]	A. Raj, C. S. Peskin, D. Tranchina, D. Y. Vargas and S. Tyagi, Stochastic mRNA synthesis in mammalian cells, PLoS Biol., 4 (2006), e309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040309.
[28]	M. Salathé, M. Kazandjieva, J. W. Lee, P. Levis, M. W. Feldman and J. H. Jones, A high-resolution human contact network for infectious disease transmission, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 107 (2010), 22020-22025.
[29]	I. Scholtes, N. Wider, R. Pfitzner, A. Garas, C. J. Tessone and F. Schweitzer, Causality-driven slow-down and speed-up of diffusion in non-Markovian temporal networks, Nat. Commun., 5 (2014), 1-9. doi: 10.1038/ncomms6024.
[30]	A. Schwabe, K. N. Rybakova and F. J. Bruggeman, Transcription stochasticity of complex gene regulation models, Biophys. J., 103 (2012), 1152-1161. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2012.07.011.
[31]	V. Shahrezaei and P. S. Swain, Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105 (2008), 17256-17261. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0803850105.
[32]	M. Starnini, J. P. Gleeson and M. Boguñá, Equivalence between non-Markovian and Markovian dynamics in epidemic spreading processes, Phys. Rev. Lett., 118 (2017), 128301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.128301.
[33]	P. S. Stumpf, R. C. Smith, M. Lenz, A. Schuppert, F. J. Müller, A. Babtie, T. E. Chan, M. P. Stumpf, C. P. Please, S. D. Howison, F. Arai and B. D. MacArthur, Stem cell differentiation as a non-Markov stochastic process, Cell Syst., 5 (2017), 268-282. doi: 10.1016/j.cels.2017.08.009.
[34]	D. M. Suter, N. Molina, D. Gatfield, K. Schneider, U. Schibler and F. Naef, Mammalian genes are transcribed with widely different bursting kinetics, Science, 332 (2011), 472-474. doi: 10.1126/science.1198817.
[35]	P. Thomas, N. Popović and R. Grima, Phenotypic switching in gene regulatory networks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111 (2014), 6994-6999. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1400049111.
[36]	N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2007.
[37]	P. Van Mieghem and R. Van de Bovenkamp, Non-Markovian infection spread dramatically alters the susceptible-infected-susceptible epidemic threshold in networks, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110 (2013), 108701. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.108701.
[38]	J. J. Zhang and T. S. Zhou, Promoter-mediated transcriptional dynamics, Biophys. J., 106 (2014), 479-488. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.12.011.
[39]	J. J. Zhang and T. S. Zhou, Markovian approaches to modeling intracellular reaction processes with molecular memory, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116 (2019), 23542-23550. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913926116.
[40]	J. J. Zhang, Q. Nie and T. S. Zhou, A moment-convergence method for stochastic analysis of biochemical reaction networks, J. Chem. Phys., 144 (2016), 194109. doi: 10.1063/1.4950767.