In previous posts in this series I introduced some models for the Calvin cycle of photosynthesis and mentioned some open questions concerning them. I have now written a paper where on the one hand I survey a number of mathematical models for the Calvin cycle and the relations between them and on the other hand I am able to provide answers to some of the open questions. One question was that of the definition of the Pettersson model. As I indicated previously this was not clear from the literature. My answer to the question is that this system should be treated as a system of DAE (differential-algebraic equations). In other words it can be written as a set of ODE coupled to a set of algebraic equations . In general it is not clear that this type of system is locally well-posed. In other words, given a pair with it is not clear whether there is a solution of the system, local in time, with and . Of course if the partial derivative of with repect to is invertible it follows by the implicit function theorem that is locally equivalent to a relation and the original system is equivalent to . Then local well-posedness is clear. The calculations in the 1988 paper of Pettersson and Ryde-Pettersson indicate that this should be true for the Pettersson model but there are details missing in the paper and I have not (yet) been able to supply these. The conservative strategy is then to stick to the DAE picture. Then we do not have a basis for studying the dynamics but at least we have a well-defined system of equations and it is meaningful to discuss its steady states.

I was able to prove that there are parameter values for which the Pettersson model has at least two distinct positive steady states. In doing this I was helped by an earlier (1987) paper of Pettersson and Ryde-Pettersson. The idea is to shut off the process of storage as starch so as to get a subnetwork. If two steady states can be obtained for this modified system we may be able to get steady states for the original system using the implicit function theorem. There are some more complications but the a key step in the proof is the one just described. So how do we get steady states for the modified system? The idea is to solve many of the equations explicitly so that the problem reduces to a single equation for one unknown, the concentration of DHAP. (When applying the implicit function theorem we have to use a system of two equations for two unknowns.) In the end we are left with a quadratic equation and we can arrange for the coefficients in that equation to have convenient properties by choosing the parameters in the dynamical system suitably. This approach can be put in a wider context using the concept of stoichiometric generators but the proof is not logically dependent on using the theory of those objects.

Having got some information about the Pettersson model we may ask what happens when we go over to the Poolman model. The Poolman model is a system of ODE from the start and so we do not have any conceptual problems in that case. The method of construction of steady states can be adapted rather easily so as to apply to the system of DAE related to the Poolman model (let us call it the reduced Poolman model since it can be expressed as a singular limit of the Poolman model). The result is that there are parameter values for which the reduced Poolman model has at least three steady states. Whether the Poolman model itself can have three steady states is not yet clear since it is not clear whether the transverse eigenvalues (in the sense of GSPT) are all non-zero.

By analogy with known facts the following intuitive picture can be developed. Note, however, that this intuition has not yet been confirmed by proofs. In the picture one of the positive steady states of the Pettersson model is stable and the other unstable. Steady states on the boundary where some concentrations are zero are stable. Under the perturbation from the Pettersson model to the reduced Poolman model an additional stable positive steady state bifurcates from the boundary and joins the other two. This picture may be an oversimplification but I hope that it contains some grain of truth.

September 19, 2016 at 3:17 pm |

Hi Alan, saw your email but it mysteriously vanished before I could reply. Will you be at the forthcoming ISGSB meeting in Jena?

Mark