Stability in the multiple futile cycle

In a previous post I described the multiple futile cycle, where a protein can be phosphorylated up to n times. About ten years ago Wang and Sontag proved that with a suitable choice of parameters this system has 2k+1 steady states. Here k denotes the integral part of n/2. The question of the stability of these steady states was left open. On an intuitive level it is easy to have the picture that stable steady states and saddle points should alternate. This suggests that there should be k+1 stable states and k saddles. On the other hand it is not clear where this intuition comes from and it is very doubtful whether it is reliable in a high-dimensional dynamical system. I have thought about this issue for several years now. I had some ideas but was not able to implement them in practise. Now, together with Elisenda Feliu and Carsten Wiuf, we have written a paper where we prove that indeed there are parameters for which there exist steady states with the stability properties suggested by the intuitive picture.

How can information about the relative stability of steady states be obtained by analytical calculations? For this it is good if the steady states are close together so that their stability can be investigated by local calculations. One way they can be guaranteed to be close together is if they all originate in a single bifurcation as a parameter is varied. This is the first thing we arranged in our proof. The next observation is that the intuition I have been talking about is based on thinking in one dimension. In a one-dimensional dynamical system alternating stability of steady states does happen, provided degenerate situations are avoided. Thus it is helpful if the centre manifold at the bifurcation is one-dimensional. This is the second thing we arranged in our proof. To get the particular kind of alternating stability mentioned above we also need the condition that the flow is contracting towards the centre manifold. I had previously solved the case n=2 of this problem with Juliette Hell but we had no success in extending it to larger values of n. The calculations became unmanageable. One advantage of the case n=2 is that the bifurcation there was a cusp and certain calculations are done in great generality in textbooks. These are based on the presence of a one-dimensional centre manifold but it turns out to be more efficient for our specific problem to make this explicit.

The general structure of the proof is that we first reduce the multiple futile cycle, which has mass action kinetics, to a Michaelis-Menten system which is much smaller. This reduction is well-behaved in the sense of geometric singular perturbation theory (GSPT), since the eigenvalues of a certain matrix are negative. With this in place steady states can be lifted from the Michaelis-Menten system to the full system while preserving their stability properties. The bifurcation arguments mentioned above are then applied to the Michaelis-Menten system.

The end result of the ideas discussed so far is that the original analytical problem is reduced to three algebraic problems. The first is the statement about the eigenvalues required for the application of GSPT. This was obtained for the case n=2 in my work with Juliette but we had no idea how to extend it to higher values of n. The second is to analyse the eigenvalues of the linearization of the system about the bifurcation point. What we want is that two eigenvalues are zero and that all others have negative real parts. (One zero eigenvalue arises because there is a conservation law while the second corresponds to the one-dimensional centre manifold.) There are many parameters which can be varied when choosing the bifurcation point and a key observation is that this choice can be made in such a way that the linearization is a symmetric matrix, which is very convenient for studying eigenvalues. The third problem is to determine the leading order coefficient which determines the stability of the bifurcation point within the centre manifold.

I started to do parts of the algebra and I would describe it as being like entering a jungle with a machete. I was able to find a direction to proceed and show that some progress could be made but I very soon got stuck. Fortunately my coauthors came and built a reliable road to the final goal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: