Dynamics of a minimal model of interlocked positive and negative feedback loops of transcriptional regulation by cAMP-response element binding proteins.

cAMP-response element binding (CREB) proteins are involved in transcriptional regulation in a number of cellular processes (e.g., neural plasticity and circadian rhythms). The CREB family contains activators and repressors that may interact through positive and negative feedback loops. These loops can be generated by auto- and cross-regulation of expression of CREB proteins, via CRE elements in or near their genes. Experiments suggest that such feedback loops may operate in several systems (e.g., Aplysia and rat). To understand the functional implications of such feedback loops, which are interlocked via cross-regulation of transcription, a minimal model with a positive and negative loop was developed and investigated using bifurcation analysis. Bifurcation analysis revealed diverse nonlinear dynamics (e.g., bistability and oscillations). The stability of steady states or oscillations could be changed by time delays in the synthesis of the activator (CREB1) or the repressor (CREB2). Investigation of stochastic fluctuations due to small numbers of molecules of CREB1 and CREB2 revealed a bimodal distribution of CREB molecules in the bistability region. The robustness of the stable HIGH and LOW states of CREB expression to stochastic noise differs, and a critical number of molecules was required to sustain the HIGH state for days or longer. Increasing positive feedback or decreasing negative feedback also increased the lifetime of the HIGH state, and persistence of this state may correlate with long-term memory formation. A critical number of molecules was also required to sustain robust oscillations of CREB expression. If a steady state was near a deterministic Hopf bifurcation point, stochastic resonance could induce oscillations. This comparative analysis of deterministic and stochastic dynamics not only provides insights into the possible dynamics of CREB regulatory motifs, but also demonstrates a framework for understanding other regulatory processes with similar network architecture.

A model of the roles of essential kinases in the induction and expression of late long-term potentiation.

The induction of late long-term potentiation (L-LTP) involves complex interactions among second-messenger cascades. To gain insights into these interactions, a mathematical model was developed for L-LTP induction in the CA1 region of the hippocampus. The differential equation-based model represents actions of protein kinase A (PKA), MAP kinase (MAPK), and CaM kinase II (CAMKII) in the vicinity of the synapse, and activation of transcription by CaM kinase IV (CAMKIV) and MAPK. L-LTP is represented by increases in a synaptic weight. Simulations suggest that steep, supralinear stimulus-response relationships between stimuli (e.g., elevations in [Ca(2+)]) and kinase activation are essential for translating brief stimuli into long-lasting gene activation and synaptic weight increases. Convergence of multiple kinase activities to induce L-LTP helps to generate a threshold whereby the amount of L-LTP varies steeply with the number of brief (tetanic) electrical stimuli. The model simulates tetanic, -burst, pairing-induced, and chemical L-LTP, as well as L-LTP due to synaptic tagging. The model also simulates inhibition of L-LTP by inhibition of MAPK, CAMKII, PKA, or CAMKIV. The model predicts results of experiments to delineate mechanisms underlying L-LTP induction and expression. For example, the cAMP antagonist RpcAMPs, which inhibits L-LTP induction, is predicted to inhibit ERK activation. The model also appears useful to clarify similarities and differences between hippocampal L-LTP and long-term synaptic strengthening in other systems.

Dynamics of a minimal model of interlocked positive and negative feedback loops of transcriptional regulation by cAMP-response element binding proteins.

cAMP-response element binding (CREB) proteins are involved in transcriptional regulation in a number of cellular processes (e.g., neural plasticity and circadian rhythms). The CREB family contains activators and repressors that may interact through positive and negative feedback loops. These loops can be generated by auto- and cross-regulation of expression of CREB proteins, via CRE elements in or near their genes. Experiments suggest that such feedback loops may operate in several systems (e.g., Aplysia and rat). To understand the functional implications of such feedback loops, which are interlocked via cross-regulation of transcription, a minimal model with a positive and negative loop was developed and investigated using bifurcation analysis. Bifurcation analysis revealed diverse nonlinear dynamics (e.g., bistability and oscillations). The stability of steady states or oscillations could be changed by time delays in the synthesis of the activator (CREB1) or the repressor (CREB2). Investigation of stochastic fluctuations due to small numbers of molecules of CREB1 and CREB2 revealed a bimodal distribution of CREB molecules in the bistability region. The robustness of the stable HIGH and LOW states of CREB expression to stochastic noise differs, and a critical number of molecules was required to sustain the HIGH state for days or longer. Increasing positive feedback or decreasing negative feedback also increased the lifetime of the HIGH state, and persistence of this state may correlate with long-term memory formation. A critical number of molecules was also required to sustain robust oscillations of CREB expression. If a steady state was near a deterministic Hopf bifurcation point, stochastic resonance could induce oscillations. This comparative analysis of deterministic and stochastic dynamics not only provides insights into the possible dynamics of CREB regulatory motifs, but also demonstrates a framework for understanding other regulatory processes with similar network architecture.

The two -state model of receptor activation: The agonist and the efficacy

The Two State model describes how drugs activate receptors by inducing or supporting a conformational change in the receptor from “off” to “on”. The beta 2 adrenergic receptor system is the model system which was used to formalize the concept of two states, and the mechanism of hormone agonist stimulation of this receptor is similar to ligand activation of other seven transmembrane receptors. Hormone binding to beta 2 adrenergic receptors stimulates the intracellular production of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), which is mediated through the stimulatory guanyl nucleotide binding protein (Gs) interacting with the membrane bound enzyme adenylylcyclase (AC). ^ The effects of cAMP include protein phosphorylation, metabolic regulation and transcriptional regulation. The beta 2 adrenergic receptor system is the most well known of its family of G protein coupled receptors. Ligands have been scrutinized extensively in search of more effective therapeutic agents at this receptor as well as for insight into the biochemical mechanism of receptor activation. Hormone binding to receptor is thought to induce a conformational change in the receptor that increases its affinity for inactive Gs, catalyzes the release of GDP and subsequent binding of GTP and activation of Gs. ^ However, some beta 2 ligands are more efficient at this transformation than others, and the underlying mechanism for this drug specificity is not fully understood. The central problem in pharmacology is the characterization of drugs in their effect on physiological systems, and consequently, the search for a rational scale of drug effectiveness has been the effort of many investigators, which continues to the present time as models are proposed, tested and modified. ^ The major results of this thesis show that for many b2 -adrenergic ligands, the Two State model is quite adequate to explain their activity, but dobutamine (+/−3,4-dihydroxy-N-[3-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methylpropyl]- b -phenethylamine) fails to conform to the predictions of the Two State model. It is a weak partial agonist, but it forms a large amount of high affinity complexes, and these complexes are formed at low concentrations much better than at higher concentrations. Finally, dobutamine causes the beta 2 adrenergic receptor to form high affinity complexes at a much faster rate than can be accounted for by its low efficiency activating AC. Because the Two State model fails to predict the activity of dobutamine in three different ways, it has been disproven in its strictest form. ^