Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages (September 2017)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Engineering of Biological Processes Lecture 6: Modeling metabolism Mark Riley, Associate Professor Department of Ag and Biosystems Engineering The University.
Advertisements

Chapter 15 (abbreviated): Principles of Metabolic Regulation
(Unit 6) Formulas and Definitions:. Association. A connection between data values.
ENZYMES: KINETICS, INHIBITION, REGULATION
Control of Metabolic Pathways (2)
11/17/2018 Time Hierarchy is Important in Control! Relaxation Times of Different Cellular Processes First focus on time processes for enzyme activity or.
Strategy Description Discovery Validation Application
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages (February 1998)
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (December 2017)
Masahiro Ueda, Tatsuo Shibata  Biophysical Journal 
Volume 20, Issue 13, Pages (September 2017)
Ruth B. McCole, Jelena Erceg, Wren Saylor, Chao-ting Wu  Cell Reports 
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages (July 2016)
ppGpp Controls Global Gene Expression in Light and in Darkness in S
Computational Re-design of Synthetic Genetic Oscillators for Independent Amplitude and Frequency Modulation  Marios Tomazou, Mauricio Barahona, Karen.
Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages e5 (May 2018)
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 21, Issue 11, Pages (December 2017)
Volume 12, Issue 11, Pages (September 2015)
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages (December 2015)
Leigh K. Harris, Julie A. Theriot  Trends in Microbiology 
A Statistical Description of Plant Shoot Architecture
Defining Network Topologies that Can Achieve Biochemical Adaptation
Uniform Sampling of Steady-State Flux Spaces: Means to Design Experiments and to Interpret Enzymopathies  Nathan D. Price, Jan Schellenberger, Bernhard.
Volume 1, Issue 4, Pages (October 2015)
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages (February 2012)
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages (April 2018)
Shuhei S. Sugai, Koji L. Ode, Hiroki R. Ueda  Cell Reports 
Transcriptional Landscape of Cardiomyocyte Maturation
A Statistical Description of Plant Shoot Architecture
Volume 11, Issue 6, Pages (May 2015)
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages (July 2013)
Understanding Tissue-Specific Gene Regulation
The Convex Basis of the Left Null Space of the Stoichiometric Matrix Leads to the Definition of Metabolically Meaningful Pools  Iman Famili, Bernhard.
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages (October 2016)
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages (January 2003)
Michał Komorowski, Jacek Miękisz, Michael P.H. Stumpf 
Nachiket Shembekar, Hongxing Hu, David Eustace, Christoph A. Merten 
Integrative Multi-omic Analysis of Human Platelet eQTLs Reveals Alternative Start Site in Mitofusin 2  Lukas M. Simon, Edward S. Chen, Leonard C. Edelstein,
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages (February 2016)
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages (May 2018)
Targeting Bacterial Central Metabolism for Drug Development
Pan-Cancer Analysis of Mutation Hotspots in Protein Domains
Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages (May 2014)
Volume 8, Issue 5, Pages (September 2014)
Ingunn W. Jolma, Xiao Yu Ni, Ludger Rensing, Peter Ruoff 
Grid and Nongrid Cells in Medial Entorhinal Cortex Represent Spatial Location and Environmental Features with Complementary Coding Schemes  Geoffrey W.
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages (November 2013)
Defining Network Topologies that Can Achieve Biochemical Adaptation
Mode of Regulation and the Insulation of Bacterial Gene Expression
Carbohydrate response element binding protein, ChREBP, a transcription factor coupling hepatic glucose utilization and lipid synthesis  Kosaku Uyeda,
Predicting Gene Expression from Sequence
The I182 Region of Kir6.2 Is Closely Associated with Ligand Binding in KATP Channel Inhibition by ATP  Lehong Li, Jing Wang, Peter Drain  Biophysical.
Leigh K. Harris, Julie A. Theriot  Trends in Microbiology 
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages (October 2016)
Ensemble Modeling of Metabolic Networks
Application of Singular Value Decomposition to the Analysis of Time-Resolved Macromolecular X-Ray Data  Marius Schmidt, Sudarshan Rajagopal, Zhong Ren,
Functional metabolic rearrangements in chloramphenicol‐resistant populations Functional metabolic rearrangements in chloramphenicol‐resistant populations.
Brandon Ho, Anastasia Baryshnikova, Grant W. Brown  Cell Systems 
Carbohydrate response element binding protein, ChREBP, a transcription factor coupling hepatic glucose utilization and lipid synthesis  Kosaku Uyeda,
Maria S. Robles, Sean J. Humphrey, Matthias Mann  Cell Metabolism 
Volume 24, Issue 10, Pages (September 2018)
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages (April 2015)
Karin J. Jensen, Christian B. Moyer, Kevin A. Janes  Cell Systems 
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages e7 (September 2018)
Robustness of Cellular Functions
Mass Action Stoichiometric Simulation Models: Incorporating Kinetics and Regulation into Stoichiometric Models  Neema Jamshidi, Bernhard Ø. Palsson  Biophysical.
Inferred promoter–metabolite regulation network (Table EV7)
Features of Selective Kinase Inhibitors
Mutational Analysis of Ionizing Radiation Induced Neoplasms
Presentation transcript:

Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages 2666-2677 (September 2017) Genome-Scale Architecture of Small Molecule Regulatory Networks and the Fundamental Trade-Off between Regulation and Enzymatic Activity  Ed Reznik, Dimitris Christodoulou, Joshua E. Goldford, Emma Briars, Uwe Sauer, Daniel Segrè, Elad Noor  Cell Reports  Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages 2666-2677 (September 2017) DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066 Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Framework for Reconstruction and Analysis of the Small Molecule Regulatory Network The BRENDA and BioCyc database were mined for each reaction taking place in E. coli. The identified entries (including data on EC numbers, enzyme names, activating or inhibiting small molecule-enzyme interactions, metabolite names, and KM and KI values) were stored and then matched by EC number to reactions in the most recent genome-scale reconstruction of E. coli, iJO1366. This dataset was searched and analyzed for regulatory small molecules, yielding a comprehensive SMRN. The SMRN was used as the primary resource for the remainder of the analysis. We analyzed the topological properties of the SMRN, evaluated the similarities and differences in the kinetic properties of reactions and interactions, and used published metabolite concentration data in order to evaluate the functional role of inhibitory small molecule-enzyme interactions. Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Overview of Small Molecule Interactions from the BRENDA (A and B) Statistics of the computationally reconstructed E. coli SMRN, covering the proportions (A) of 1,039 E. coli metabolites that are inhibitors, activators, or both and (B) of 669 E. coli enzymatic reactions that are inhibited, activated, or both. (C and D) Scatterplots depicting the number of activating and inhibiting interactions in which (C) each metabolite and (D) each reaction participates. Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Small Molecule Regulatory Network of E. coli Central Carbon Metabolism Depiction of the small molecule regulatory interactions in the central carbon metabolism of E. coli. Red metabolites are inhibitors and green metabolites are activators of the indicated reactions. Another view of this SMRN is given in Figure S3, showing clearly which reactions are inhibited, activated, or both. Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Thermodynamics, Saturation, and Elasticity of Small Molecule Regulatory Interactions in E. coli (A and B) Comparison of reversibility indices (Γ) (Noor et al., 2012) between regulated and unregulated reactions. |log10(Γ)| reflects how much freedom the reactants’ concentrations need for reversing the flux. For instance, a reaction whose |log10(Γ)| > 3 would require a concentration range of at least 1:103 (e.g., 30 μM–30 mM) in order to reverse its direction. Physiological constraints typically limit this range to 103–104. (A) shows the cumulative distribution of |log10(Γ)| for all reactions in the E. coli model for which an equilibrium constant could be computed using component contributions (Noor et al., 2013). This means that 60%–70% of reactions are reversible, with virtually no regard to whether they are regulated or not. The difference between the distribution of |log10(Γ)| for regulated and unregulated reactions is not significant (Mann-Whitney U test, p value < 0.5). In (B), we focus only on reactions in central carbon metabolism, where the difference is not significant either (p value < 0.3). (C) The distribution of measured metabolite concentrations, where the peak value is slightly below ∼1 mM. (D) The histograms of KM and KI values are significantly different (Mann-Whitney U test, p value < 0.005). For a more detailed comparison on a single-metabolite basis, see Figure S6. (E and F) Conversion of measured binding constants to saturation levels using measurements of metabolite concentrations across 13 conditions further highlights the difference between substrates (KM values) and inhibitors (KI values) (Mann-Whitney U test, p value < 10−72). When comparing the distributions of scaled elasticities (F), we find that inhibitors have significantly higher values (p value < 10−44), and they seem to have a bimodal distribution that is split exactly at 0.5. Note that the absolute elasticity value for inhibitors is exactly equal to the saturation, therefore, the blue histogram is the same in (E) and (F). For substrates, however, the elasticity is equal to 1 minus the saturation, so the red histogram in (F) is the mirror image of the one in (E). Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 5 Functional Role of Small Molecule-Enzyme Interactions in Central Metabolism (A) The opposing relationship between elasticity and concentration for a prototypical substrate or inhibitor. In general, substrates have high elasticity at low concentrations, while inhibitors have high elasticity at high concentrations. (B) A heatmap of the median values of each metabolite’s elasticity values across all enzymes that utilize it as a substrate (left-hand side) and across all enzymes inhibited by it (right-hand side). The different columns correspond to different growth conditions (batch growth on minimal media with single carbon sources, samples in mid-exponential phase). Saturation levels were calculated using the formula [S]/([S] + KS), where KS is either the Michaelis-Menten coefficient (KM) or the inhibition constant (KI), and, in turn, elasticities were calculated as described in the text. The numbers next to each metabolite in parentheses count the number of different KM or KI values, respectively, that a metabolite has in our database (for different reactions). If a metabolite has more than one KM or KI value (i.e., for more than one enzyme), the median of all elasticities is shown. For more details, see Figure S5 and Tables S5, S6, S7, and S8. Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 6 Small Molecule Regulation across Kingdoms of Life The BRENDA was mined for all reports of small molecule regulatory interactions across all species. These interactions were aggregated by unique metabolite-reaction pairs. For each interaction evident in at least 10 different organisms and supported by evidence from at least 10 different published studies, manual curation of the results followed. We identified the broad phylogenetic taxon within which the interaction was present. Nearly all conserved interactions are inhibitory, with three exceptions: the activation of phosphofructokinase by three metabolites (AMP, ADP, and fructose-2,6-bisphosphate), the activation of PEP carboxylase by G6P, and the activation of pyruvate kinase by FDP. Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions

Figure 7 Combined Architecture of Direct Small Molecule and Indirect Transcriptional Regulation via Endogenous Metabolites in E. coli A map of the reactions in central carbon metabolism that are regulated directly or indirectly by metabolite(s). On the left are reactions that are reported to have at least one metabolite-enzyme interaction. The middle diagram indicates reactions that are indirectly regulated by metabolites via transcription; in each case, the reaction is regulated by transcription factors that are recipients of metabolic signals (i.e., Cra-FDP and Crp-cAMP), as reported in Kochanowski et al. (2017). Some reactions, e.g., those in intermediate glycolysis, are regulated exclusively by transcription. The map on the right overlays small molecule and transcriptional regulation. Cell Reports 2017 20, 2666-2677DOI: (10.1016/j.celrep.2017.08.066) Copyright © 2017 The Authors Terms and Conditions