The relation between crosstalk and gene regulation form revisited.
Journal
PLoS computational biology
ISSN: 1553-7358
Titre abrégé: PLoS Comput Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101238922
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2019
accepted:
08
01
2020
revised:
06
03
2020
pubmed:
26
2
2020
medline:
7
5
2020
entrez:
26
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Genes differ in the frequency at which they are expressed and in the form of regulation used to control their activity. In particular, positive or negative regulation can lead to activation of a gene in response to an external signal. Previous works proposed that the form of regulation of a gene correlates with its frequency of usage: positive regulation when the gene is frequently expressed and negative regulation when infrequently expressed. Such network design means that, in the absence of their regulators, the genes are found in their least required activity state, hence regulatory intervention is often necessary. Due to the multitude of genes and regulators, spurious binding and unbinding events, called "crosstalk", could occur. To determine how the form of regulation affects the global crosstalk in the network, we used a mathematical model that includes multiple regulators and multiple target genes. We found that crosstalk depends non-monotonically on the availability of regulators. Our analysis showed that excess use of regulation entailed by the formerly suggested network design caused high crosstalk levels in a large part of the parameter space. We therefore considered the opposite 'idle' design, where the default unregulated state of genes is their frequently required activity state. We found, that 'idle' design minimized the use of regulation and thus minimized crosstalk. In addition, we estimated global crosstalk of S. cerevisiae using transcription factors binding data. We demonstrated that even partial network data could suffice to estimate its global crosstalk, suggesting its applicability to additional organisms. We found that S. cerevisiae estimated crosstalk is lower than that of a random network, suggesting that natural selection reduces crosstalk. In summary, our study highlights a new type of protein production cost which is typically overlooked: that of regulatory interference caused by the presence of excess regulators in the cell. It demonstrates the importance of whole-network descriptions, which could show effects missed by single-gene models.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32097416
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007642
pii: PCOMPBIOL-D-19-00452
pmc: PMC7059967
doi:
Substances chimiques
Transcription Factors
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1007642Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Bacteriol. 2001 Jan;183(2):545-56
pubmed: 11133948
Mol Microbiol. 1996 Jul;21(1):1-4
pubmed: 8843428
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1977 Dec;74(12):5647-51
pubmed: 271992
Mol Biol Evol. 2003 Jun;20(6):901-6
pubmed: 12716998
FEBS Lett. 1995 Dec 18;377(2):98-102
pubmed: 8543068
Cell. 2005 Dec 16;123(6):1025-36
pubmed: 16360033
Genome Biol. 2006;7(7):R62
pubmed: 16859509
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Feb 1;41(4):e52
pubmed: 23258699
Nat Methods. 2014 Feb;11(2):163-6
pubmed: 24363023
Genetics. 1998 Aug;149(4):1665-76
pubmed: 9691027
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Mar 14;103(11):3999-4004
pubmed: 16537475
Mol Syst Biol. 2011 Nov 08;7:548
pubmed: 22068331
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1986 Mar;83(6):1608-12
pubmed: 3456604
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 2;106(22):8841-6
pubmed: 19470486
J Mol Biol. 1985 Jan 20;181(2):211-30
pubmed: 3157005
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Sep;86(17):6513-7
pubmed: 2771938
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005 Apr;15(2):116-24
pubmed: 15797194
Mol Syst Biol. 2013 Apr 16;9:660
pubmed: 23591776
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 06;8(8):e70444
pubmed: 23936433
PLoS Comput Biol. 2014 Jul 10;10(7):e1003683
pubmed: 25010228
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1957 Jul 15;43(7):553-66
pubmed: 16590055
Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Jun;8(6):450-61
pubmed: 17510665
Nat Commun. 2017 Jul 10;8:16009
pubmed: 28691706
Trends Genet. 2009 Oct;25(10):434-40
pubmed: 19815308
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Jun;71(6):2453-5
pubmed: 4601590
Nature. 2003 Oct 16;425(6959):737-41
pubmed: 14562106
Mol Biosyst. 2016 Feb;12(2):421-30
pubmed: 26627179
Mol Cell. 2010 Jun 11;38(5):758-67
pubmed: 20434381
Cell Rep. 2016 Jan 5;14(1):22-31
pubmed: 26725116
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 Jan;40(Database issue):D162-8
pubmed: 22140105
Science. 2014 Feb 21;343(6173):875-7
pubmed: 24558158
Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Jan 7;275(1630):91-100
pubmed: 17971325
Trends Genet. 2005 Feb;21(2):93-102
pubmed: 15661355
Cell. 2015 Oct 22;163(3):594-606
pubmed: 26478181
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jan 18;91(2):757-61
pubmed: 8290596
PLoS Genet. 2012;8(3):e1002614
pubmed: 22496663
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 7;12(7):e0179235
pubmed: 28686609
Biophys J. 2009 Jan;96(2):609-20
pubmed: 19167308
J Mol Evol. 1983;19(6):455-62
pubmed: 6361271
Nat Commun. 2017 Aug 9;8(1):216
pubmed: 28790313
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1983 Mar;80(5):1411-5
pubmed: 6219393
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Sep 17;99(19):12015-20
pubmed: 12218191
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Dec 2;111(48):17140-5
pubmed: 25313048
Mol Biol Cell. 2000 Dec;11(12):4241-57
pubmed: 11102521
Science. 2007 Jan 12;315(5809):233-7
pubmed: 17218526
Nat Biotechnol. 2010 Sep;28(9):970-5
pubmed: 20802496
Phys Life Rev. 2016 Jul;17:124-58
pubmed: 27365153
BMC Genomics. 2006 Sep 19;7:239
pubmed: 16984633
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Sep 27;8 Suppl 6:S7
pubmed: 17903288
Nat Commun. 2016 Aug 04;7:12307
pubmed: 27489144
J Bacteriol. 1999 Oct;181(20):6425-40
pubmed: 10515934
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 18;107(20):9158-63
pubmed: 20439748
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1974 Dec;71(12):4808-12
pubmed: 4612528
Nature. 2005 Jul 28;436(7050):588-92
pubmed: 16049495
Mol Cell. 2012 May 25;46(4):399-407
pubmed: 22633488
Genome Biol. 2005;6(7):R61
pubmed: 15998450
Nat Commun. 2018 Apr 18;9(1):1530
pubmed: 29670097