Mathematical model of the cell division cycle of fission yeast. (English) Zbl 0992.92022

Novak, Bela; Pataki, Zsuzsa; Ciliberto, Andrea; Tyson, John J.

Chaos 11, No. 1, 277-286 (2001).

Summary: Much is known about the genes and proteins controlling the cell cycle of fission yeast. Can these molecular components be spun together into a consistent mechanism that accounts for the observed behavior of growth and division in fission yeast cells? To answer this question, we propose a mechanism for the control system, convert it into a set of 14 differential and algebraic equations, study these equations by numerical simulation and bifurcation theory, and compare our results to the physiology of wild-type and mutant cells.
In wild-type cells, progress through the cell cycle \((\text{G1}\to\text{S}\to\text{G2}\to\text{M})\) is related to cyclic progression around a hysteresis loop, driven by cell growth and chromosome alignment on the metaphase plate. However, the control system operates much differently in double-mutant cells, wee1, cdc25\(\Delta\) which are defective in progress through the latter half of the cell cycle (G2 and M phases). These cells exhibit ‘quantized’ cycles (interdivision times clustering around 90, 160, and 230 min). We show that these quantized cycles are associated with a supercritical Hopf bifurcation in the mechanism, when the wee1 and cdc25 genes are disabled.

MSC:

92C37	Cell biology
93C95	Application models in control theory
65C20	Probabilistic models, generic numerical methods in probability and statistics

References:

[1]	A. Murray and T. Hunt,The Cell Cycle(W. H. Freeman, New York, 1993).
[2]	Kohn, Mol. Biol. Cell 10 pp 2703– (1999)
[3]	Chen, Mol. Biol. Cell 11 pp 369– (2000)
[4]	Nurse, Nature (London) 344 pp 503– (1990)
[5]	Fisher, Semin. Cell Biol. 6 pp 73– (1995)
[6]	Nasmyth, Trends Genet. 12 pp 405– (1996)
[7]	Hayles, Cell 78 pp 813– (1994)
[8]	Fisher, EMBO J. 15 pp 850– (1996)
[9]	Stern, Trends Genet. 12 pp 345– (1996)
[10]	Zachariae, Genes Dev. 13 pp 2039– (1999)
[11]	Yamaguchi, EMBO J. 19 pp 3968– (2000)
[12]	Blanco, EMBO J. 19 pp 3945– (2000)
[13]	Novak, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 353 pp 2063– (1998)
[14]	Yamaguchi, Mol. Biol. Cell 8 pp 2475– (1997)
[15]	Kitamura, Mol. Biol. Cell 9 pp 1065– (1998)
[16]	Moreno, Nature (London) 367 pp 236– (1994)
[17]	Correabordes, Cell 83 pp 1001– (1995)
[18]	Martin-Castellanos, EMBO J. 15 pp 839– (1996)
[19]	Benito, EMBO J. 17 pp 482– (1998)
[20]	Martin-Castellanos, Mol. Biol. Cell 11 pp 543– (2000)
[21]	Russell, Cell 49 pp 559– (1987)
[22]	Lundgren, Cell 64 pp 1111– (1991)
[23]	Aligue, J. Biol. Chem. 272 pp 13320– (1997)
[24]	Millar, Cell 68 pp 407– (1992) · Zbl 0756.30034
[25]	Shirayama, EMBO J. 17 pp 1336– (1998)
[26]	Novak, J. Cell. Sci. 106 pp 1153– (1993)
[27]	Nasmyth, Science 274 pp 1643– (1996)
[28]	J. J. Tyson and B. Novak, J. Theor. Biol. (in press).
[29]	Nurse, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. B 341 pp 449– (1993)
[30]	Rhind, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 10 pp 749– (1998)
[31]	Kim, Science 279 pp 1045– (1998)
[32]	Since Wee1 has a backup enzyme (Mik1), the rate of tyrosine-phosphorylation is not zero in wee1- cells; hence, we reduce kwee from 1.3 to 0.3 for the numerical simulations in Fig. 5.
[33]	Nurse, Nature (London) 256 pp 457– (1975)
[34]	Sveiczer, J. Cell. Sci. 112 pp 1085– (1999)
[35]	Millar, EMBO J. 11 pp 4933– (1992)
[36]	Goldbeter, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78 pp 6840– (1981)
[37]	P. A. Fantes, inCell Cycle Clocks, edited by L. N. J. Edmunds (Marcel Dekker, New York, 1984), p. 233.
[38]	Nurse, Genetics 96 pp 627– (1980)
[39]	Fantes, Nature (London) 279 pp 428– (1979)
[40]	Tyson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88 pp 7328– (1991)
[41]	Novak, J. Theor. Biol. 165 pp 101– (1993)
[42]	Tyson, J. Theor. Biol. 173 pp 283– (1995)
[43]	Novak, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94 pp 9147– (1997)
[44]	Novak, Biophys. Chem. 72 pp 185– (1998)
[45]	Sveiczer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97 pp 7865– (2000)