skip to main content
10.1145/3109453.3109474acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnanocomConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

End-to-end molecular communication channels in cell metabolism: an information theoretic study

Published:27 September 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

The opportunity to control and fine-tune the behavior of biological cells is a fascinating possibility for many diverse disciplines, ranging from medicine and ecology, to chemical industry and space exploration. While synthetic biology is providing novel tools to reprogram cell behavior from their genetic code, many challenges need to be solved before it can become a true engineering discipline, such as reliability, safety assurance, reproducibility and stability. This paper aims to understand the limits in the controllability of the behavior of a natural (non-engineered) biological cell. In particular, the focus is on cell metabolism, and its natural regulation mechanisms, and their ability to react and change according to the chemical characteristics of the external environment. To understand the aforementioned limits of this ability, molecular communication is used to abstract biological cells into a series of channels that propagate information on the chemical composition of the extracellular environment to the cell's behavior in terms of uptake and consumption of chemical compounds, and growth rate. This provides an information-theoretic framework to analyze the upper bound limit to the capacity of these channels to propagate information, which is based on a well-known and computationally efficient metabolic simulation technique. A numerical study is performed on two human gut microbes, where the upper bound is estimated for different environmental compounds, showing there is a potential for future practical applications.

References

  1. I F Akyildiz, M Pierobon, S Balasubramaniam, and Y Koucheryavy. 2015. The internet of bio-nano things. IEEE Communications Magazine 53, 3 (2015), 32--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. U Alon. 2006. An Introduction to Systems Biology - Design Principles of Biological Circuits. Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. G JE Baart and D E Martens. 2012. Genome-scale metabolic models: reconstruction and analysis. Neisseria meningitidis: Advanced Methods and Protocols (2012), 107--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. M Cashman, J L Catlett, M B Cohen, N R Buan, Z Sakkaff, M Pierobon, and C A Kelley. 2017. BioSIMP: Using Software Testing Techniques for Sampling and Inference in Biological Organisms. ICSE workshop on Software Engineering for Computational Science (SE4S) (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. M B Cohen, J Firestone, and M Pierobon. 2016. The Assurance Timeline: Building Assurance Cases for Synthetic Biology. In In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Assurance Cases for Software-Intensive Systems (ASSURE 2016). 75--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. J Dobson. 2008. Remote control of cellular behaviour with magnetic nanoparticles. Nature nanotechnology 3, 3 (2008), 139--143. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. B Dridi, M Henry, A El Khechine, D Raoult, and M Drancourt. 2009. High prevalence of Methanobrevibacter smithii and Methanosphaera stadtmanae detected in the human gut using an improved DNA detection protocol. PloS one 4, 9 (2009), e7063.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. E Gonçalves, J Bucher, A Ryll, J Niklas, K Mauch, S Klamt, M Rocha, and J Saez-Rodriguez. 2013. Bridging the layers: towards integration of signal transduction, regulation and metabolism into mathematical models. Molecular BioSystems 9, 7 (2013), 1576--1583. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. KBase. 2011. Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase (KBase). http://kbase.us. (2011). [Online;accessed 7-April-2017].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R Krajmalnik-Brown, Z-E Ilhan, D-W Kang, and J K DiBaise. 2012. Effects of gut microbes on nutrient absorption and energy regulation. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 27, 2 (2012), 201--214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. C M Metallo and M G Vander Heiden. 2013. Understanding Metabolic Regulation and Its Influence on Cell Physiology. Molecular Cell 49 (February 2013), 388--398. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. D Ndeh, A Rogowski, A Cartmell, A S Luis, A Baslé, J Gray, I Venditto, J Briggs, X Zhang, A Labourel, and et al. 2017. Complex pectin metabolism by gut bacteria reveals novel catalytic functions. Nature 544, 7648 (2017), 65--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. D L Nelson and M M Cox. 2005. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry. W. H. Freeman, Chapter 12.2, 425--429.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J D Orth, I Thiele, and B Ø Palsson. 2010. What is flux balance analysis? Nature biotechnology 28, 3 (2010), 245--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. M Pierobon, Z Sakkaff, J L Catlett, and N R Buan. 2016. Mutual information upper bound of molecular communication based on cell metabolism. In Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC), 2016 IEEE 17th International Workshop on. IEEE, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Z Sakkaff. 2016. Characterization of Molecular Communication Based on Cell Metabolism Through Mutual Information and Flux Balance Analysis. Master's thesis. University of Nebraska-Lincoln.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A A Salyers. 1984. Bacteroides of the human lower intestinal tract. Annual Reviews in Microbiology 38, 1 (1984), 293--313. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. G Tkačik, C G Callan Jr., and W Bialek. 2008. Information capacity of genetic regulatory elements. PHYSICAL REVIEW E 78 (2008), 011910(17).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. J E Toettcher, C A Voigt, Orion D Weiner, and Wendell A Lim. 2011. The promise of optogenetics in cell biology: interrogating molecular circuits in space and time. Nature methods 8, 1 (2011), 35--38. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. J Xu, M K Bjursell, J Himrod, S Deng, L K Carmichael, H C Chiang, L V Hooper, and J I Gordon. 2003. A genomic view of the human-Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron symbiosis. Science 299, 5615 (2003), 2074--2076. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  1. End-to-end molecular communication channels in cell metabolism: an information theoretic study

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      NanoCom '17: Proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Nanoscale Computing and Communication
      September 2017
      169 pages
      ISBN:9781450349314
      DOI:10.1145/3109453
      • General Chairs:
      • Alan Davy,
      • John Federici

      Copyright © 2017 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 September 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate97of135submissions,72%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader