» Articles » PMID: 34439956

Stochastic Simulations As a Tool for Assessing Signal Fidelity in Gene Expression in Synthetic Promoter Design

Overview
Journal Biology (Basel)
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biology
Date 2021 Aug 27
PMID 34439956
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The design and development of synthetic biology applications in a workflow often involve connecting modular components. Whereas computer-aided design tools are picking up in synthetic biology as in other areas of engineering, the methods for verifying the correct functioning of living technologies are still in their infancy. Especially, fine-tuning for the right promoter strength to match the design specifications is often a lengthy and expensive experimental process. In particular, the relationship between signal fidelity and noise in synthetic promoter design can be a key parameter that can affect the healthy functioning of the engineered organism. To this end, based on our previous work on synthetic promoters for the PhoBR two-component system, we make a case for using chemical reaction network models for computational verification of various promoter designs before a lab implementation. We provide an analysis of this system with extensive stochastic simulations at a single-cell level to assess the signal fidelity and noise relationship. We then show how quasi-steady-state analysis via ordinary differential equations can be used to navigate between models with different levels of detail. We compare stochastic simulations with our full and reduced models by using various metrics for assessing noise. Our analysis suggests that strong promoters with low unbinding rates can act as control tools for filtering out intrinsic noise in the PhoBR context. Our results confirm that even simpler models can be used to determine promoters with specific signal to noise characteristics.

Citing Articles

Designing artificial synthetic promoters for accurate, smart, and versatile gene expression in plants.

Yasmeen E, Wang J, Riaz M, Zhang L, Zuo K Plant Commun. 2023; 4(4):100558.

PMID: 36760129 PMC: 10363483. DOI: 10.1016/j.xplc.2023.100558.

References
1.
Tiwari A, Ray J, Narula J, Igoshin O . Bistable responses in bacterial genetic networks: designs and dynamical consequences. Math Biosci. 2011; 231(1):76-89. PMC: 3095517. DOI: 10.1016/j.mbs.2011.03.004. View

2.
Torres-Bacete J, Garcia J, Nogales J . A portable library of phosphate-depletion based synthetic promoters for customable and automata control of gene expression in bacteria. Microb Biotechnol. 2021; 14(6):2643-2658. PMC: 8601176. DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.13808. View

3.
Jensen P, Hammer K . Artificial promoters for metabolic optimization. Biotechnol Bioeng. 1999; 58(2-3):191-5. View

4.
Karapetyan S, Buchler N . Role of DNA binding sites and slow unbinding kinetics in titration-based oscillators. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2016; 92(6):062712. PMC: 4777296. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.92.062712. View

5.
HAWLEY D, McClure W . Compilation and analysis of Escherichia coli promoter DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 1983; 11(8):2237-55. PMC: 325881. DOI: 10.1093/nar/11.8.2237. View