4.3 Review

Accuracy of direct gradient sensing by cell-surface receptors

Journal

PROGRESS IN BIOPHYSICS & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 1-3, Pages 33-39

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2009.06.002

Keywords

Chemotaxis; Gradient sensing; Noise; Ligand-receptor binding; Fluctuation-dissipation theorem

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G000131/1]
  2. Centre for Integrated Systems Biology at Imperial College (CISBIC)
  3. Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP)
  4. National Science Foundation [PHY-0650617]
  5. BBSRC [BB/G000131/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G000131/1, BB/C519670/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chemotactic cells of eukaryotic organisms are able to accurately sense shallow chemical concentration gradients using cell-surface receptors. This sensing ability is remarkable as cells must be able to spatially resolve small fractional differences in the numbers of particles randomly arriving at cell-surface receptors by diffusion. An additional challenge and source of uncertainty is that particles, once bound and released, may rebind the same or a different receptor, which adds to noise without providing any new information about the environment. We recently derived the fundamental physical limits of gradient sensing using a simple spherical-cell model, but not including explicit particle-receptor kinetics. Here, we use a method based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) to calculate the accuracy of gradient sensing by realistic receptors. We derive analytical results for two receptors, as well as two coaxial rings of receptors, e.g. one at each cell pole. For realistic receptors, we find that particle rebinding lowers the accuracy of gradient sensing, in line with our previous results. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available