4.7 Article

Universal energy-accuracy tradeoffs in nonequilibrium cellular sensing

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 108, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.108.014403

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We use stochastic thermodynamics, large deviation theory, and information theory to establish fundamental limits on the accuracy of single cell receptors in estimating external concentrations. While an ideal observer of receptor states cannot be outperformed by any nonequilibrium receptor, we find that a simple observer measuring the fraction of time the receptor is bound has a fundamental limit on the accuracy of non-equilibrium receptors. We also derive explicit formulas to numerically estimate the tradeoff between accuracy and energy consumption in nonequilibrium receptors.
We combine stochastic thermodynamics, large deviation theory, and information theory to derive fundamental limits on the accuracy with which single cell receptors can estimate external concentrations. As expected, if the estimation is performed by an ideal observer of the entire trajectory of receptor states, then no energy consuming nonequilibrium receptor that can be divided into bound and unbound states can outperform an equilibrium two -state receptor. However, when the estimation is performed by a simple observer that measures the fraction of time the receptor is bound, we derive a fundamental limit on the accuracy of general nonequilibrium receptors as a function of energy consumption. We further derive and exploit explicit formulas to numerically estimate a Pareto-optimal tradeoff between accuracy and energy. We find this tradeoff can be achieved by nonuniform ring receptors with a number of states that necessarily increases with energy. Our results yield a thermodynamic uncertainty relation for the time a physical system spends in a pool of states and generalize the classic Berg -Purcell limit [H. C. Berg and E. M. Purcell, Biophys. J. 20, 193 (1977)] on cellular sensing along multiple dimensions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据