courses-img1News
9th Asian Conference on Civil, Material and Environmental Science The 4th Climate, Weather and Water Forum International Conference of the German Society for Plant Sciences Emerging concepts and Novel Mechanisms in Organ Fibrosis Workshop ECB-IBS 2024 Five Editors-in-Chief Featured in the List of "Highly Cited Prof. Yun Zhang, Scientific Advisory Board of /Cardiovascular Sci Prof. Junhong Bai, Editorial Board Member of /Hydroecology and En Five Editorial Board Members of /Photocatalysis: Research and Pot 5th Edition of Cardiology World Conference
Sign in Register Submit

Journals Article Details

Synthetic Biology and Engineering-logo
Submit to SBE
Article Open Access

Design of Oscillatory Networks through Post-translational Control of Network Components

Synthetic Biology and Engineering. 2023, 1(1), 10004; https://doi.org/10.35534/sbe.2023.10004
Brianna E.K. Jayanthi 1    Shridhar Jayanthi 2    Laura Segatori 1,2,3,4 *   
1
Systems, Synthetic, and Physical Biology Graduate Program, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA
2
Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA
3
Department of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA
4
Department of BioSciences, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Received: 12 Nov 2022    Accepted: 27 Feb 2023    Published: 13 Mar 2023   

Full-Text HTML Full-Text PDF Download PDF Supplementary Download

Abstract

Many essential functions in biological systems, including cell cycle progression and circadian rhythm regulation, are governed by the periodic behaviors of specific molecules. These periodic behaviors arise from the precise arrangement of components in biomolecular networks that generate oscillatory output signals. The dynamic properties of individual components of these networks, such as maturation delays and degradation rates, often play a key role in determining the network's oscillatory behavior. In this study, we explored the post-translational modulation of network components as a means to generate genetic circuits with oscillatory behaviors and perturb the oscillation features. Specifically, we used the NanoDeg platform—A bifunctional molecule consisting of a target-specific nanobody and a degron tag—to control the degradation rates of the circuit’s components and predicted the effect of NanoDeg-mediated post-translational depletion of a key circuit component on the behavior of a series of proto-oscillating network topologies. We modeled the behavior of two main classes of oscillators, namely relaxation oscillator topologies (the activator-repressor and the Goodwin oscillator) and ring oscillator topologies (repressilators). We identified two main mechanisms by which non-oscillating networks could be induced to oscillate through post-translational modulation of network components: an increase in the separation of timescales of network components and mitigation of the leaky expression of network components. These results are in agreement with previous findings describing the effect of timescale separation and mitigation of leaky expression on oscillatory behaviors. This work thus validates the use of tools to control protein degradation rates as a strategy to modulate existing oscillatory signals and construct oscillatory networks. In addition, this study provides the design rules to implement such an approach based on the control of protein degradation rates using the NanoDeg platform, which does not require genetic manipulation of the network components and can be adapted to virtually any cellular protein. This work also establishes a framework to explore the use of tools for post-translational perturbations of biomolecular networks and generates desired behaviors of the network output.

Keywords

Genetic oscillators; Protein degradation; Post-translational regulation; Nanobody; Synthetic genetic networks

References

1.
Goldbeter A. Biochemical Oscillations and Cellular Rhythms; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997.
2.
Friesen WO, Block GD. What is a biological oscillator? Am. J. Physiol. 1984, 246, R847–R853. [Google Scholar]
3.
Buhr ED, Takahashi JS. Molecular components of the Mammalian circadian clock. Handb. Exp. Pharmacol. 2013, 217, 3–27. [Google Scholar]
4.
Oikonomou C, Cross FR. Frequency control of cell cycle oscillators. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2010, 20, 605–612. [Google Scholar]
5.
Purvis JE, Karhohs KW, Mock C, Batchelor E, Loewer A, Lahav G. p53 dynamics control cell fate. Science 2012, 336, 1440–1444. [Google Scholar]
6.
Ghosh S, Hayden MS. New regulators of NF-kappaB in inflammation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2008, 8, 837–848. [Google Scholar]
7.
Niwa Y, Masamizu Y, Liu T, Nakayama R, Deng CX, Kageyama R. The initiation and propagation of Hes7 oscillation are cooperatively regulated by Fgf and notch signaling in the somite segmentation clock. Dev. Cell 2007, 13, 298–304. [Google Scholar]
8.
Kobayashi T, Mizuno H, Imayoshi I, Furusawa C, Shirahige K, Kageyama R. The cyclic gene Hes1 contributes to diverse differentiation responses of embryonic stem cells. Genes. Dev. 2009, 23, 1870–1875. [Google Scholar]
9.
Wu YH, Fischer DF, Kalsbeek A, Garidou-Boof ML, van der Vliet J, van Heijningen C, et al. Pineal clock gene oscillation is disturbed in Alzheimer’s disease, due to functional disconnection from the “master clock”. FASEB J. 2006, 20, 1874–1876. [Google Scholar]
10.
Sailer X, Beato V, Schimansky-Geier L, Engel H. Noise-induced effects in excitable systems with local and global coupling. In Analysis and Control of Complex Nonlinear Processes in Physics, Chemistry and Biology; World Scientific Publishing Company: Singapore, 2007.
11.
Rosenberg A, Jayanthi S, Del Vecchio D. Tuning an activator-repressor clock employing retroactivity. In Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference, San Francisco, CA, USA, 29 June–1 July 2011.
12.
Sastry S. Nonlinear Systems: Analysis, Stability, and Control; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999.
13.
Bratsun D, Volfson D, Tsimring LS, Hasty J. Delay-induced stochastic oscillations in gene regulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 14593–14598. [Google Scholar]
14.
Xiao M, Cao J. Genetic oscillation deduced from Hopf bifurcation in a genetic regulatory network with delays. Math. Biosci. 2008, 215, 55–63. [Google Scholar]
15.
Del Vecchio D. Design and Analysis of an activator-repressor clock in E. coli. In Proceedings of the 2007 American Control Conference, New York, NY, USA, 9–13 July 2007.
16.
El Samad H, Del Vecchio D, Khammash M. Repressilators and promotilators: Loop dynamics in synthetic gene networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 American Control Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 8–10 June 2005.
17.
Ciliberto A, Novak B, Tyson JJ. Steady states and oscillations in the p53/Mdm2 network. Cell Cycle 2005, 4, 488–493. [Google Scholar]
18.
Jayanthi S, Del Vecchio D. Tuning genetic clocks employing DNA binding sites. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e41019. [Google Scholar]
19.
Olson EJ, Tabor JJ. Post-translational tools expand the scope of synthetic biology. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2012, 16, 300–306. [Google Scholar]
20.
Bartlett DW, Davis ME. Insights into the kinetics of siRNA-mediated gene silencing from live-cell and live-animal bioluminescent imaging. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, 322–333. [Google Scholar]
21.
Karve TM, Cheema AK. Small changes huge impact: the role of protein posttranslational modifications in cellular homeostasis and disease. J. Amino Acids 2011, 2011, 207691. [Google Scholar]
22.
Banaszynski LA, Chen LC, Maynard-Smith LA, Ooi AG, Wandless TJ. A rapid, reversible, and tunable method to regulate protein function in living cells using synthetic small molecules. Cell 2006, 126, 995–1004. [Google Scholar]
23.
Bonger KM, Chen LC, Liu CW, Wandless TJ. Small-molecule displacement of a cryptic degron causes conditional protein degradation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011, 7, 531–537. [Google Scholar]
24.
Bonger KM, Rakhit R, Payumo AY, Chen JK, Wandless TJ. General method for regulating protein stability with light. ACS Chem. Biol. 2014, 9, 111–115. [Google Scholar]
25.
Chung HK, Jacobs CL, Huo Y, Yang J, Krumm SA, Plemper RK, et al. Tunable and reversible drug control of protein production via a self-excising degron. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2015, 11, 713–720. [Google Scholar]
26.
Delacour Q, Li C, Plamont MA, Billon-Denis E, Aujard I, Le Saux T, et al. Light-Activated Proteolysis for the Spatiotemporal Control of Proteins. ACS Chem. Biol. 2015, 10, 1643–1647. [Google Scholar]
27.
Campbell AE, Bennett D. Targeting protein function: The expanding toolkit for conditional disruption. Biochem. J. 2016, 473, 2573–2589. [Google Scholar]
28.
Lai AC, Toure M, Hellerschmied D, Salami J, Jaime-Figueroa S, Ko E, et al. Modular PROTAC Design for the Degradation of Oncogenic BCR-ABL. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2016, 55, 807–810. [Google Scholar]
29.
Pauli A, Althoff F, Oliveira RA, Heidmann S, Schuldiner O, Lehner CF, et al. Cell-type-specific TEV protease cleavage reveals cohesin functions in Drosophila neurons. Dev. Cell 2008, 14, 239–251. [Google Scholar]
30.
Zhao W, Pferdehirt L, Segatori L. Quantitatively Predictable Control of Cellular Protein Levels through Proteasomal Degradation. ACS Synth. Biol. 2018, 7, 540–552. [Google Scholar]
31.
Jayanthi BEK, Zhao W, Segatori L. Input-dependent post-translational control of the reporter output enhances dynamic resolution of mammalian signaling systems. Methods Enzymol. 2019, 622, 1–27. [Google Scholar]
32.
Mishra D, Rivera PM, Lin A, Del Vecchio D, Weiss R. A load driver device for engineering modularity in biological networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 1268–1275. [Google Scholar]
33.
Jayanthi S, Del Vecchio D. Retroactivity attenuation in bio-molecular systems based on timescale separation. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 2010, 56, 748–761. [Google Scholar]
34.
Guantes R, Poyatos JF. Dynamical principles of two-component genetic oscillators. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2006, 2, e30. [Google Scholar]
35.
Rosenfeld N, Young JW, Alon U, Swain PS, Elowitz MB. Gene regulation at the single-cell level. Science 2005, 307, 1962–1965. [Google Scholar]
36.
Moller A, Pion E, Narayan V, Ball KL. Intracellular activation of interferon regulatory factor-1 by nanobodies to the multifunctional (Mf1) domain. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 38348–38361. [Google Scholar]
37.
Bethuyne J, De Gieter S, Zwaenepoel O, Garcia-Pino A, Durinck K, Verhelle A, et al. A nanobody modulates the p53 transcriptional program without perturbing its functional architecture. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 12928–12938. [Google Scholar]
38.
Rothbauer U, Zolghadr K, Muyldermans S, Schepers A, Cardoso MC, Leonhardt H. A versatile nanotrap for biochemical and functional studies with fluorescent fusion proteins. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 2008, 7, 282–289. [Google Scholar]
39.
Braun MB, Traenkle B, Koch PA, Emele F, Weiss F, Poetz O, et al. Peptides in headlock--a novel high-affinity and versatile peptide-binding nanobody for proteomics and microscopy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19211. [Google Scholar]
40.
Jayanthi S, Nilgiriwala KS, Del Vecchio D. Retroactivity controls the temporal dynamics of gene transcription. ACS Synth. Biol. 2013, 2, 431–441. [Google Scholar]
41.
Ferrell JE Jr., Ha SH. Ultrasensitivity part II: multisite phosphorylation, stoichiometric inhibitors, and positive feedback. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2014, 39, 556–569. [Google Scholar]
42.
Burger A, Walczak AM, Wolynes PG. Abduction and asylum in the lives of transcription factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 4016–4021. [Google Scholar]
43.
Goodwin BC. Oscillatory behavior in enzymatic control processes. Adv. Enzyme Regul. 1965, 3, 425–438. [Google Scholar]
44.
Purcell O, Savery NJ, Grierson CS, di Bernardo M. A comparative analysis of synthetic genetic oscillators. J. R. Soc. Interface 2010, 7, 1503–1524. [Google Scholar]
45.
Stricker J. Cookson S, Bennett MR, Mather WH, Tsimring LS, Hasty J. A fast, robust and tunable synthetic gene oscillator. Nature 2008, 456, 516–519. [Google Scholar]
46.
Pett JP, Korencic A, Wesener F, Kramer A, Herzel H. Feedback Loops of the Mammalian Circadian Clock Constitute Repressilator. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2016, 12, e1005266. [Google Scholar]
47.
Elowitz MB, Leibler S. A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators. Nature 2000, 403, 335–338. [Google Scholar]
48.
Pokhilko A, Fernández AP, Edwards KD, Southern MM, Halliday KJ, Millar AJ. The clock gene circuit in Arabidopsis includes a repressilator with additional feedback loops. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2012, 8, 574. [Google Scholar]
49.
Buse O, Perez R, Kuznetsov A. Dynamical properties of the repressilator model. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft. Matter Phys. 2010, 81, 066206. [Google Scholar]
50.
Tyler J, Shiu A, Walton J. Revisiting a synthetic intracellular regulatory network that exhibits oscillations. J. Math. Biol. 2019, 78, 2341–2368. [Google Scholar]
51.
Muller S, Hofbauer J, Endler L, Flamm C, Widder S, Schuster P. A generalized model of the repressilator. J. Math. Biol. 2006, 53, 905–937. [Google Scholar]
52.
Margolin JF, Friedman JR, Meyer WK, Vissing H, Thiesen HJ, Rauscher FJ 3rd. Kruppel-associated boxes are potent transcriptional repression domains. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 4509–4513. [Google Scholar]
53.
Potapov I, Volkov E, Kuznetsov A. Dynamics of coupled repressilators: The role of mRNA kinetics and transcription cooperativity. Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft. Matter Phys. 2011, 83, 031901. [Google Scholar]
54.
Wildt KF, Sun G, Grueter B, Fischer M, Zamisch M, Ehlers M, et al. The transcription factor Zbtb7b promotes CD4 expression by antagonizing Runx-mediated activation of the CD4 silencer. J. Immunol. 2007, 179, 4405–4414. [Google Scholar]
55.
Nakamichi N, Kiba T, Henriques R, Mizuno T, Chua NH, Sakakibara H. PSEUDO-RESPONSE REGULATORS 9, 7, and 5 are transcriptional repressors in the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 594–605. [Google Scholar]
56.
Silverstone AL, Jung HS, Dill A, Kawaide H, Kamiya Y, Sun TP. Repressing a repressor: gibberellin-induced rapid reduction of the RGA protein in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2001, 13, 1555–1566. [Google Scholar]
57.
Zhang X, Wang Y, Yuan J, Li N, Pei S, Xu J, et al. Macrophage/microglial Ezh2 facilitates autoimmune inflammation through inhibition of Socs3. J. Exp. Med. 2018, 7, 1365–1382. [Google Scholar]
58.
Goldbeter A, Koshland DE Jr. An amplified sensitivity arising from covalent modification in biological systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1981, 78, 6840–6844. [Google Scholar]
59.
Sepulchre JA, Ventura AC. Intrinsic feedbacks in MAPK signaling cascades lead to bistability and oscillations. Acta Biotheor. 2013, 61, 59–78. [Google Scholar]
60.
Blüthgen N, Legewie S, Herzel H, Kholodenko B. Introduction to Systems Biology; Springer: Totowa, NJ, USA; 2007.
61.
Atkinson MR, Savageau MA, Myers JT, Ninfa AJ. Development of genetic circuitry exhibiting toggle switch or oscillatory behavior in Escherichia coli. Cell 2003, 113, 597–607. [Google Scholar]
62.
Chen Y, Kim JK, Hirning AJ, Josic K, Bennett MR. Emergent genetic oscillations in a synthetic microbial consortium. Science 2015, 349, 986–989. [Google Scholar]
63.
Tigges M, Marquez-Lago TT, Stelling J, Fussenegger M. A tunable synthetic mammalian oscillator. Nature 2009, 457, 309–312. [Google Scholar]
64.
Dodd AN, Gardner MJ, Hotta CT, Hubbard KE, Dalchau N, Love J, et al. The Arabidopsis circadian clock incorporates a cADPR-based feedback loop. Science 2007, 318, 1789–1792. [Google Scholar]
65.
Nguyen KD, Fentress SJ, Qiu Y, Yun K, Cox JS, Chawla A. Circadian gene Bmal1 regulates diurnal oscillations of Ly6C(hi) inflammatory monocytes. Science 2013, 341, 1483–1488. [Google Scholar]
66.
Dale JK, Maroto M, Dequeant ML, Malapert P, McGrew M, Pourquie O. Periodic notch inhibition by lunatic fringe underlies the chick segmentation clock. Nature 2003, 421, 275–278. [Google Scholar]
67.
Tigges M, Denervaud N, Greber D, Stelling J, Fussenegger M. A synthetic low-frequency mammalian oscillator. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, 2702–2711. [Google Scholar]
68.
Wang Z, Potoyan DA, Wolynes PG. Molecular stripping, targets and decoys as modulators of oscillations in the NF-kB/IkBα/DNA genetic network. J. R. Soc. Interface 2016, 13, 20160606. [Google Scholar]
69.
Del Vecchio D, Sontag ED. Dynamics and control of synthetic bio-molecular networks. In Proceedings of the American Control Conference 2007, New York, NY, USA, 9–13 July 2007.
70.
Muyldermans S. Nanobodies: Natural single-domain antibodies. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2013, 82, 775–797. [Google Scholar]
71.
Peng HP, Lee KH, Jian JW, Yang AS. Origins of specificity and affinity in antibody-protein interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, E2656–E2665. [Google Scholar]
72.
Domanska K, Vanderhaegen S, Srinivasan V, Pardon E, Dupeux F, Marquez JA, et al. Atomic structure of a nanobody-trapped domain-swapped dimer of an amyloidogenic beta2-microglobulin variant. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 1314–1319. [Google Scholar]
73.
Guilliams T, El-Turk F, Buell AK, O’Day EM, Aprile FA, Esbjörner EK, et al. Nanobodies raised against monomeric alpha-synuclein distinguish between fibrils at different maturation stages. J. Mol. Biol. 2013, 425, 2397–2411. [Google Scholar]
74.
Fu X, Gao X, He S, Huang D, Zhang P, Wang X, et al. Design and selection of a camelid single-chain antibody yeast two-hybrid library produced de novo for the cap protein of porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2). PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e56222. [Google Scholar]
75.
Fridy PC, Li Y, Keegan S, Thompson MK, Nudelman I, Scheid JF, et al. A robust pipeline for rapid production of versatile nanobody repertoires. Nat. Methods 2014, 11, 1253–1260. [Google Scholar]
76.
Pardon E, Laeremans T, Triest S, Rasmussen SG, Wohlkönig A, Ruf A, et al. A general protocol for the generation of Nanobodies for structural biology. Nat. Protoc. 2014, 9, 674–693. [Google Scholar]
77.
Schut MH, Pepers BA, Klooster R, van der Maarel SM, El Khatabi M, Verrips T, et al. Selection and characterization of llama single domain antibodies against N-terminal huntingtin. Neurol. Sci. 2015, 36, 429–434. [Google Scholar]
78.
Monegal A, Ami D, Martinelli C, Huang H, Aliprandi M, Capasso P, et al. Immunological applications of single-domain llama recombinant antibodies isolated from a naive library. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2009, 22, 273–280. [Google Scholar]
79.
Sabir JS, Atef A, El-Domyati FM, Edris S, Hajrah N, Alzohairy AM, et al. Construction of naive camelids VHH repertoire in phage display-based library. C. R. Biol. 2014, 337, 244–249. [Google Scholar]
80.
Moutel S, Bery N, Bernard V, Keller L, Lemesre E, de Marco A, et al. NaLi-H1: A universal synthetic library of humanized nanobodies providing highly functional antibodies and intrabodies. Elife 2016, 5, e16228. [Google Scholar]
81.
Yan J, Li G, Hu Y, Ou W, Wan Y. Construction of a synthetic phage-displayed Nanobody library with CDR3 regions randomized by trinucleotide cassettes for diagnostic applications. J. Transl. Med. 2014, 12, 343. [Google Scholar]
82.
Holland AJ, Fachinetti D, Han JS, Cleveland DW. Inducible, reversible system for the rapid and complete degradation of proteins in mammalian cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E3350–E3357. [Google Scholar]
83.
Nishimura K, Fukagawa T, Takisawa H, Kakimoto T, Kanemaki M. An auxin-based degron system for the rapid depletion of proteins in nonplant cells. Nat. Methods 2009, 6, 917–922. [Google Scholar]
Creative Commons

© 2024 by the authors; licensee SCIEPublish, SCISCAN co. Ltd. This article is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).