Advertisement

Recasting the mass-action rate equations of open chemical reaction networks into a universal quadratic format

  • Alessandro Ceccato
  • Paolo Nicolini
  • Diego FrezzatoEmail author
Original Paper
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Recasting the rate equations of mass-action chemical kinetics into universal formats is a potentially useful strategy to rationalize typical features that are observed in the space of the species concentrations. For example, a remarkable feature is the appearance of the so-called slow manifolds (subregions of the concentration space where the trajectories bundle), whose detection can be exploited to simplify the description of the slow part of the kinetics via model reduction and to understand how the chemical network approaches the stationary state. Here we focus on generally open chemical reaction networks with continuous injection of species at constant rates, that is, the situation of idealized biochemical networks and microreactors under well-mixing conditions and externally controllable input of chemicals. We show that a unique format of pure quadratic ordinary differential equations can be achieved, regardless of the nonlinearity of the kinetic scheme, by means of a suitable change and extension of the set of dynamical variables. Then we outline some possible employments of such a format, with special emphasis on a low-computational-cost strategy to localize the slow manifolds which are indeed observed also for open systems.

Keywords

Chemical kinetics Mass-action law Open reaction networks Polynomial ordinary differential equations Embedding into Lotka–Volterra Slow manifolds 

Mathematics Subject Classification

80A30 34A05 34A34 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    K.J. Laidler, Chemical Kinetics, 3rd edn. (Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 1987)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Aris, Prolegomena to the rational analysis of systems of chemical reactions. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 19(2), 81–98 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Nicolini, D. Frezzato, Features in chemical kinetics. I. Signatures of self-emerging dimensional reduction from a general formal of the evolution law. J. Chem. Phys. 138(23), 234101 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Nicolini, D. Frezzato, Features in chemical kinetics. II. A self-emerging definition of slow manifolds. J. Chem. Phys. 138(23), 234102 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Ceccato, P. Nicolini, D. Frezzato, Features in chemical kinetics. III. Attracting subspaces in a hyper-spherical representation of the reactive system. J. Chem. Phys. 143(22), 224109 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Ceccato, P. Nicolini, D. Frezzato, A low-computational-cost strategy to localize points in the slow manifold proximity for isothermal chemical kinetics. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 49, 477–493 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Szederkényi, A. Magyar, K.M. Hangos, Analysis and Control of Polynomial Dynamic Models with Biological Applications (Academic Press, New York, 2018)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Elani, R.V. Law, O. Ces, Vesicle-based artificial cells as chemical microreactors with spatially segregated reaction pathways. Nat. Commun. 5, 5305 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Song, D.L. Chen, R.F. Ismagilov, Reactions in droplets in microfluidic channels. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 45, 7336–7356 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P.-Y. Bolinger, D. Stamou, H. Vogel, Integrated nanoreactor systems: triggering the release and mixing of compounds inside single vesicles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126, 8594–8595 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Ragazzon, L. Prins, Energy consumption in chemical fuel-driven self-assembly. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 882–889 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Peschel, W. Mende, The Predator-Prey Model: Do We Live in a Volterra World? (Spinger, New York, 1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Hernández-Bermejo, V. Fairén, Nonpolynomial vector fields under the Lotka–Volterra normal form. Phys. Lett. A 206, 31–37 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. Brenig, A. Goriely, Universal canonical forms for time-continuous dynamical systems. Phys. Rev. A 40, 4119–4122 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J.L. Gouzé, Transformation of polynomial differential systems in the positive orthant. Technical report, Sophia-vol. 06561 (Valbonne, France, 1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Fairén, B. Hernández-Bermejo, Mass action law conjugate representation for general chemical mechanisms. J. Phys. Chem. 100, 19023–19028 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Hernández-Bermejo, Stability conditions and Liapunov functions for quasi-polynomial systems. Appl. Math. Lett. 15, 25–28 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Figueiredo, I.M. Gléria, T.M. Rocha Filho, Boundedness of solutions and Lyapunov functions in quasi-polynomial systems. Phys. Lett. A 268, 335–341 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    I.M. Gléria, A. Figueiredo, T.M. Rocha Filho, On the stability of a class of general non-linear systems. Phys. Lett. A 291, 11–16 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    I.M. Gléria, A. Figueiredo, T.M. Rocha Filho, Stability properties of a general class of nonlinear dynamical systems. J. Phys. A Math. Gen. 34(17), 3561–3575 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    I.M. Gléria, A. Figueiredo, T.M. Rocha Filho, A numerical method for the stability analysis of quasi-polynomial vector fields. Nonlinear Anal. 52, 329–342 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    T.M. Rocha Filho, I.M. Gléria, A. Figueiredo, L. Brenig, The Lotka–Volterra canonical format. Ecol. Model. 183, 95–106 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    I. Gléria, L. Brenig, T.M. Rocha Filho, A. Figueiredo, Stability properties of nonlinear dynamical systems and evolutionary stable states. Phys. Lett. A 381, 954–957 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    I. Gléria, L. Brenig, T.M. Rocha Filho, A. Figueiredo, Permanence and boundedness of solutions of quasi-polynomial systems. Phys. Lett. A 381, 2149–2152 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    M. Motee, B. Bahmieh, M. Khammash, Stability analysis of quasi-polynomial dynamical systems with applications to biological network models. Automatica 48, 2945–2950 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Magyar, G. Szederkényi, K.M. Hangos, Globally stabilizing feedback control of process systems in generalized Lotka–Volterra form. J. Process Control 18, 80–91 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. Magyar, K.M. Hangos, Globally stabilizing state feedback control design for Lotka–Volterra systems based on underlying linear dynamics. IFAC-PapersOnLine 48–11, 1000–1005 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. Brenig, Reducing nonlinear dynamical systems to canonical forms. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20170384 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    P.N. Brown, G.D. Byrne, A.C. Hindmarsh, VODE: a variable-coefficient ODE solver. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. 10, 1038–1051 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    M.R. Roussel, S.J. Fraser, On the geometry of transient relaxation. J. Chem. Phys. 94(11), 7106–7113 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A.N. Gorban, D. Roose (eds.), Coping with Complexity: Model Reduction and Data Analysis (Springer, Berlin, 2011)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    A.N. Al-Khateeb, J.M. Powers, S. Paolucci, A.J. Sommese, J.A. Diller, J.D. Hauenstein, J.D. Mengers, One-dimensional slow invariant manifolds for spatially homogenous reactive system. J. Chem. Phys. 131(2), 024118 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    R.T. Skodje, M.J. Davis, Geometrical simplification of complex kinetic systems. J. Phys. Chem. A 105(45), 10356–10365 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    D. Lebiedz, J. Siehr, J. Unger, A variational principle for computing slow invariant manifolds in dissipative dynamical systems. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 33(2), 703–720 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    D. Lebiedz, J. Unger, On fundamental unifying concepts for trajectory-based slow invariant attracting manifold computation in multiscale models of chemical kinetics. Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. 22, 87–112 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    C.K.R.T. Jones, Geometric singular perturbation theory, in Dynamical Systems, vol. 1609, ed. by L. Arnold (Springer, Berlin, 1994)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    S.H. Lam, D.A. Goussis, The CSP method for simplifying kinetics. Int. J. Chem. Kinet. 26(4), 461 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    A. Zagaris, H.G. Kaper, T.J. Kaper, Analysis of the computational singular perturbation reduction method for chemical kinetics. Nonlinear Sci. 14(1), 59 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    M.R. Roussel, S.J. Fraser, Invariant manifold methods for metabolic model reduction. Chaos 11(1), 196 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    U. Maas, S.B. Pope, Simplifying chemical kinetics: intrinsic low-dimensional manifolds in composition space. Combust. Flame 88, 239–264 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    D. Lebiedz, J. Siehr, A continuation method for the efficient solution of parametric optimization problems in kinetic model reduction. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 35(3), A1584–A1603 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    S.J. Fraser, The steady state and equilibrium approximations: a geometric picture. J. Chem. Phys. 88(8), 4732–4738 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    A.N. Gorban, I.V. Karlin, Method of invariant manifold for chemical kinetics. Chem. Eng. Sci. 58, 4751 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    D. Lebiedz, Computing minimal entropy production trajectories: an approach to model reduction in chemical kinetics. J. Chem. Phys. 120(15), 6890 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    V. Reinhardt, M. Winckler, D. Lebiedz, Approximation of slow attracting manifolds in chemical kinetics by trajectory-based optimization approaches. J. Phys. Chem. A 112(8), 1712 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    D. Lebiedz, Entropy-related extremum principles for model reduction of dissipative dynamical systems. Entropy 12(4), 706 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    A. Ceccato, P. Nicolini, D. Frezzato, Attracting subspaces in a hyper-spherical representation of autonomous dynamical systems. J. Math. Phys. 58(9), 092701 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical SciencesUniversity of PadovaPaduaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Control Engineering - K335, Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePrague 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations