Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 73, Issue 5, pp 1161–1178 | Cite as

Derivation of the bacterial run-and-tumble kinetic equation from a model with biochemical pathway

Article

Abstract

Kinetic-transport equations are, by now, standard models to describe the dynamics of populations of bacteria moving by run-and-tumble. Experimental observations show that bacteria increase their run duration when encountering an increasing gradient of chemotactic molecules. This led to a first class of models which heuristically include tumbling frequencies depending on the path-wise gradient of chemotactic signal. More recently, the biochemical pathways regulating the flagellar motors were uncovered. This knowledge gave rise to a second class of kinetic-transport equations, that takes into account an intra-cellular molecular content and which relates the tumbling frequency to this information. It turns out that the tumbling frequency depends on the chemotactic signal, and not on its gradient. For these two classes of models, macroscopic equations of Keller-Segel type, have been derived using diffusion or hyperbolic rescaling. We complete this program by showing how the first class of equations can be derived from the second class with molecular content after appropriate rescaling. The main difficulty is to explain why the path-wise gradient of chemotactic signal can arise in this asymptotic process. Randomness of receptor methylation events can be included, and our approach can be used to compute the tumbling frequency in presence of such a noise.

Keywords

Kinetic-transport equations Chemotaxis Asymptotic analysis Run and tumble Biochemical pathway 

Mathematics Subject Classification

35B25 82C40 92C17 

References

  1. Berthelin F, Mauser NJ, Poupaud F (2007) high-field limit from a kinetic equation to multidimensional scalar conservation laws. J Hyp Diff Eq 4(1):123–145MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Bournaveas N, Calvez V (2009) Critical mass phenomenon for a chemotaxis kinetic model with spherically symmetric initial data. Ann Inst H Poincaré Anal Non Linéaire 26(5):1871–1895MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bournaveas N, Calvez V (2008) Global existence for the kinetic chemotaxis model without pointwise memory effects, and including internal variables. Kinet Relat Models 1(1):29–48MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bournaveas N, Calvez V, Gutièrrez S, Perthame B (2008) Global existence for a kinetic model of chemotaxis via dispersion and Strichartz estimates. Comm PDE 33:79–95MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Chalub F, Markowich PA, Perthame B, Schmeiser C (2004) Kinetic models for chemotaxis and their drift-diffusion limits. Monatsh Math 142:123–141MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Dolak Y, Schmeiser C (2005) Kinetic models for chemotaxis: Hydrodynamic limits and spatio-temporal mechanisms. J Math Biol 51:595–615MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Endres RG (2013) Physical principles in sensing and signaling, with an introduction to modeling in biology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Erban R, Othmer H (2004) From individual to collective behaviour in bacterial chemotaxis. SIAM J Appl Math 65(2):361–391MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Erban R, Othmer H (2007) Taxis equations for amoeboid cells. J Math Biol 54:847–885MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Hazelbauer GL (2012) Bacterial chemotaxis: the early years of molecular studies. Annu Rev Microbiol 66:285–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillen T, Painter K (2012) Transport and anisotropic diffusion models for movement in oriented habitats. In: Lewis MA, Maini P, Petrowskii S (eds) Dispersal, individual movement and spatial ecology: a mathematical perspective. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 177–222Google Scholar
  12. Hwang HJ, Kang K, Stevens A (2005) Global solutions of nonlinear transport equations for chemosensitive movement. SIAM J Math Anal 36:1177–1199MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. James F, Vauchelet N (2013) Chemotaxis : from kinetic equations to aggregate dynamics. Nonlinear Diff Eq Appl 20(1):101–127MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang L, Ouyang Q, Tu Y (2010) Quantitative modeling of Escherichia coli chemotactic motion in environments varying in space and time. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000735MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kalinin YV, Jiang L, Tu Y, Wu M (2009) Logarithmic sensing in Escherichia coli bacterial chemotaxis. Biophys J 96(6):2439–2448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Locsei JT (2007) Persistence of direction increases the drift velocity of run and tumble chemotaxis. J Math Biol 55(1):41–60MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Liao J (2016) Global solution for a kinetic chemotaxis model with internal dynamics and its fast adaptation limit. J Diff Equ 259(11):6432–6458MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Othmer H, Dunbar S, Alt W (1988) Models of dispersal in biological systems. J Math Biol 26:263–298MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Othmer HG, Hillen T (2002) The diffusion limit of transport equations II: chemotaxis equations. SIAM J Appl Math 62:122–1250MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Othmer HG, Xin X, Xue C (2013) Excitation and adaptation in bacteria-a model signal transduction system that controls taxis and spatial pattern formation. Int J Mol Sci 14(5):9205–9248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter SL, Wadhams GH, Armitage JP (2008) Rhodobacter sphaeroides: complexity in chemotactic signalling. Trends Microbiol 16(6):251–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rao CV, Kirby JR, Arkin AP (2004) Design and diversity in bacterial chemotaxis: a comparative study in Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis. PLoS Biol 2(2):E49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saragosti J, Calvez V, Bournaveas N, Buguin A, Silberzan P, Perthame B (2010) Mathematical description of bacterial traveling pulses. PLoS Comput Biol 6(8):e1000890. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000890 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saragosti J, Calvez V, Bournaveas N, Perthame B, Buguin A, Silberzan P (2011) Directional persistence of chemotactic bacteria in a traveling concentration wave. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(39):16235-16240Google Scholar
  25. Si G, Tang M, Yang X (2014) A pathway-based mean-field model for E. coli chemo- taxis: mathematical derivation and keller-segel limit. Multiscale Model Simul 12(2):907–926MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Si G, Wu T, Ouyang Q, Tu Y (2012) A pathway-based mean-field model for Escherichia coli chemotaxis. Phys Rev Lett 109:048101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tu Y, Shimizu TS, Berg HC (2008) Modeling the chemotactic response of Escherichia coli to time-varying stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(39):14855–14860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vauchelet N (2010) Numerical simulation of a kinetic model for chemotaxis. Kin Rel Models 3(3):501–528MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. Xin X, Othmer HG (2012) A trimer of dimers-based model for the chemotactic signal transduction network in bacterial chemotaxis. Bull Math Biol 74(10):2339–2382MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Xue C, Othmer HG (2009) Multiscale models of taxis-driven patterning in bacterial populations. SIAM J Appl Math 70(1):133–167MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Xue C (2015) Macroscopic equations for bacterial chemotaxis: integration of detailed biochemistry of cell signaling. J Math Biol 70:1–44MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhu X, Si G, Deng N, Ouyang Q, Wu T, He Z, Jiang L, Luo C, Tu Y (2012) Frequency-dependent Escherichia coli chemotaxis behavior. Phys Rev Lett 108:128101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions UMR CNRS 7598 and INRIA ParisSorbonne Université, UPMC Univ Paris 06ParisFrance
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics, Institute of Natural SciencesShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations