Quantitative modeling of sensitivity in bacterial chemotaxis: The role of coupling among different chemoreceptor species

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 100, Issue 14, 2003, Pages 8223-8228

  Mello, Bernardo A ^a,b   Tu, Yuhai ^a  

^a IBM T J WATSON RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DE BRASÍLIA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASPARTIC ACID; RECEPTOR; SERINE;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CELL TYPE; CHEMORECEPTOR; CHEMOTAXIS; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; DATA ANALYSIS; IN VIVO STUDY; LIGAND BINDING; MICROBIAL ACTIVITY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MUTANT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RECEPTOR AFFINITY; RECEPTOR SENSITIVITY; THEORETICAL MODEL; WILD TYPE;

BACTERIAL PROTEINS; CHEMORECEPTORS; CHEMOTACTIC FACTORS; CHEMOTAXIS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ESCHERICHIA COLI PROTEINS; LIGANDS; MEMBRANE PROTEINS; METHYLATION; METHYLTRANSFERASES; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEIN PROCESSING, POST-TRANSLATIONAL; RECEPTORS, CELL SURFACE; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SUBSTRATE SPECIFICITY;

BACTERIA (MICROORGANISMS);

EID: 0037816259     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1330839100     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Falke, J. J., Bass, R. B., Butler, S. L., Chervitz, S. A. & Danielson, N. A. (1997) Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13, 457-512.
2. Bren, A. & Eisenbach, M. (2000) J. Bacteriol. 182, 6865-6873.
3. Bourret, R. B. & Stock, A. M. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 227, 9625-9628.
4. Segall, J. E., Block, S. M. & Berg, H. C. (1986) Proc. Natl. Acad. USA 83, 8987-8991.
5. Cluzel, P., Surette, M. & Leibler, S. (2000) Science 287, 1652-1655.
6. Kim, C., Jackson, M., Lux, R. & Khan, S. (2001) J. Mol. Biol. 307, 119-135.
7. Sourjik, V. & Berg, H. C. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 123-127.
8. Bray, D., Levin, M. D. & Morton-Firth, C. J. (1998) Nature 393, 85-88.
9. Shi, Y. & Duke, T. (1998) Phys. Rev. E 58, 6399-6406.
10. Duke, T. A. J. & Bray, D. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96, 10104-10108.
11. Barkai, N. & Leibler, S. (1997) Nature 387, 913-917.
12. Morton-Firth, C. J., Shimizu, T. S. & Bray, D. (1999) J. Mol. Biol. 286, 1059-1074.
13. Yi, T.-M., Huang, Y., Simon, M. I. & Doyle, J. (2000) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 4649-4653.
14. Mello, B. A. & Tu, Y. (2003) Biophys. J. 84, 2943-2956.
15. Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. & Flannery, B. P. (1992) Numerical Recipes (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).
16. Ames, P., Studdert, C. A., Reiser, R. H. & Parkinson, J. S. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7060-7065.
17. Shimizu, T. S., Le Novère, N., Levin, M. D., Beavil, A. J., Sutton, B. J. & Bray, D. (2000) Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 792-796.
18. Falke, J. J. (2002) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 6530-6532.
19. Bornhorst, J. A. & Falke, J. J. (2001) J. Gen. Physiol. 118, 693-710.
20. Li, G. & Weis, R. M. (2000) Cell 100, 357-365.
21. Levit, M. N. & Stock, J. B. (2002) J. Biol. Chem. 277, 36760-36765.
22. Gestwicki, J. E. & Kiessling, L. L. (2002) Nature 415, 81-84.
23. Barkai, N., Alon, U. & Leibler, S. (2001) C. R. Acad. Sci. 2, 1-7.