Self-organized pattern formation in motor-microtubule mixtures

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 18-

  Sankararaman, Sumithra ^a   Menon, Gautam I ^a   Sunil Kumar, P B ^b  

^a INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES   (India)

^b INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MEMBRANES; CELLS; DNA; EQUATIONS OF MOTION; HYDRODYNAMICS; HYDROLYSIS; MICROMETERS; MOLECULAR ORIENTATION; PROTEINS;

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATE (ATP); KINESINS; MOLECULAR MOTORS; MOTOR-MICROTUBULAR MIXTURES;

NEUROLOGY;

MOLECULAR MOTOR;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYSTALLIZATION; DIMERIZATION; DRUG MIXTURE; EVALUATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MICROTUBULE; MITOSIS; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHYSIOLOGY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ANIMALS; COMPLEX MIXTURES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CRYSTALLIZATION; DIMERIZATION; HUMANS; MICROTUBULES; MITOSIS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MOLECULAR MOTOR PROTEINS; MOVEMENT;

EID: 42749100025     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.031905     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. B. Alberts, A. Johnson, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, and P. Walter, Molecular Biology of the Cell, 4th ed. (Garland Science, New York, 2002).
2. Microtubules in vitro undergo an alternating process of rapid, stochastic polymerization and depolymerization (dynamic instability) unless stabilized.
3. S. A. Endow and D. S. Barker, Annu. Rev. Physiol.ARPHAD0066-427810.1146/annurev.physiol.65.092101.142550 65, 161 (2003).
4. V. Rodionov and G. Borisy, Nature (London)NATUAS0028-083610.1038/386170a0 386, 170 (1997).
5. F. Nédélec, T. Surrey, A. C. Maggs, and S. Leibler, Nature (London)NATUAS0028-083610.1038/38532 389, 305 (1997).
6. R. Heald, R. Tournebize, A. Habermann, E. Karsenti, and T. Hyman, J. Cell Biol.JCLBA30021-952510.1083/jcb.138.3.615 138, 615 (1997);
7. R. Heald, R. Tournebize, T. Blank, R. Sandaltzopoulos, A. Hyman, and E. Karsenti, Nature (London)NATUAS0028-083610.1038/382420a0 382, 420 (1996).
8. L. Hartwell, J. Hopfield, S. Leibler, and A. Murray, Nature (London)NATUAS0028-0836 402, C 47 (1999).
9. T. Surrey, F. Nédélec, S. Leibler, and E. Karsenti, ScienceSCIEAS0036-807510.1126/science.1059758 292, 1167 (2001).
10. F. Nédélec and T. Surrey, C. R. Acad. Sci., Ser IV: Phys., Astrophys.CRACFI1631-0705 2, 841 (2001).
11. F. Nédélec, J. Cell Biol.JCLBA30021-9525 158, 1005 (2002).10.1083/jcb.200202051
12. F. Nédélec, T. Surrey, and E. Karsenti, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.COCBE30955-0674 23, 118 (2003).
13. S. Sankararaman, G. I. Menon, and P. B. Sunil Kumar, Phys. Scr., TPHSTER0281-1847 106, 26 (2003).
14. Since the experiments are performed in a confined geometry, the otherwise long-ranged hydrodynamic interaction is screened because the boundaries of the system act as a sink for momentum. Neglecting the role played by hydrodynamics is therefore justified.
15. H. Y. Lee and M. Kardar, Phys. Rev. EPLEEE81063-651X10.1103/PhysRevE.64.056113 64, 056113 (2001).
16. F. Nèdèlec, T. Surrey, and A. Maggs, Phys. Rev. Lett.PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3192 86, 3192 (2001).
17. J. Kim, Y. Park, B. Kahng, and H. Y. Lee, J. Korean Phys. Soc.KPSJAS0374-4884 42, 162 (2003).
18. K. Kruse and F. Julicher, Phys. Rev. Lett.PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1778 85, 1778 (2000);
19. K. Kruse and F. Julicher, Phys. Rev. EPLEEE81063-651X10.1103/PhysRevE.67.051913 67, 051913 (2003);
20. K. Kruse, S. Camalet, and F. Julicher, Phys. Rev. Lett.PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.87.138101 87, 138101 (2001).
21. J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. EPLEEE81063-651X10.1103/PhysRevE.58.4828 58, 4828 (1998);
22. J. Toner and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett.PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4326 75, 4326 (1995).
23. T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.PRLTAO0031-900710.1103/PhysRevLett.90.138102 90, 138102 (2003).
24. T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, e-print cond-mat/0406276.
25. We only fail to obtain “bundles,” a disordered phase obtained at still higher densities of motors.
26. We find it convenient to refer to the distinct states seen in the experiments and our simulations as “phases,” insofar as quantitative distinctions can be made between them and they are well contrasted from the point of view of the experiments. However, such terminology is, strictly speaking, inaccurate since we believe that sharp qualitative distinctions between several of these states, such as the disordered phase, the aster-vortex mixture, and the lattice of vortices cannot be made—a more generic name would be a disordered and/or aster-vortex mixture dominated by arrested states at low motor density in this regime.
27. W. Press, S. Teukolsky, W. Vetterling, and B. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998).
28. We have also performed a linear stability analysis of the equations governing our model starting from the uniform state ((Formula presented), all (Formula presented) aligned), with the motor densities constant, consistent with periodic boundary conditions on the fields. We choose (Formula presented) where (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) satisfy (Formula presented). Straightforward analysis yields the following results. The uniform state favored by periodic boundary conditions is stable over the range of parameters we use, provided (Formula presented). At any nonzero (Formula presented), the solutions are linearly unstable over the full range of parameters. We note that this particular solution, with its associated boundary condition, corresponds to a macroscopic flux of motors entering and leaving the system through its boundaries. This is physically unrealistic, given the experimental system.
29. Y. Aghababaie, G. I. Menon, and M. Plischke, Phys. Rev. EPLEEE81063-651X10.1103/PhysRevE.59.2578 59, 2578 (1999).