The subtle business of model reduction for stochastic chemical kinetics

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 130, Issue 6, 2009, Pages

  Gillespie, Dan T ^a   Cao, Yang ^b   Sanft, Kevin R ^c   Petzold, Linda R ^c  

^a Dan T Gillespie Consulting   (United States)

^b Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University   (United States)

^c University of California   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL REACTIONS; RANDOM PROCESSES; REDUCTION;

CHEMICAL KINETICS; CHEMICAL REACTION NETWORKS; CHEMICAL SPECIES; MODEL REACTIONS; MODEL REDUCTIONS; REACTION CHANNELS; SIMULATION ACCURACIES; SIMULATION EFFICIENCIES; STOCHASTIC SIMULATION ALGORITHMS;

STOCHASTIC MODELS;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL MODEL; KINETICS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICS;

KINETICS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 60349124931     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.3072704     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. L. Michaelis and M. L. Menten, Biochem. Z. 49, 333 (1913). 0366-0753
2. G. E. Briggs and J. B. S. Haldane, Biochem. J. 19, 338 (1925) 0264-6021; D. L. Nelson and M. M. Cox, Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (Freeman, San Francisco, 2005).
3. J. A. Borghans, R. J. deBoer, and L. A. Segel, Bull. Math. Biol. 0092-8240 10.1007/BF02458281 58, 43 (1996).
4. A. R. Tzafriri and E. R. Edelman, J. Theor. Biol. 226, 303 (2004). 0022-5193
5. D. Barik, M. Paul, W. Baumann, Y. Cao, and J. Tyson, Biophys. J. 95, 3563 (2008). 0006-3495 10.1529/biophysj.108.129155
6. Y. Cao, D. T. Gillespie, and L. R. Petzold, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.1824902 122, 014116 (2005).
7. E. A. Mastny, E. L. Haseltine, and J. B. Rawlings, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.2764480 127, 094106 (2007).
8. For a review of the stochastic simulation algorithm, the chemical master equation, and related topics, see D. T. Gillespie, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 0066-426X 10.1146/annurev.physchem.58.032806.104637 58, 35 (2007).
9. D. T. Gillespie, S. Lampoudi, and L. R. Petzold, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.2424461 126, 034302 (2007); S. Lampoudi, D. T. Gillespie, and L. R. Petzold, " Effect of excluded volume on 2D discrete stochastic chemical kinetics.," J. Comput. Phys. (in press).
10. If c2 =0 and c3 c1, Eq. gives λ+ = c3 and λ- = c1. Setting those results into Eq. gives a formula that is indeterminate when c3 = c1. But applying L'Hospital's rule to that indeterminate form, taking derivatives with respect to c3 yields the pdf c12 t e- c1 t. This nonexponential form, which goes to zero as t→0, is the pdf of the gamma random variable (c1,2), which is defined as the sum of two statistically independent exponentials with the same mean c1 -1. And this is exactly what we should expect for the time for an S1-S3 conversion via reactions when c2 =0 and c3 = c1.
11. E. L. Haseltine and J. B. Rawlings, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.1505860 117, 6959 (2002).
12. C. Rao and A. P. Arkin, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.1545446 118, 4999 (2003).
13. In Ref., it was stated that the condition for applying the ssSSA to reactions is (c1 + c2) 2 c1 c3 x12. That is incorrect, as it arises from comparing a single-walker timescale with a many-walker timescale. The correct condition is simply c2 c3, as can be seen not only from the result but also from the argument at Eq. The reason why it is not necessary to supplement the condition c2 c3 with the condition c1 c3 is explained in the second paragraph of Sec.
14. D. A. McQuarrie, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.1733676 38, 433 (1963); I. G. Darvey, B. W. Ninham, and P. J. Staff, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 10.1063/1.1727900 45, 2145 (1966).