- Research
- Open Access
Control and inhibition analysis of complex formation processes
- Takashi Saitou^{1}Email author,
- Keiko Itano^{1},
- Daisuke Hoshino^{2},
- Naohiko Koshikawa^{2},
- Motoharu Seiki^{2},
- Kazuhisa Ichikawa^{3} and
- Takashi Suzuki^{1}
https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-9-33
© Saitou et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012
- Received: 26 April 2012
- Accepted: 18 June 2012
- Published: 3 August 2012
Abstract
Background
Proteolytic degradation of the extracellular matrix (ECM) is a key event in tumour metastasis and invasion. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are a family of endopeptidases that degrade most of the components of the ECM. Several broad-spectrum MMP inhibitors (MMPIs) have been developed, but have had little success due to side effects. Thus, it is important to develop mathematical methods to provide new drug treatment strategies. Matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP2) activation occurs via a mechanism involving complex formation that consists of membrane type 1 MMP (MT1-MMP), tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (TIMP2) and MMP2. Here, we focus on developing a method for analysing the complex formation process.
Results
We used control analysis to investigate inhibitor responses in complex formation processes. The essence of the analysis is to define the response coefficient which measures the inhibitory efficiency, a small fractional change of concentration of a targeting molecule in response to a small fractional change of concentration of an inhibitor. First, by using the response coefficient, we investigated models for general classes of complex formation processes: chain reaction systems composed of ordered steps, and chain reaction systems and site-binding reaction systems composed of unordered multi-branched steps. By analysing the ordered step models, we showed that parameter-independent inequalities between the response coefficients held. For the unordered multi-branched step models, we showed that independence of the response coefficients with respect to equilibrium constants held. As an application of our analysis, we discuss a mathematical model for the MMP2 activation process. By putting the experimentally derived parameter values into the model, we were able to conclude that the TIMP2 and MMP2 interaction is the most efficient interaction to consider in selecting inhibitors.
Conclusions
Our result identifies a new drug target in the process of the MMP2 activation. Thus, our analysis will provide new insight into the design of more efficient drug strategies for cancer treatment.
Keywords
- Control analysis
- Complex formation
- Biochemical reaction kinetics
- Proteinase inhibitors
- Cancer invasion
- Matrix metalloproteinases
Background
Metastasis and invasion are a major cause of death in cancer patients, and thus preventing this secondary spread of the tumour is an important aspect of cancer therapy. A prerequisite for the migration of endothelial cells through the extracellular matrix (ECM) is the initiation of a biochemical pathway responsible for the proteolytic degradation of these structural barriers. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are a family of endopeptidases that degrade most of the components of the ECM [1, 2]. Several broad-spectrum MMP inhibitors (MMPIs) have been developed, some of which have been used in clinical trials for cancer treatment [3]. However, these MMP inhibitors have had little success due to side effects, implying that these clearly lacked selectivity in their action. Most MMPs are inhibited by MMPIs that bind to the active sites of MMPs. Similarities in active sites of MMPs pose obstacles to the design of specific inhibitors. It is thus important to find alternatives to these approaches to increase specificity. Therefore, it is worth developing mathematical methods in analysing biochemical reaction pathways to provide new drug treatment strategies.
Matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP2) was proposed as a potential therapeutic target, based on its high-level expression in many human tumours and its ability to degrade type IV collagen [4]. The activation of MMP2 proenzyme is processed by membrane type 1 matrix metalloproteinase (MT1-MMP) [5–7]. Under physiologic conditions, MMP2 is secreted as a latent form, pro-MMP2, and it has been established that its activation occurs via a mechanism involving a complex formation that consists of MT1-MMP, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 2 (TIMP2) and pro-MMP2. Here, focusing on the MMP2 activation process, we develop a mathematical method which quantifies a response of systems to an inhibitor and classifies interactions in order of the inhibitory efficiency. The goal of this study is to identify the most efficient interaction to consider in selecting inhibitors.
In order to achieve this goal, we use control analysis, a method of sensitivity analysis which is widely used in many fields (see for example [8]). Methods of obtaining quantitative measures of control in metabolic pathways were developed by Kacser and Burns [9] and Heinrich and Rapoport [10, 11] (for a review, see [12]). The essence of the analysis is to define the response coefficient which measures the inhibitory efficiency, a small fractional change of concentration of a targeting molecule in response to a small fractional change of concentration of an inhibitor. First, using the response coefficient, we investigate models for general classes of complex formation processes: chain reaction systems composed of ordered steps, and chain reaction systems and site-binding reaction systems composed of unordered multi-branched steps. By analysing the ordered step models, we show that parameter-independent inequalities between response coefficients hold. In the unordered multi-branched step models, we assume there are no cooperative reactions, i.e. the equilibrium constant for binding a site of molecule B to a site of another molecule A is independent of whether any of the other sites of molecule A are occupied. This assumption satisfies the detailed balance condition, but it puts a stronger constraint on the system (the importance of the detailed balance condition in kinetic modelling was discussed in [13–15]). Under this assumption, we show that independence of the response coefficients with respect to the equilibrium constants holds. These results indicate that the inhibitory efficiency depends on the topology of pathway networks. As an application of our analysis, we investigate a mathematical model for the MMP2 activation process [16]. In the model, MT1-MMP is dimerized, bound to TIMP2 and forms a quadruple complex by binding proMMP2, MT1-MT1T2M2, which contributes to activation of proMMP2. We try to identify the most efficient interaction to consider in selecting inhibitors by putting the experimentally derived parameter values into the model.
Therefore, our method can serve as a tool for quantifying the inhibitory efficiency and allows us to determine the most efficient method of selecting the inhibitor in complex formation processes. Application of the method to the MMP model may provide a new tool for designing more efficient drug strategies for cancer treatment.
Results
The response coefficient as a measure of the inhibitory efficiency
where [E]_{ T } is the total concentration of the enzyme. The concentration [ES] is the enzyme concentration which contributes to P production, while the concentration [E] + [EI] is the enzyme concentration which does not contribute to P production. The parameter K, defined by K = kd/ka, is the equilibrium constant of the enzyme and substrate binding reaction, where kd is the dissociation rate constant and ka is the association rate constant. The coefficient α is written as $\alpha =1+\frac{\left[I\right]}{{K}_{I}}$, where K_{ I } is the equilibrium constant of the enzyme and inhibitor binding reaction. Because α is always greater than 1, an addition of the inhibitor is equivalent to an increase of the equilibrium constant K. Therefore, in this paper, instead of adding inhibitors, we perform an inhibition analysis by changing equilibrium constants.
So far, we have discussed behaviours of the response coefficient in a simple model as an example. We would like to generalize this analysis to larger systems which have multiple interactions. From here, we consider models for general classes of complex formation processes: (1) chain reaction systems composed of ordered steps, (2) chain reaction systems composed of unordered multi-branched steps and (3) site-binding reaction systems composed of unordered multi-branched steps.
Analysis of the ordered step models
where R_{ i }^{123}, R_{ i }^{12} and R_{ i }^{1}(i = 1, 2) denote the response coefficients for [A_{1}A_{2}A_{3}], [A_{1}A_{2}] and [A_{1}] with respect to K_{ i }, respectively. As can be seen from (3), the following inequalities between the response coefficients hold: R_{1}^{123} > R_{2}^{123}, R_{2}^{12} > R_{1}^{12} and R_{1}^{1} > R_{2}^{1}. The inequality R_{1}^{123} > R_{2}^{123} shows that inhibitory efficiency of the A_{3} binding reaction is larger than that of the A_{2}binding reaction. The sign of R_{1}^{12} is negative, while that of R_{2}^{12} is positive. This means that the complex concentration [A_{1}A_{2}] increases by the inhibition of the A_{2} binding reaction.
Thus, we have shown that the parameter-independent inequalities hold in Model Sn. The inequalities indicate that the reactions can be sorted in order of the inhibitory efficiency, which is independent of the values of the equilibrium constants.
Analysis of the unordered multi-branched step models – chain reaction systems
Analysis of the unordered multi-branched step models – site-binding systems
An application - MT1-MMP/TIMP2/MMP2 complex formation model
Experimentally derived parameter values for the MMP model
Parameters | Values | Remarks |
---|---|---|
[MT 1]_{ T } | 100nM | |
[T 2]_{ T } | 50-100nM | |
[M 2]_{ T } | 100nM | |
k _{a(MT 1−MT 1)} | 2/μM/s | From Hoshino 2012 [16] |
k _{d(MT 1−MT 1)} | 0.01/s | From Hoshino 2012 [16] |
k _{a(MT 1−T 2)} | 2.74/μM/s | From Toth 2000 [19] |
k _{d(MT 1−T 2)} | 0.0001/s | From Toth 2000 [19] |
k _{a(T 2−M 2)} | 0.14/μM/s | From Olson 1997 [20] |
k _{d(T 2−M 2)} | 0.0047/s | From Olson 1997 [20] |
Summary of equilibrium constants
K _{MT 1−MT 1} | 5nM |
---|---|
K _{MT 1−T 2} | 0.548nM |
K _{T 2−M 2} | 33.5714nM |
Several broad-spectrum MMPIs function by strongly chelating the Zn ion that lies in the MMP active site. Similarities in active sites of MMPs pose obstacles to the design of specific inhibitors [3]. Thus, a new approach to the identification of new drug targets is important. Here, focusing on the MMP2 activation process, we were able to determine that the TIMP2-MMP2 is the most effective interaction. It is reported that TIMP2 interacts with MMP2 through the C-terminal domain of the enzyme that is distinct from the active site [21, 22]. Therefore, our result identifies a new drug target in the process of MMP2 activation. Development of low molecular weight compounds capable of effectively and specifically inhibiting the TIMP2 and MMP2 binding interaction will be the subject of future research. Our result can be validated using cell culture systems.
Conclusions
In this paper, our aim is to quantify the response of a system to the addition of inhibitors and to classify their interactions in order of their inhibitory efficiency. In order to analyse the response systematically, we used control analysis. Using the response coefficients, we revealed that the parameter-independent inequalities between the response coefficients hold in the ordered step models. For the unordered multi-branched step models, we showed that independence of the response coefficients with respect to the equilibrium constants holds. These results indicate that the inhibitory efficiency depends on the topology of the pathway networks. We applied our analysis to a complex formation model describing the formation of complexes of MMP2 and MT1-MMP in the presence of TIMP2 [16]. In the complex formation process between these molecules, there are three interactions, i.e. the MT1-MMP dimerization, the MT1-MMP and TIMP2 binding reaction and the TIMP2 and MMP2 binding reaction. We tried to identify the most efficient interaction to consider in selecting the inhibitors by putting the experimentally derived parameter values into the model. The novel finding of the analysis is that the inhibition of the TIMP2 and MMP2 binding interaction is the most efficient method for suppressing the quadruple complex MT1-MT1T2M2, which contributes to the MMP2 activation. This result identifies a new drug target in the process of MMP2 activation.
Our method can also be applied to other models of complex formation processes. However, there are some weaknesses in the analysis presented here. Throughout our treatment, we have considered only the steady state in a well-stirred environment. For the case that the substrate is a non-diffusible molecule such as ECM, the well-stirred assumption is not valid. Thus, in this case, we should consider a three dimensional compartment model in which the extracellular space is divided into small compartments [16, 23]. This will allow us to simulate a reaction–diffusion system. Furthermore, we analysed models in closed systems, but intra- and intercellular transport of molecules should play important roles in biochemical reactions occurring in cells. Thus, spatio-temporal dynamics associated with a mechanism such as a positive feedback loop [24] should be considered.
Methods
Numerical computation scheme
We employed the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method to solve systems of ordinary differential equations numerically. In all simulations, the time step was taken as dt = 0.001 sec and time evolution was performed up to the time T = 100000 sec. In the calculation of the response coefficients, the small fractional change of the equilibrium constant K was δK/K = 0.01.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Japan Science Technology Agency (JST), Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST), Alliance for Breakthrough Between Mathematics and Sciences.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Birkedal-Hansen H, Moore WG, Bodden MK, Windsor LJ, Birkedal-Hansen B, DeCarlo A, Engler JA: Matrix metalloproteinases: a review. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1993, 4 (2): 197-250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nagase H, Woessner JF: Matrix metalloproteinases. J Biol Chem. 1999, 274 (31): 21491-21494. 10.1074/jbc.274.31.21491.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Overall CM, Kleifeld O: Validating matrix metalloproteinases as drug targets and anti-targets for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006, 6 (3): 227-239. 10.1038/nrc1821.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Okada Y, Morodomi T, Enghild JJ, Suzuki K, Yasui A, Nakanishi I, Salvesen G, Nagase H: Matrix metalloproteinase 2 from human rheumatoid synovial fibroblasts. Purification and activation of the precursor and enzymic properties. Eur J Biochem. 1990, 194 (3): 721-730. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1990.tb19462.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sato H, Takino T, Okada Y, Cao J, Shinagawa A, Yamamoto E, Seiki M: A matrix metalloproteinase expressed on the surface of invasive tumour cells. Nature. 1994, 370 (6484): 61-65. 10.1038/370061a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Seiki M: Membrane-type 1 matrix metalloproteinase: a key enzyme for tumor invasion. Cancer Lett. 2003, 194 (1): 1-11. 10.1016/S0304-3835(02)00699-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Itoh Y, Seiki M: MT1-MMP: a potent modifier of pericellular microenvironment. J Cell Physiol. 2006, 206 (1): 1-8. 10.1002/jcp.20431.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Higgins J: Analysis of sequential reactions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1963, 108: 305-321.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kacser H, Burns JA: The control of flux. Biochem Soc Trans. 1995, 23: 341-366.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heinrich R, Rapoport T: A linear steady-state treatment of enzymatic chains. general properties, control and effector strength. Eur J Biochem. 1974, 42: 89-95. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1974.tb03318.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Heinrich R, Rapoport T: A linear steady-state treatment of enzymatic chains. critique of the crossover theorem and a general procedure to indentify interactions sites with an effector. Eur J Biochem. 1974, 42: 97-105. 10.1111/j.1432-1033.1974.tb03319.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fell DA: Metabolic control analysis: a survey of its theoretical and experimental development. Biochem J. 1992, 286: 313-330.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Colquhoun D, Dowsland KA, Beato M, Plested AJR: How to impose microscopic reversibility in complex reaction mechanisms. Biophys J. 2004, 86: 3510-3518. 10.1529/biophysj.103.038679.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yang J, Bruno WJ, Hlavacek WS, Pearson J: On imposing detailed balance in complex reaction mechanisms. Biophys J. 2006, 91: 1136-1141. 10.1529/biophysj.105.071852.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ederer M, Gilles ED: Thermodynamically feasible kinetic models of reaction networks. Biophys J. 2007, 92 (6): 1846-1857. 10.1529/biophysj.106.094094.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hoshino D, Koshikawa N, Suzuki T, Quaranta V, Weaver A, Seiki M, Ichikawa K: Establishment and validation of computational model for MT1-MMP dependent ECM degradation and intervention strategies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012, 8 (4): e1002479-10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002479.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lu KV, Jong KA, Rajasekaran AK, Cloughesy TF, Mischel PS: Upregulation of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-2 promotes matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 activation and cell invasion in a human glioblastoma cell line. Lab Invest. 2004, 84 (1): 8-20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karagiannis ED, Popel AS: A theoretical model of type I collagen proteolysis by matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) 2 and membrane type 1 MMP in the presence of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2. J Biol Chem. 2004, 279 (37): 39105-39114. 10.1074/jbc.M403627200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Toth M, Bernardo MM, Gervasi DC, Soloway PD, Wang Z, Bigg HF, Overall CM, DeClerck YA, Tschesche H, Cher ML, Brown S, Mobashery S, Fridman R: Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP)-2 acts synergistically with synthetic matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) inhibitors but not with TIMP-4 to enhance the (Membrane type 1)-MMP-dependent activation of pro-MMP-2. J Biol Chem. 2000, 275: 41415-41423. 10.1074/jbc.M006871200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Olson MW, Gervasi DC, Mobashery S, Fridman R: Kinetic analysis of the binding of human matrix metalloproteinase-2 and −9 to tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1 and TIMP-2. J Biol Chem. 1997, 272 (47): 29975-29983. 10.1074/jbc.272.47.29975.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Howard EW, Banda MJ: Binding of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 2 to two distinct sites on human 72-kDa gelatinase. Identification of a stabilization site. J Biol Chem. 1991, 266 (27): 17972-17977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Murphy G, Willenbrock F, Ward RV, Cockett MI, Eaton D, Docherty AJ: The C-terminal domain of 72 kDa gelatinase A is not required for catalysis, but is essential for membrane activation and modulates interactions with tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases. Biochem J. 1992, 283: 637-641.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Karagiannis ED, Popel AS: Distinct modes of collagen type I proteolysis by matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) 2 and membrane type I MMP during the migration of a tip endothelial cell: Insights from a computational model. J Theor Biol. 2006, 238: 124-145. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.05.020.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Saitou T, Rouzimaimaiti M, Koshikawa N, Seiki M, Ichikawa K, Suzuki T: Mathematical modeling of invadopodia formation. J Theor Biol. 2012, 298: 138-146.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.