Dynamics of co-substrate pools can constrain and regulate metabolic fluxes

Version of Record

Accepted for publication after peer review and revision.

Download
Cite
Share
CommentOpen annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).

Version of Record published: March 20, 2023 (This version)
Accepted Manuscript published: February 17, 2023 (Go to version)
Accepted: February 16, 2023
Received: October 22, 2022
Preprint posted: September 6, 2022 (Go to version)

1. Of interest
CoCoNuTs are a diverse subclass of Type IV restriction systems predicted to target RNA

Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin

Research Article May 13, 2024
Further reading

Abstract

Cycling of co-substrates, whereby a metabolite is converted among alternate forms via different reactions, is ubiquitous in metabolism. Several cycled co-substrates are well known as energy and electron carriers (e.g. ATP and NAD(P)H), but there are also other metabolites that act as cycled co-substrates in different parts of central metabolism. Here, we develop a mathematical framework to analyse the effect of co-substrate cycling on metabolic flux. In the cases of a single reaction and linear pathways, we find that co-substrate cycling imposes an additional flux limit on a reaction, distinct to the limit imposed by the kinetics of the primary enzyme catalysing that reaction. Using analytical methods, we show that this additional limit is a function of the total pool size and turnover rate of the cycled co-substrate. Expanding from this insight and using simulations, we show that regulation of these two parameters can allow regulation of flux dynamics in branched and coupled pathways. To support these theoretical insights, we analysed existing flux measurements and enzyme levels from the central carbon metabolism and identified several reactions that could be limited by the dynamics of co-substrate cycling. We discuss how the limitations imposed by co-substrate cycling provide experimentally testable hypotheses on specific metabolic phenotypes. We conclude that measuring and controlling co-substrate dynamics is crucial for understanding and engineering metabolic fluxes in cells.

Editor's evaluation

This manuscript presents an important mathematical analysis of metabolic "co-substrates" and how their cycling can affect metabolic fluxes. Through mathematical analysis of simple network motifs, it shows the impact of co-substrate cycling on constraining metabolic fluxes. The combination of mathematical modeling and comparisons with existing data from previous studies offers convincing support for the potential biological relevance of co-substrate cycling. The work will be of interest to researchers who study microbial metabolism and metabolic engineering.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84379.sa0

eLife digest

Metabolism powers individual cells and ultimately the body. It comprises a sequence of chemical reactions that cells use to break down substances and generate energy. These reactions are catalyzed by enzymes, which are proteins that speed up the rate of the reaction. Many reactions also involve co-substrates, which are themselves transformed by individual reactions but are eventually converted back into their original form in a series of steps. This process is known as co-substrate cycling.

Scientists have long been interested in understanding what controls the rate at which metabolic reactions and metabolic pathways convert a substance into a final product. This is a difficult subject to study because of the complexity of the metabolic pathways, with their branched, linear or coupled structures. In the past, researchers have looked at the influence of enzymes on the rate of a metabolic pathway, but less has been known about the effect of co-substrate cycling.

To find out more, West, Delattre et al. developed a series of mathematical models to describe different types of metabolic pathways in terms of the number of metabolites that enter and leave it, including the influence of co-substrates.

They found that co-substrate cycling, when involved in a metabolic reaction, limits the speed with which the reaction happens. This is distinct from the limit that enzymes impose on the speed of the reaction. It depends on the total amount of co-substrates in the cell: changing the number of co-substrates in the cell influences the speed at which the metabolic reaction takes place.

This study has increased our understanding of how metabolic pathways work, and what controls the speed at which reactions take place. It opens up a new potential method for explaining how cells control metabolic reaction rates and how metabolic substrates can be directed across different pathways. This research is likely to inspire future research into the influence of co-substrates in different cell types and conditions.

Introduction

Dynamics of cell metabolism directly influences individual and population-level cellular responses. Examples include metabolic oscillations underpinning the cell cycle (Papagiannakis et al., 2017; Murray et al., 2007) and metabolic shifts from respiration to fermentation, as observed in cancer phenotypes (Warburg, 1956; Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2009; Carmona-Fontaine et al., 2013) and cell-to-cell cross-feeding (Ponomarova et al., 2017; Campbell et al., 2015; Großkopf et al., 2016). Predicting or conceptualising these physiological responses using dynamical models is difficult due to the large size and high connectivity of cellular metabolism. Despite this complexity, however, it is possible that cellular metabolism features certain ‘design principles’ that determine the overall dynamics. There is ongoing interest in finding such simplifying principles.

A key concept for understanding the dynamics of any metabolic system is that of ‘reaction flux’, which is a measure of the rate of biochemical conversion in a given reaction. To identify possible limitations on reaction fluxes, early studies focused on linear pathways involving ATP production and studied their dynamics under the optimality assumption of maximisation of overall pathway flux under limited enzyme levels available to the pathway (Heinrich et al., 1991). The resulting theory predicted a trade-off between pathway flux vs. yield (i.e. rate of ATP generation vs. amount of ATP generated per metabolite consumed by the pathway) in linear pathways (Heinrich and Hoffmann, 1991). This theory is subsequently used to explain the emergence of different metabolic phenotypes (Pfeiffer et al., 2001). In related studies, models pertaining to flux optimisation and enzyme levels being a key limitation are used to explain the structure of different metabolic pathways (Flamholz et al., 2013), and the metabolic shifting from respiration to fermentative pathways under increasing glycolysis rates (Großkopf et al., 2016; Basan et al., 2015; Majewski and Domach, 1990). There are, however, increasing number of studies suggesting that enzyme levels alone might not be sufficient to explain observed flux levels. For example, it was shown that the maximal value of the apparent activities ( $k_{a p p}^{m a x}$ ) of an enzyme, derived using measured enzyme levels and fluxes under different conditions, was a good estimate for the specific activity of that enzyme in vitro ( $k_{c a t}$ ) (Davidi et al., 2016). However, individual estimates from each condition (i.e. individual $k_{a p p}$ values) were commonly lower than the specific activity – suggesting that the flux is limited by something other than enzyme levels under those conditions. Other studies have shown that metabolic flux changes, caused by perturbations in media conditions, are not explained solely by changes in expression levels of enzymes (Chubukov et al., 2013; Gerosa et al., 2015).

Another conceptual framework emphasized the importance of cyclic reaction motifs, particularly those involving so-called co-substrate pairs, such as ATP / ADP or NAD(P)H / NAD(P) $^{+}$ , as a key to understanding metabolic system dynamics (Reich and Sel‘kov, 1981). This framework is linked to the idea of considering the supply and demand structures around specific metabolites as regulatory blocks within metabolism (Hofmeyr and Cornish-Bowden, 2000). For example, the total pool of ATP and its derivates (the ‘energy charge’) is suggested as a key determinant of physiological cell states (Atkinson, 1968). Inspired by these ideas, theoretical studies have shown that metabolic systems featuring metabolite cycling together with allosteric regulation can introduce switch-like and bistable dynamics (Okamoto and Hayashi, 1983; Hervagault and Cimino, 1989), and that metabolite cycling motifs introduce total co-substrate level as an additional control element in metabolic control analysis (Hofmeyr et al., 1986; Sauro, 1994). Specific analyses of ATP cycling in the glycolysis pathway, sometimes referred to as a ‘turbo-design’, and metabolite cycling with autocatalysis, as seen for example in the glyoxylate cycle, have shown that these features constrain pathway fluxes (Koebmann et al., 2002; Teusink et al., 1998; van Heerden et al., 2014; Hatakeyama and Furusawa, 2017; Barenholz et al., 2017; Kurata, 2019). Taken together, these studies indicate that metabolite cycling, in general, and co-substrate cycling specifically, could provide a key ‘design feature’ in cell metabolism, imposing certain constraints or dynamical properties to it.

Towards better understanding the role of co-substrate cycling in cell metabolism dynamics, we undertook here an analytical and simulation-based mathematical study together with analyses of measured fluxes. We created models of enzymatic reaction systems featuring co-substrate cycling, abstracted from real metabolic systems such as glycolysis, nitrogen-assimilation, and central carbon metabolism. We found that co-substrate cycling introduces a fundamental constraint on reaction flux. In the case of single reaction and short linear pathways, we were able to derive a mathematical expression of the constraint, showing that it relates to the pool size and turnover rate of the co-substrate. Analysing measured fluxes, we find that several of the co-substrate featuring reactions in central carbon metabolism carry lower fluxes than expected from the kinetics of their primary enzymes, suggesting that these reactions might be limited by co-substrate cycling. In addition to its possible constraining role, we show that co-substrate cycling can also act as a regulatory element, where control of co-substrate pool size can allow control of flux dynamics across connected or branching pathways. Together, these findings show that co-substrate cycling can act both as a constraint and a regulatory element in cellular metabolism. The resulting theory provides testable hypotheses on how to manipulate metabolic fluxes and cell physiology through the control of co-substrate pool sizes and turnover dynamics, and can be expanded to explain dynamic measurements of metabolite concentrations in different perturbation experiments.

Results

Co-substrate cycling represents a ubiquitous motif in metabolism with co-substrate pools acting as ‘conserved moieties’

Certain pairs of metabolites can be interconverted via different reactions in the cell, thereby resulting in their ‘cycling’. This cycling creates interconnections within metabolism, spanning either multiple reactions in a single, linear pathway, or multiple pathways that are independent or are branching from common metabolites. For example, in glycolysis, ATP is consumed in reactions mediated by the enzymes glucose hexokinase and phosphofructokinase, and is produced by the downstream reactions mediated by phosphoglycerate and pyruvate kinase (Appendix 1—figure 1A). In the nitrogen assimilation pathway, the NAD⁺ / NADH pair is cycled by the enzymes glutamine oxoglutarate aminotransferase and glutamate dehydrogenase (Appendix Dynamics of co-substrate pools can constrain and regulate metabolic fluxes - Appendix 1—figure 1B). Many other cycling motifs can be identified, involving either metabolites from the central carbon metabolism or metabolites that are usually referred to as co-substrates. Examples for the latter include NADPH, FADH2, GTP, and Acetyl-CoA and their corresponding alternate forms, while examples for the former include the tetrahydrofolate (THF) / 5,10-Methylene-THF and glutamate / $α$ -ketoglutarate (akg) pairs involved in one-carbon transfer and in amino acid biosynthesis pathways, respectively (Appendix 1—figure 1C and D). For some of these metabolites, their cycling can connect many reactions in the metabolic network. Taking ATP (NADH) as an example, there are 265 (118) and 833 (601) reactions linked to the cycling of this metabolite in the genome-scale metabolic models of Escherichia coli and human respectively models iJO1366 (Orth et al., 2011) and Recon3d (Brunk et al., 2018).

We notice here that many of the co-substrate involving cycling reactions can be abstracted as a simplified motif as shown in (Figure 1A). This abstract representation highlights the fact that the total pool-size involving all the different forms of a cycled metabolite can become a conserved quantity. This would be the case even when we consider biosynthesis or environmental uptake of co-substrates, as the total concentration of a cycled metabolite across its different forms at steady state would then be given by a constant defined by the ratio of the influx and outflux rates (see Appendices 2 and 3). In other words, the cycled metabolite would become a ‘conserved moiety’ for the rest of the metabolic system and can have a constant ‘pool size’. Supporting this, temporal measurement of specific co-substrate pool sizes shows that ATP and GTP pools are constant under stable metabolic conditions, but can rapidly change in response to external perturbations, possibly through inter-conversions among pools rather than through biosynthesis (Walther et al., 2010).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Motif, time-series and threshold in a single co-substrate involving reaction.

(A) Cartoon representation of a single irreversible reaction with co-substrate cycling (see Appendices for other reaction schemes). The co-substrate is considered to have two forms A₀ and A₁. (B) Concentrations of the metabolites M₀ (red) and M₁ (green), and the $A_{0} / A_{1}$ ratio (blue) are shown as a function of time. At $t = 500$ , the parameters are switched from the white dot in panel (C) (where a steady state exists) to the black dot (where we see continual build-up of M₀ and decline of A₀ without steady state). (C & D) Heatmap of the steady state concentration of M₀ as a function of the total co-substrate pool size ( $A_{tot}$ ) and inflow flux (k_in). White area shows the region where there is no steady state. On both panels, the dashed line indicates the limitation from the primary enzyme, $k_{i n} < V_{m a x, E_{0}}$ , and the solid line indicates the limitation from co-substrate cycling, $k_{i n} < A_{t o t} V_{m a x, E_{a}} / (K_{M, E_{a}} + A_{t o t})$ . In panel (C), there is a range of $A_{tot}$ values for which the first limitation is more severe than the second. In contrast, in panel (D), the second limitation is always more severe than the first. In (B & C) the parameters used for the primary enzyme (for the reaction converting M₀ into M₁) are picked from within a physiological range (see Supplementary file 1) and are set to: $E_{tot} = 0.01$ mM, $k_{c a t} = 100 / s$ , $K_{M, E_{0}} = K_{M, E_{a}} = 50 μ M$ , while k_out is set to 0.1/s. The $E_{tot}$ and k_cat for the co-substrate cycling enzyme are 1.2 times those for the primary enzyme. In panel (D) the parameters are the same except for the $E_{tot}$ and k_cat of the co-substrate cycling enzyme, which are set to 0.7 times those for the primary enzyme.

Co-substrate cycling introduces a limitation on reaction flux

To explore the effect of co-substrate cycling on pathway fluxes, we first consider a didactic case of a single reaction. This reaction converts an arbitrary metabolite M₀ to M₁ and involves co-substrate cycling (Figure 1A). For co-substrate cycling, we consider additional ‘background’ enzymatic reactions that are independent of M₀ and can also convert the co-substrate (denoted $E_{a}$ on Figure 1A). We use either irreversible or reversible enzyme dynamics to build an ordinary differential equation (ODE) kinetic model for this reaction system and solve for its steady states analytically (see Methods and Appendix 3). In the case of using irreversible enzyme kinetics, we obtain that the steady state concentration of the two metabolites, M₀ and M₁ (denoted as m₀ and m₁) are given by:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{α k_{i n} K_{M, E_{0}}}{(V_{m a x, E_{0}} - k_{i n}) (V_{m a x, E_{a}} A_{t o t} - k_{i n} (K_{M, E_{a}} + A_{t o t}))} \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{i n}}{k_{o u t}} \end{array}

where k_in and k_out denote the rate of in-flux of M₀, and out-flux of M₁, either in-and-out of the cell or from other pathways, and $A_{tot}$ denotes the total pool size of the cycled metabolite (with the different forms of the cycled metabolite indicated as A₀ and A₁ in Figure 1A). The parameters $V_{\max, E_{0}}$ and $V_{\max, E_{a}}$ are the maximal rates (i.e. $V_{\max} = k_{cat} E_{tot}$ ) for the enzymes catalysing the conversion of A₀ and M₀ into A₁ and M₁ (enzyme E₀), and the turnover of A₁ into A₀ (enzyme $E_{a}$ ), respectively, while the parameters $K_{M, E_{0}}$ and $K_{M, E_{a}}$ are the individual or combined Michaelis-Menten coefficients for these enzymes’ substrates (i.e. for A₀ and M₀ and A₁, respectively). The term $α$ is (in this case where all reactions are irreversible) equal to $V_{\max, E_{a}} - k_{in}$ , and in general is a positive expression comprising k_in, and the Michaelis-Menten coefficients and the $V_{\max}$ parameters of the background enzymes in the model (see Appendix 3, Equations 7; 9; 11). The steady states for the model with all enzymatic conversions being reversible, and for a model with degradation and synthesis of A₀ and A₁, are given in Appendix 3. The steady state solutions of these alternative models are structurally akin to (1), and do not alter the qualitative conclusions we make in what follows.

A key property of (1) is that it contains terms in the denominator that involve a subtraction. The presence of these terms introduces a limit on the parameter values for the system to attain a positive steady state. Specifically, we obtain the following conditions for positive steady states to exist:

k_{i n} < V_{m a x, E_{0}} a n d k_{i n} < \frac{A_{t o t} V_{m a x, E_{a}}}{K_{M, E_{a}} + A_{t o t}} .

Additionally, the ‘shape’ of (1) indicates a ‘threshold effect’ on the steady state value of m₀, where it would rise towards infinity as k_in increases towards the lower one among the limits given in (2) (see Figure 1B).

Why does (1) show this specific form, leading to these limits? We find that this is a direct consequence of the steady state condition, where metabolite production and consumption rates need to be the same at steady state. In the case of co-substrate cycling, the production rate of M₀ is given by k_in, while its consumption rate is a function of the $V_{\max, E_{0}}$ and the concentration of A₀. In turn, the concentration of A₀ is determined by its re-generation rate (which is a function of $K_{M, E_{a}}$ and $V_{\max, E_{a}}$ ) and the pool size ( $A_{tot}$ ). This explains the inequalities given in (2) and shows that a cycled co-substrate creates the same type of limitation (mathematically speaking) on the flux of a reaction it is involved in, as that imposed by the enzyme catalysing that reaction (E₀ in this example) (see Figure 1C & D). We also show that considering the system shown in Figure 1A as an enzymatic reaction without co-substrate cycling leads to only the constraint $k_{i n} < V_{m a x, E_{0}}$ , while considering it as a non-enzymatic reaction with co-substrate cycling only, leads to only the constraint $k_{i n} < A_{t o t} V_{m a x, E_{a}} / (K_{M, E_{a}} + A_{t o t})$ becoming the sole limitation on the system (see Appendix 3). In other words, the two limitations act independently.

To conclude this section, we re-iterate its main result. The flux of a reaction involving co-substrate cycling is limited either by the kinetics of the primary enzyme mediating that reaction, or by the turnover rate of the co-substrate. The latter is determined by the co-substrate pool size and the kinetics of the enzyme(s) mediating its turnover.

Co-substrate cycling causes a flux limit on linear metabolic pathways

We next considered a generalised, linear pathway model with $n + 1$ metabolites and arbitrary locations of reactions for co-substrate cycling, for example as seen in upper glycolysis (Appendix 1—figure 1A). In this model, we only consider intra-pathway metabolite cycling, i.e. the co-substrate is consumed and re-generated solely by the reactions of the pathway. Here, we show results for this model with 5 metabolites as an illustration (Figure 2A), while the general case is presented in Appendix 4.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Motif, time-series and thresholds for the linear pathway model with $n = 4$ .

(A) Cartoon representation of a chain of reversible reactions with co-substrate cycling occurring solely inter-pathway. The co-substrate is considered to have two forms A₀ and A₁. (B) Heatmap of the steady state concentration of M₀ as a function of the total metabolite pool size ( $A_{tot}$ ) and inflow rate constant (k_in). White area shows the region where there is no steady state. The dashed and solid lines indicate the limitations arising from primary enzyme (E₁ in this case) and co-substrate cycling, respectively, as in Figure 1. (C) Concentrations of $M_{0 - 4}$ , and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ ratio as a function of time (with colours as indicated in the inset). At $t = 1000$ s, the parameters are switched from the white dot in panel (B) (where a steady state exists) to the black dot (where we see build-up of all substrates that are produced before the first co-substrate cycling reaction, and continued decline of A₀). The parameters used are picked from within a physiological range (see Supplementary file 1) and are set to: $E_{tot} = 0.01$ mM, $k_{c a t} = 100 / s$ , $K_{M} = 50 μ m$ , for all reactions, and $k_{o u t} = 0.1 / s$ .

We find the same kind of threshold dynamics as in the single reaction case. When k_in is above a threshold value, the metabolite M₀ accumulates towards infinity and the system does not have a steady state (Figure 2B). A numerical analysis, as well as our analytical solution, reveals that the accumulation of metabolites applies to all metabolites upstream of the first reaction with co-substrate cycling (Figure 2C and Appendix 4). Additionally, metabolites downstream of the cycling reaction accumulate to a steady state level that does not depend on k_in (Figure 2C and Appendix 3—figure 1). In other words, pathway output cannot be increased further by increasing k_in beyond the threshold. Finally, as k_in increases, the cycled metabolite pool shifts towards one form and the ratio of the two forms approaches zero (Figure 2C).

An analytical expression for the threshold for k_in, like shown in (2), could not be derived for linear pathways with $n > 3$ , but our analytical study indicates that (i) the threshold is always linked to $A_{tot}$ and enzyme kinetic parameters, and (ii) the concentration of all metabolites upstream (downstream) to the reaction coupled to metabolite cycling will accumulate towards infinity (a fixed value) as k_in approaches the threshold (see Appendix 4). In Figure 2, we illustrate these dynamics with simulations for a system with $n = 4$ .

We also considered several variants of this generalised linear pathway model, corresponding to biologically relevant cases as shown in Appendix 1—figure 1. These included (i) intra-pathway cycling of two different metabolites, as seen with ATP and NADH in combined upper glycolysis and fermentation pathways (Appendix 5), (ii) different stoichiometries for consumption and re-generation reactions of the cycled metabolite, as seen in upper glycolysis (Appendix 6), and (iii) cycling of one metabolite interlinked with that of another, as seen in nitrogen assimilation (Appendix 7). The results in the Appendices confirm that all these cases display similar threshold dynamics, where the threshold point is a function of the co-substrate pool size and the enzyme kinetics.

Cycled metabolite related limit could be relevant for specific reactions from central metabolism

Based on flux values that are either experimentally measured or predicted by flux balance analysis (FBA), many reactions from the central carbon metabolism of the model organism Escherichia coli are shown to have lower flux than expected from the kinetics of their immediate enzymes (i.e. $V_{\max}$ ) (Davidi et al., 2016). This finding is based on calculating $V_{\max}$ from in vitro measured k_cat values of specific enzymes and their in vivo levels based on proteomics studies in E. coli (see Materials and methods). The flux and enzyme concentration data were from other studies which measured them during the exponential phase in E. coli growing on minimal media supplemented with various carbon sources (Schmidt et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015). If we consider measured fluxes for each reaction as a proxy for k_in (notice that these two would be equal at steady state), we can conclude from the fact that there were no observed substrate accumulation in these reactions, as an indication for the analysed reactions carrying fluxes below the first limit identified above in (2). There could be several explanations for this observation of measured fluxes being lower than the limit set by measured enzyme kinetics and level. One simple explanation could be that there is a discrepancy between in vitro measured enzyme kinetics and in vivo realised ones. Alternatively, this discrepancy can be low, but the lower flux could be arising because there are additional limiting factors other than the enzymes mediating the main reaction. Among such additional limiting factors, substrate limitation and thermodynamic effects are shown to partially explain observed lower fluxes in some reactions (Davidi et al., 2016; see also below results). Here, we highlight that the presented theory shows that an additional possible limitation could be the co-substrate pool size and turnover dynamics.

To explore this possibility, we re-analysed the flux values compiled previously (Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) and focused solely on reactions that are linked to ATP, NADH, or NADPH pools (see Materials and methods and Supplementary file 1). The resulting dataset contained fluxes, substrate concentrations, and enzyme levels for 45 different reactions determined under 7 different conditions along with turnover numbers and kinetic constants of the corresponding enzymes. In total, we gathered 49 combinations of enzyme-flux-k_cat values with full experimental data and 259 combinations with only FBA-predicted flux values. We compared the flux values that would be expected from the primary enzyme limit identified above, under all conditions analysed (Figure 3A), and in addition checked whether the saturation effect of the primary substrate could explain the difference (Appendix 8—figure 1). We found that in both cases, about 80% of these reactions carry flux lower than what is expected from enzyme kinetics (Appendix 8—figure 2), suggesting that the limits imposed by co-factor dynamics might be constraining the flux further. The low number of the cases where the flux exceeds the limit might be due to uncertainties in measurement of flux, enzyme or substrate level.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Measured and FBA-predicted flux values are typically lower than the calculated primary enzyme threshold.

(A) Measured and FBA-predicted flux values (from Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) plotted against the calculated primary enzyme kinetic threshold (first part of eq. (1)). Notice that there are 7 points for each reaction, corresponding to the different experimental conditions under which measurements or FBA modelling was done (see Supplementary file 1 for data, along with reaction names and metabolites involved). (**B–D**) Measured flux values under different experimental conditions (from Gerosa et al., 2015) for select reactions plotted against the corresponding co-substrate pool size. Panels B to D show reactions for phosphoglycerate kinase (*PGK*), malate dehydrogenase (*MDH*), and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (*G6PDH*). Each point on these panels is a separate flux measurement under a different environmental condition, where the co-substrate pool size is also measured. Error bars represent standard deviations of flux and metabolite measurements as they appear in the dataset from Gerosa et al. Point colours represent co-substrate type and are as shown in the legend to panel A. Lines show the best linear fit with the corresponding normalised RMSE shown in the panel title.

It is also possible that observed lower fluxes are due to thermodynamic limitations. This is very difficult to analyse without more data, as calculating reaction thermodynamics requires knowledge of concentrations for all substrates and products, as well as enzyme Michaelis-Menten constants in both forward and backward directions. This information is currently not available except for few of the reactions among the ones we analysed. Nevertheless, to give as much insight as possible on the thermodynamic effect, we analysed the physiological Gibbs free energy (the $Δ_{r} G^{'}$ is calculated assuming that all reactants are at 1 mM and pH = 7) against the normalized flux – $v / (E_{0} \cdot k_{c a t})$ (Appendix 8—figure 3). This shows that although in few cases, such as malate dehydrogenase (MDH), the normalised flux seems to be greatly reduced by the thermodynamic barrier, the general picture is that there is little correlation between reaction flux and thermodynamics.

We have also checked the relation between fluxes and co-substrate pool sizes. Co-substrate pool sizes do change between different conditions, and we note that such changes cannot be due to flux changes in co-substrate utilising reactions. But, on the other hand, changes in pool size can affect flux in those reactions, where co-substrate dynamics is limiting (as predicted by the theory). For both measured and FBA-predicted fluxes, we find that several reactions show significant correlation between flux and co-substrate pool size (see Figure 3B–D, see also Appendix 8—table 1 and Appendix 8—figure 4). In the case of FBA-predicted fluxes, however, we note that these results can be confounded due to additional, flux-to-flux correlations and correlations between pool sizes and growth rate. Among reactions with measured fluxes, the three reactions with high correlation to pool size are those mediated by malate dehydrogenase (MDH), linked with NADH pool, phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK), linked with the ATP pool, and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) linked with the NADPH pool.

In summary, these results show that for reactions involving co-substrate cycling (1) measured fluxes are lower than those predicted by kinetics of the primary enzyme (i.e. enzyme involved in substrate conversion) alone, and (2) there is – for some reactions – a correlation between flux and co-substrate pool size. Both observations could indicate co-substrate pool sizes and/or co-substrate cycling dynamics being a limiting factor for flux. We can not state this as a certainty, however, as there are possibly other factors acting as the extra limitation, including thermodynamic effects. These points call for further experimental analysis of co-substrate cycling within the study of metabolic system dynamics.

Co-substrate cycling allows regulation of branch point fluxes

In addition to its possible constraining effects on fluxes, we wondered if co-substrate dynamics can offer a regulatory element in cellular metabolism. In particular, co-substrate cycling can commonly interconnect two independent pathways, or pathways branching from the same upstream metabolite, where it could influence flux distributions among those pathways. To explore this idea, we considered a model of a branching pathway, with each branch involving a different co-substrate, $A$ and $B$ (Figure 4A and Appendix 1). This scenario is seen in the synthesis of certain amino acids that start from a common precursor but utilise NADH or NADPH, for example Serine and Threonine.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Motif, heatmap and time-series for the branching pathway model.

(A) Cartoon representation of two branching pathways from the same upstream metabolite. The two branches are linked to separate co-substrate pools, $A$ and $B$ . Note that pathway independent turnover of the co-substrates is included in the model (see Figure 4—source code 1). (B) The pathways’ flux ratio (i.e. flux into $M_{2, 2}$ divided by flux into $M_{2, 1}$ ) shown in colour mapping, against the ratio of co-substrate pool sizes, $A_{tot}$ and $B_{tot}$ , and the influx rate, k_in, into the upstream metabolite. In the block colour areas, the system has no steady state and the indicated metabolite(s) M₀ and one of the metabolites $M_{1, 2}$ or $M_{1, 1}$ accumulate towards infinity. (C) Concentrations of upstream and branch-endpoint metabolites over time, coloured as shown in the inset of the panel. The solid lines show results using parameters indicated by the white dot in panel (B), where $B_{t o t} > A_{t o t}$ , while the dashed lines show results using parameters indicated by the black dot in panel (B), where $A_{t o t} > B_{t o t}$ . For both simulations, all kinetic parameters are arbitrarily set to 1, apart from the pathway-independent co-substrate recycling ( $V_{\max, E_{a}}$ and $V_{\max, E_{b}}$ ) that is set to 10 (see Figure 4—source code 1).

Figure 4—source code 1 Python implementation of branched pathway model, presented in Figure 4.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/84379/elife-84379-fig4-code1-v2.zip
Download elife-84379-fig4-code1-v2.zip

We hypothesised that regulating the two co-substrate pool sizes, $A_{tot}$ and $B_{tot}$ , could allow regulation of the fluxes on the two branches. To test this hypothesis, we ran numerical simulations with different co-substrate pool sizes and influx rates into the branch point. We found that the ratio of fluxes across the two branches can be regulated by changing the ratio of $A_{tot}$ to $B_{tot}$ (Figure 4B). The regulation effect is seen with a large range of k_in values, but the threshold effect is still present with high enough k_in values leading to loss of steady state and metabolite build up. In that case, the resulting metabolite build-up can affect either branch depending on which co-substrate has the lower pool size (see upper corner regions on Figure 4B). There is also a regime of only the upstream, branch point metabolite building-up, but this happens only when all reactions are considered as reversible and the extent of it depends on turnover rates of the two co-substrates (Appendix 9—figure 1).

In the no-build-up, steady state regime, changing the pool size ratio of the two co-substrates causes a change in fluxes and metabolite levels, The change in flux ratio is of the same order as the change in pool size ratio (Figure 4C & D), while the change in the ratio of metabolite levels is in general less. This relation between pool size ratio and flux ratio on each branch is unaffected by the value of k_in. We also evaluated the level of regulation that can be achieved by varying the turnover rates of $A$ and $B$ . The flux regulation effect in this case is weaker, unless the difference in the turnover rates is large and the influx rate is close to the threshold (Appendix 9—figure 2).

Inter-pathway co-substrate cycling limits maximum influx difference and allows for correlating pathway outfluxes despite influx noise

We next considered a simplified model of two independent pathways interconnected by a single co-substrate pool (Figure 5A and Appendix 10). This model can represent several different processes in metabolism, for example the coupling between the TCA cycle and the respiratory electron transfer chain, through NADH generation and consumption respectively, or the coupling between the pentose phosphate pathway and some amino acid biosynthesis pathways (notably Methionine), through NADPH generation and consumption respectively. We hypothesised that such inter-pathway co-substrate cycling might cause; (1) the co-substrate related limit to relate to difference in pathway influxes, rather than input into one pathway, and (2) a coupling of the pathway output fluxes against influx fluctuations, such that the output fluxes remain correlated to each other, despite differences in influx levels.

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Motif, heatmap and time-series for the coupled pathway model with noisy influxes.

(A) Cartoon representation of two pathways coupled via the same co-substrate cycling. The two forms of the co-substrate are indicated as A₀ and A₁. It is converted from A₀ to A₁ on the lower pathway, and from A₁ to A₀ in the upper pathway. The presented results are for a model with reversible enzyme kinetics, while the results from a model with irreversible enzyme kinetics are shown in Appendix 10—figure 2. (B) Correlation coefficient of the two pathway product metabolites, $M_{1, 2}$ and $M_{1, 1}$ , as a function of the total amount of co-substrate ( $A_{tot}$ ) and the extent of fluctuations in the two pathway influxes, $k_{in, 1}$ and $k_{in, 2}$ . The influx fluctuation is characterised by a waiting time that is exponentially distributed with mean $τ$ , after which the log ratio of the k_in values is drawn from a standard normal distribution. The mean of the k_in values is set to be 0.1 and the pathway-independent cycling occurs at a much lower rate compared to the other reactions (see Figure 5—source code 1). (C) Concentrations of metabolites $M_{1, 2}$ (green) and $M_{1, 1}$ (magenta), pathway influx ratio (pink), and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ ratio (blue) as a function of time. The simulation is run with parameters corresponding to the grey dot in (B) where the products are correlated, and the rate of k_in fluctuations is on a similar timescale to the other reactions. The system is largely unresponsive to the noise, and the $M_{1, 2}$ and $M_{1, 1}$ are fully correlated (i.e. the green and magenta curves overlap). (D) Concentrations of metabolites $M_{1, 2}$ (green) and $M_{1, 1}$ (magenta), pathway influx ratio (pink), and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ ratio (blue) as a function of time. The simulation is run with parameters corresponding to the black dot in (B) where the products are correlated, but the fluctuations in k_in values occur at a much lower rate than the other reactions. The system is responsive to the noise, yet the $M_{1, 2}$ and $M_{1, 1}$ are fully correlated (i.e. the green and magenta curves overlap). For both simulations, all kinetic parameters are arbitrarily set to 1, apart from the pathway-independent co-substrate recycling ( $V_{\max, E_{a}}$ ) that is set to 0.01 (see Figure 5—source code 1).

Figure 5—source code 1 Python implementation of connected pathway model, presented in Figure 5.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/84379/elife-84379-fig5-code1-v2.zip
Download elife-84379-fig5-code1-v2.zip

To address the first hypothesis, we used analytical methods and explored the relation between the systems’ ability to reach steady state and system parameters. We found that, indeed, for this coupled system, the ability to reach steady state depends on the influx difference between two pathways, as well as the total pool size and the kinetic parameters relating to pathway-independent turn-over of the co-substrate (see Appendix 10). In other words, for two pathways coupled via co-substrate cycling, the cycling-dependent flux limit for each is not determined by their own influx but rather on how different this is to the coupled pathways’ influx (Appendix 10—figure 1).

To test the second hypothesis about the output coupling, we considered the correlation of the steady-state outputs of the pathways with random fluctuations in their influx (Figure 5B). We found that there is either a high level of anti-correlation or correlation between pathway outputs for all pool sizes tested (blue and yellow regions in Figure 5B). As the pool size decreases, the system reaches a point where there is a transition from anti-correlation to high correlation in product outputs (blue to yellow region in Figure 5B). At low pool sizes, pathway outputs are fully correlated despite significant fluctuation in pathway influx (Figure 5C & D). Within this correlated regime, we identified two different sub-regimes. The first is a regime where the metabolite concentrations stay relatively constant despite the influx noise (Figure 5C). This regime arises because the influx fluctuations are occurring at a much faster rate than the pathway kinetics and the system is rather non-responsive to influx noise. In a second regime, the influx noise is at time scales comparable to pathway kinetics. Here, the metabolite concentrations can readily change with the influx changes, and the system is ‘responsive’, yet the output levels are still correlated (Figure 5D). This regime is directly a result of co-substrate cycling dynamics. Because the turnover of co-substrate is essentially coupling the two pathways, their outputs become directly correlated. This effect does not depend on whether pathway reactions are modelled as reversible or irreversible, and the results here for $V_{\max, E_{a}} = 0.01$ are representative of those for $V_{\max, E_{a}} = 0$ (see Appendix 10—figure 2). As we increase the rate of the assumed background reaction, that is pathway-independent turnover of the co-substrate, we find that these results remain qualitatively the same, but the transition point from anti- correlation in outputs to correlation, shifts to lower $A_{tot}$ values (Appendix 10—figure 2).

These results show that coupling by co-substrate cycling can introduce a limit on influxes of independent pathways or metabolic processes. Furthermore, such coupling can allow high correlation in the pathway outputs, despite significant noise in the inputs of those pathways. These effects are most readily seen where the turnover of the coupling co-substrate by other processes is low. We note that an example case for such a scenario is the coupling of respiration and oxidative phosphorylation, where transmembrane proton cycling takes the role of the cycled co-substrate (Stucki, 1980).

Discussion

We presented a mathematical analysis of metabolic systems featuring co-substrate cycling and showed that such cycling introduces a threshold effect on system dynamics. As the pathway’s influx rate, k_in, approaches a threshold value, the steady state concentrations of metabolites that are upstream of a reaction linked to co-substrate cycling, increase towards infinity and the system cannot reach steady state. Specifically, for reactions involving co-substrates, there are two thresholds on influx rate, one relating to the kinetics of the enzyme directly mediating that reaction, and another relating to the kinetics of the enzymes mediating the turnover of the co-substrate and the pool size of that co-substrate.

This second, additional constraint arising from co-substrate cycling can be directly relevant for cell physiology. We particularly note that this threshold can be highly dynamic, and condition- and cell-dependent. When cells have a permanently or occasionally lowered total co-substrate pool size (i.e. lower $A_{tot}$ ), or when they are placed under challenging conditions (e.g. high carbon- or nitrogen-source concentrations) causing higher k_in values across various pathways, their metabolic systems can be close to the threshold presented here. While both k_in and $A_{tot}$ can be adjusted in the long term, for example by reducing substrate transporter expression or increasing co-substrate biosynthesis, there can be short term impact on cells experiencing significant flux limitations and metabolite accumulations.

Comparing measured flux data against estimated flux values based on measured enzyme levels from proteomics and enzyme kinetics from in vitro studies, we have provided support that fluxes in co-substrate linked reactions could indeed by limited by co-substrate pool dynamics under physiological conditions. This analysis was based on the model organism E. coli and is limited even for this organism due to limited flux and proteomics data. For example, the data compiled here contained 14 co-substrate reactions with experimentally measured fluxes, but only half of these could be used due to lack of measurement on enzyme concentrations. We hope that the presented theory will provide motivation to further expand the available data sets, especially for reactions relating to co-substrate linked reactions. In this quest, we expect that the expansion of measurements to eukaryotic cells to be particularly challenging due to organelle-specific pools, but some progress is being made to achieve at least mitochondrial and cytosolic measurements (Chen et al., 2016). Despite the current limitations, our data-based analyses highlighted three key reactions, that are possibly limited by co-substrate dynamics, and that are mediated by phosphoglycerate kinase (PGK), malate dehydrogenase (MDH), and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PDH) and linked to ATP, NADH, and NADPH pools. Possible flux limitation of these reactions by co-substrate dynamics can also be subjected to further experimental study -– as we discuss further below.

Overall, the presented theoretical results could contribute to our understanding of two commonly observed metabolic dynamics that arise under increasing or high substrate concentrations, and that are shown to cause either ‘substrate-induced death’ (van Heerden et al., 2014) or ‘overflow metabolism’. The latter usually refers to a respiration-to-fermentation switch under respiratory conditions (e.g. the Warburg and Crabtree effects [Warburg, 1956; Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2009; Basan et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 1984]), but other types of overflow metabolism, involving excretion of amino acids and vitamins, has also been observed (Ponomarova et al., 2017; Jiang et al., 2018). Several arguments have been put forward to explain these observations, including osmotic effects arising from high substrate concentrations causing cell death and limitations in respiratory pathways or cell’s protein resources causing a respiration-to-fermentation switch (Diaz-Ruiz et al., 2009; Majewski and Domach, 1990; Basan et al., 2015). Notwithstanding the possible roles of these processes, the presented theory leads to the hypothesis that both substrate-induced death and metabolite excretions could relate to increasing substrate influx rate reaching close to the limits imposed by co-substrate dynamics. There is experimental support for this hypothesis in the case of both observations. Substrate-induced death and associated mutant phenotypes are linked to the dynamics associated with ATP regeneration in glycolysis (Teusink et al., 1998; Koebmann et al., 2002; van Heerden et al., 2014). Based on that finding, it has been argued that cells aim to avoid the threshold dynamics through allosteric regulation of those steps of the glycolysis that involve ATP consumption (Teusink et al., 1998). In the case of respiration-to-fermentation switch, it has been shown that the glucose influx threshold, at which fermentative overflow starts, changes upon introducing additional NADH conversion reactions in both yeast and E. coli populations (Vemuri et al., 2006; Vemuri et al., 2007). In another supportive case, sulfur-compound excretions are linked to alterations in the NADPH pool through changes in the amino acid metabolism (Olin-Sandoval et al., 2019; Green et al., 2020).

Dynamical thresholds relating to co-substrate pools would be relevant for all co-substrates, and not just for ATP or NADH, which have been the focus of most experimental studies to date. We would expect that altering kinetics of enzymes involved in co-substrate cycling can have direct impact on cell physiology, and in particular on metabolic excretions. This prediction can be tested by exploring the effect of mutations on enzymes linked to co-substrate consumption and production, or by altering co-substrate pool sizes and assessing effects of such perturbations on the dynamics of metabolic excretions. These tests can be experimentally implemented by introducing additional enzymes specialising in co-substrate consumption or production (e.g. ATPases, oxidases, or other) and controlling their expression. It would also be possible to monitor co-substrate pool sizes in cells in real time by using fluorescent sensors on key metabolites such as ATP or glutamate, or by measuring autofluorescence of certain pool metabolites, such as NAD(P)H, under alterations to influx rate of glucose or ammonium.

Besides acting as a flux constraint, we find that co-substrate pools can also allow for regulation of pathway fluxes through regulation of pool size or turnover dynamics. We find that such regulation can take the form of balancing inter-connected pathways, thereby ensuring correlation between outputs of different metabolic processes, or regulating flux across branch points. Regulation of fluxes through co-substrate pools can act to adjust metabolic fluxes at time scales shorter than possible via gene regulation, and possibly at similar time scales as with allosteric regulation – especially when considering pool size alterations through exchange among connected pools. Possibility of such a regulatory role has been indicated experimentally, where total ATP pool size is found to change when yeast cells are confronted with a sudden increase in glucose influx rate (Walther et al., 2010). In that study, the change in the ATP pool is found to link to the purine metabolism pathways, which are linked to several conserved moieties; GTP, ATP, NAD, NADP, S-adenosylmethionine, and Coenzyme A. These findings suggest that cells could dynamically alter pool sizes associated with different parts of metabolism, limiting flux through some pathways, while allowing higher flux in others, and thereby shifting the metabolites from the latter to the former. This could provide a dynamic self-regulation and the pool sizes of key co-substrates could be seen as ‘tuning points’ controlling a more complex metabolic system. We thus propose further experimental analyses focusing on co-substrate pool sizes and turnover dynamics to understand and manipulate cell physiology.

Materials and methods

Model of a single reaction with co-substrate cycling

Request a detailed protocol

The metabolic system shown in Figure 1A comprises the following biochemical reactions:

\begin{array}{cc} \overset{k_{i n}}{\to} M_{0} \\ M_{1} \overset{k_{o u t}}{\to} \\ M_{0} + A_{0} ⟷ M_{1} + A_{1} \\ A_{0} ⟷ A_{1} \end{array}

where metabolites are denoted by $M_{i}$ and the different forms of the co-substrate are denoted by $A_{i}$ . We assume additional conversion between A₁ and A₀, mediated through other enzymatic reactions. The parameters k_in, and k_out denote the in- and out- flux of M₀ and M₁ respectively, from and to other pathways or across cell boundary. The ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for the system shown in (3) (and Figure 1A), using irreversible Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetics would be:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{i n} - \frac{V_{m a x, E_{0}} a_{0} m_{0}}{K_{M, E_{0}} + a_{0} m_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{V_{m a x, E_{0}} a_{0} m_{0}}{K_{M, E_{0}} + a_{0} m_{0}} - k_{o u t} m_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = \frac{V_{m a x, E_{a}} a_{1}}{K_{M, E_{a}} + a_{1}} - \frac{V_{m a x, E_{0}} a_{0} m_{0}}{K_{M, E_{0}} + a_{0} m_{0}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{V_{m a x, E_{0}} a_{0} m_{0}}{K_{M, E_{0}} + a_{0} m_{0}} - \frac{V_{m a x, E_{a}} a_{1}}{K_{M, E_{a}} + a_{1}} \end{array}

where m_i and a_i denote the concentrations of $M_{i}$ and $A_{i}$ respectively, $K_{M}$ denotes a composite parameter of the Michaelis-Menten coefficients of the enzyme for its substrates, and $V_{\max}$ is the total enzyme concentration times its catalytic rate (i.e. $V_{\max} = k_{cat} E_{tot}$ ) (see Appendix 11—table 1 for a list of parameters and their units). We further have the conservation relation $a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{tot}$ , where $A_{tot}$ is a constant. This assumption would be justified when influx of any form of the cycled metabolite into the system is independent of the rest of the metabolic system (see further discussion and analysis in Appendix 2). The steady states of (4) can be found by setting the left side equal to zero and performing algebraic re-arrangements to isolate each of the variables. The resulting analytical expressions for steady state metabolite concentration are shown in (2), and in Appendix 3 for this model with reversible enzyme kinetics, as well as for other models.

Symbolic and numerical computations

Request a detailed protocol

For all symbolic computations, utilised in finding steady state solutions and deriving mathematical conditions on rate parameters, we used the software Maple 2021, as well as theoretical results presented in Torres and Feliu, 2021. To run numerical simulations of select systems, we used Python packages with the standard solver functions. All numerical simulations were performed in the Python environment. The main model simulation files relating to Figures 4 and 5 are provided as , while all remaining simulation and analysis scripts are made available through a dedicated repository (West et al., 2023).

Reaction fluxes and enzyme kinetic parameters

Request a detailed protocol

To support the model findings on co-substrate pools acting as a possible limitation on reaction fluxes, we analysed measured and FBA-derived flux data collated previously (Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015). We focused our analyses on reactions involving co-substrates only. We compared measured (or FBA-derived) fluxes to flux thresholds based on enzyme kinetics (i.e. first condition in Eq. 2). To calculate the latter, we used data on enzyme kinetics and levels as collated in Davidi et al., 2016, which is based on the BRENDA database (Chang et al., 2021) and proteomics-based measurements (Schmidt et al., 2016). We note that most available kinetic constants for enzymes have been obtained under in vitro conditions, which can be very different from those of the cytosol (García-Contreras et al., 2012). When comparing flux levels against co-substrate pool sizes, we used the matching, measured pool-sizes from Gerosa et al., 2015. All the data used in this analysis is provided in the Supplementary file 1, and through a dedicated repository (West et al., 2023).

Appendix 1

The mathematical approach and modelling setting

As explained in the main text, we are interested in understanding the effect of co-substrate cycling on the flux through metabolic pathways, such as those shown in Appendix 1—figure 1.

In these Appendices, we use a generic co-substrate pair, denoted as A₀, A₁. We consider the synthesis or degradation of the co-substrate pair, or consider it as a conserved moiety, i.e. having a fixed total concentration. Our generic co-substrate pair, A₀ and A₁, can be taken as representing a specific co-substrate, such as NAD(H), but note that the mathematical analyses presented would be applicable to any co-substrate pair in natural metabolic pathways (as discussed in the main text).

For our analyses, we consider a generalised model of a linear metabolic pathway, as well as additional metabolic pathway structures. Throughout the presented analyses, we consider reactions to be either enzyme mediated or not, and when they are enzyme mediated, we consider them either to be reversible or irreversible. In the former case, the enzymatic conversions are shown as $M_{i - 1} ⇌ M_{i}$ , while in the latter case, they are shown as $M_{i - 1} ⟷ M_{i}$ . These notations do not show enzyme complexes explicitly, but we use enzymatic rates derived from reaction schemes accounting for enzyme complexes (see below).

In certain models, we consider some, or all, cycling reactions of the co-substrate to occur independently of the enzymatic reactions involved in the metabolic pathway, for example due to hydrolysis reactions. We refer to this type of recycling as free conversion, for example in the case of a generic co-substrate considered here, we have:

A_{0} ⇌_{k_{6}}^{k_{5}} A_{1} .

We talk about irreversible co-substrate conversion, if $k_{5} = 0$ or $k_{6} = 0$ , that is, only conversion in one direction is considered. We talk about no free co-substrate conversion, if $k_{5} = k_{6} = 0$ , that is, the co-substrate cycling is only related through the reactions in the metabolic pathway.

Appendix 1—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Cartoon representation of select metabolic pathways involving co-substrate cycling.

(A) Cartoon representation of upper glycolysis pathway. Note that stoichiometric balance across the pathway changes after F1,6P and metabolites and co-substrates highlighted with gray background have a stoichiometry of 2. (**B & C**) Cartoon representation of nitrogen assimilation via glutamate and involvement of glutamate cycling in amino acid biosynthesis. (D) Cartoon representation of metabolite cycles involved in one-carbon metabolism around tetrahydorfolate. Enzyme and metabolite name abbreviations are: Glc – Glucose, G6P – Glucose-6-phosphate, F6P – Fructose-6-phosphate, F1,6P – Fructose-1,6-biphosphate, G3P – glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, G1,3P – 1,3-biphospho-D-glycerate, 3 PG – 3-phospho-D-glycerate, PEP – Phosphoenolpyruvate, Pyr – Pyruvate, Lac – Lactate, DHF – Dihydrofolate, THF - Tetrahydrofolate, AICAR - 5-amino-4-imidazolecarboxamide ribotide, FAICAR - 5’-phosphoribosyl-formamido-carboxamide, hk – hexokinase, pfk – phosphofructokinase, gapdh – glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase, pgk – phosphoglycerate kinase, pyk – phophoenolpyruvate kinase, ldh – lactate dehydrogenase, glud – glutamate dehydrogenase, GOGAT – glutamate synthase, DHFR – dihydrofolate reducatase.

Enzyme kinetics

Each metabolic pathway is modelled using either Michaelis-Menten (irreversible case) or Haldane (reversible case) enzyme kinetics, for the individual reactions it comprises. The general kinetics can be expressed as follows, where we let $a_{0}, a_{1}$ denote the concentrations of the co-substrate pair A₀ and A₁, respectively and m_i to denote the concentration of $M_{i}$ , the $i$ -th metabolite in the pathway.

In the case of a reversible, enzymatic reaction involving a co-substrate and assuming simultaneous binding of both substrates to the enzyme, we have the following reaction scheme:

M_{i - 1} + A_{0} + E ⇌_{k_{o f f}}^{k_{o n}} E M_{i - 1} A_{0} ⇌_{k_{o f f, 1}}^{k_{o n, 1}} E M_{i} A_{1} ⇌_{k_{o f f, 2}}^{k_{o n, 2}} M_{i} + A_{1} + E .

For this reversible reaction scheme, the rate of production of $M_{i}$ takes the form

v = \frac{E_{i} L_{i - 1} m_{i - 1} a_{0} - F_{i} K_{i} m_{i} a_{1}}{K_{i} L_{i - 1} + K_{i} m_{i} a_{1} + L_{i - 1} m_{i - 1} a_{0}} .

Likewise, for the reversible enzymatic conversion $M_{i - 1} ⇌ M_{i}$ , we have the following reaction scheme:

M_{i - 1} + E ⇌_{k_{o f f}}^{k_{o n}} E M_{i - 1} ⇌_{k_{o f f, 1}}^{k_{o n, 1}} E M_{i} ⇌_{k_{o f f, 2}}^{k_{o n, 2}} M_{i} + E .

The rate of production of $M_{i}$ is given by

v = \frac{E_{i} L_{i - 1} m_{i - 1} - F_{i} K_{i} m_{i}}{K_{i} L_{i - 1} + K_{i} m_{i} + L_{i - 1} m_{i - 1}} .

In both of these reversible rate equations, the parameters $K$ and $L$ are equivalent to the Haldane coefficients $K_{S}$ and $K_{P}$ , respectively and are given by

K_{i} = \frac{k_{o n, 1} k_{o n, 2} + k_{o f f} k_{o n, 2} + k_{o f f} k_{o f f, 1}}{k_{o n} (k_{o n, 2} + k_{o f f, 1} + k_{o n, 1})} a n d L_{i - 1} = \frac{k_{o n, 1} k_{o n, 2} + k_{o f f} k_{o n, 2} + k_{o f f} k_{o f f, 1}}{k_{o f f, 2} (k_{o f f, 1} + k_{o n, 1} + k_{o f f})} .

When there are two substrates that take part in the reaction, the k_on and $k_{off, 2}$ parameters are composite parameters composed of two binding coefficients, one for each substrate. This does not affect the derivations, so for convenience we use $K_{S}$ and $K_{P}$ .

The parameters $E$ and $F$ correspond to the Haldane coefficients $k_{cat +}$ and $k_{cat -}$ , multiplied by the total enzyme concentration (denoted $E_{tot}$ , below), and are given by

E_{i} = E_{t o t} \frac{k_{o n, 1} k_{o n, 2}}{k_{o n, 2} + k_{o f f, 1} + k_{o n, 1}} a n d F_{i} = E_{t o t} \frac{k_{o f f} k_{o f f, 1}}{k_{o f f} + k_{o f f, 1} + k_{o n, 1}} .

For the irreversible enzymatic reaction, the reaction schemes simplify to:

M_{i - 1} + A_{0} + E ⇌_{k_{o f f}}^{k_{o n}} E M_{i - 1} A_{0} \overset{k_{c a t}}{\to} M_{i} + A_{1} + E .

M_{i - 1} + E ⇌_{k_{o f f}}^{k_{o n}} E M_{i - 1} \overset{k_{c a t}}{\to} M_{i} + E .

And the rate of production for the two cases are given by

v = \frac{E_{i} m_{i - 1} a_{0}}{K_{i} + m_{i - 1} a_{0}}, and v = \frac{E_{i} m_{i - 1}}{K_{i} + m_{i - 1}},

where $E_{i}$ is the catalytic rate coefficient of the $i$ -th enzyme multiplied by its total concentration, and $K_{i}$ is its Michaelis-Menten coefficient. Again, when there are two substrates, the k_on parameter is a composite parameter composed of two binding coefficients, one for each substrate. As in the reversible case, this does not affect the derivations, so we use $K_{i}$ for convenience. Influx and outflux follow non-enzymatic reaction kinetics, with reaction rate constants as indicated by the labels of the reactions.

Analytical approach

Our mathematical analysis is primarily concerned with finding conditions on the kinetic parameters, if any, that imply that the system has a positive steady state. This is different than system reduction, for example as done in the analyses leading to Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Our analysis distinctively solves the entire system for steady states and determines conditions on kinetic parameters to satisfy the steady state equations.

Thus, for each of the metabolic pathway motifs we consider, we build the ODEs defining the rates of change of variables, find the conservation laws among variables, and consider a system of equations whose solutions are the steady states of the ODEs constrained by the conservation laws. We then follow one of two strategies. We first attempt to solve all equations for all concentrations. For some systems, we readily get an expression in terms of the parameters of the system. For other systems, this approach is not possible. In this case, using all equations in the system but one, we solve for the steady states of all concentrations but one. This gives all concentrations in terms of the remaining concentration, say $x$ . Plugging these expressions in the remaining equation of the system, we obtain a final equation whose solutions characterize the steady states of the system. We need then to study when the solutions obtained this way are positive.

We are also interested in proving if a given system has a positive steady state for all parameter combinations, and that this steady state is stable. When there is one positive steady state, we find the Hurwtiz determinants associated with the characteristic polynomial of the Jacobian of the system of ODEs, evaluated at the steady state. If these are all positive, then the steady state is asymptotically stable (Torres and Feliu, 2021).

To decide on the existence of a steady state, throughout the analysis, we will use repeatedly the following lemma, which is a consequence of the well-known Descartes’ rule of signs.

Lemma 1. Let $p (x)$ be a univariate polynomial of degree two, with negative leading term. If at some value $T$ , we have $p (T) > 0$ , then $p$ has a root in the interval $(0, T)$ if and only if the independent term of $p$ is negative.

Proof. The Descartes’ rule of signs establishes that the number of positive roots of a polynomial cannot exceed the number $τ$ of sign changes in the sequence of coefficients ignoring zero coefficients, and the difference between $τ$ and the number of positive roots is an even number. As the polynomial $p$ in the statement attains positive values, it must have some positive coefficient. Furthermore, as the degree two polynomial has negative leading term, the sequence of the sign of terms (when terms are ordered from lowest exponent to highest) is one of the following $+, +, -$ , $+, -, -$ , $-, +, -$ , $+ 0 -$ , $0 + -$ .

If the independent term is positive or zero, then the sign sequence is one of $+, +, -$ , $+, -, -$ , $+ 0 -$ , $0 + -$ . In this case, there is one sign change in the sequence, and it follows that the polynomial has exactly one positive root. As $p (0) > 0$ , $p (T) > 0$ and $p$ becomes negative as $x$ goes to $+ \infty$ , the root must be in the interval $(T, + \infty)$ .

If the independent term is negative, then the sign sequence is $-, +, -$ . The polynomial is negative both at 0 and at $+ \infty$ . As $p (T) > 0$ , there must be a positive root in $(0, T)$ and one in $(T, + \infty)$ , and there cannot be more by the Descartes’ rule of signs. From this, the statement of the lemma follows.

Appendix 2

Considering co-substrate pool size

We first consider cycling of a generic co-substrate A₀ and A₁, with biosynthesis and degradation of both forms.

\begin{array}{ll} 0 ⇌_{k_{2}}^{k_{1}} A_{0} 0 ⇌_{k_{4}}^{k_{3}} A_{1} A_{0} ⇌_{k_{6}}^{k_{5}} A_{1} . \end{array}

We suppose that the biosynthesis occurs at a constant rate, while degradation and cycling are proportional to the concentration of the relevant chemical species. Writing $a_{0} = [A_{0}]$ and $a_{1} = [A_{1}]$ , the differential equations for these concentrations are:

\begin{aligned} \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = k_{1} - (k_{2} + k_{5}) a_{0} + k_{6} a_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = k_{3} - (k_{4} + k_{6}) a_{1} + k_{5} a_{0} . \end{aligned}

Since all the terms are linear or constant, the steady state values are the solutions of the linear equation:

(\begin{matrix} - (k_{2} + k_{5}) k_{6} \\ k_{5} - (k_{4} + k_{6}) \end{matrix}) (\begin{matrix} a_{0} \\ a_{1} \end{matrix}) = (\begin{matrix} - k_{1} \\ - k_{3} \end{matrix}) .

The steady states are then found to be:

a_{0} = \frac{k_{1} k_{4} + k_{1} k_{6} + k_{3} k_{6}}{k_{4} k_{5} + k_{2} k_{4} + k_{2} k_{6}}, a_{1} = \frac{k_{2} k_{3} + k_{3} k_{5} + k_{1} k_{5}}{k_{4} k_{5} + k_{2} k_{4} + k_{2} k_{6}} .

If we consider the case where the synthesis and degradation rates of the different forms of the co-substrate (i.e. cycled metabolite) are the same, i.e. k₁ = k₃=k_s and k₂ = k₄=k_d, these equations simplify to:

a_{0} = \frac{k_{s} (k_{d} + 2 k_{6})}{k_{d} (k_{d} + k_{5} + k_{6})}, a_{1} = \frac{k_{s} (k_{d} + 2 k_{5})}{k_{d} (k_{d} + k_{5} + k_{6})},

and the eigenvalues of the Jacobian of the system evaluated at this steady state are always real and negative. When k_d is sufficiently small compared to co-substrate conversion rates, it can be safely neglected in the brackets, resulting in the expression of steady state formulas as:

a_{0} = \frac{2 k_{6} k_{s} / k_{d}}{k_{5} + k_{6}}, a_{1} = \frac{2 k_{5} k_{s} / k_{d}}{k_{5} + k_{6}},

We can compare the above expressions with those obtained from the case, where we assume a constant pool size of the cycled metabolite (i.e. $k_{1} = k_{2} = k_{3} = k_{4} = 0$ ). In that case, the steady states are $a_{0} = T k_{6} / (k_{5} + k_{6})$ and $a_{1} = T k_{5} / (k_{5} + k_{6})$ , where $T$ is the total pool size. Thus, under the limit of degradation rates being much smaller than conversion rates, the two cases will be identical and co-substrates will act as a conserved moiety for the rest of the metabolic system.

If we now assume that the cycling of co-substrates is an enzymatic reaction and make the same simplifying assumptions as above that $k_{1} = k_{3} = k_{s}$ and $k_{2} = k_{4} = k_{d}$ , the ODEs for the system are:

\begin{aligned} \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = k_{s} - k_{d} a_{0} - \frac{a_{0} E_{a} L_{a} - a_{1} F_{a} K_{a}}{a_{0} L_{a} + a_{1} K_{a} + K_{a} L_{a}}, \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = k_{s} - k_{d} a_{1} + \frac{a_{0} E_{a} L_{a} - a_{1} F_{a} K_{a}}{a_{0} L_{a} + a_{1} K_{a} + K_{a} L_{a}} . \end{aligned}

The only real and positive steady state is now found to be:

\begin{array}{ll} a_{0} & = (K_{a} L_{a} k_{d} + K_{a} (F_{a} + 3 k_{s}) + L_{a} (E_{a} - k_{s}) \\ - \sqrt{- 4 K_{a} k_{s} (K_{a} - L_{a}) (2 (F_{a} + k_{s}) + k_{d} L_{a}) + (F_{a} K_{a} + 3 K_{a} k_{s} + E_{a} L_{a} + K_{a} k_{d} L_{a} - k_{s} L_{a})^{2}}) / (2 k_{d} (K_{a} - L_{a})), \\ a_{1} & = (- K_{a} L_{a} k_{d} - K_{a} (F_{a} - 3 k_{s}) - L_{a} (E_{a} + 3 k_{s}) \\ + \sqrt{- 4 K_{a} k_{s} (K_{a} - L_{a}) (2 (F_{a} + k_{s}) + k_{d} L_{a}) + (F_{a} K_{a} + 3 K_{a} k_{s} + E_{a} L_{a} + K_{a} k_{d} L_{a} - k_{s} L_{a})^{2}}) / (2 k_{d} (K_{a} - L_{a})) . \end{array}

This is stable as long as all parameters are positive. Note that in the case of $K_{a} = L_{a}$ , the steady state solutions converge to a real number less than infinity by l’Hopital’s Rule. Also, note that the sum $a_{0} + a_{1}$ is constant as in the non-enzymatic case presented above. Thus, whether the metabolite cycling is considered as a non-enzymatic or enzymatic (i.e. following Michaelis-Menten kinetics) reaction, the co-substrates will act as a conserved moiety for the rest of the metabolic system in both cases.

Appendix 3

Single reaction models

In this section, we derive results for a single reaction of two metabolites, involving co-substrate cycling or not, as presented in the main text.

Enzymatic reaction with co-substrate cycling

We first reconsider the case where all reactions, including the off-pathway cycling, are enzymatic (hence are modelled with Michaelis-Menten kinetics). The reactions are:

\begin{aligned} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} M_{0} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{1} + A_{1} M_{1} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 A_{0} ⇌ A_{1} . \end{aligned}

This corresponds to the motif depicted in Figure 1A of the main text, and the resulting ODEs are:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0} + K_{a} L_{a}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} + \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0} + K_{a} L_{a}} . \end{array}

This ODE system has one conservation law, namely the sum of a₀ and a₁ is constant:

a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t} .

The steady states of the system are:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{i n}}{(E_{1} - k_{i n}) (F_{a} A_{t o t} - k_{i n} (L_{a} + A_{t o t}))} α, \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}, \\ a_{0} = \frac{K_{a} (F_{a} A_{t o t} - k_{i n} (L_{a} + A_{t o t}))}{K_{a} (F_{a} - k_{i n}) + L_{a} (E_{a} + k_{i n})}, \\ a_{1} = \frac{L_{a} (K_{a} k_{i n} + T (E_{a} + k_{i n}))}{K_{a} (F_{a} - k_{i n}) + L_{a} (E_{a} + k_{i n})} . \end{array}

where, we introduced the composite parameter $α$ , as follows:

α = \frac{k_{o u t} L_{0} (K_{a} (F_{a} - k_{i n}) + L_{a} (E_{a} + k_{\in})) + (F_{1} + k_{i n}) L_{a} (K_{a} k_{i n} + k_{i n} A_{t o t} + E_{a} A_{t o t})}{K_{a} L_{0} k_{out}} .

For the steady state equations given above to be positive, the following conditions must be satisfied:

k_{i n} < E_{1} a n d k_{i n} < \frac{F_{a} A_{t o t}}{L_{a} + A_{t o t}} .

Note that as $\frac{F_{a} A_{t o t}}{L_{a} + A_{t o t}} < F_{a}$ , the second condition readily implies $k_{in} < F_{a}$ and $α$ is positive. When there is a positive steady state, then it is asymptotically stable.

If the main pathway is irreversible, but the co-substrate reaction is still reversible, the ODEs describing the system dynamics are:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}}, \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1}, \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} - \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0} + K_{a} L_{a}}, \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} + \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0} + K_{a} L_{a}} . \end{array}

The steady state of the system is:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{in}}{(E_{1} - k_{in}) (F_{a} A_{t o t} - k_{in} (L_{a} + A_{t o t}))} α, \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{i n}}{k_{o u t}}, \\ a_{0} = \frac{K_{a} (F_{a} A_{t o t} - k_{in} (L_{a} + A_{t o t}))}{K_{a} (F_{a} - k_{in}) + L_{a} (E_{a} + k_{in})}, \\ a_{1} = \frac{L_{a} (K_{a} k_{in} + A_{t o t} (E_{a} + k_{in}))}{K_{a} (F_{a} - k_{in}) + L_{a} (E_{a} + k_{in})} . \end{array}

where the composite parameter $α$ is defined (differently to the reversible case) as:

α = \frac{K_{a} (F_{a} - k_{in}) + L_{a} (E_{a} + k_{in})}{K_{a}} .

For this to be positive the same conditions as in the reversible case must be satisfied:

k_{i n} < E_{1} a n d k_{i n} < \frac{F_{a} A_{t o t}}{L_{a} + A_{t o t}} .

When these are satisfied, $α$ is positive, and the positive steady state is asymptotically stable.

If the main pathway is irreversible, and the co-substrate reaction only flows from A₁ to A₀, the ODEs describing the system dynamics are:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}}, \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1}, \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} + \frac{F_{a} a_{1}}{L_{a} + a_{1}}, \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} - \frac{F_{a} a_{1}}{L_{a} + a_{1}} . \end{array}

The steady state of the system is:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{in}}{(E_{1} - k_{in}) (F_{a} A_{t o t} - k_{in} (L_{a} + A_{t o t}))} α, \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{i n}}{k_{o u t}}, \\ a_{0} = A_{t o t} - \frac{k_{in} L_{a}}{F_{a} - k_{in}}, \\ a_{1} = \frac{k_{in} L_{a}}{F_{a} - k_{in}} . \end{array}

where the composite parameter $α$ is defined as:

α = F_{a} - k_{in}

For these steady states to be positive the same conditions as in the other two cases must be satisfied:

k_{i n} < E_{1} a n d k_{i n} < \frac{F_{a} A_{t o t}}{L_{a} + A_{t o t}} .

When these are satisfied, the positive steady state is asymptotically stable.

Enzymatic reaction with co-substrate cycling, biosynthesis and degradation

To extend the previous analysis we consider the same simple scenario where a pathway involves a single co-substrate consuming reaction and a back reaction re-generating the co-substrate, with the addition of synthesis and degradation of the co-substrate forms. This system is comprised of the following reactions:

\begin{matrix} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{1} + A_{1} & M_{1} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 \\ A_{0} ⇌_{k_{6}}^{k_{5}} A_{1} & 0 ⇌_{k_{8}}^{k_{7}} A_{0} & 0 ⇌_{k_{10}}^{k_{9}} A_{1} \end{matrix} .

The resulting system of ODEs is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - (k_{5} + k_{8}) a_{0} + k_{6} a_{1} + k_{7} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} + k_{5} a_{0} - (k_{6} + k_{10}) a_{1} + k_{9} . \end{array}

The steady state concentrations are then given by:

\begin{array}{ll} a_{0} = \frac{k_{10} (k_{7} - k_{i n}) + k_{6} (k_{7} + k_{9})}{k_{10} k_{5} + k_{10} k_{8} + k_{6} k_{8}} \\ a_{1} = \frac{k_{8} (k_{9} + k_{i n}) + k_{5} (k_{7} + k_{9})}{k_{10} k_{5} + k_{10} k_{8} + k_{6} k_{8}} \\ m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{in} ((F_{1} + k_{in}) (k_{8} (k_{9} + k_{i n}) + k_{5} (k_{7} + k_{9})) + k_{out} L_{0} (k_{10} k_{5} + k_{10} k_{8} + k_{6} k_{8}))}{L_{0} k_{out} (E_{1} - k_{in}) (k_{10} (k_{7} - k_{i n}) + k_{6} (k_{7} + k_{9}))} \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}} . \end{array}

These expressions are positive if and only if

k_{in} < k_{7} + \frac{k_{6}}{k_{10}} (k_{7} + k_{9}) and k_{in} < E_{1} .

If the main path is irreversible, similarly to the previous section, the ODEs describing the system’s dynamics, are:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} - (k_{5} + k_{8}) a_{0} + k_{6} a_{1} + k_{7} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0} a_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0} a_{0}} + k_{5} a_{0} - (k_{6} + k_{10}) a_{1} + k_{9} . \end{array}

The steady state in this case is:

\begin{array}{ll} a_{0} = \frac{k_{10} (k_{7} - k_{in}) + k_{6} (k_{7} + k_{9})}{k_{10} k_{5} + k_{10} k_{8} + k_{8} k_{6}} \\ a_{1} = \frac{k_{8} (k_{9} + k_{in}) + k_{5} (k_{7} + k_{9})}{k_{10} k_{5} + k_{10} k_{8} + k_{8} k_{6}} \\ m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{in} (k_{10} k_{5} + k_{10} k_{8} + k_{8} k_{6})}{(E_{1} - k_{in}) (k_{10} (k_{7} - k_{in}) + k_{6} (k_{7} + k_{9}))} \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}} . \end{array}

These expressions are positive if and only if

k_{in} < k_{7} + \frac{k_{6}}{k_{10}} (k_{7} + k_{9}) and k_{in} < E_{1} .

Comparing these results with those of Subsection C.1, we see some similar themes. Firstly, the total amount of co-substrate $a_{0} + a_{1}$ at steady state is a constant, even when it is not explicitly considered to be a conserved moiety. Secondly, one of the conditions for a positive steady state is $k_{in} < E_{1}$ , and any other conditions take the form $k_{in} < f$ , where $f$ is a function of the parameters controlling synthesis, degradation and the turnover of the co-substrate. Thus, in the analysis that follows, we only consider the case of conserved co-substrate, as adding synthesis and degradation only affects the quantitative results, not the qualitative behaviour.

Enzymatic reaction without co-substrate cycling

Considering an enzymatic reaction without co-substrates, the reactions are:

\begin{matrix} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} ⇌_{k_{2}}^{k_{1}} M_{1} & M_{1} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0. \end{matrix}

The resulting system of ODEs is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1} . \end{array}

In this case, there is no conservation law, and the steady states of the system are:

m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{in} (F_{1} + k_{i n} + k_{o u t} L_{0})}{k_{o u t} L_{0} (E_{1} - k_{i n})}, m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}} .

These expressions are positive if and only if $k_{i n} < E_{1}$ and the steady state is asymptotically stable when this holds.

If the main path is irreversible, the ODEs describing system dynamics are:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} m_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} m_{0}}{K_{1} + m_{0}} - k_{out} m_{1}, \end{array}

and the steady state is:

m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} k_{in}}{E_{1} - k_{i n}}, m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}} .

Again, expressions are positive if and only if $k_{i n} < E_{1}$ and the steady state is asymptotically stable when this holds.

From this we see that the condition $k_{i n} < E_{1}$ for stability in the enzymatic system with co-substrate cycling is a result of the reaction being enzymatic.

Non-enzymatic reaction with co-substrate cycling

Consider a theoretical case of non-enzymatic reactions for the main reaction:

\begin{matrix} 0 \overset{k_{i n}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} + A_{0} ⇌_{k_{2}}^{k_{1}} M_{1} A_{1} & M_{1} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 & A_{0} ⇌_{k_{4}}^{k_{3}} A_{1} . \end{matrix}

The resulting system of ODEs, describing system dynamics, is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} + k_{2} m_{1} a_{1} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} - k_{2} m_{1} a_{1} - k_{out} m_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} + k_{2} a_{1} m_{1} - k_{3} a_{0} + k_{4} a_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} - k_{2} m_{1} a_{1} + k_{3} a_{0} - k_{4} a_{1} \end{array}

There is the conservation law

a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t} .

The steady state of the system is:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{k_{in} (k_{2} (k_{in} + k_{3} A_{t o t}) + k_{out} (k_{3} + k_{4}))}{k_{1} k_{out} (k_{4} A_{t o t} - k_{in})} \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}, \\ a_{0} = \frac{k_{4} A_{t o t} - k_{in}}{k_{3} + k_{4}}, \\ a_{1} = \frac{k_{3} A_{t o t} + k_{in}}{k_{3} + k_{4}} . \end{array}

These expressions are positive if and only if $k_{i n} < k_{4} A_{t o t}$ , and when this is satisfied the steady state is asymptotically stable.

If the system reactions are irreversible, the ODEs describing the system dynamics are:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} - k_{out} m_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} + k_{4} a_{1} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = k_{1} m_{0} a_{0} - k_{4} a_{1} \end{array}

and the steady state is:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{k_{4} k_{in}}{k_{1} (k_{4} A_{t o t} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}, \\ a_{0} = \frac{k_{4} A_{t o t} - k_{in}}{k_{4}}, \\ a_{1} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{4}} . \end{array}

As in the reversible case, these expressions are positive when $k_{i n} < k_{4} A_{t o t}$ and the steady state is asymptotically stable when this holds.

Hence, we see that introducing co-substrate cycling always introduces a new constraint into the system, even in this simple case where the cycling is not enzymatic.

Appendix 3—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Concentrations of non-accumulating metabolites vs k_in in the models presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the main text.

(A) Concentration of non-accumulating metabolite M₁ from Figure 1. Red line shows the critical $k_{in}$ value, after which the concentration of M₁ remains constant (B) Concentrations of non-accumulating metabolites from the models presented in Figure 2. Blue line shows the threshold value for k_in. Once the threshold value for k_in is reached the concentrations of the non-accumulating metabolites do not change. $A_{tot} = 10^{- 1}$ in panel (A) and 10^-6 in panel (B). All other parameters are the same as their counterparts in the main text.

Appendix 4

Linear, arbitrary length, pathway model with co-substrate cycling

We consider next a linear, generic pathway of $n + 1$ metabolites, and comprising the following reaction mechanism:

\begin{array}{ccc} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{1} + A_{1} & M_{n - 1} + A_{1} ⇌ M_{n} + A_{0} \\ M_{1} ⇌ M_{2} \dots & M_{i - 1} ⇌ M_{i} ⇌ M_{i + 1} \dots ⇌ M_{n - 1} & M_{n} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0. \end{array}

Steady states of the linear pathway model: the case with n=3

We first consider the dynamics of model (13) with $n = 3$ , as this is the minimal pathway length where the system makes biochemical sense. This system has the form:

\begin{array}{ccc} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{1} + A_{1} & M_{1} ⇌ M_{2} \\ M_{3} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 & M_{2} + A_{1} ⇌ M_{3} + A_{0} . \end{array}

Considering reversible reaction kinetics, the evolution of the concentrations of the species in time is modelled by the following ODE system:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{2} L_{1} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} m_{2}}{K_{2} m_{2} + L_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} = \frac{E_{2} L_{1} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} m_{2}}{K_{2} m_{2} + L_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} - k_{out} m_{3} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} + \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} . \end{array}

The system has two conservation laws:

\begin{aligned} a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t}, m_{1} + m_{2} + a_{0} = W . \end{aligned}

Solving recursively the steady state equations given by $\frac{d m_{0}}{d t} + \dots + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{1}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ for $m_{3}, m_{2}, m_{1}, m_{0}$ and the first conservation law, we obtain

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} ((F_{1} + k_{in}) m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} k_{in})}{a_{0} L_{0} (E_{1} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{1} = \frac{K_{2} ((F_{2} + k_{in}) m_{2} + L_{1} k_{in})}{L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{2} = \frac{k_{in} K_{3} ((F_{3} + k_{in}) a_{0} + L_{2} k_{out})}{k_{out} a_{1} L_{2} (E_{3} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{3} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}, a_{1} = A_{t o t} - a_{0} . \end{array}

By substituting recursively m₂ in m₁ and m₁ in m₀, we obtain expressions of all variables at steady state in terms of a₀. For these to be positive, it needs to hold that $0 < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ , and further

k_{in} < m i n (E_{1}, E_{2}, E_{3}) .

We substitute (16) into the remaining conservation law, and obtain a polynomial in a₀ whose roots in the interval $(0, T)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the positive steady states, provided (17) holds. The polynomial is

\begin{array}{ll} p (a_{0}) & = - L_{1} L_{2} k_{out} (E_{3} - k_{in}) (E_{2} - k_{in}) a_{0}^{2} + (L_{1} L_{2} k_{out} (A_{t o t} + W) (E_{3} - k_{in}) (E_{2} - k_{in}) \\ - K_{2} L_{1} L_{2} k_{in} k_{out} (E_{3} - k_{in}) + K_{3} k_{in} (F_{3} + k_{in}) (E_{2} L_{1}, + F_{2} K_{2}) \\ + K_{3} k_{in}^{2} (K_{2} - L_{1}) (F_{3} + k_{in},)) a_{0} + L_{2} K_{2} α, \end{array}

where

α = k_{in} (k_{in} + F_{2}) K_{2} K_{3} + k_{in} A_{t o t} (E_{3} - k_{in}) K_{2} L_{1} + k_{in} (E_{2} - k_{in}) K_{3} L_{1} - A_{t o t} W (E_{3} - k_{in}) (E_{2} - k_{in}) L_{1} .

As $a_{0} = A_{tot}$ , we have $p (A_{t o t}) > 0$ , and hence, by Lemma 1, the system has positive steady states if and only if $α < 0$ .

Note that at $k_{in} = 0$ , $α = - A_{t o t} W (E_{3} - k_{in}) (E_{2} - k_{in}) L_{1} < 0$ . Hence, for $k_{in}$ small enough, $α < 0$ and also (17) holds, and the system has a positive steady state. The steady state value of a₀ is found by solving the quadratic equation $p (a_{0}) = 0$ and considering the smallest root.

We note that $α$ is a polynomial in $k_{in}$ of degree 2 with negative independent term. The sign of the leading term depends on the choice of parameters. If the minimum in (17) is attained at $k_{in} = E_{2}$ or $k_{in} = E_{3}$ , then at this value of $k_{in}$ , $α$ is positive independently of the rest of the parameters. Hence, in the region of interest $α$ is negative only in an interval of the form $(0, B)$ , where $B$ is the smallest positive root of $α$ . The bound for positive steady states is now given as

k_{in} < m i n (E_{1}, B) .

If the minimum is attained at $B$ , then, as $k_{in}$ approaches $B$ , the smallest positive root of $p (a_{0})$ approaches 0 as $α$ approaches zero. Using this in (16), we obtain that

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ B}^{} \infty, m_{1} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ B}^{} \frac{B k_{out} (F_{2} K_{3} + L_{1} A_{t o t} (E_{3} - B) + B K_{3})}{L_{1} A_{t o t} (E_{3} - B) (E_{2} - B)}, \\ m_{2} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ B}^{} \frac{B K_{3}}{A_{t o t} (E_{3} - B)} m_{3} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ B}^{} \frac{B}{k_{out}} . \end{array}

If $E_{1} < B$ , then $k_{in}$ needs to be smaller than E₁. When $k_{in}$ approaches E₁, a₀ approaches the root of $p$ when $k_{in} = E_{1}$ , which is not zero. Then m₀ still approaches $\infty$ as it has $E_{1} - k_{in}$ in the denominator, while $m_{1}, m_{2}$ converge to some positive value.

Steady states of the linear pathway model: the general case

We consider the dynamics of model (13) with $n$ taking any positive value strictly larger than 1, and positioning the co-substrate recycling in arbitrary places.

\begin{array}{ll} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} \\ M_{0} ⇌ M_{1} ⇌ \dots ⇌ M_{ℓ - 1} ⇌ M_{ℓ} & M_{ℓ} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{ℓ + 1} + A_{1} \\ M_{ℓ + 1} ⇌ \dots ⇌ M_{ρ - 1} ⇌ M_{ρ} & M_{ρ} + A_{1} ⇌ M_{ρ + 1} + A_{0} \\ M_{ρ + 1} ⇌ \dots ⇌ M_{n - 1} ⇌ M_{n} \\ M_{n} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0. \end{array}

For the system to make sense biochemically, we require $0 \leq ℓ < ρ - 1 \leq n - 1$ .

To write the equations in a simple format, we write

x_{i} = m_{i}, i \neq ℓ, ρ, x_{ℓ} = m_{ℓ} a_{0}, x_{ρ} = m_{ρ} a_{1}

and

y_{i} = m_{i}, i \neq ℓ + 1, ρ + 1, y_{ℓ + 1} = m_{ℓ + 1} a_{1}, y_{ρ + 1} = m_{ρ + 1} a_{0} .

We start with the reversible reaction kinetics. Then the associated ODE system becomes:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} & = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} x_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} y_{1}}{K_{1} L_{0} + L_{0} x_{0} + K_{1} y_{1}} \\ ⋮ ⋮ \\ \frac{d m_{i}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{i} L_{i - 1} x_{i - 1} - F_{i} K_{i} y_{i}}{K_{i} L_{i - 1} + K_{i} y_{i} + L_{i - 1} x_{i - 1}} - \frac{E_{i + 1} L_{i} x_{i} - F_{i + 1} K_{i + 1} y_{i + 1}}{K_{i + 1} L_{i} + K_{i + 1} y_{i + 1} + L_{i} x_{i}} i = 1, \dots, n - 1 \\ ⋮ ⋮ \\ \frac{d m_{n}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{n} L_{n - 1} x_{n - 1} - F_{n} K_{n} y_{n}}{K_{n} L_{n - 1} + K_{n} y_{n} + L_{n - 1} x_{n - 1}} - k_{out} m_{n} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{ℓ + 1} L_{ℓ} x_{ℓ} - F_{ℓ + 1} K_{ℓ + 1} y_{ℓ + 1}}{K_{ℓ + 1} L_{ℓ} + L_{ℓ} x_{ℓ} + K_{ℓ + 1} y_{ℓ + 1}} + \frac{E_{ρ + 1} L_{ρ} x_{ρ} - F_{ρ + 1} K_{ρ + 1} y_{ρ + 1}}{K_{ρ + 1} L_{ρ} + L_{ρ} x_{ρ} + K_{ρ + 1} y_{ρ + 1}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{ℓ + 1} L_{ℓ} x_{ℓ} - F_{ℓ + 1} K_{ℓ + 1} y_{ℓ + 1}}{K_{ℓ + 1} L_{ℓ} + L_{ℓ} x_{ℓ} + K_{ℓ + 1} y_{ℓ + 1}} - \frac{E_{ρ + 1} L_{ρ} x_{ρ} - F_{ρ + 1} K_{ρ + 1} y_{ρ + 1}}{K_{ρ + 1} L_{ρ} + L_{ρ} x_{ρ} + K_{ρ + 1} y_{ρ + 1}} . \end{array}

This ODE system has precisely two conservation laws:

a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t}, m_{ℓ + 1} + \dots + m_{ρ} + a_{0} = W .

Note that we have the following equalities:

\frac{d m_{0}}{d t} + \dots + \frac{d m_{i}}{d t} = k_{in} - \frac{E_{i + 1} L_{i} x_{i} - F_{i + 1} K_{i + 1} y_{i + 1}}{K_{i + 1} L_{i} + K_{i + 1} y_{i + 1} + L_{i} x_{i}}, i = 0, \dots, n - 1

\frac{d m_{0}}{d t} + \dots + \frac{d m_{n}}{d t} = k_{in} - k_{out} m_{n}

For $i = 1, \dots, n - 2$ , by solving (21) for x_i, we obtain the following recursive formulas:

x_{i} = \frac{K_{i + 1} (k_{in} L_{i} + (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) y_{i + 1})}{(E_{i + 1} - k_{in}) L_{i}}, i = 0, \dots, n - 1.

Finally, from (22) and the conservation law $a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{tot}$ , we obtain

x_{n} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}, a_{1} = A_{t o t} - a_{0} .

These expressions are all positive if and only if $0 < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ and $k_{in} < E_{i}$ for $i = 1, \dots, n$ . Note that the value of m_i can now be found recursively from m_n using (23), as we show next.

Recall that $0 \leq ℓ < ρ - 1 \leq n - 1$ . Then, it holds

y_{i} = x_{i} ϵ_{i}, ϵ_{i} = 1, i \neq ℓ, ℓ + 1, ρ, ρ + 1, ϵ_{ℓ} = ϵ_{ρ + 1}^{- 1} = \frac{1}{a_{0}}, ϵ_{ℓ + 1} = ϵ_{ρ}^{- 1} = a_{1} .

We write for shortness

x_{i} = \frac{z_{i} + b_{i} x_{i + 1}}{c_{i}}, i = 0, \dots, n - 1,

where for $i = 0, \dots, n - 1$ ,

\begin{aligned} z_{i} = k_{in} K_{i + 1} L_{i} b_{i} = ϵ_{i + 1} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} c_{i} = (E_{i + 1} - k_{in}) L_{i} . \end{aligned}

Then we claim that

x_{i} = \frac{(\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) x_{n}}{c_{i} \dots c_{n - 1}}, i = 1, \dots, n - 1.

We prove this by descending induction on $i$ . Note that products over an empty index equal 1. For instance, $b_{j} \dots b_{j - 1}$ . For $i = n - 1$ , (26) agrees with (23). Assume the formula is true for some , and we prove it for $i - 1$ . To do so, we use (23) and the induction hypothesis for x_i. For $n - 1 > i - 1 \geq 0$ , we have

\begin{array}{ll} x_{i - 1} & = \frac{z_{i - 1} + b_{i - 1} x_{i}}{c_{i - 1}} = \frac{z_{i - 1} + b_{i - 1} \frac{(\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) x_{n}}{c_{i} \dots c_{n - 1}}}{c_{i - 1}} \\ = \frac{z_{i - 1} c_{i} \dots c_{n - 1} + b_{i - 1} ((\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) x_{n})}{c_{i - 1} c_{i} \dots c_{n - 1}} \\ = \frac{z_{i - 1} c_{i} \dots c_{n - 1} + (\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i - 1} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})) + (b_{i - 1} \dots b_{n - 1}) x_{n}}{c_{i - 1} \dots c_{n - 1}} \\ = \frac{(\sum_{j = i - 1}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i - 1} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})) + (b_{i - 1} \dots b_{n - 1}) x_{n}}{c_{i - 1} \dots c_{n - 1}} . \end{array}

This is (26) for $i - 1$ . Hence, the formula holds. Finally, we can use that $x_{n} = m_{n} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}$ to obtain:

x_{i} = \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) k_{in}}{k_{out} c_{i} \dots c_{n - 1}}, i = 0, \dots, n - 1.

Let

{\bar{b}}_{u, j} := \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1}, {\bar{c}}_{u, j} := c_{u} \dots c_{j} = \prod_{i = u}^{j} (E_{i + 1} - k_{in}) L_{i} .

This gives:

m_{i} = \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) k_{in}}{k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{i, n - 1}}, i \neq ℓ, ρ,

m_{ℓ} = \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) k_{in}}{a_{0} k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ, n - 1}},

m_{ρ} = \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) k_{in}}{(T - a_{0}) k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ρ, n - 1}}

Remember that $b_{ℓ}, b_{ℓ + 1}, b_{ρ}, b_{ρ + 1}$ depend on $a_{0}, a_{1}$ , while the rest of $b$ ’s do not. For a product of the form $b_{u} \dots b_{j}$ with $u \leq j$ , we have the following:

If $u \leq ℓ - 1$ :

b_{u} \dots b_{j} = {\begin{cases} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j < ℓ - 1, or ρ \leq j \\ \frac{1}{a_{0}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j = ℓ - 1, or j = ρ - 1 \\ \frac{a_{1}}{a_{0}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} ℓ - 1 < j < ρ - 1. \end{cases}

If $u = ℓ$ :

b_{u} \dots b_{j} = {\begin{cases} a_{1} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j < ρ - 1 \\ \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j = ρ - 1 \\ a_{0} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} ρ \leq j . \end{cases}

If $ℓ < u \leq ρ - 1$ :

b_{u} \dots b_{j} = {\begin{cases} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j < ρ - 1 \\ \frac{1}{a_{1}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j = ρ - 1 \\ \frac{a_{0}}{a_{1}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} ρ \leq j . \end{cases}

If $u = ρ$ :

b_{u} \dots b_{j} = a_{0} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} .

If $u > ρ$ :

b_{u} \dots b_{j} = \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} .

Summarising $b_{u} \dots b_{j}$ , equals

{\begin{cases} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} u \leq ℓ - 1, j < ℓ - 1, or u \leq ℓ - 1, ρ \leq j, or u = ℓ, j = ρ - 1, \\ or ℓ < u \leq ρ - 1, j < ρ - 1, or u > ρ \\ \frac{1}{a_{0}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} j = ℓ - 1, or u \leq ℓ - 1, j = ρ - 1 \\ \frac{a_{1}}{a_{0}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{i n} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} u \leq ℓ - 1, ℓ - 1 < j < ρ - 1 \\ a_{1} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} u = ℓ, j < ρ - 1 \\ a_{0} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} u = ℓ, ρ \leq j, or u = ρ \\ \frac{1}{a_{1}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} ℓ < u \leq ρ - 1, j = ρ - 1 \\ \frac{a_{0}}{a_{1}} \prod_{i = u}^{j} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} ℓ < u \leq ρ - 1, ρ \leq j . \end{cases}

Observe that for all $i$ , the summand of $\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})$ corresponding to $i = j$ is

z_{i} (c_{i + 1} \dots c_{n - 1}),

which does not depend either on a₀ or a₁ .

In particular, we deduce that m_i for $i \leq ℓ - 1$ , the term $(b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1})$ does not depend on $a_{0}, a_{1}$ , and in the sum $\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) (c_{j + 1} \dots c_{n - 1})$ there are summands involving $\frac{1}{a_{0}}$ , for eample when $j = ℓ$ . Hence m_i, for $i \leq ℓ - 1$ , goes to infinity as a₀ goes to zero. Note that a₁ goes to $T$ when a₀ goes to zero. When $i = ℓ$ , the denominator of m_i is multiplied by a₀. As the numerator has at least one term that is not multiple of a₀, $m_{ℓ}$ goes to infinity as well. We conclude that

m_{i} \to_{a_{0} ⟶ 0}^{} \infty, 0 \leq i \leq ℓ .

When $i \geq ℓ$ , then no summand in the numerator of m_i in (27–29) that involves $\frac{1}{a_{0}}$ , and neither the denominator has a₀ as factor. As the numerator has at least one term that is not multiple of a₀, m_i goes to a finite value as a₀ goes to zero.

m_{i} \to_{a_{0} ⟶ 0}^{} n u m b e r, i \geq ℓ .

The number can be found using (Equations 28–30) and is a function of the parameters of the system, not involving $W$ .

We consider now the remaining equation, namely the conservation law $m_{ℓ + 1} + \dots + m_{ρ} + a_{0} = W$ , to determine the value of a₀. We have

\begin{array}{ll} \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ} m_{i} + a_{0} - W & = \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ - 1} \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + (b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) k_{in}}{k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{i, n - 1}} \\ + \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = ρ}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{ρ} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + (b_{ρ} \dots b_{n - 1}) k_{in}}{a_{1} k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ρ, n - 1}} + a_{0} - W = (*) . \end{array}

We have $(b_{i} \dots b_{n - 1}) = \frac{a_{0}}{a_{1}} {\bar{b}}_{i, n - 1}$ when $ℓ < i < ρ$ and $(b_{ρ} \dots b_{n - 1}) = a_{0} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, n - 1}$ . Also

\sum_{j = ρ}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{ρ} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} = z_{ρ} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} a_{0} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} .

Finally, for $ℓ + 1 \leq i \leq ρ - 1$ ,

\begin{array}{ll} \sum_{j = i}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} & = \sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} (b_{i} \dots b_{ρ - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} z_{j} (b_{i} \dots b_{j - 1}) {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} \\ = \sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} \frac{1}{a_{1}} {\bar{b}}_{i, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \frac{a_{0}}{a_{1}} \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} . \end{array}

This gives

\begin{aligned} (*) & = \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ - 1} \frac{k_{out} (\sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} \frac{1}{a_{1}} {\bar{b}}_{i, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \frac{a_{0}}{a_{1}} \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + \frac{a_{0}}{a_{1}} {\bar{b}}_{i, n - 1} k_{i n}}{k_{o u t} {\bar{c}}_{i, n - 1}} \\ + \frac{k_{out} (z_{ρ} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} a_{0} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + a_{0} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, n - 1} k_{in}}{a_{1} k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ρ, n - 1}} + a_{0} - W \\ = \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ - 1} \frac{k_{out} (a_{1} \sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} {\bar{b}}_{i, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + a_{0} \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + a_{0} {\bar{b}}_{i, n - 1} k_{in}}{a_{1} k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{i, n - 1}} \\ + \frac{k_{out} (z_{ρ} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} a_{0} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) + a_{0} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, n - 1} k_{in}}{a_{1} k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ρ, n - 1}} + a_{0} - W . \end{aligned}

Hence $(*)$ vanishes if and only if

\begin{array}{ll} 0 & = \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ - 1} k_{out} (0, 0, 1 a_{1} \sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} {\bar{b}}_{i, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + 0, 0, 1 a_{0} \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) \\ + 0, 0, 1 a_{0} {\bar{b}}_{i, n - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} k_{in} + k_{out} (z_{ρ} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} + \sum_{j = ρ + 1}^{n - 1} 0, 0, 1 a_{0} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1}) \\ + 0, 0, 1 a_{0} {\bar{b}}_{ρ, n - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, ρ - 1} k_{in} + (0, 0, 1 a_{0} - W) k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, n - 1} 0, 0, 1 a_{1} . \end{array}

As $a_{1} = A_{tot} - a_{0}$ , this is a degree 2 polynomial in a₀. The leading term comes from the term $(0, 0, 1 a_{0} - W) k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, n - 1} 0, 0, 1 a_{1}$ , and is

- k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, n - 1} a_{0}^{2},

which is negative. The independent term is

\begin{array}{ll} \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ - 1} k_{out} (A_{t o t} \sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} {\bar{b}}_{i, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1}) \\ + k_{out} z_{ρ} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} - A_{t o t} W k_{out} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, n - 1} . \end{array}

We divide by $k_{out}$ and define

α = \sum_{i = ℓ + 1}^{ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, i - 1} (A_{t o t} \sum_{j = i}^{ρ - 1} z_{j} {\bar{b}}_{i, j - 1} {\bar{c}}_{j + 1, n - 1} + z_{ρ} {\bar{b}}_{i, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1}) + z_{ρ} {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, ρ - 1} {\bar{c}}_{ρ + 1, n - 1} - A_{t o t} W {\bar{c}}_{ℓ + 1, n - 1},

where recall from (25) that

z_{i} = k_{in} K_{i + 1} L_{i} b_{i} = ϵ_{i + 1} (k_{in} + F_{i + 1}) K_{i + 1} c_{i} = (E_{i + 1} - k_{in}) L_{i} .

When $a_{0} = A_{tot}$ , all terms multiplying a₁ vanish, and then the polynomial is a sum of positive terms, hence positive. By Lemma 1, the system has a positive steady state if and only if

α < 0.

Note that when $k_{in} = 0$ this inequality holds, as all terms with z_j vanish. When $k_{in}$ approaches one of $E_{i}$ with $ℓ + 1 < i \leq n$ , the negative term of $α$ approaches zero, and the inequality does not hold.

For example, for $n = 3$ , $ℓ = 0$ and $ρ = 2$ , $α$ was found in (18). For $n = 4$ , $ℓ = 0$ and $ρ = 2$ , we have

\begin{array}{ll} α & = - A_{t o t} W (E_{2} - k_{in}) L_{1} (E_{3} - k_{in}) L_{2} (E_{4} - k_{in}) + k_{in} K_{4} (E_{2} - k_{in}) L_{1} (E_{3} - k_{in}) L_{2} \\ + A_{t o t} k_{in} k_{out} L_{1} (E_{4} - k_{in}) (E_{3} - k_{in}) L_{2} + A_{t o t} k_{in} K_{3} L_{2} (E_{4} - k_{in}) (F_{2} + k_{in}) k_{out} \\ + k_{in} K_{4} (F_{3} + k_{in}) K_{3} (F_{2} + k_{in}) k_{out} + k_{in} K_{3} L_{2} (E_{2} - k_{in}) L_{1} (E_{4} - k_{in}) A_{t o t} \\ + k_{in} K_{4} (E_{2} - k_{in}) L_{1} (F_{3} + k_{in}) K_{3} . \end{array}

Let $B$ be the smallest positive root of $α = 0$ as a polynomial in $k_{in}$ , if it exists, or take $B = \infty$ if not. Similarly, let $B^{'}$ be the second such root, if it exists, or $B^{'} = \infty$ if not. If the smallest of $E_{j}$ is attained for some $E_{i}$ with $ℓ + 1 < i \leq n$ , then $α$ is positive at $k_{in} = E_{i}$ . In that case, as $α$ is negative at $k_{in} = 0$ , there is at least one value of $k_{in} < E_{i}$ for all $i$ such that $α = 0$ and hence $B$ is finite. This shows that $\min (E_{1}, \dots, E_{n}, B) = \min (E_{1}, \dots, E_{ℓ + 1}, B)$ .

Putting it all together, we have shown that for all

k_{in} < m i n (E_{1}, \dots, E_{ℓ + 1}, B)

the system has positive steady states, and if

k_{in} \geq m i n (E_{1}, \dots, E_{ℓ + 1}, B), or k_{in} < m i n (E_{1}, \dots, E_{ℓ + 1}), B < k_{in} < B^{'},

Taking condition (32), if the minimum is attained at $B$ , then when $k_{in}$ approaches $B$ , the first positive root of the polynomial in (30 31, ) approaches zero (as $α$ goes to zero). As this determines the steady state value of a₀, we see that a₀ approaches zero, and the m_i converge to the values given above. Specifically,

m_{j} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ B}^{} \infty, f o r 0 \leq j \leq ℓ, m_{j} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ B}^{} n u m b e r, f o r j \geq ℓ .

By the comment above, (32) cannot be attained at $E_{i}$ with $ℓ + 1 < i \leq n$ . If (32) is attained at $E_{i}$ with $i \leq ℓ + 1$ , then as $k_{in}$ approaches this minimum, a₀ converges to a number. In this case, the concentrations that tend to infinity are those with $E_{i} - k_{in}$ in the denominator:

m_{j} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ E_{i}}^{} \infty, f o r 0 \leq j < i, m_{j} \to_{k_{in} ⟶ E_{i}}^{} n u m b e r, f o r j \geq i .

Appendix 5

Multiple co-substrate cycling along a single pathway – mimicking the case seen in glycolysis, combined with fermentation

In this section, we consider a scenario of intra-pathway cycling with two different co-substrates. This is a simplified version of the case seen in the combined pathways of glycolysis and fermentation. The reaction scheme we consider comprises:

\begin{array}{ll} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} M_{0} + A T P ⇌ M_{1} + A D P M_{1} + N A D ⇌ M_{2} + N A D H \\ M_{4} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 M_{2} + A D P ⇌ M_{3} + A T P M_{3} + N A D H ⇌ M_{4} + N A D \end{array}

We write $A_{0} =$ ATP, $A_{1} =$ ADP, $A_{2} =$ NAD, $A_{3} =$ NADH, for simplicity. The ODE system governing the dynamics of the network is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} = k_{i n} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{2} L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} a_{3} m_{2}}{K_{2} a_{3} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} = \frac{E_{2} L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} a_{3} m_{2}}{K_{2} a_{3} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} - F_{3} K_{3} a_{0} m_{3}}{K_{3} a_{0} m_{3} + L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = \frac{E_{3} L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} - F_{3} K_{3} a_{0} m_{3}}{K_{3} a_{0} m_{3} + L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} + K_{3} L_{2}} - \frac{E_{4} L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} - F_{4} K_{4} a_{2} m_{4}}{K_{4} a_{2} m_{4} + L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} + K_{4} L_{3}} \\ \frac{d m_{4}}{d t} = \frac{E_{4} L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} - F_{4} K_{4} a_{2} m_{4}}{K_{4} a_{2} m_{4} + L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} + K_{4} L_{3}} - k_{o u t} m_{4} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} - F_{3} K_{3} a_{0} m_{3}}{K_{3} a_{0} m_{3} + L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} a_{0} m_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} - F_{3} K_{3} a_{0} m_{3}}{K_{3} a_{0} m_{3} + L_{2} a_{1} m_{2} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d a_{2}}{d t} = - \frac{E_{2} L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} a_{3} m_{2}}{K_{2} a_{3} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} + \frac{E_{4} L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} - F_{4} K_{4} a_{2} m_{4}}{K_{4} a_{2} m_{4} + L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} + K_{4} L_{3}} \\ \frac{d a_{3}}{d t} = \frac{E_{2} L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} a_{3} m_{2}}{K_{2} a_{3} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{2} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} - \frac{E_{4} L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} - F_{4} K_{4} a_{2} m_{4}}{K_{4} a_{2} m_{4} + L_{3} a_{3} m_{3} + K_{4} L_{3}} . \end{array}

There are four conservation laws:

a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t}, a_{2} + a_{3} = B_{t o t}, m_{1} + m_{2} + a_{0} = W, m_{2} + m_{3} + a_{2} = M .

We consider the equations $\frac{d m_{0}}{d t} + \dots + \frac{d m_{4}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{4}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{3}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{4}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{4}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{1}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{4}}{d t} = 0$ , and solve them iteratively for $m_{4}, m_{3}, m_{2}, m_{1}, m_{0}$ and obtain:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{4} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}, m_{3} = \frac{k_{in} K_{4} ((F_{4} + k_{in}) a_{2} + L_{3} k_{out})}{k_{out} a_{3} L_{3} (E_{4} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{2} = \frac{K_{3} ((F_{3} + k_{in}) a_{0} m_{3} + L_{2} k_{in})}{a_{1} L_{2} (E_{3} - k_{in})}, m_{1} = \frac{K_{2} ((F_{2} + k_{in}) a_{3} m_{2} + L_{1} k_{in})}{a_{2} L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{0} = \frac{K_{1} ((F_{1} + k_{in}) a_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} k_{in})}{a_{0} L_{0} (E_{1} - k_{in})}, \end{array}

and $a_{1} = A_{tot} - a_{0}$ , $a_{3} = B_{tot} - a_{2}$ . As usual, a necessary condition for positive steady states is

k_{in} < m i n (E_{1}, E_{2}, E_{3}, E_{4}) .

For this system, we are left with two conservation laws that we have not used, and two steady state values that are still free. By plugging the expressions above into $m_{1} + m_{2} + a_{0} = W$ , and $m_{2} + m_{3} + a_{2} = M$ , we obtain a system of two polynomial equations in two variables. For some combinations of parameter values, there will be positive steady states, and for others, not, as the following examples shows.

By choosing

\begin{array}{ll} M = 1, W = 1, F_{1} = 1 F_{2} = 1, F_{3} = 1, F_{4} = 2, K_{1} = 1 K_{2} = 0.1, K_{3} = 0.1, \\ K_{4} = 2, L_{0} = 1 L_{1} = 1 L_{2} = 2, L_{3} = 10, A_{t o t} = 3, B_{t o t} = 2, E_{1} = 3, E_{2} = 3, \\ E_{3} = 12, E_{4} = 12, k_{in} = 2, k_{out} = 10, \end{array}

the polynomial system becomes

\begin{array}{ll} 0 = 20000 a_{2}^{2} a_{0} - 60000 a_{2}^{2} + 180560 a_{2} - 60315.2 a_{2} a_{0} - 95200 + 32120 a_{0} \\ 0 = 20000 a_{2}^{2} a_{0}^{2} - 40000 a_{2} a_{0}^{2} - 79996.64 a_{2}^{2} a_{0} + 164086.88 a_{2} a_{0} - 7928 a_{0} + 59720 a_{2}^{2} - 131680 a_{2} + 24480 \end{array}

and the solutions are:

a_{0} \sim 0.69, a_{2} \sim 0.679,

which are in the desired interval.

If instead we replace L₃ by 1, we obtain a system whose solutions are

a_{0} \sim 2.978, a_{2} \sim - 0.323,

and hence there are no positive steady states.

This shows that there is a condition for positive steady states to exist, and although (34) is necessary, it is not sufficient.

Appendix 5—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Motif, time series and threshold for the linear pathway model with multiple co-substrates.

(A) Cartoon representation of a chain of reversible reactions with metabolite cycling of two different metabolites, as shown in Equation 33. Each cycled metabolite has two forms, and there is no pathway independent cycling. (B) Heatmap of of the steady state concentration of M₀ as a function of the metabolite pool sizes ( $A_{tot} = B_{tot}$ ) and the inflow flux (k_in). White area shows the region where there is no steady state. (C) Concentrations of $M_{0 - 4}$ , $A_{0} / A_{1}$ and $B_{0} / B_{1}$ ratios as a function of time. At $t = 1000$ s, parameters are switched from the white dot in panel (B) (where a steady state exists) to the black dot (where we see build up of M₀), and continued decline of A₀. The $B_{0} / B_{1}$ ratio remains constant however as these are still cycled by reactions after the build up. In (B) and (C) the other parameters are $k_{cat} = 100 s^{- 1}$ , $E_{tot} = 0.01 m M$ , $K_{m} = 50 μ M$ and $k_{out} = 0.1 s^{- 1}$ .

Appendix 6

Different stoichiometries for co-substrate cycling along a single pathway – mimicking the case seen in upper glycolysis

In this section, we consider a scenario of intra-pathway cycling with varying stoichiometry in the pathway. In particular, we consider a simplified version of the case seen in upper glycolysis. The reaction scheme we consider comprises:

\begin{matrix} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} + A T P ⇌ M_{1} + A D P & M_{1} + A T P ⇌ 2 M_{2} + A D P \\ M_{2} + A D P ⇌ M_{3} + A T P & M_{3} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 . \end{matrix}

We let $A_{0} = ATP$ and $A_{1} = ADP$ as usual.

With Michaelis-Menten kinetics, the ODE system is

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} & = k_{in} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{2} L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} - F_{2} K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1}}{K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1} + L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} & = \frac{2 (E_{2} L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} - F_{2} K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1})}{K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1} + L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} + K_{2} L_{1}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} - k_{out} m_{3} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{E_{2} L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} - F_{2} K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1}}{K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1} + L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} + K_{2} L_{1}} + \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} m_{1} a_{1}}{K_{1} m_{1} a_{1} + L_{0} m_{0} a_{0} + K_{1} L_{0}} + \frac{E_{2} L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} - F_{2} K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1}}{K_{2} m_{2}^{2} a_{1} + L_{1} m_{1} a_{0} + K_{2} L_{1}} - \frac{E_{3} L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} - F_{3} K_{3} m_{3} a_{0}}{K_{3} m_{3} a_{0} + L_{2} m_{2} a_{1} + K_{3} L_{2}} . \end{array}

The system has two conservation laws:

a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t}, m_{1} + m_{2} + a_{0} = W .

By considering the equation $0 = 2 \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} + 2 \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = k_{out} m_{3} - 2 k_{in},$ we obtain

m_{3} = \frac{2 k_{in}}{k_{out}} .

Upon substitution of this value of m₃ into $\frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ , $\frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ and $2 \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{3}}{d t} = 0$ , and solving recursively for $M_{2}, m_{1}, m_{0}$ , we obtain the following steady state relations:

\begin{array}{ll} m_{2} = \frac{2 k_{in} K_{3} ((F_{3} + 2 k_{in}) a_{0} + L_{2} k_{out})}{k_{out} a_{1} L_{2} (E_{3} - 2 k_{in})}, \\ m_{1} = - \frac{K_{2} ((F_{2} + k_{in}) a_{1} m_{2}^{2} + L_{1} k_{in})}{L_{1} a_{0} (E_{2} - k_{in})}, \\ m_{0} = - \frac{K_{1} ((F_{1} + k_{in}) a_{1} m_{1} + L_{0} k_{in})}{a_{0} L_{0} (E_{1} - k_{in})}, \end{array}

and recall $a_{1} = A_{tot} - a_{0}$ . We see that if $0 < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ , these expressions are all positive if and only if

k_{in} < m i n (E_{1}, E_{2}, E_{3} / 2) .

As usual, we consider the remaining conservation law, $m_{1} + m_{2} + a_{0} = W$ , together with these expressions, to find a polynomial $p (a_{0})$ whose roots in $(0, A_{tot})$ are in one-to-one correspondence with positive steady states, provided (36) holds. The polynomial has degree 3, positive leading term, negative independent term and term of degree 2, and is positive at $a_{0} = A_{tot}$ . With this information, we cannot immediately conclude that there is a positive root in $(0, A_{tot})$ . But for positive steady states to exist, we need the term of degree 1 to be positive (this follows from Descartes’ rule of signs, as usual), and this sets an extra condition on the parameters. When this happens, there will be two positive steady states.

Specifically, the term of degree 1 is

\begin{array}{ll} α = L_{2} k_{out} (L_{1} L_{2} {(E_{3} - 2 k_{in})}^{2} k_{out} (A_{t o t} W (E_{2} - k_{in}) + K_{2} k_{in}) \\ - 2 K_{3} L_{1} L_{2} (E_{2} - k_{in}) (E_{3} - 2 k_{in}) k_{in} k_{out} \\ - 8 K_{2} K_{3}^{2} k_{in}^{2} (F_{3} + 2 k_{in}) (F_{2} + k_{in})), \end{array}

which depends on $A_{tot}$ and $W$ . To summarize for positive steady states to exist, we need

k_{in} < E_{1}, k_{in} < E_{2}, k_{in} < \frac{E_{3}}{2}, α > 0.

If $k_{in}$ is small enough, then the conditions hold as $α > 0$ at $k_{in} = 0$ .

However, these conditions are not sufficient. To see this, by inspecting the term $α$ , one can see that if $K_{2}, K_{3}$ are small enough, then there will be two positive steady states, while if they are larger, there will be none. We have verified that both scenarios occur. For example, fix the parameter values to be

\begin{array}{ll} A_{t o t} = 1, W = 2, F_{1} = 1, F_{2} = 2, F_{3} = 3, L_{0} = 1 L_{1} = 1, \\ L_{2} = 2, K_{1} = 1 k_{in} = 1, k_{out} = 1, E_{1} = 2, E_{2} = 2, E_{3} = 3, \end{array}

and note that (35) holds. With $K_{2} = K_{3} = 0.1$ , the polynomial of interest becomes $p (a_{0}) = 4 a_{0}^{3} - 14.300 a_{0}^{2} + 7.360 a_{0} - 0.448$ , and so $α > 0$ . The polynomial has two positive roots under $A_{tot} = 1$ , namely 0.07 and 0.537. For $K_{2} = 0.2, K_{3} = 0.3$ , the polynomial is $p (a_{0}) = 4 a_{0}^{3} - 23.400 a_{0}^{2} + 2.080 a_{0} - 1.664$ , and although $α > 0$ , it has no root in the interval $(0, 1)$ .

An analogous reasoning holds for the irreversible system.

Appendix 6—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Motif, time series and threshold for a model with differential co-substrate stoichiometry, as seen in glycolysis.

(A) Reaction system modelled in Appendix 6. Branching arrowhead from M₁ to M₂ indicates that two M₂ molecules are produced/used in the forward/backward reactions. (B) Heatmap of the steady state M₀ concentration. In the white area there is no steady state due to continual build up of M₀. Dashed line shows the smallest limit imposed by Equation 35. (C) Time series of $M_{0 \to 4}$ and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ . At $t = 1000$ s, parameters are switched from the white dot in panel (B) (where a steady state exists) to the black dot (where we see build up of M₀). Note that in the build up regime, M₂ reduces as well as $A_{0} / A_{1}$ , as M₂ production is dependent on the presence of A₀. In (B) and (C) the other parameters are $k_{cat} = 100 s^{- 1}$ , $E_{tot} = 0.01 m M$ , $K_{m} = 50 μ M$ and $k_{out} = 0.1 s^{- 1}$ .

Appendix 7

Co-substrate cycling along with metabolite cycling – mimicking the case seen in nitrogen assimilation

In this section, we consider a scenario of intertwined, co-substrate cycling within a pathway. In particular, we consider a simplified version of the case seen in nitrogen assimilation where NAD(P)H cycling co-occurs together with a cycling from alpha-ketoglutarate to glutamate (mediated by glutamate dehydrogenase) and back from glutamate to alpha-ketoglutarate and glutamine (mediated by glutamate synthase). The simplified reaction scheme we consider comprises:

\begin{array}{ll} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} N H 3 M_{0} + N A D H + N H 3 ⇌ M_{1} + N A D \\ M_{2} \overset{k_{out}}{\to} 0 M_{1} + N A D ⇌ M_{0} + M_{2} + N A D H . \end{array}

Denoting $A_{0} =$ NADH, $A_{1} =$ NAD, $A_{2} =$ NH3, the ODE system is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} + K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{1} L_{0}} + \frac{E_{2} L_{1} a_{1} m_{1} - F_{2} K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2}}{K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} + K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{- F_{2} K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + E_{2} L_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} & = \frac{- F_{2} K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + E_{2} L_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} - k_{o u t} m_{2} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} + K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{1} L_{0}} + \frac{- F_{2} K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + E_{2} L_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} + K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{1} L_{0}} - \frac{- F_{2} K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + E_{2} L_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{K_{2} a_{0} m_{0} m_{2} + L_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{2} L_{1}} \\ \frac{d a_{2}}{d t} & = k_{i n} - \frac{E_{1} L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} - F_{1} K_{1} a_{1} m_{1}}{L_{0} a_{0} a_{2} m_{0} + K_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + K_{1} L_{0}} . \end{array}

There are three conservation laws:

a_{0} + m_{1} = M, a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t}, m_{0} + a_{1} = W .

From $\frac{d a_{2}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{1}}{d t} + \frac{d m_{2}}{d t} = 0$ we get

m_{2} = \frac{k_{in}}{k_{out}}

as expected. From $\frac{d m_{2}}{d t} = 0$ and $\frac{d a_{2}}{d t} = 0$ we get

m_{1} = \frac{k_{in} K_{2} (F_{2} a_{0} m_{0} + k_{in} a_{0} m_{0} + L_{1} k_{out})}{k_{out} a_{1} L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in})}, a_{2} = \frac{K_{1} (F_{1} a_{1} m_{1} + a_{1} k_{in} m_{1} + L_{0} k_{in})}{m_{0} a_{0} L_{0} (E_{1} - k_{in})} .

From the second and third conservation laws, we get

a_{1} = A_{t o t} - a_{0}, m_{0} = W - a_{1} = W - A_{t o t} + a_{0} .

This gives that for a positive steady state, we need $k_{in} < E_{1}, k_{in} < E_{2}$ and $m a x (A_{t o t} - W, 0) < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ . Note that $A_{tot} - W$ is the constant value of $a_{0} - m_{0}$ along trajectories.

Plugging these expressions into the first conservation law, we have that steady states are in one-to-one correspondence with the solutions to

M = a_{0} + \frac{k_{in} K_{2} (F_{2} a_{0} (a_{0} - A_{t o t} + W) + a_{0} k_{in} (a_{0} - A_{t o t} + W) + L_{1} k_{out})}{k_{out} (- a_{0} + A_{t o t}) L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in})} .

We first note that the derivative of the right hand side of (38) with respect to a₀ is:

\begin{aligned} 1 + \frac{k_{in} K_{2} (F_{2} (a_{0} - A_{t o t} + W) + F_{2} a_{0} + k_{in} (a_{0} - A_{t o t} + W) + a_{0} k_{in})}{k_{out} (- a_{0} + A_{t o t}) L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in})} \\ + \frac{k_{in} K_{2} (F_{2} a_{0} (a_{0} - A_{t o t} + W) + a_{0} k_{in} (a_{0} - A_{t o t} + W) + L_{1} k_{out})}{k_{out} {(- a_{0} + A_{t o t})}^{2} L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in})} \end{aligned}

As $A_{t o t} - a_{0} > 0$ and $a_{0} - A_{t o t} - W > 0$ , this function is positive in the interval of interest. Therefore, the right hand side of (38) is an increasing function of a₀ when $m a x (A_{t o t} - W, 0) < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ . It follows that if (38) has a solution, it has exactly one.

Rewriting (38) as a polynomial equation, steady states are in one-to-one correspondence with the roots in the interval $m a x (A_{t o t} - W, 0) < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ of the following polynomial

\begin{array}{ll} p (a_{0}) & = (- L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in}) k_{out} + K_{2} k_{in} (F_{2} + k_{in})) a_{0}^{2} + (L_{1} (E_{2} - k_{in}) k_{out} (M + T) \\ + (W - A_{t o t}) K_{2} k_{in} (F_{2} + k_{in})) a_{0} - L_{1} k_{out} (M A_{t o t} (E_{2} - k_{in}) - K_{2} k_{in}) . \end{array}

When $a_{0} = A_{tot}$ , the polynomial is positive.

Case 1: $A_{tot} - W \leq 0$ . In this case we want $0 < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ . If the independent term of $p$ is negative, then $p$ has exactly one solution in $(0, A_{tot})$ . So, if $M T (E_{2} - k_{in}) - K_{2} k_{in} < 0$ , we have one positive steady state. This is equivalent to

k_{in} < \frac{M A_{t o t} E_{2}}{M A_{t o t} + K_{2}} .

If the independent term is positive or zero, then we note that the degree 1 term is also positive. So either $p$ has all coefficients positive and no positive roots, or the leading term is negative, in which case there is one root larger than $A_{tot}$ . Therefore, no positive steady states in this case.

Case 2: $A_{t o t} - W > 0$ . In this case, we want $A_{t o t} - W < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ . We find that $p (A_{tot} - W)$ is

p (A_{t o t} - W) = - L_{1} k_{out} (W (M - A_{t o t} + W) (E_{2} - k_{in}) - K_{2} k_{in}) .

If this is negative, then there is one positive steady state, as $p$ is positive at $A_{tot}$ . The condition is

k_{in} < \frac{W E_{2} (M - A_{t o t} + W)}{W (M - A_{t o t} + W) + K_{2}} .

Note that $M + W - A_{tot} = a_{0} + m_{1} + m_{0} + a_{1} - a_{0} - a_{1} = m_{0} + m_{1}$ , and hence needs to be positive. This is assumed here.

If $p (A_{tot} - W) \geq 0$ , then we are in the situation where $p$ is nonnegative both at $A_{tot} - W$ and $A_{tot}$ , so, if there are roots in the interval $(A_{tot} - W, A_{tot})$ , there must be two. This contradicts that we already showed that there was at most one. So, in this case, no steady states.

To summarize, there is one positive steady state if and only if $k_{in} < E_{1}$ and

k_{in} < \frac{M A_{t o t} E_{2}}{M A_{t o t} + K_{2}} and A_{t o t} - W \leq 0,

k_{in} < \frac{W E_{2} (M - A_{t o t} + W)}{W (M - A_{t o t} + W) + K_{2}}, A_{t o t} - W > 0, and M + W - A_{t o t} > 0.

Appendix 7—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Motif, time series and threshold for model with both co-substrate and metabolite cycling, mimicking nitrogen assimilation.

(A) Reaction system modelled in Appendix 7. (B) Heatmap of the steady state A₂ concentration. In the white area there is no steady state due to continual build up of A₂. Dashed line shows the limit $k_{in} < \frac{M T E_{2}}{M T + K_{2}}$ , which is the smallest limit for these parameters. (C) Time series of $M_{0 \to 2}$ , A₂ and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ . At $t = 1000$ s, parameters are switched from the white dot in panel (B) (where a steady state exists) to the black dot (where there is continual build up of A₂). In (B) and (C) the other parameters are $k_{cat} = 100 s^{- 1}$ , $E_{tot} = 0.01 m M$ , $K_{m} = 50 μ M$ and $k_{out} = 0.1 s^{- 1}$ .

Appendix 8

Analysis of existing flux data against predicted limits

To support the presented theory, we have analysed existing flux data – compiled from experiments and using flux balance analysis modelling – against predicted limits. The details and main results of this analysis are presented in the main text, under the results and methods sections. Here, we provide further analysis results

Appendix 8—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Measured flux values (from Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) plotted against the calculated primary enzyme kinetic threshold (first part of Eq. (1) of the main text) adjusted by substrate affinity of the enzyme.

Note that the flux data shown here is a subset of the flux data presented in (Figure 3 of the main text), focusing only on those where the main substrate concentration was experimentally measured and the relevant $K_{M}$ is known. For both panels, the solid line indicates the equivalence of the two values and the dashed lines indicate 10-fold change interval on this, as a guide to the eye. Point colour indicates the nature of co-substrate involved and fill state indicates the data source (as shown on the inset).

Appendix 8—figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Cumulative distribution of the ratio of observed flux (measured or FBA-predicted) to enzyme kinetic based limit ( $V_{\max}$ ) (left panel) or to enzyme kinetic based limit accounting for substrate affinity (right panel).

Appendix 8—figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Measured flux values (from Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) plotted against $Δ G^{', m}$ which is the standard Gibbs energy of the reaction assuming all metabolites are at 1 mM concentrations (note this can be different than the usual definition of $Δ G^{', \circ}$ where concentrations are set to 1 M – a concentration that is not reflective of standard physiological conditions).

(A) shows a scatter plot of the ratio between the observed flux and the enzyme kinetic based limit ( $V_{m a x}$ ) against the $Δ G^{', m}$ . The points highlighted in orange are for the malate dehydrogenase reaction. (B) A scatter plot of the enzyme kinetic based limit against the measured flux (same data as in Figure 3 of the main text), where the $Δ G^{', m}$ is shown using a colourmap.

Appendix 8—figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Measured flux values under different experimental conditions (from Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) for select reactions plotted against the corresponding co-substrate pool size.

See Supplementary file 1 for short notations for reactions. Each point on each panel is a separate flux measurement under a different environmental condition, where the co-substrate pool size is also measured. Point colours represent co-substrate type, with red for AMP +ADP + ATP, blue for NAD +NADH, and green for NADP +NADPH. Normalised RMSE of the best linear fit and the p-value are shown in the panel title.

Appendix 8—table 1

Correlation coefficients between observed flux (measured or FBA-predicted) and co-substrate pool size.

For reaction ID and descriptions, see Supplementary file 1.

	Reaction	Flux source	Number of conditions	Pearson-r	p-Value
25	MDH	Gerosa	7	0.874310	0.010042
33	PGK	Gerosa	4	0.973547	0.026453
0	3OAR140	Davidi	7	0.794377	0.032850
7	DHFS	Davidi	7	0.787719	0.035438
46	UAMAS	Davidi	7	0.783767	0.037025
45	UAMAGS	Davidi	7	0.783767	0.037025
44	UAAGDS	Davidi	7	0.783767	0.037025
48	UGMDDS	Davidi	7	0.783767	0.037025
2	AIRC2	Davidi	7	0.783523	0.037125
39	PRASCSi	Davidi	7	0.783523	0.037125
27	NADK	Davidi	7	0.783523	0.037125
19	HSK	Davidi	7	0.783042	0.037321
4	CTPS2	Davidi	7	0.782303	0.037624
41	PTPATi	Davidi	7	0.781795	0.037833
35	PNTK	Davidi	7	0.781795	0.037833
8	DTMPK	Davidi	7	0.780177	0.038501
43	TMPK	Davidi	7	0.777454	0.039643
34	PMPK	Davidi	7	0.777454	0.039643
1	ADSK	Davidi	7	0.777418	0.039658
15	GLU5K	Davidi	7	0.774461	0.040918
37	PRAGSr	Davidi	7	0.773900	0.041159
40	PRFGS	Davidi	7	0.773900	0.041159
38	PRAIS	Davidi	7	0.773900	0.041159
14	GK1	Davidi	7	0.772918	0.041584
6	DBTS	Davidi	7	0.771900	0.042026
5	CYTK1	Davidi	7	0.762125	0.046410
20	ICDHyr	Davidi	7	0.743003	0.055681
47	UAPGR	Davidi	7	0.702799	0.078196
9	G5SD	Davidi	7	0.692830	0.084415
28	P5CR	Davidi	7	0.692830	0.084415
12	GAPD	Davidi	7	–0.681203	0.091988
11	G6PDH2r	Gerosa	7	0.629982	0.129423
10	G6PDH2r	Davidi	7	0.617909	0.139204
16	GND	Davidi	7	0.617909	0.139204
22	IMPD	Davidi	7	–0.539918	0.210941
23	IPMD	Davidi	7	–0.535973	0.214953
36	PPND	Davidi	7	–0.520516	0.231016
26	MTHFR2	Davidi	7	–0.519049	0.232569
32	PGCD	Davidi	7	–0.517475	0.234241
3	AKGDH	Gerosa	7	0.498666	0.254643
17	GND	Gerosa	7	0.498636	0.254676
42	PYK	Gerosa	4	–0.718821	0.281179
18	HISTD	Davidi	7	–0.469323	0.288020
30	PFK	Davidi	5	0.537260	0.350444
24	MDH	Davidi	7	0.311471	0.496502
13	GAPD	Gerosa	4	–0.451817	0.548183
21	ICDHyr	Gerosa	7	–0.169510	0.716347
29	PDH	Gerosa	7	0.098015	0.834403
31	PFK	Gerosa	2	nan	nan

Appendix 9

Pathway branching into two pathways with independent co-substrates

We consider a scenario where two pathways share a common upstream metabolite, as shown in the motif in Figure 4A in the main text. Each branch has its own conserved moiety that is cycled and all reactions are reversible. The reaction system is as follows:

\begin{matrix} 0 \overset{k_{in}}{\to} M_{0} & M_{0} ⇌ M_{1, 2} & M_{0} ⇌ M_{1, 1} \\ M_{1, 2} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{2, 2} + A_{1} & M_{1, 1} + B_{0} ⇌ M_{2, 1} + B_{1} & A_{1} ⇌ A_{0} \\ B_{1} ⇌ B_{0} & M_{2, 2} \overset{k_{o u t, 2}}{\to} 0 & M_{2, 1} \overset{k_{o u t, 1}}{\to} 0 . \end{matrix}

The ODE system is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0}}{d t} & = k_{i n} - \frac{E_{1, 1} L_{0} m_{0} - F_{1, 1} K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1}}{K_{1, 1} L_{0} + K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} + L_{0} m_{0}} - \frac{E_{1, 2} L_{0} m_{0} - F_{1, 2} K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2}}{K_{1, 2} L_{0} + K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} + L_{0} m_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1, 2}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1, 2} L_{0} m_{0} - F_{1, 2} K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2}}{K_{1, 2} L_{0} + K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} + L_{0} m_{0}} - \frac{E_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} - F_{2, 2} K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1}}{K_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} + K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1} + L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1, 1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1, 1} L_{0} m_{0} - F_{1, 1} K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1}}{K_{1, 1} L_{0} + K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} + L_{0} m_{0}} - \frac{E_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0} - F_{2, 1} K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1}}{K_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} + K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1} + L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{2, 2}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} - F_{2, 2} K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1}}{K_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} + K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1} + L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}} - m_{2, 2} k_{o u t, 2} \\ \frac{d m_{2, 1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0} - F_{2, 1} K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1}}{K_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} + K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1} + L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0}} - m_{2, 1} k_{o u t, 1} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} L_{a} + K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0}} - \frac{E_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} - F_{2, 2} K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1}}{K_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} + K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1} + L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} L_{a} + K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0}} + \frac{E_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} - F_{2, 2} K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1}}{K_{2, 2} L_{1, 2} + K_{2, 2} m_{2, 2} a_{1} + L_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}} \\ \frac{d b_{0}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{b} L_{b} b_{0} - F_{b} K_{b} b_{1}}{K_{b} L_{b} + K_{b} b_{1} + L_{b} b_{0}} - \frac{E_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0} - F_{2, 1} K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1}}{K_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} + K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1} + L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0}} \\ \frac{d b_{1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{b} L_{b} b_{0} - F_{b} K_{b} b_{1}}{K_{b} L_{b} + K_{b} b_{1} + L_{b} b_{0}} + \frac{E_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0} - F_{2, 1} K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1}}{K_{2, 1} L_{1, 1} + K_{2, 1} m_{2, 1} b_{1} + L_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} b_{0}} . \end{array}

While it is not possible to solve this system directly, we examine through simulations the effect of varying the influx of the shared upstream metabolite, k_in along with the ratio of the pool sizes, $A_{tot} / B_{tot}$ in the main text (Figure 4 and Appendix 9—figure 1), while varying k_in with the ratio of moiety back-cycling rates $k_{a} / k_{b}$ is presented in Appendix 9—figure 2.

Appendix 9—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Effect of varying $A_{tot} / B_{tot}$ and k_in in the branching system shown in Figure 4A, on the ratio of flux into $M_{2, 2} / M_{2, 1}$ for reversible and irreversible dynamics and different $V_{\max, A}$ and $V_{\max, B}$ values.

Downstream metabolite has higher flux when it’s respective co-substrate has a higher concentration. (A) Reversible reactions with $V_{\max, A} = V_{\max, B} = 0.1$ (i.e. one order of magnitude smaller than the other reaction rates). (B) Irreversible reactions with $V_{\max, A} = V_{\max, B} = 0.1$ (i.e. one order of magnitude smaller than the other reaction rates). (C) Reversible reactions with $V_{\max, A} = V_{\max, B} = 10$ (i.e. one order of magnitude larger than the other reaction rates).

Appendix 9—figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Effect of varying $V_{\max, B} / V_{\max, A}$ (i.e maximum back-cycling) ratio and k_in in the branching system shown in Figure 4A.

(A) Motif showing the dynamics. (B) Heatmap showing the ratio of flux into $M_{2, 2} / M_{2, 1}$ . Downstream metabolite has higher flux when the back-cycling rate of its co-substrate is higher, with a greater effect for higher k_in values. (C) Time series of downstream metabolites and shared precursor. Solid/dashed lines show parameters for black/white dot in (B).

Appendix 10

Independent pathways coupled by co-substrate cycling

We consider a scenario with two pathways that when isolated take the form examined in Appendix 3. However, we now suppose that they are coupled by the conserved moiety, that is $A_{0} \to A_{1}$ in the ‘forward’ direction of the first pathway, while $A_{1} \to A_{0}$ in the ‘forward’ direction of the other. The metabolite reactions are reversible, and there is pathway-independent cycling of the shared conserved moiety. The motif is shown in Figure 5A in the main text, and the reactions are as follows:

\begin{array}{lll} 0 \overset{k_{i n, 1}}{\to} M_{0, 1} & M_{0, 1} + A_{0} ⇌ M_{1, 1} + A_{1} & M_{1, 1} \overset{k_{o u t, 1}}{\to} 0 \\ 0 \overset{k_{i n, 2}}{\to} M_{0, 2} & M_{0, 2} + A_{1} ⇌ M_{1, 2} + A_{0} & M_{1, 2} \overset{k_{o u t, 2}}{\to} 0 \\ A_{0} ⇌ A_{1} . \end{array}

The resulting system of ODEs is:

\begin{array}{ll} \frac{d m_{0, 1}}{d t} & = k_{i n, 1} - \frac{E_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0} - F_{1, 1} K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1}}{K_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} + K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1} + L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0}} \\ \frac{d m_{1, 1}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0} - F_{1, 1} K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1}}{K_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} + K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1} + L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0}} - k_{o u t, 1} m_{1, 1} \\ \frac{d m_{0, 2}}{d t} & = k_{i n, 2} - \frac{E_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1} - F_{1, 2} K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}}{K_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} + K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} + L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1}} \\ \frac{d m_{1, 2}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1} - F_{1, 2} K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}}{K_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} + K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} + L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1}} - k_{o u t, 2} m_{1, 2} \\ \frac{d a_{0}}{d t} & = \frac{E_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1} - F_{1, 2} K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}}{K_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} + K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} + L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1}} \\ - \frac{E_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0} - F_{1, 1} K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1}}{K_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} + K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1} + L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0}} - \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} L_{a} + K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0}} \\ \frac{d a_{1}}{d t} & = - \frac{E_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1} - F_{1, 2} K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0}}{K_{1, 2} L_{0, 2} + K_{1, 2} m_{1, 2} a_{0} + L_{0, 2} m_{0, 2} a_{1}} \\ + \frac{E_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0} - F_{1, 1} K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1}}{K_{1, 1} L_{0, 1} + K_{1, 1} m_{1, 1} a_{1} + L_{0, 1} m_{0, 1} a_{0}} + \frac{E_{a} L_{a} a_{0} - F_{a} K_{a} a_{1}}{K_{a} L_{a} + K_{a} a_{1} + L_{a} a_{0}} . \end{array}

This system has one conservation law

a_{0} + a_{1} = A_{t o t},

giving that at steady state, $a_{1} = A_{tot} - a_{0}$ . By solving the steady state equations $\frac{d m_{0, 1}}{d t} = \frac{d m_{1, 1}}{d t} = \frac{d m_{0, 2}}{d t} = \frac{d m_{1, 2}}{d t} = 0$ for $m_{0, 1}, m_{0, 2}, m_{1, 1}, m_{1, 2}$ , we obtain

\begin{array}{ll} m_{0, 1} = \frac{K_{1, 1} k_{i n, 1} ((F_{1, 1} + k_{i n, 1}) a_{1} + L_{0, 1} k_{o u t, 1})}{k_{o u t, 1} L_{0, 1} a_{0} (E_{1, 1} - k_{i n, 1})}, m_{1, 1} = \frac{k_{i n, 1}}{k_{o u t, 1}}, \\ m_{0, 2} = \frac{K_{1, 2} k_{i n, 2} ((F_{1, 2} + k_{i n, 2}) a_{0} + L_{0, 2} k_{o u t, 2})}{k_{o u t, 2} L_{0, 2} a_{1} (E_{1, 2} - k_{i n, 2})}, m_{1, 2} = \frac{k_{i n, 2}}{k_{o u t, 2}} . \end{array}

The expressions are positive provided $E_{1, 1} > k_{i n, 1}$ , $E_{1, 2} > k_{i n, 2}$ , and $a_{0}, a_{1} > 0$ .

Finally, we use $\frac{d a_{0}}{d t} = 0$ to solve for a₀ and obtain

a_{0} = \frac{K_{a} ((k_{i n, 2} - k_{i n, 1}) (L_{a} + A_{t o t}) + A_{t o t} F_{a})}{(k_{i n, 2} - k_{i n, 1}) (K_{a} - L_{a}) + E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a}} .

For all quantities to be positive at steady state, we require $0 < a_{0} < A_{t o t}$ . By subtracting from $A_{tot}$ the value of a₀ at steady state, we obtain

A_{t o t} - a_{0} = L_{a} ((A_{t o t} + K_{a}) (k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2}) + A_{t o t} E_{a}) .

To summarize, there is a positive steady state if and only if $E_{1, 1} > k_{i n, 1}$ , $E_{1, 2} > k_{i n, 2}$ , and (44) and (43) are positive. For(44) to be positive,

\frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}} > k_{i n, 2} - k_{i n, 1}, that is - \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}} < k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2},

and either

\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}} > k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2}, E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a} > (k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2}) (K_{a} - L_{a})

\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}} < k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2}, E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a} < (k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2}) (K_{a} - L_{a})

By analysing these cases, we obtain all possible scenarios for a positive steady state to exist, and these are dictated by the difference $k_{in, 1} - k_{in, 2}$ .

For example, if $k_{in, 1} = k_{in, 2}$ , then (45) and (46) hold directly. If $K_{a} = L_{a}$ , then we require $\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}} > k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} > - \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}}$ to hold.

If $K_{a} > L_{a}$ , the conditions lead to either

m i n (\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}}, \frac{E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a}}{(K_{a} - L_{a})}) > k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} > - \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}}

m a x (\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}}, \frac{E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a}}{(K_{a} - L_{a})}, - \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}}) < k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} .

If $K_{a} < L_{a}$ , the conditions lead to either

\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}} > k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} > m a x (- \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}}, \frac{E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a}}{(K_{a} - L_{a})})

m a x (\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} + L_{a}}, - \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} + K_{a}}) < k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} < \frac{E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a}}{(K_{a} - L_{a})} .

A key consequence of these conditions is that coupled pathways can admit higher influx values without upstream metabolite build up, due to the cycling enzyme condition now depending on the difference between the $k_{in}$ values rather than the values themselves. This occurs when the limit due to the pathway enzyme is larger than that of the cycling enzyme, so there is always a range of $A_{tot}$ where this applies. An example is shown in Appendix 10—figure 1.

Appendix 10—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Comparison of the onset of instability in the coupled pathway case vs the single pathway case.

(A) Pathway enzyme and cycling enzyme limits in the single and coupled pathway cases (see legend, pathway enzyme limit is the same for each case). For the coupled pathway, $k_{in, 2}$ is set to. $0.9 k_{in, 1}$ Since the limiting factor depends on the difference between $k_{in, 1}$ and $k_{in, 2}$ , higher $k_{in}$ values are possible without build up of upstream metabolites if all other parameters are kept the same. (B) Time series of M₀, M₁ and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ in the single pathway case where the parameters for $A_{tot}$ and $k_{in}$ are set by the black dot in (A). Here we see build up M₀ because $k_{in} > A_{t o t} F_{a} / (A_{t o t} + L_{a})$ . (C) Time series of $M_{0, 1}$ , $M_{0, 2}$ , $M_{1, 1}$ , $M_{1, 2}$ and $A_{0} / A_{1}$ in the coupled pathway case where the parameters for $A_{tot}$ , $k_{in, 1}$ and $k_{in, 2}$ are set by the black dot in (A). Here we see the system admits a steady state because. $k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} < A_{t o t} F_{a} / (A_{t o t} + L_{a})$ The parameters in all panels are: $\frac{A_{t o t} F_{a}}{A_{t o t} L_{a}} > k_{i n, 1} - k_{i n, 2} > m a x (- \frac{A_{t o t} E_{a}}{A_{t o t} K_{a}}, \frac{E_{a} L_{a} + F_{a} K_{a}}{(K_{a} - L_{a})})$ , $K_{1} = L_{0} = K_{1, 1} = K_{1, 2} = L_{0, 1} = L_{0, 2} = 1 M$ , $k_{out} = k_{out, 1} = k_{out, 2} = 0.1 s^{- 1}$ , $E_{a} = F_{a} = 15 M s^{- 1}$ . $K_{a} = L_{a} = 1 M .$

To complement this steady state analysis with dynamics of this system, we use numerical simulations to study the system. In particular, we consider the effect of randomly fluctuating influxes on the downstream metabolites. The analysis is achieved by fixing the average of the influxes, while drawing the log-ratio (i.e. $\log_{10} k_{in, 1} / k_{in, 2}$ ) from a standard normal distribution with mean $μ = 0$ and variance $σ^{2} = 1$ . A new log-ratio is drawn after waiting a time that is drawn from an exponential distribution with mean $τ$ . Example time-series are shown in Figure 5(C and D) of the main text. The log-ratio is chosen as the variable instead of simply the ratio as it allows us to examine large variations, while keeping the effect on each pathway symmetric. This random process can be thought of as the discrete-time analogue of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process: it has the same steady state distribution, mean, variance and correlation function as its continuous-time counterpart, while being much easier and faster to implement as part of a larger system where the other equations are deterministic.

The effect of different values of $τ$ and total pool size $A_{tot}$ is shown in Figure 5 of the main text, and is further explored in Appendix 10—figure 2. These analyses show that the effect of increasing the pathway independent moiety cycling rate is to reduce the critical pool size above which the downstream metabolites are anti-correlated. Furthermore, this behaviour is observed whether the metabolite reactions are irreversible or reversible. Since the transition from correlated to anti-correlated is so sharp, relatively small changes in the total amount of cycled co-substrate, combined with noisy influx rates, could lead to the downstream metabolites changing from being correlated to anti-correlated, or vice-versa.

Appendix 10—figure 2 also further demonstrates the effect of changing $E_{a}$ , $τ$ and $A_{tot}$ on the time series of the products $M_{1, 1}$ and $M_{1, 2}$ and the co-substrate ratio $A_{0} / A_{1}$ . For parameters represented by the black dot in the first row (panels (E) - (H)), the products are correlated when $E_{a} \leq 1$ , and become uncorrelated when $E_{a} = 10$ . The system is still responsive to the noise, but with less variation compared to the other rows because it is limited by the low $A_{tot}$ . For parameters represented by the grey dot in the first row (panels (I) - (L)), the products switch from correlated to anti-correlated as $E_{a}$ increases, and remain responsive to the noise. The variation in $A_{0} / A_{1}$ reduces from left to right because $E_{a}$ increases. For parameters represented by the white dot in the first row (panels (M) - (P)), the products remain anti-correlated and responsive to the noise. The variation in $A_{0} / A_{1}$ reduces from left to right but is not as pronounced for small $E_{a}$ because $A_{tot}$ is very large.

Appendix 10—figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Correlation between products of two coupled pathways, using a model with irreversible reaction rates.

(A) - (D) show results for $E_{a} = F_{a} = 0, 0.01, 1$ and 10, respectively. As in the Figure 5 of the main text, all other parameters are set to 1, apart from the $k_{out}$ values that are each 0.5. As $E_{a}$ increases, the products become anti-correlated at smaller $A_{tot}$ values. This is also true for the model using reversible reaction rates (see Figure 5 of the main text). (E) - (P) show time series for the products $M_{1, 1}$ and $M_{1, 2}$ (purple and green respectively) on the left axis and the ratios $A_{0} / A_{1}$ and $k_{in, 2} / k_{in, 1}$ (blue and pink respectively) on the right axis. Panels in the same column share the same $E_{a}$ value as the heatmap in the top (*e.g*. $E_{a} = 0$ in (E), (I) and (M)). Panels (E) - (H), (I) - (L) and (M) - (P) have $A_{tot}$ and $τ$ given by the black, grey and white dots respectively. See text.

Appendix 11

Table of parameters

Appendix 11—table 1

List of parameters together with the biological meanings and units.

M and t stand for Molar and time, respectively. Where different notation is used between this and the main text, the equivalent parameters have been made clear.

Parameter	Biological meaning and notes	Units
$E_{i}$ , $F_{i}$	Catalytic rate coefficients for forward and backward reactions respectively. In the main text we only use the forward rate and denote it $V_{\max, E_{i}}$ .	$M t^{- 1}$
$K_{i}$ , $L_{i - 1}$	Michaelis-Menten coefficients for forward and backward reactions, respectively. In the main text, we only use the forward rate and denote it $K_{M, E_{i}}$ .	$M^{n}$ , where $n$ is the number of different substrates involved in the reaction.
$k_{in}$	Influx rate.	$M t^{- 1}$
$k_{out}$	Outflow rate.	$t^{- 1}$

Data availability

All used data and models for cases shown in Figure 4 and 5 are made available via a dedicated repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7565439) and the following Github page: https://github.com/OSS-Lab/CoSubstrateDynamics/tree/v1.0.0.

The following data sets were generated

1. West R
2. Delattre H
3. Noor E
4. Feliu E
5. Soyer O
(2023) Zenodo
Co-substrate dynamics analysis software and data.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7565439

References

1. Atkinson DE
(1968) The energy charge of the adenylate pool as a regulatory parameter interaction with feedback modifiers
Biochemistry 7:4030–4034.
https://doi.org/10.1021/bi00851a033
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Barenholz U
2. Davidi D
3. Reznik E
4. Bar-On Y
5. Antonovsky N
6. Noor E
7. Milo R
(2017) Design principles of autocatalytic cycles constrain enzyme kinetics and force low substrate saturation at flux branch points
eLife 6:e20667.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20667
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Basan M
2. Hui S
3. Okano H
4. Zhang Z
5. Shen Y
6. Williamson JR
7. Hwa T
(2015) Overflow metabolism in Escherichia coli results from efficient proteome allocation
Nature 528:99–104.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15765
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Brunk E
2. Sahoo S
3. Zielinski DC
4. Altunkaya A
5. Dräger A
6. Mih N
7. Gatto F
8. Nilsson A
9. Preciat Gonzalez GA
10. Aurich MK
11. Prlić A
12. Sastry A
13. Danielsdottir AD
14. Heinken A
15. Noronha A
16. Rose PW
17. Burley SK
18. Fleming RMT
19. Nielsen J
20. Thiele I
21. Palsson BO
(2018) Recon3D enables a three-dimensional view of gene variation in human metabolism
Nature Biotechnology 36:272–281.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4072
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2015) Self-establishing communities enable cooperative metabolite exchange in a eukaryote
eLife 4:e09943.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09943
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2013) Emergence of spatial structure in the tumor microenvironment due to the warburg effect
PNAS 110:19402–19407.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1311939110
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Chang A
2. Jeske L
3. Ulbrich S
4. Hofmann J
5. Koblitz J
6. Schomburg I
7. Neumann-Schaal M
8. Jahn D
9. Schomburg D
(2021) Brenda, the elixir core data resource in 2021: new developments and updates
Nucleic Acids Research 49:D498–D508.
https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa1025
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Chen WW
2. Freinkman E
3. Wang T
4. Birsoy K
5. Sabatini DM
(2016) Absolute quantification of matrix metabolites reveals the dynamics of mitochondrial metabolism
Cell 166:1324–1337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.07.040
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Chubukov V
2. Uhr M
3. Le Chat L
4. Kleijn RJ
5. Jules M
6. Link H
7. Aymerich S
8. Stelling J
9. Sauer U
(2013) Transcriptional regulation is insufficient to explain substrate-induced flux changes in Bacillus subtilis
Molecular Systems Biology 9:709.
https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2013.66
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Davidi D
2. Noor E
3. Liebermeister W
4. Bar-Even A
5. Flamholz A
6. Tummler K
7. Barenholz U
8. Goldenfeld M
9. Shlomi T
10. Milo R
(2016) Global characterization of in vivo enzyme catalytic rates and their correspondence to in vitro kcat measurements
PNAS 113:3401–3406.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514240113
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2009) Tumor cell energy metabolism and its common features with yeast metabolism
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1796:252–265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2009.07.003
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2013) Glycolytic strategy as a tradeoff between energy yield and protein cost
PNAS 110:10039–10044.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215283110
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2012) Why in vivo may not equal in vitro-new effectors revealed by measurement of enzymatic activities under the same in vivo-like assay conditions
The FEBS Journal 279:4145–4159.
https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.12007
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2015) Pseudo-transition analysis identifies the key regulators of dynamic metabolic adaptations from steady-state data
Cell Systems 1:270–282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2015.09.008
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Green R
2. Wang L
3. Hart SFM
4. Lu W
5. Skelding D
6. Burton JC
7. Mi H
8. Capel A
9. Chen HA
10. Lin A
11. Subramaniam AR
12. Rabinowitz JD
13. Shou W
(2020) Metabolic excretion associated with nutrient-growth dysregulation promotes the rapid evolution of an overt metabolic defect
PLOS Biology 18:e3000757.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000757
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2016) Metabolic modelling in a dynamic evolutionary framework predicts adaptive diversification of bacteria in a long-term evolution experiment
BMC Evolutionary Biology 16:163.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-016-0733-x
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Hatakeyama TS
2. Furusawa C
(2017) Metabolic dynamics restricted by conserved carriers: jamming and feedback
PLOS Computational Biology 13:e1005847.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005847
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Heinrich R
2. Hoffmann E
(1991) Kinetic parameters of enzymatic reactions in states of maximal activity; an evolutionary approach
Journal of Theoretical Biology 151:249–283.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80363-7
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(1991) Mathematical analysis of enzymic reaction systems using optimization principles
European Journal of Biochemistry 201:1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1991.tb16251.x
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Hervagault JF
2. Cimino A
(1989) Dynamic behaviors of an open substrate cycle: a graphical approach
Journal of Theoretical Biology 140:399–416.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80095-5
- Google Scholar
(1986) Metabolic control analysis of moiety-conserved cycles
European Journal of Biochemistry 155:631–640.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1986.tb09534.x
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Hofmeyr JHS
2. Cornish-Bowden A
(2000) Regulating the cellular economy of supply and demand
FEBS Letters 476:47–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(00)01668-9
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Jiang X
2. Zerfaß C
3. Feng S
4. Eichmann R
5. Asally M
6. Schäfer P
7. Soyer OS
(2018) Impact of spatial organization on a novel auxotrophic interaction among soil microbes
The ISME Journal 12:1443–1456.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0095-z
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2002) The glycolytic flux in Escherichia coli is controlled by the demand for atp
Journal of Bacteriology 184:3909–3916.
https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.184.14.3909-3916.2002
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Kurata H
(2019) Self-replenishment cycles generate a threshold response
Scientific Reports 9:17139.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53589-1
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Majewski RA
2. Domach MM
(1990) Simple constrained-optimization view of acetate overflow in E. coli
Biotechnology and Bioengineering 35:732–738.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260350711
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(1984) Acetate formation in continuous culture of Escherichia coli K12 D1 on defined and complex media
Journal of Biotechnology 1:355–358.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1656(84)90027-0
- Google Scholar
(2007) Regulation of yeast oscillatory dynamics
PNAS 104:2241–2246.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606677104
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Okamoto M
2. Hayashi K
(1983) Dynamic behavior of cyclic enzyme systems
Journal of Theoretical Biology 104:591–598.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(83)90247-3
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2019) Lysine harvesting is an antioxidant strategy and triggers underground polyamine metabolism
Nature 572:249–253.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1442-6
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Orth JD
2. Conrad TM
3. Na J
4. Lerman JA
5. Nam H
6. Feist AM
7. Palsson BØ
(2011) A comprehensive genome-scale reconstruction of Escherichia coli metabolism--2011
Molecular Systems Biology 7:535.
https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2011.65
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2017) Autonomous metabolic oscillations robustly gate the early and late cell cycle
Molecular Cell 65:285–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.11.018
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2001) Cooperation and competition in the evolution of atp-producing pathways
Science 292:504–507.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1058079
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Ponomarova O
2. Gabrielli N
3. Sévin DC
4. Mülleder M
5. Zirngibl K
6. Bulyha K
7. Andrejev S
8. Kafkia E
9. Typas A
10. Sauer U
11. Ralser M
12. Patil KR
(2017) Yeast creates a niche for symbiotic lactic acid bacteria through nitrogen overflow
Cell Systems 5:345–357.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2017.09.002
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Book
1. Reich JG
2. Sel‘kov EE
(1981)
Energy Metabolism of the Cell: A Theoretical Treatise

Academic press.
- Google Scholar
1. Sauro HM
(1994) Moiety-conserved cycles and metabolic control analysis: problems in sequestration and metabolic channelling
Bio Systems 33:55–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0303-2647(94)90061-2
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Schmidt A
2. Kochanowski K
3. Vedelaar S
4. Ahrné E
5. Volkmer B
6. Callipo L
7. Knoops K
8. Bauer M
9. Aebersold R
10. Heinemann M
(2016) The quantitative and condition-dependent Escherichia coli proteome
Nature Biotechnology 34:104–110.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3418
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Stucki JW
(1980) The optimal efficiency and the economic degrees of coupling of oxidative phosphorylation
European Journal of Biochemistry 109:269–283.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1980.tb04792.x
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(1998) The danger of metabolic pathways with turbo design
Trends in Biochemical Sciences 23:162–169.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0004(98)01205-5
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Torres A
2. Feliu E
(2021) Symbolic proof of bistability in reaction networks
SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems 20:1–37.
https://doi.org/10.1137/20M1326672
- Google Scholar
1. van Heerden JH
2. Wortel MT
3. Bruggeman FJ
4. Heijnen JJ
5. Bollen YJM
6. Planqué R
7. Hulshof J
8. O’Toole TG
9. Wahl SA
10. Teusink B
(2014) Lost in transition: start-up of glycolysis yields subpopulations of nongrowing cells
Science 343:6174.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245114
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
(2006) Overflow metabolism in Escherichia coli during steady-state growth: transcriptional regulation and effect of the redox ratio
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72:3653–3661.
https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.72.5.3653-3661.2006
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Vemuri GN
2. Eiteman MA
3. McEwen JE
4. Olsson L
5. Nielsen J
(2007) Increasing NADH oxidation reduces overflow metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
PNAS 104:2402–2407.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0607469104
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Walther T
2. Novo M
3. Rössger K
4. Létisse F
5. Loret MO
6. Portais JC
7. François JM
(2010) Control of ATP homeostasis during the respiro‐fermentative transition in yeast
Molecular Systems Biology 6:344.
https://doi.org/10.1038/msb.2009.100
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
1. Warburg O
(1956) On the origin of cancer cells
Science 123:309–314.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.123.3191.309
- PubMed
- Google Scholar
Software
1. West R
2. Delattre H
3. Noor E
4. Feliu E
5. Soyer OS
(2023) Co-substrate dynamics analysis software and data
Zenodo.

https://zenodo.org/record/7565439#.Y_rvoXZBzIU

Article and author information

Author details

Robert West

School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom

Contribution
Conceptualization, Resources, Software, Formal analysis, Writing – review and editing

Contributed equally with
Hadrien Delattre

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9348-0258
Hadrien Delattre

School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom

Contribution
Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

Contributed equally with
Robert West

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5488-8370
Elad Noor

Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel

Contribution
Resources, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8776-4799
Elisenda Feliu

Department of Mathematics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Contribution
Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

For correspondence
efeliu@math.ku.dk

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7205-6511
Orkun S Soyer

School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick, Warwick, United Kingdom

Contribution
Conceptualization, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

For correspondence
O.Soyer@warwick.ac.uk

Competing interests
No competing interests declared

"This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9504-3796

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/T010150/1)

Robert West

Novo Nordisk (F18OC0052483)

Elisenda Feliu

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (GBMF9200)

Orkun S Soyer

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

This project is funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) (grant BB/T010150/1). EF acknowledges funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant NNF18OC0052483), while OSS acknowledges support from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (grant https://doi.org/10.37807/GBMF9200).

We would like to thank Wenying Shou for constructive comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, and Dan Davidi for his help with datasets of reaction fluxes and enzyme abundances.

Version history

Preprint posted: September 6, 2022 (view preprint)
Received: October 22, 2022
Accepted: February 16, 2023
Accepted Manuscript published: February 17, 2023 (version 1)
Version of Record published: March 20, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

803

views
180

downloads
1

citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Article PDF

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Mendeley

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Robert West
Hadrien Delattre
Elad Noor
Elisenda Feliu
Orkun S Soyer

(2023)

Dynamics of co-substrate pools can constrain and regulate metabolic fluxes

eLife 12:e84379.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84379

Categories and tags

Research organism

E. coli

Share this article

Cite this article

Motif, time-series and threshold in a single co-substrate involving reaction.

Motif, time-series and thresholds for the linear pathway model with n=4.

Measured and FBA-predicted flux values are typically lower than the calculated primary enzyme threshold.

Motif, heatmap and time-series for the branching pathway model.

Figure 4—source code 1

Motif, heatmap and time-series for the coupled pathway model with noisy influxes.

Figure 5—source code 1

Cartoon representation of select metabolic pathways involving co-substrate cycling.

Concentrations of non-accumulating metabolites vs kin in the models presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the main text.

Motif, time series and threshold for the linear pathway model with multiple co-substrates.

Motif, time series and threshold for a model with differential co-substrate stoichiometry, as seen in glycolysis.

Motif, time series and threshold for model with both co-substrate and metabolite cycling, mimicking nitrogen assimilation.

Measured flux values (from Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) plotted against the calculated primary enzyme kinetic threshold (first part of Eq. (1) of the main text) adjusted by substrate affinity of the enzyme.

Cumulative distribution of the ratio of observed flux (measured or FBA-predicted) to enzyme kinetic based limit (Vmax) (left panel) or to enzyme kinetic based limit accounting for substrate affinity (right panel).

Measured flux values under different experimental conditions (from Davidi et al., 2016; Gerosa et al., 2015) for select reactions plotted against the corresponding co-substrate pool size.

Correlation coefficients between observed flux (measured or FBA-predicted) and co-substrate pool size.

Effect of varying Atot/Btot and kin in the branching system shown in Figure 4A, on the ratio of flux into M2,2/M2,1 for reversible and irreversible dynamics and different Vmax,A and Vmax,B values.

Effect of varying Vmax,B/Vmax,A (i.e maximum back-cycling) ratio and kin in the branching system shown in Figure 4A.

Comparison of the onset of instability in the coupled pathway case vs the single pathway case.

Correlation between products of two coupled pathways, using a model with irreversible reaction rates.

List of parameters together with the biological meanings and units.

Author details

Robert West

Contribution

Contributed equally with

Competing interests

Hadrien Delattre

Contribution

Contributed equally with

Competing interests

Elad Noor

Contribution

Competing interests

Elisenda Feliu

Contribution

For correspondence

Competing interests

Orkun S Soyer

Contribution

For correspondence

Competing interests

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

Motif, time-series and thresholds for the linear pathway model with $n = 4$ .

Concentrations of non-accumulating metabolites vs k_in in the models presented in Figures 1 and 2 of the main text.

Cumulative distribution of the ratio of observed flux (measured or FBA-predicted) to enzyme kinetic based limit ( $V_{\max}$ ) (left panel) or to enzyme kinetic based limit accounting for substrate affinity (right panel).

Effect of varying $A_{tot} / B_{tot}$ and k_in in the branching system shown in Figure 4A, on the ratio of flux into $M_{2, 2} / M_{2, 1}$ for reversible and irreversible dynamics and different $V_{\max, A}$ and $V_{\max, B}$ values.

Effect of varying $V_{\max, B} / V_{\max, A}$ (i.e maximum back-cycling) ratio and k_in in the branching system shown in Figure 4A.