Physica Status Solidi A (in print, 2014): DOI 10.1002/pssa.201400131
Can bio-inspired information
processing steps be realized as
synthetic biochemical processes?
Vladimir Privman
1
2
*,1
Feature Article
We develop approaches to realizing feedforward loops and certain memory functions
(associative memory) with autonomous
enzymatic-cascade biochemical processes.
Such systems will offer possibilities for
utilizing bio-inspired information handling
steps on par with the presently used digital
gates. Thus, we can be guided by nature's
mechanisms in our experimenting with new
information and signal processing designs.
**,2
and Evgeny Katz
Department of Physics, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699, USA
Department of Chemistry and Biomolecular Science, Clarkson University,
Potsdam, NY 13699, USA
Keywords
Feed-forward loop; associative memory;
enzyme-catalyzed processes; bio-inspired; biochemical.
* Corresponding author: e-mail [email protected], Phone: +1 315 268 3891
** e-mail [email protected], Phone: +1 315 268 4421
We consider possible designs and experimental realizations in synthesized rather than naturally occurring biochemical systems of a selection of basic bio-inspired information processing steps. These include feed-forward
loops, which have been identified as the most common
information processing motifs in many natural pathways
in cellular functioning, and memory-involving processes,
specifically, associative memory. Such systems should
not be designed to literally mimic nature. Rather, we can
be guided by nature's mechanisms for experimenting
with new information/signal processing steps which are
based on coupled biochemical reactions, but are vastly
simpler than natural processes, and which will provide
tools for the long-term goal of understanding and har-
nessing nature's information processing paradigm. Our
biochemical processes of choice are enzymatic cascades
because of their compatibility with physiological processes in vivo and with electronics (e.g., electrodes) in
vitro allowing for networking and interfacing of enzymecatalyzed processes with other chemical and biochemical
reactions. In addition to designing and realizing feedforward loops and other processes, one has to develop
approaches to probe their response to external control of
the time-dependence of the input(s), by measuring the resulting time-dependence of the output. The goal will be
to demonstrate the expected features, for example, the
delayed response and stabilizing effect of the feedforward loops.
1 Introduction
Information and signal processing with biomolecules
(termed “biocomputing” for brevity) stands out as an active basic-research field [1-6] in the broader context of
chemical [7-11] unconventional computing approaches
[12, 13]. It promises capabilities [4] to develop novel approaches to biosensing and to interfacing Si electronics for
biocompatibility with living organisms. Furthermore, biocomputing can offer tools for developing information processing paradigms other than those presently widely used
in analog/digital devices. One example of a recent success
has been ideas [14-16] of using bio-inspired memory elements (memristors, etc.) for novel designs of Si electronic
circuitry for specific applications.
This suggests that it would be of interest to devise synthetic biochemical systems which are simple realizations of
the nature’s information and signal processing functionalities, to have building blocks to experiment with in order to
better understand the nature’s and also enrich the analog/digital information processing paradigms.
Here we work in the framework of biocomputing biomolecular systems based on enzymatic cascades [17-22].
Biomolecular computing has been studied by many research groups, using synthetic DNA chains (oligonucleotides) [1, 5], various proteins (including enzymes) [18-25],
and other bio-objects [26-28] (even whole cells) designed
by nature. Use of enzymes has been motivated by their
compatibility with physiological processes in vivo and
with electronics (e.g., electrodes) in vitro, and selectivity
and specificity, which allow networking. Furthermore, enzymes are abundant in all body functions and widely used
of biomedical testing. Even small-scale networking for
several-input/step information/signal processing with enzymes thus offers interesting applications [29, 30] for biosensing [31-34], e.g., for the point-of-care [35-38] rather
than clinical testing, or for continuous monitoring for envi-
2
V. Privman and E. Katz: Bio-inspired information processing steps as synthetic biochemical processes
ronmental and security/military applications [39, 40]. EnEnzymatic processes are also well suited for interfacing
biocomputing steps with standard electronics [41-46] in
electrochemical settings.
The analog/digital electronics fault-tolerant scalability
paradigm is the only one that is presently fully understood.
Thus, most research in biocomputing has been devoted to
realizing digital logic, i.e., binary gates [21, 26, 29, 47-51]
such as AND, OR, XOR, etc., and attempting to connect
them in presently rather small networks [6, 18, 22, 24, 52],
including those carrying out Boolean functions. Recent
developments have focused on non-binary “network
elements” that improve the noise handling by “filtering”
approaches [53-63] useful for improving scalability of
binary biocomputing gate networks.
The information processing paradigm of nature has
also been very successful. We do not fully understand it,
but advances have been made in systems biology to
explore aspects of the functioning of the nature’s
information processing [64-67]. Presently, we cannot even
remotely mimic the complexity of the natural processes by
making “artificial life” systems starting with
biomolecules/biochemistry. However, an interesting
avenue of research has been to consider specific processes:
memory, learning, etc., as “network elements” that could
offer new functionalities to our otherwise more
conventionally manufactured systems of Si-electronics.
We already mentioned recent successes involving such
ideas for novel electronic circuit designs that make uses of
memory elements [14-16, 68, 69].
Here we take up a new challenge: We consider how to
actually realize with biochemical processes certain basic
bio-inspired information processing steps. Ultimately, such
systems can offer tools for experimenting with information
processing networks based on synthetic autonomous
biochemical processes, to allow a new avenue for
understanding the nature’s information processing
paradigm.
Our emphasis here will be on feed-forward loops.
Indeed, it is the most common network motif in
information processing in natural systems, and the
challenge will be to carry it out with few coupled
biochemical reactions, which will be an immensely simpler
realization than that in nature. We will also consider
certain memory processes, for which our recent
preliminary work has indicated possibilities for designing
biomolecular realizations [70, 71]. We will focus on
associative memory for reasons described later. The
present “concept article” describes the general principles of
the design of such systems.
Both general and specific designs are presented and
theoretically substantiated, with the bulk of the required
experimental work to be carried out in the future by our
group. It is hoped that the described designs will initiate a
new research direction of synthetic information processing
mimicking not the full scope of what the nature does, as
“artificial life,” but rather taking up a more limited and
therefore hopefully more tractable goal of mimicking only
the nature’s information processing design, with
biomolecular/biochemical reaction processes vastly
simpler than those that evolved naturally.
2 Example and discussion of feed-forward
In order to make the presentation specific, let us first
consider an example, which is later revisited and described
in detail in Sec. 3, of a possible design of a feed-forwardloop function with a cascade of enzyme-catalyzed
reactions. This section offers a general introduction,
whereas the details of the actual biochemistry of this and
other systems’ functioning are explained in later sections.
Unlike the various earlier-realized “biochemical gates,”
feed forward is in most cases not a binary function [72-74].
Another important difference in attempting actual
biochemical realizations is that feed forward has two
“signal transduction” steps, each involving the input signal,
X, usually not being directly converted into the output.
Rather, in the primary (direct) step the input acts as the
activator (promoter), denoted by →, or repressor (inhibitor),
denoted by ⊣, of the ongoing process(es) that generate the
output signal, Z: See the schematic in Fig. 1. The feedforward loop is completed by adding the secondary
(indirect) step in which X activates or represses the
ongoing process(es) which generate another, intermediate
signal, Y, which in turn activates or represses the
process(es) of the production of Z.
Figure 1 Feed-forward system with activation in all the signal
transduction steps. The schematic (left) shows the activations
involved. The biochemical processes (right) are explained in
detail in Sec. 3. Two enzyme-biocatalyzed processes (outlined by
boxes) continuously produce chemicals which are signals Y and Z.
Chemical input X activates (promotes) the production of both Z
and Y, whereas Y promotes the production of Z. (The chemical
notations and abbreviations are explained in Sec. 3.)
Here we will consider the simpler (for biochemical
realizations) situation when X or Y, rather than X and Y
together — which is another feed-forward option —
Physica Status Solidi A (in print, 2014)
activate the output signal Z production. Then in the simsimplest classification [74, 75] there can be 8 different
loops corresponding to choosing activation or repression in
each of the steps
3
where the “reaction terms” describe the kinetics of a
possible consumption of X by the biochemical processes of
the feed-forward loop itself. The quantification of the feedforward effect will consist of observing how the resulting
time dependence of Z(t) is affected by the presence of the
X→Z or X ⊣Z, X→Y or X⊣Y, Y→Z or Y⊣Z.
(1)
secondary transduction step, X →Y →Z, which can be
The feed-forward loop is then called “coherent” or enabled at various degrees of activity controlled by
“incoherent” depending on whether the net effect of X on chemicals needed for that step’s functioning.
One expected effect is that sharp variations in X will
the production of Z in the secondary step is the same as in
not cause an immediate response by changes in Z. Rather,
the primary.
The most abundant in nature [75-77] feed forward with the second step active at proper levels, the response
involves three activations. In Fig. 1 we show a potential will only occur when the input signal, X, changes (up or
realization of such a process with an enzymatic cascade, down) by certain threshold amounts, and furthermore, the
for which the notation, details of the biochemical processes, system might have its own time scales for response rather
and the system’s functioning are explained later, in Sec. 3, than be driven by the input’s variation.
The “stabilizing/resource-conserving” effects expected
as part of a discussion of experimental realizations,
of feed-forward functions have never been realized in
including also systems involving repression.
Here we would like to address several important simple enzymatic biochemical systems. We hope to
features expected of such systems. First, we need at least highlight the challenges involved in such realizations in
two enzymatic (or other biochemical) processes which this work, as well as consider possible approaches to
yield signals Y and Z, and these processes’ rates at time t, accomplish not only feed-forward but also other bioshould be affected (controlled) by the value of the input at inspired processes, starting with those involving memory.
that time, X(t). In some situations activation can be made For these the experimental realizations will have to be
rather sharp as a function of parameters, and inhibition can designed guided by the needs of quantifying the
also be made sharp. Thus, various responses of the feed- anticipated characteristics of their response. We also
forward loop can be made quite steep. Feed forward can comment on the chemical-kinetics modeling of the
therefore on its own in some regimes approximate binary expected systems.
gates. Therefore, ideas have been developed [78] for multigate logic with DNA-structure oligonucleotide systems
3 Enzymatic feed-forward loops
made of binary feed-forward functions.
In this section we present the potential enzymaticHowever, in a general setting the feed forward’s role in cascade-based feed-forward designs. Let us first describe
nature is obviously not binary. Rather, the feed-forward in detail the system shown in Fig. 1, outline its design, and
loop, specifically the one with three promotions shown in report preliminary experimental observations. The system
the schematic in Fig. 1, plays a stabilizing role in nature’s involves only activations in all its signal-transduction steps
networks: It delays [76, 79-81] the changes in the response, corresponding to the options in Eq. 1. The cascade includes
Z(t), to avoid erratic swings and “waste of resources” in the functioning of two enzymes as biocatalysts:
natural-pathway
responses
to
environmental Glutathione reductase (E.C. 1.8.1.7), abbreviated GR,
variations/fluctuations, specifically, those in X(t). The which biocatalytically converts glutathione from its
secondary step — with the X to Y to Z transduction — oxidized form, GSSG, to reduced form, GSH. The latter,
takes a fraction of the input signal and processes it in GSH, acts as our intermediate signal, Y, in the feedparallel to the primary transduction channel. It should be forward functioning. Concomitantly, β-nicotinamide
designed to act to time-delay (as compared to the direct X adenine dinucleotide is converted [82] from its reduced
to Z transduction in the primary step) the effect of a part of form, NADH, to the oxidized form, NAD+. Alcohol
the changes in the input signal, X, as far as its net impact dehydrogenase (E.C. 1.1.1.1), ADH, biocatalytically
on Z goes.
oxidizes ethanol (Et-OH) to yield acetaldehyde (AcAd),
Therefore, in order to experimentally accomplish while β-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide is converted
proper feed-forward realizations, we need to go beyond the [83] from its oxidized form, NAD+, to the reduced state
“input at t = 0 to output at gate time tgate > 0” response NADH. These two processes can yield the net increase in
paradigm of the digital-gate biocomputing. We have to the amount of NADH that can be measured optically by
experimentally control the availability of X(t), by changes in absorption and that will be designated as our
adding/removing (inputting/deactivating) this compound output signal, Z. Thus, as expected for feed forward,
by physical or (bio)chemical means at the externally signals Z and Y are generated continuously once the
controllable rate (which can be negative) Rext, such that
reactions are started. In fact, the net rate of production of
NADH in this system must be kept in check, to avoid rapid
= Rext(t) + reaction terms,
(2) build-up of the signal Z. This can be done [84] by initially
largely inhibiting the activity of enzyme ADH by adding
4
V. Privman and E. Katz: Bio-inspired information processing steps as synthetic biochemical processes
disulfiram, DS, which forms an ADH-DS complex that has
low biocatalytic activity.
The input signal, X, can then be dithiothreitol, DTT,
that, when added to the system has the following effects on
the process rates:
(i) Its promotion of GR results in a substantial increase
[85] of the GR enzyme activity, thus increasing the rate of
the signal Y generation. This corresponds to X→Y in Eq. 1.
(ii) In addition, DTT chemically converts DS from its
original
disulfide
form
to
the
thiol
form,
diethyldithiocarbamate, DDC, shifting the kinetics to result
in the breakup of the inhibited-enzyme complex ADH-DS
and restoring ADH to high activity, thus increasing the rate
of the signal Z generation: X→Z in Eq. 1.
(iii) Importantly, GSH (signal Y), which is the product
of the reaction biocatalyzed by GR, also chemically
removes DS from the ADH-DS inhibited complex, acting
to increase the rate of the signal Z generation. Therefore,
the step Y→Z in Eq. 1, is built into the biochemical
system’s functioning.
The excess concentration of NADH,
∆NADH(t) = NADH(t) – NADH(0),
concentrations did not result in a substantial inhibition of
ADH, while higher concentrations did not allow the
enzyme reactivation. The inhibited ADH was tested for the
production of NADH in the presence of NAD+ (1.0 mM)
and ethanol (1.7 M). Despite its inhibition, the enzyme
ADH demonstrated some activity producing NADH,
Fig. 2A, curve a. Addition of NADH (50 µM) initially, to
the solution in the absence of the disulfide reducing system
(GR and GSSG) did not noticeably affect the rate of the
biocatalytic production of the excess NADH, Fig. 2A,
curve b. The same experiment performed in the presence
of GR (2 units mL–1), GSSG (3 µM) and NADH (the same
added amount, 50 µM) resulted in an enhanced production
of NADH, witnessing the inhibitor removal and ADH
reactivation, Fig. 2A, curve c. The rate of the NADH
production was increased approximately two-fold, Fig. 2B,
demonstrating the feasibility of the Y→Z step.
(3)
which is our signal Z(t), is generated at a rate increased by
the direct effect of the input signal, X. And it is also
increased through the indirect step of X accelerating the
signal Y production, while the latter in turn contributes to
increasing the output of Z.
The full realization and characterization of the
proposed enzymatic cascade will require addressing
several challenges, even though some of the processes
have already been studied in the literature. The latter
include the process of removing the DS inhibitor from
ADH-DS complex by DTT (signal X). Indeed, DTT is an
established reactant for converting disulfide chemical
species to their thiol derivatives [86]. The inhibition of
ADH by the disulfide form of DS has also been studied,
including the property that its thiol derivative, DDC, is
removed from the enzyme complex and does not inhibit
ADH [84,87]. Therefore, the primary step, X→Z, should be
realizable in a controllable fashion for experiments to
probe the time dependence properties of the process.
Regarding the secondary step, for X→Y we already
mentioned that DTT is known to promote [85] the activity
of GR. As a test of feasibility of realizing the Y→Z step,
preliminary experiments were performed, see Fig. 2, to
demonstrate the effect of GSH (signal Y) on the rate of
NADH production (contributing to signal Z). First, ADH
(0.63 units mL–1) was prepared in the inhibited form by
incubation with the added optimized concentration of
disulfiram (0.8 mM). This disulfiram concentration caused
a significant inhibition of ADH, by forming the ADH-DS
complex. ADH could then be reactivated by the thioldisulfide exchange with the reduced glutathione produced
in situ by the GR reaction. Lower disulfiram
Figure 2 Experimental probe of the feasibility of processes
needed for the Y→Z step of the feed-forward loop shown in Fig. 1.
Panel A: Absorbance at λmax = 340 nm, as a function of time,
measuring the amount of NADH: (a) produced only with the
inhibited ADH-DS enzyme complex; (b) the same with some
initially added NADH, but in the absence of the other chemicals
(GR and GSSG) needed for the signal Y production; and (c) in the
presence of GR and GSSG (and the same quantity of the initially
added NADH). Panel B: ΔAbs = Abs(t) – Abs(0), at t = 20 min.
Regarding the interconnectivity of the system just
described (Fig. 1) with other biocatalytic processes for
attempting networking, we note that the output, NADH, is
a substrate (one of the input chemicals) common for many
enzymes, mostly for dehydrogenases. The input,
dithiothreitol is less common in purely enzymatic reactions,
but it can be produced by enzyme-catalyzed processes [88].
For example, enzyme PDI (protein disulfide-isomerase,
E.C. 5.3.4.1) can produce DTT in its reduced form that is
needed to initiate the processes shown in Fig. 1. We also
mention that the cascade in Fig. 1 can be realized with the
initial NADH replaced by a different chemical, NADPH
(which is converted to NADP+, nicotinamide adenine
dinucleotide phosphate, by the enzyme GR). Then the
whole amount of the NADH produced by ADH (or ADHDS) at time t > 0 can be identified as the output signal Z(t).
Generally, for nearly any enzyme there are compounds
that can promote or inhibit that enzyme’s activity. The
Physica Status Solidi A (in print, 2014)
latter effect can be used to devise systems that involve feed
forward with some or all of the processes in Eq. 1
corresponding to repression instead of activation. As an
illustration, Fig. 3 shows such a design of a system with all
three processes being repressions. Two enzymatic
reactions are ongoing: Glutathione oxidase, GlutOx
(E.C. 1.8.3.3), biocatalytically converts glutathione from
its reduced form (GSH) to the oxidized form (GSSG),
while concomitantly oxygen is converted to hydrogen
peroxide [88] that is taken as signal Y. Another enzyme,
pyruvate kinase, PK (E.C. 2.7.1.40), is converting
adenosine triphosphate, ATP, to adenosine diphosphate,
ADP, with the concomitant conversion of pyruvate, Pyr, to
phosphoenolpyruvate, PEP. The output can be defined as
the produced amount of ADP. However, to actually
measure it, the ATP consumption (the decrease in its
concentration) should be used to yield the output signal Z,
since it can be measured by the standard optical assay for
ATP: light emission generated by luciferin-luciferase
system in the presence of ATP [89]. Note that ADP/ATP
are produced/consumed stoichiometrically. Hydrogen
peroxide, H2O2, produced in the first biocatalytic reaction
is known as an inhibitor for PK [88], and therefore the first
biocatalytic process is repressing the second one; this
realizes Y⊣Z. In addition, cysteine, defined as signal X,
when added to the system as the primary input will repress
both biocatalytic processes. Cysteine is a known inhibitor
[88] of both GlutOx, yielding X⊣Y, and PK, which
corresponds to X⊣Z.
Figure 3 Feed-forward system with repression of all the signal
processing steps. Abbreviations and system functioning are
explained in the text.
Regarding its interconnectivity with other biocatalytic
processes, the designed system (Fig. 3) offers a substantial
5
flexibility. Its output, ADP (or ATP) is utilized by more
than 1700 ATP/ADP-dependent enzymes catalogued in the
standard database [88]. The input, cysteine, is also
compatible with enzymatic processes and can be produced,
for example, by cysteine reductase (E.C. 1.8.1.6) [88].
For the two considered feed-forward systems
(Figs. 1, 3), with all activation or repression, as well as for
other possible systems with different →/⊣ combinations,
modeling/design and careful selection of parameters are
required for proper functioning to achieve compatible
reaction conditions. Their actual experimental realization,
kinetic modeling, and then the first attempts at networking
with other biocatalytic steps are not straightforward and
will require a substantial research effort. This expectation
is based on what was learned in earlier work with digital
biocatalytic gates. Indeed, to our knowledge feed-forward
loops, while being extensively modeled in the literature,
have never been actually experimentally realized as
autonomously-functioning synthetic rather than natural
biomolecular systems. Importantly for the experimental
work, all the enzymes, and their substrates (input
chemicals) needed for the experimental realization of the
above formulated processes are commercially available.
4 Process design and kinetic modeling
In modeling of feed-forward loops one can set up [66]
coupled phenomenological rate equations describing signal
variations in the ongoing process steps. This approach can
yield the expected features, including the delayed response
of the output to the input’s variations/fluctuations, and
other properties [74]. As explained shortly, rate equations
arise naturally in our systems because of the nature of the
biochemical processes involved. However, they will be
more complicated and contain different terms than those
considered in purely phenomenological formulations. The
schematic in Fig. 4 outlines one of the possible structures
generic to the proposed processes considered in Sec. 3,
with random selection of notations for chemicals (some not
shown, cf. Figs. 1, 3) and identifications of the signals.
Our systems involve the catalytic functions of enzymes,
e.g., E1 (Fig. 4). Most enzymes have several functional
pathways, but for our purposes it will generally suffice
[18] to use the standard Michaelis-Menten type model
which focuses on the dominant mechanism, described by
the following process sequence. The enzyme first binds a
chemical called a substrate, say, S1 to form a complex, C.
This complex can either on its own or by binding another
substrate, S2 — this option is common for our system,
produce the product(s) of the biocatalytic reaction, here
P1,2 (see Fig. 4), restoring the enzyme to its original form.
In the chemical reaction notation, we have
S1 + E1 ⇄ C,
S2 + C → E1 + P1 + P2.
(4)
6
V. Privman and E. Katz: Bio-inspired information processing steps as synthetic biochemical processes
This is of course just one of the possible reactant labelings
(cf. Fig. 4) as far as their role in the cascade goes. Here the
arrows with rate constants above/below represent chemical
processes rather than activation. The second step can
usually be assumed irreversible, but the first one requires
two rate constants. These process parameters, here k±1, k2,
are generally not known individually and have to be fitted
from experiments. Activation/repression can involve
several mechanisms, one of which can be a complex
formation, for example,
etc. Note that in the next stage, when writing the rate
equation for S1, for instance, terms resulting from its
reaction with both the original and modified enzymes will
enter, with their respective rates,
= – k1S1E1 + k–1C –
S1
+
̅,
(8)
where the notation (such as for ̅ ) is self-explanatory.
Even within a relatively simple chemical kinetics
description outlined here, enzymatic cascades thus lead to
systems of numerous coupled chemical rate equations,
⇄
I1 + E1
+ W.
(5) with parameters which depend on the physical and
chemical conditions of the experiment, and which are
documented only to a very limited extent (typically, at
Here the “complex” is the modified enzyme with a most a single parameter, calculated in our notation from
, the quantities k±1 and S2(0)k2, call the Michaelis-Menten
different activity (with larger or smaller rate constants,
constant, is uniformly tabulated).
in processes similar to those in Eq. 4), and it can be
The described approach should enable modeling to
restored to the original form, E1, by reacting with some
select adjustable quantities (concentrations of those
other chemical, here denoted W.
chemicals that are not designated as input/output signals)
as needed to achieve expected feed-forward responses to
various protocols Rext(t) of controlling the input signal
availability, thus guiding the experimental work to achieve
proper functioning of the synthetic systems, standalone and
ultimately “wired” (connected via chemical process steps)
with other enzymatic processes to attempt simple
networking.
The main difference of the considered designs when
compared to the much simpler earlier-studied binary-gate
systems is the need for activation/repression as separate
ongoing processes, i.e., in that enzymes are not just
biocatalysts of fixed activity, but their activity changes (E1
↔ , etc.). As mentioned earlier, the need to have one of
the products of the first enzymatic process activate/repress
the second process is also a significant experimental design
challenge.
It is therefore important to consider simpler candidate
systems for feed-forward realizations specifically with all
three activations, because this could be attempted by
Figure 4 Illustration of the described feed-forward designs in having the input signals X, Y selected as substrates (rather
terms of the constituent enzymatic processes. Activations or than promoters) for enzymes. However, our group’s
repressions (promotions or inhibitions) are shown be green lines, preliminary modeling results (unpublished) with typical
cf. Figs. 1, 3.
experimental as well as with theoretically optimized
parameter values, indicate that the expected feed-forwardIf, for instance, I1 is our input, X, then the added loop features are difficult to obtain in such systems and are
“reaction terms” in Eq. 2 enter via such chemical processes, not well pronounced. Therefore, working with the more
complicated systems that have reaction structure of the
= Rext(t) – r1I1(t)E1(t) + r–1W(t) (t),
(6) type shown in Fig. 4 is warranted even for the allpromotions feed-forward case. These systems actually
whereas the time-dependence of the entering quantities is imitate the nature’s design: Instead of X being the actual
direct input for the production of Y and Z, it activates (or, if
in turn set by their own rate equations, for example,
needed, represses) the already ongoing processes that
produce Y and Z, and similarly for the mechanism by
= – r1I1E1 + r–1W – k1S1E1 + k–1C,
(7) which Y affects the production of Z.
Physica Status Solidi A (in print, 2014)
5 Memory Systems
Basic “learning” and “memory” steps can also be
studied in the framework of the proposed approach, as
outlined in this section. One example is associative
memory, i.e., one signal triggering the response to another
after some “training” time, which has been known starting
from the Pavlov’s dog experiments [90]. Various
cumulative-memory “devices,” with response proportional
to the integrated (stored) input signal over some time
interval, have recently been actively studied, including
“memristors,” “memcapacitors,” etc. [14-16, 91-96], and
the former were argued to be observable at the cellularorganism response level [92]. Preliminary solid-state
experimental realizations with oxide-nanostructurematerial device structures and also electrochemical setups
were reported for memristors [95-99]. There is no doubt
that nature uses various types of memory-involving
processes at all scales, but we simply do not yet fully
understand their role and the degree of their abundance at
the molecular signal-processing network-structure levels.
As mentioned earlier, memory device concepts have
recently been found [14-16] useful in novel designs for
electronic circuitry.
Our goal here is initiate consideration of the level of
“complexity,” cf. Fig. 4 for feed forward, required for the
minimal cascade structures that are needed for realizing
memory processes, and the degree of interfacing with other
physical or chemical transduction steps achievable. As
already mentioned, the basic-science interest in such
designs is that they, including feed forward, will allow us
to begin building a “toolbox” of network elements for
experimenting with non-binary, bio-inspired designs for
complex bio-inspired information- and signal-processing
tasks.
Figure 5 Experimentally realized [70] associative memory
system demonstrating learning/unlearning properties (see text).
Here the “correct”/“wrong” input signals were defined as the
presence/absence of various enzymes, thus limiting the
possibilities for this system’s autonomous integration with other
7
biocatalytic processes for networking. (Detailed explanation of
the biocatalytic reactions involved is given in Ref. [70].)
Associative memory systems were recently reported in
our preliminary studies involving enzymatic processes
[70,71]. A biocatalytic cascade with two parallel enzymecatalyzed reaction branches, where one of the pathways
performs the memory-needed-for-training function, was
utilized to mimic the associative memory system with
learning/unlearning properties, as shown in Fig. 5.
However, the realized system had an important drawback:
The input signals were defined as the presence/absence of
various enzymes. This significantly complicates any
straightforward integration into more complex networks.
The system also did not allow time-dependent control of
the inputs, as commented on shortly.
Figure 6 Enzyme-based associative memory design
demonstrating learning/unlearning properties. One of the
intermediate products performs the memory function. The
“correct”/“wrong” input signals are defined as the
presence/absence of substrates/activators/inhibitors in the
biocatalytic reactions, allowing connection of this process to
other biocatalytic cascades. Here S1,2 and P1,2,3 denote those
substrates and products in the reactions biocatalyzed by the
enzymes E1,2,3, that are not the two inputs or output signal. The
“correct” input, “wrong” input, and the same output produced by
both E2 and E3, are low molecular weight species which can be
produced/consumed as products/substrates of reactions in other
cascades.
Generally, for easy interconnectivity the use of low
molecular weight species — those that constitute typical
substrates and products of enzyme-catalyzed processes —
as chemical input(s) and output signals is desirable. Indeed,
our considering associative memory, rather than other bioinspired memory “units,” on par with feed forward here is
based on the fact that it represents the next level of
complexity: from single input (of feed forward) to two
inputs, in controlling chemical concentrations the time
dependence of which should be varied according to
predefined protocols and the resulting response of the
output studied for its time-dependence. Of course the timedependences of the input(s) and output are quite different
for the two systems, feed forward vs. associative memory,
but the experimental-setup challenge in the biochemical
context is similar: It entails developing capabilities for
8
V. Privman and E. Katz: Bio-inspired information processing steps as synthetic biochemical processes
both positive and negative input-rate control, e.g., the term
Rext(t) in Eqs. 2, 6. To enable the latter, negative rate, we
need the capability to deactivate part of the input(s) by
(bio)chemical processes, as further discussed below.
Figure 6 shows a schematic design, at the level of the
cascade structure similar to Fig. 4, of a basic associativememory step, realization of which can be attempted in
experiments with several choices of enzymes and other
chemical compounds. This system satisfies the condition
of interconnectivity with other signal processing
biocatalytic cascades via low-molecular-weight species as
input/output signals.
Here the “correct” input will activate an enzyme (E2)
which converts a substrate (S1) to the final output. The
“wrong” input performs the opposite operation. It inhibits
this enzyme resulting in no formation of the output.
However, the simultaneous application of the “correct” and
“wrong” inputs activates another enzyme (E1), for which
the “correct” and “wrong” inputs serve as substrates,
resulting in the formation of an intermediate product which
serves as “memory”. This enables “training” such that later
application of the “wrong” input alone will activate the last
enzyme (E3), which in the presence of the “memory”
species produces the same final output as E2. It should be
noted that E3 produces the output species only when both
the “wrong” input and the “memory” species are present.
The “wrong” input applied without the “memory” species
earlier formed, will not result in the output formation.
Similar to Ref. [70], here the associative memory is not
self-reinforcing, because the rate of production of the
output will decrease to zero as the “memory” compound is
used up, unless the “correct” input is supplied again to
“reinforce” the training.
Generally, “memory” in the considered and other
recently designed [71,95] biomolecular and hybrid
electrochemical systems (the latter involving interfacing
with active-response electrodes) is realized by
accumulation of an intermediate-product chemical
compound in the cascade of processes. Direct parallels
with the linear electronic circuit elements are not obvious,
because chemical processes have rather different properties.
In fact, ironically, even linear electronic elements that do
not involve memory, specifically, a resistor, have no direct
analogies in purely chemical processes. However,
chemical memory has its own characteristic features
expected to be useful in network designs.
As with the case of feed forward, the process
realizations here are not unique, with Fig. 6 offering just
one of the possible designs. Experiments will require
optimization by process modeling to make sure that the
realized systems correspond to the expected “training”
properties as far as time dependence of the output is driven
by various protocols of supplying the inputs, similar to the
considerations staring with Eq. 2, Sections 3 and 4, but
now with two controlled inputs instead of one.
As mentioned earlier, to accomplish this we will need
to control the time dependence of the inputs, which
specifically requires the capability of having both positive
and negative external supply/removal rates, here for both
the “correct” and “wrong” inputs. While the timedependence protocols of interest for the two inputs here are
obviously not the same as for the single input control rate,
Rext(t), for feed forward, the experimental challenges are
similar because this implies that our enzymatic cascades
cannot be studied as standalone biochemical processes.
They will have to be at least minimally “networked” with
physical and (bio)chemical processes that add/remove
(activate/deactivate) the input(s).
6 Conclusion
We outlined the conceptual setup for cascades of
enzyme-catalyzed biochemical reactions that realize the
feed-forward response or associative memory. The new
aspects of the devised systems, specifically for feed
forward involve the aggressive use of chemicals which are
not enzymes’ substrates but rather are compounds (called
ligands) typically binding to other than substrate-reaction
sites of the enzyme molecules and causing promotion
(activation) or slowdown (repression) of the enzymatic
activity. For associative memory, we focus on realizations
with low-molecular-weight (rather than protein) inputs, for
enabling time-dependent control.
Our presentation highlights the experimental
challenges and the required modeling involved in
designing, realizing and characterizing the basic steps, with
feed forward as a process with a single controlled input,
and associative memory with its two controlled inputs.
However, at least some degree of modeling and
experimentation with networking cannot be avoided: In
order to probe the full range of the control by the input(s)
variation, the external input rate(s) must be varied for
positive values (which can be accomplished by physically
adding the input reactant, as well as chemically), but also
for negative values which in most cases will require an
additional chemical or biochemical process for
deactivation.
Acknowledgements Funding of our research by the NSF
(grants CBET-1066397 and CBET-1403208) is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] R. Pei, E. Matamoros, M. Liu, D. Stefanovic, and M. N.
Stojanovic, Nature Nanotechnol. 5, 773 (2010).
[2] V. Privman, Nature Nanotechnol. 5, 767 (2010).
[3] Y. Benenson, Nature Rev. Genetics 13, 455 (2012).
[4] E. Katz (ed.), Biomolecular Information Processing – From
Logic Systems to Smart Sensors and Actuators (WilleyVCH, Weinheim, 2012).
[5] M. N. Stojanovic and D. Stefanovic, J. Comput. Theor.
Nanosci. 8, 434 (2011).
Physica Status Solidi A (in print, 2014)
[6] M. Kahan, B. Gil, R. Adar, and E. Shapiro, Physica D 237,
1165 (2008).
[7] A. P. De Silva, S. Uchiyama, T. P. Vance, and B.
Wannalerse, Coord. Chem. Rev. 251, 1623 (2007).
[8] K. Szacilowski, Chem. Rev. 108, 3481 (2008).
[9] A. Credi, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 46, 5472 (2007).
[10] V. Privman, Israel J. Chem. 51, 118 (2011).
[11] J. Andreasson, U. Pischel, Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 174 (2010).
[12] A. Adamatzky, L. Bull, B. De Lacy Costello, S. Stepney,
and C. Teuscher (eds.), Unconventional Computing 2007
(Luniver Press, Bristol, UK, 2007).
[13] C. S. Calude, J. F. Costa, N. Dershowitz, E. Freire, and G.
Rozenberg (eds.), Unconventional Computation. Lecture
Notes in Computer Sci., Vol. 5715 (Springer, Berlin, 2009).
[14] Y. V. Pershin, J. Martinez-Rinconl, and M. Di Ventra, J.
Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 8, 441 (2011).
[15] Y. V. Pershin and M. Di Ventra, Phys. Rev. E 84, 046703
(2011).
[16] M. Di Ventra and Y. V. Pershin, Nature Phys. 9, 200
(2013).
[17] E. Katz and V. Privman, Chem. Soc. Rev. 39, 1835 (2010).
[18] V. Privman, O. Zavalov, L. Halámková, F. Moseley, J.
Halámek, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 117, 14928 (2013).
[19] V. Privman, B. E. Fratto, O. Zavalov, J. Halámek, and E.
Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 117, 7559 (2013).
[20] O. Zavalov, V. Bocharova, V. Privman, and E. Katz, J. Phys.
Chem. B 116, 9683 (2012).
[21] J. Halámek, V. Bocharova, M. A. Arugula, G. Strack, V.
Privman, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 115, 9838 (2011).
[22] V. Privman, M. A. Arugula, J. Halámek, M. Pita, and E.
Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 113, 5301 (2009).
[23] T. Miyamoto, S. Razavi, R. DeRose, and T. Inoue, ACS
Synth. Biol. 2, 72 (2013).
[24] G. Ashkenasy and M. R. Ghadiri, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126,
11140 (2004).
[25] R. Unger, J. Moult, Proteins 63, 53 (2006).
[26] M. N. Stojanovic, T. E. Mitchell, and D. Stefanovic, J. Am.
Chem. Soc. 124, 3555 (2002).
[27] Y. Benenson, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20, 471 (2009).
[28] M. L. Simpson, G. S. Sayler, J. T. Fleming, and B.
Applegate, Trends Biotechnol. 19, 317 (2001).
[29] D. Melnikov, G. Strack, J. Zhou, J. R. Windmiller, J.
Halámek, V. Bocharova, M.-C. Chuang, P. Santhosh, V.
Privman, J. Wang, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 114,
12166 (2010).
[30] L. Halámková, J. Halámek, V. Bocharova, S. Wolf, K. E.
Mulier, G. Beilman, J. Wang, and E. Katz, Analyst 137,
1768 (2012).
[31] E. Katz, J. Wang, M. Privman, and J. Halámek, Anal. Chem.
84, 5463 (2012).
[32] E. Katz and J. Wang, in: Biomolecular Information
Processing – From Logic Systems to Smart Sensors and
Actuators (Willey-VCH, Weinheim, 2012), E. Katz (ed.),
chap. 5, pp 81–101.
[33] J. Wang and E. Katz, Israel J. Chem. 51, 141 (2011).
[34] J. Wang and E. Katz, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 398, 1591
(2010).
[35] M. Zhou, N. Zhou, F. Kuralay, J. R. Windmiller, S.
Parkhomovsky, G. Valdés-Ramírez, E. Katz, and J. Wang,
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 2686 (2012).
9
[36] N. Zhou, J. R. Windmiller, G. Valdés Ramírez, M. Zhou, J.
Halámek, E. Katz, and J. Wang, Serum. Anal. Chim. Acta
703, 94 (2011).
[37] J. Halámek, V. Bocharova, S. Chinnapareddy, J. R.
Windmiller, G. Strack, M.-C. Chuang, J. Zhou, P. Santhosh,
G. V. Ramirez, M. A. Arugula, J. Wang, and E. Katz,
Molecular Biosyst. 6, 2554 (2010).
[38] J. Halámek, J. R. Windmiller, J. Zhou, M.-C. Chuang, P.
Santhosh, G. Strack, M. A. Arugula, S. Chinnapareddy, V.
Bocharova, J. Wang, and E. Katz, Analyst 135, 2249 (2010).
[39] V. Bocharova, J. Halámek, J. Zhou, G. Strack, J. Wang, and
E. Katz, Talanta 85, 800 (2011).
[40] M.-C. Chuang, J. R. Windmiller, P. Santhosh, G. ValdésRamírez, E. Katz, and J. Wang, Chem. Commun. 47, 3087
(2011).
[41] M. Krämer, M. Pita, J. Zhou, M. Ornatska, A. Poghossian,
M. J. Schöning, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. C 113, 2573
(2009).
[42] X. Wang, J. Zhou, T. K. Tam, E. Katz, and M. Pita,
Bioelectrochem. 77, 69 (2009).
[43] M. Privman, T. K. Tam, M. Pita, and E. Katz, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 131, 1314 (2009).
[44] E. Katz, V. Bocharova, and M. Privman, J. Mater. Chem.
22, 8171 (2012).
[45] A. Poghossian, K. Malzahn, M. H. Abouzar, P. Mehndiratta,
E. Katz, and M. J. Schöning, Electrochim. Acta 56, 9661
(2011).
[46] E. Katz, Israel J. Chem. 51, 132 (2011).
[47] E. Gdor, E. Katz, and D. Mandler, J. Phys. Chem. B 117,
16058 (2013).
[48] D. Melnikov, G. Strack, M. Pita, V. Privman, and E. Katz, J.
Phys. Chem. B 113, 10472-10479 (2009).
[49] V. Privman, J. Zhou, J. Halámek, and E. Katz, J. Phys.
Chem. B 114, 13601 (2010).
[50] L. Fedichkin, E. Katz, and V. Privman, J. Comput. Theor.
Nanosci. 5, 36-43 (2008).
[51] V. Privman, G. Strack, D. Solenov, M. Pita, and E. Katz, J.
Phys. Chem. B 112, 11777-11784 (2008).
[52] E. Katz, Int. J. Unconv. Comp. 8, 339 (2012).
[53] J. Halámek, O. Zavalov, L. Halámková, S. Korkmaz, V.
Privman, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 116, 4457 (2012).
[54] S. Domanskyi and V. Privman, J. Phys. Chem. B 116,
13690 (2012).
[55] O. Zavalov, V. Bocharova, J. Halámek, L. Halámková, S.
Korkmaz, M. A. Arugula, S. Chinnapareddy, E. Katz, and V.
Privman, Int. J. Unconv. Comp. 8, 347 (2012).
[56] S. Bakshi, O. Zavalov, J. Halámek, V. Privman, and E.
Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 117, 9857 (2013).
[57] V. Privman, V. Pedrosa, D. Melnikov, M. Pita, A.
Simonian, and E. Katz, Biosens. Bioelectron. 25, 695 (2009).
[58] J. Halámek, J. Zhou, L. Halamkova, V. Bocharova, V.
Privman, J. Wang, and E. Katz, Anal. Chem. 83, 8383
(2011).
[59] M. Pita, V. Privman, M. A. Arugula, D. Melnikov, V.
Bocharova, and E. Katz, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 13, 4507
(2011).
[60] V. Privman, J. Halámek, M. A. Arugula, D. Melnikov, V.
Bocharova, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. B 114, 14103
(2010).
[61] S. P. Rafael, A. Vallée-Bélisle, E. Fabregas, K. Plaxco, G.
Palleschi, and F. Ricci, Anal. Chem. 84, 1076 (2012).
10
V. Privman and E. Katz: Bio-inspired information processing steps as synthetic biochemical processes
[62] A. Vallée-Bélisle, F. Ricci, and K. W. Plaxco, J. Am. Chem.
Soc. 134, 2876 (2012).
[63] D. Kang, A. Vallée-Bélisle, K. W. Plaxco, and F. Ricci,
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 6717 (2012).
[64] T. Melham, Prog. Biophys. Molec. Biol. 111, 129 (2013).
[65] S. Navlakha and Z. Bar-Joseph, Molec. Systems Biol. 7,
546 (2011).
[66] D. D. Seaton and J. Krishnan, Phys. Biol. 9, 045009 (2012).
[67] U. Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology. Design
Principles of Biological Circuits (Chapman & Hall/CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007).
[68] Y. V. Pershin and M. Di Ventra, Proc. IEEE 100, 2071
(2012).
[69] Y. V. Pershin and M. Di Ventra, IEEE Circuits Syst. Mag.
12, 64 (2012).
[70] K. MacVittie, J. Halámek, V. Privman, and E. Katz, Chem.
Commun. 49, 6962 (2013).
[71] V. Bocharova, K. MacVittie, S. Chinnapareddy, J. Halámek,
V. Privman, and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 3, 1234
(2012).
[72] M. Georgiopoulos, C. Li, and T. Kocak, Performance Eval.
68, 361 (2011).
[73] A.-J. Annema, Feed-Forward Neural Networks: Vector
Decomposition Analysis, Modelling and Analog
Implementation (Springer Science, New York, 1996).
[74] U. Alon, Nature Rev. 8, 450 (2007).
[75] S. Mangan and U. Alon, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100,
11980 (2003). [76]
N. Kashtan and U. Alon, Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 102, 13773 (2005).
[77] J. S. Mattick, J. Exp. Biol. 210, 1526 (2007).
[78] L. Qian and E. Winfree, J. R. Soc. Interface 8, 1281 (2011).
[79] E. Dekel, S. Mangan, and U. Phys. Biol. 2, 81 (2005).
[80] S. S. Shen-Orr, R. Milo, S. Mangan, and U. Alon, Nature
Genet. 31, 64 (2002).
[81] F. Tostevin and P. R. ten Wolde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102,
218101 (2009).
[82] R. H. Schirmer, R. L. Krauth-Siegel, and G. E. Schulz,
Glutathione Reductase, in: Coenzymes and Cofactors,
Vol. 3: Glutathione, Chem. Biochem. Med. Aspects, Part A
(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989), D. Dolphin, R.
Poulson, and O. Avromonic (eds.), chap. 14, pp 553–596.
[83] V. Leskovac, S. Trivic, and D. Pericin, FEMS Yeast Res. 2,
481 (2002).
[84] W. R. Carper, R. C. Dorey, and J. H. Beber, Clin. Chem. 33,
1906 (1987).
[85] D. Rachdan, M. F. Lou, and J. J. Harding, Curr. Eye Res.
30, 919 (2005).
[86] W. W. Cleland, Biochem. 3, 480 (1964).
[87] J. Zhou, M. A. Arugula, J. Halámek, M. Pita, and E. Katz, J.
Phys. Chem. B 113, 16065 (2009).
[88] BRENDA (BRaunschweig ENzyme DAtabase) – The
Comprehensive Enzyme Information System, maintained
online at http://www.brenda-enzymes.org.
[89] A. Roda (ed.), Chemiluminescence and Bioluminescence:
Past, Present and Future (Royal Society of Chemistry Press,
Cambridge, UK, 2010).
[90] I. P. Pavlov, Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the
Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex. Translated
and Edited by G. V. Anrep (Oxford University Press,
London, UK, 1927).
[91] Y. V. Pershin and M. Di Ventra, Neural Networks 23, 881
(2010).
[92] Y. V. Pershin, S. La Fontaine, and M. Di Ventra, Phys. Rev.
E 80, 021926 (2009).
[93] L. O. Chua, IEEE Trans. Circuit Theory 18, 507 (1971).
[94] L. O. Chua, Proc. IEEE 64, 209 (1976).
[95] K. MacVittie and E. Katz, J. Phys. Chem. C 117, 24943
(2013).
[96] D. B. Strukov, G. S. Snider, D. R. Stewart, and R. S.
Williams, Nature 453, 80 (2008).
[97] J. J. Yang, M. D. Pickett, X. Li, D. A. A. Ohlberg, D. R.
Stewart, and R. S. Williams, Nature Nanotechnol. 3, 429
(2008).
[98] K. Szot, M. Rogala, W. Speier, Z. Klusek, A. Besmehn, and
R. Waser, Nanotechnol. 22, 254001 (2011).
[99] V. Erokhin and M. P. Fontana, J. Comp. Theor. Nanosci. 8,
313 (2011).