 Research article
 Open Access
Agentbased simulation of reactions in the crowded and structured intracellular environment: Influence of mobility and location of the reactants
 Michael T Klann^{1, 2}Email author,
 Alexei Lapin^{2} and
 Matthias Reuss^{2}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/17520509571
© Klann et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
 Received: 3 November 2010
 Accepted: 14 May 2011
 Published: 14 May 2011
Abstract
Background
In this paper we apply a novel agentbased simulation method in order to model intracellular reactions in detail. The simulations are performed within a virtual cytoskeleton enriched with further crowding elements, which allows the analysis of molecular crowding effects on intracellular diffusion and reaction rates. The cytoskeleton network leads to a reduction in the mobility of molecules. Molecules can also unspecifically bind to membranes or the cytoskeleton affecting (i) the fraction of unbound molecules in the cytosol and (ii) furthermore reducing the mobility. Binding of molecules to intracellular structures or scaffolds can in turn lead to a microcompartmentalization of the cell. Especially the formation of enzyme complexes promoting metabolic channeling, e.g. in glycolysis, depends on the colocalization of the proteins.
Results
While the colocalization of enzymes leads to faster reaction rates, the reduced mobility decreases the collision rate of reactants, hence reducing the reaction rate, as expected. This effect is most prominent in diffusion limited reactions. Furthermore, anomalous diffusion can occur due to molecular crowding in the cell. In the context of diffusion controlled reactions, anomalous diffusion leads to fractal reaction kinetics. The simulation framework is used to quantify and separate the effects originating from molecular crowding or the reduced mobility of the reactants. We were able to define three factors which describe the effective reaction rate, namely f ^{ diff } for the diffusion effect, f ^{ volume } for the crowding, and f ^{ access } for the reduced accessibility of the molecules.
Conclusions
Molecule distributions, reaction rate constants and structural parameters can be adjusted separately in the simulation allowing a comprehensive study of individual effects in the context of a realistic cell environment. As such, the present simulation can help to bridge the gap between in vivo and in vitro kinetics.
Keywords
 Reaction Probability
 Mean Square Displacement
 Bimolecular Reaction
 Reaction Rate Constant
 Diffusion Control Reaction
Background
The complex structured and crowded intracellular conditions [1] have a tremendous impact on intracellular reactions. Accordingly, the in vivo rate constants or even the structure of the kinetic rate expression can significantly differ from those obtained in in vitro assays [2]. First of all, the crowded conditions squeeze all molecules closer together which favors the formation of more compact complexes [3–5]. Associations or more general bimolecular reactions are governed by the occurrence of collisions of the respective molecules. The frequency of the collisions, in turn, depends on the mobility of the molecules. Molecular crowding and especially the cytoskeleton structure lead to a reduction in the diffusion rate, which depends on the size of the molecules [6]. Via the collision based principle of (diffusionlimited) reactions this also translates into reduced reaction rates [7, 8]. In this context, it is also worth noting that anomalous (timedependent) diffusion, which was observed in crowded systems [6, 9], leads to timedependent  fractal  reaction rate constants [7, 10–12].
The mobility of the reactants is not the only factor determining the effective in vivo reaction rate. Research on the interactome, describing the reactions between proteins, metabolites, and further biomolecules, has revealed a multitude of interactions for each molecule species [19]. Proteins, for example, can unspecifically bind to cytoskeleton structures, which in turn leads to a further reduction in their mobility [1, 20]. The decreased effective diffusion coefficient reduces the collision probability between reactants and can thus reduce the reaction rate if the reaction is significantly diffusion limited.
While the adsorption (for instance to the cytoskeleton) and subsequent immobilization hampers the reactions [21] (in the worst case the active site of the enzyme faces the cytoskeleton and is therefore blocked), it is the prerequisite to assign the proteins to specific locations in the cell. This is of particular importance in the following cases:

Metabolic channeling[21–24] describes the concept of enzyme colocalization along the cytoskeleton [21, 24, 25], which can be highly regulated [24–26]. It has been suggested that metabolites are processed in this channel like in an assembly line, for example in glycolysis (see Figure 2a). Binding to actin filaments can also lead to an allosteric activation of the enzymes [24].

Regulation of signal transduction: Cells are subject to many and sometimes contradictory signals. The information is carried from the receptors in the plasma membrane towards the nucleus by signaling molecules. Especially in multistage cascades, for example in MAPK (mitogen activated protein kinase) signaling, this transfer can be regulated by scaffolds. The scaffolds integrate several stages of the cascade in one place (see Figure 2b) [27, 28]. Scaffolding proteins can regulate signal transduction [28] and furthermore the crosstalk with other signaling pathways [29]. It was also found that the subcellular localization of the molecules matters in signal transduction [30]. Signaling molecules can likewise bind to actin filaments, which was reported for NFκ B and its inhibitor Iκ B [31]. Thus the molecules are sequestered from the cytosol. Only with the right fraction of unbound molecules the correct signal is transmitted [32].

Pharmacokinetics and drug detoxification: If drug molecules bind to proteins or membranes, they are likewise sequestered from the cytoplasm. This reduces both their action and their degradation, for example by enzymes of the CYP family in the liver [33, 34].
All these details are omitted in models based on differential equations in which only the number/concentration of the species is tracked. The general compartmentalization of the organism/cell can be included in the model if the respective compartments and transport rates are defined [35]. Spatial aspects like the transport from the plasma membrane towards the nucleus in case of signaling molecules were also investigated with partial differential equations [36, 37]. However, all approaches based on differential equations are based on (local) mean values and neglect the detailed, microscopic aspects in the cell, for instance a microcompartmentalization along the cytoskeleton.
A particle or agent based simulation allows exploring the effects introduced by the spatial organization of the cell including (transient) binding to the cytoskeleton. The in silico simulation environment also enables to change just one parameter of the complex setup for a comprehensive study of the individual crowding, structuring, or binding effects within a realistic environment. This paper presents the results of a Brownian dynamics particle based simulation covering diffusion and reaction rates in a virtual cell. The effects of the cytoskeleton and transient binding on the mobility of tracer molecules are evaluated, and the respective effective reaction rates are analyzed. Eventually, different spatial distributions of enzymes in the cell are tested in order to compare the effect of the formation of enzyme channels with homogeneously distributed enzymes. The simulation framework is described in the Methods section.
Results and discussion
The simulations are performed in a small model cell with a diameter of 7 μ m (see Additional file 1, Section 1). The cytoskeleton structure is created by 25,000 randomly arranged cylinders with a length of 2.5 μ m and a diameter of 35 nm. In addition, 100,000 immobile crowding spheres with a diameter of 60 nm are placed in the cell. Cylinders and spheres together occupy 24% of the volume in agreement with experimental results [38]. For tracer molecules with a radius of 2.5 nm, the excluded volume fraction ∈ increases to 30.5% due to their own volume. The respective volume fractions were sampled using a MonteCarlo testing method.
Effective diffusion
where d is the given dimension [16]. The effective diffusion coefficient in a given intracellular condition can hence be calculated from the resulting displacement. The effective diffusion for tracer molecules with a radius of 2.5 nm through the present sample cell was accordingly calculated from the MSD in the simulation to D_{ eff } /D_{0} = 0.77 ± 0.01. This slowdown is in agreement with previous studies of the impact of the cytoskeleton structure on the diffusion of inert (i.e. molecules that do not interact with other molecules) tracer molecules for the given excluded volume fraction [6, 15].
The slowdown of the diffusion can also be explained by the local confinement of the obstacles [39]. In our model cell the random cytoskeleton/crowding structures create a multitude of randomly arranged confinement boundaries. The uniformly distributed test molecules in the cell sample the average effect of these boundaries in their joint MSD measure. Initially, a nonlinear diffusion can be observed, due to the fact that most particles can move a few steps before they hit an obstacle [6]. Accordingly the MSD grows proportional to the original diffusion coefficient D_{0} in the beginning, and later on proportional to the average D_{ eff } .
Figure 3c shows, how the equilibrium fu develops if initially all molecules are unbound. The mean squared displacement of the molecules shows a nonlinear behavior during this transition phase, which depends on the rate constants of the binding/dissociation reaction.
Effective reaction rates
Diffusioncontrolled reactions
The theory of diffusion controlled reactions requires to take into account the following points [40]:

Diffusion Limit: The maximal reaction rate constant for a bimolecular reaction of two spherical molecules i and j with radius r_{ i }and r_{ j }is: k_{ D }= 4π(r_{ i }+ r_{ j })(D_{ i }+ D_{ j }) (in 3D) [41]. It equals the collision rate of the molecules. (The fact that initially some nearby pairs will react faster leads to an initially time dependent reaction rate constant .)

Microscopic Reaction Rate Constant: If not every encounter between two reactants leads to a reaction, the microscopic reaction rate constant k_{ micro }determines the fraction of collisions which lead to subsequent reactions.

Effective Macroscopic/Bulk Reaction Rate Constant: The resulting reaction rate constant which is observed on the macroscopic level, corresponding to the rate constant of ODE models is determined as [40]:
Test setup
The test molecules in the simulation are enzyme E and substrate S molecules with the following properties: radius r_{ E } = r_{ S } = 2.5 nm and diffusion coefficient of D = 1 μ m^{2}/s. This leads to a diffusion limit of the reaction rate of k_{ D } = 7.57 × 10^{7} l/(mol·s). The chosen macroscopic reaction rate for a test simulation can be given as a fraction of k_{ D } allowing a dimensionless survey of effects on the reaction rate. In the following, rates of k_{ macro } = 7.57 × 10^{5} l/(mol·s) (1% of k_{ D } ), k_{ macro } = 7.57 × 10^{6} l/(mol·s) (10% of k_{ D } ), and k_{ macro } = 2.27 × 10^{7} l/(mol·s) (30% of k_{ D } ) are tested.
Detailed simulation vs. ODEmodel
This section compares the outcome of the detailed stochastic simulation with the result of the macroscopic ODEmodel of Figure 4. In order to elucidate the differences between diluted in vitro and crowded in vivo conditions, one simulation is conducted in an empty 'in vitro' virtual cell and one in the crowded model cell described above.
Results for the 'in vitro' setup
k_{2}/k_{ D }  k_{1} [mol/(L · s)]  k_{2} [L/(mol · s)] 

 rel. Error 

0.01  3.78 × 10^{9}  7.57 × 10^{5}  2575  2558 ± 51  0.7% 
0.1  3.78 × 10^{8}  7.57 × 10^{6}  2575  2532 ± 51  1.7% 
0.3  1.14 × 10^{7}  2.27 × 10^{7}  2575  2619 ± 51  1.7% 
 1.The first factor arises from the reduced free volume fraction , which leads to an increased effective concentration of the reactants (given that c _{0} is calculated as number of molecules per cell/total cell volume). This factor has to be added only once (for c_{ E } ) in the mass action reaction framework dc_{ S } /dt = k _{2} c_{ E }c_{ S } because c_{ S } appears both on the right and the left side of the equation. Instead of using effective concentrations, the respective factor can also be applied to the reaction rate constant, which leads to an apparent reaction rate of . Accordingly the in vitro reaction rate has to be multiplied with a factor
 2.The reduced effective diffusion has an influence on the reaction rate because it reduces the collision rate. For the present analysis it is assumed that the molecules react in the same way in vivo and in vitro, i.e. the microscopic reaction rate constant (which describes the reaction probability upon a collision) stays the same (cf. Equation (3). The effect of the reduced diffusion on the reaction rate can be calculated using β: = k _{2}/k_{ D } (see Methods section), leading to
 3.
The hindered accessibility of the molecules due to steric effects of nearby obstacles contributes a further reduction f ^{ access } of the reaction rate (see Figure 5 for an explanation). Using a MonteCarlo sampling method of the respective volume fraction this factor was estimated to f ^{ access } = 0.966 ± 0.001 in the given virtual cell.
Results for the 'in vivo' setup
k_{2}/k_{ D }  f ^{ vol. }  f ^{ diff }  f ^{ acc. }  f ^{ eff } 


 

Detailed model  0.01  1.44  1.00  0.97  1.39  1845 ± 37  1853 ± 40  1.00 
cell  0.1  1.44  0.97  0.97  1.35  1879 ± 38  1839 ± 40  0.98 
0.3  1.44  0.91  0.97  1.27  2058 ± 40  1996 ± 40  0.97  
Homogenized/  0.01  1.44  1.00  1.00  1.43  1783 ± 36  1757 ± 40  0.99 
averaged cell  0.1  1.44  0.97  1.00  1.39  1815 ± 37  1802 ± 40  0.99 
0.3  1.44  0.91  1.00  1.32  1989 ± 39  2003 ± 40  1.01 
In order to understand this result, it is necessary to recall the transient anomalous diffusion in the crowded environment. At short distances, the molecules still move with their original (fast) diffusion coefficient. Only on longer distances the tortuous way around the obstacles leads to a reduced mobility. The results indicate that the diffusion limited bimolecular reaction senses an intermediary effective diffusion coefficient which is slower than D_{0} but faster than the long term effective D_{ eff } (cf. Additional file 1, Section 2). This argument is supported by the stronger deviation of the result of the more diffusion limited reaction k_{2}/k_{ D } = 0.3.
Future work could investigate this effect with respect to the local confinement, and also include the influence of unspecific and transient binding on the reaction rate, i.e. the nullified mobility of one or both of the reactants due to binding to cellular structures. In addition, also the combined action of individual reaction rate constants for different substates of a molecule (free, bound, phosphorylated at site x, etc.) could be analyzed in a more complex model.
Enzyme colocalization and metabolic channeling
The aim of the present simulations is to elucidate the effect of the localization of the enzymes. The most optimal setup promises to be the enzyme channel (A) of Figure 6b in which the enzymes are colocalized (cf. Figure 2) and aligned in the order of the reactions. Since the substrate enters the cell through the plasma membrane, the enzymes should be localized there (along actin filaments which mainly polymerize next to the plasma membrane [42]). Since it is not clear, whether the enzymes arrange in a sequential complex or are just randomly attached to the actin filaments [21, 24, 25] close to the surface, also a dense but unstructured enzyme layer (B) is modeled for comparison. These structured setups are furthermore compared to a uniform random distribution (C) of the enzymes in the cell and a well mixed (D) model based on ODE (in order to keep the models comparable, the corresponding stochastic solution of the ODE model is evaluated based on the Gillespie method [43]). This means that the spatial aspects are completely neglected and only the molecule numbers are tracked in (D).
All enzymes are immobilized in the simulation, i.e. they stay at their fixed initial position with an artificial D_{ E } = 0. Therefore it is not necessary to include the cytoskeleton filaments as structuring elements as well as the enzyme binding to the cytoskeleton, which would increase the complexity of the model. This nicely underscores the advantage of in silico simulations in which the different factors affecting the reaction rates in the cell can be separated.
The metabolites are moving with a diffusion coefficient of (i) D = 1 μ m^{2}/s and (ii) D = 10 μ m^{2}/s for a comparison of the mobility effects. The macroscopic reaction rate constant is set to k = 3.78 × 10^{6} l/(mol·s), which is fairly fast but not extremely diffusion limited (k_{ D } = 3.78 × 10^{7} l/(mol·s) for D = 1 μ m^{2}/s, and k_{ D } = 3.78 × 10^{8} l/(mol·s) for D = 10 μ m^{2}/s)  see Additional file 1, Section 3.
Since all setups are conducted with the same number of enzymes and the same reaction rates, they produce similar results (see Figure 6c). The deviations are stronger for the more diffusion limited case  i.e. the lower diffusion D = 1 μ m^{2}/s. The overall development of the individual metabolite pools is shown in the Additional file 1, Section 3. It is worth noting that the export rate of metabolite 5 is diffusion controlled in the setups (A)(C). Especially in the randomly distributed setup (C), metabolite 5 can be created deep inside the cell and has to diffuse all the way back to the plasma membrane. This leads to a stronger accumulation of the metabolite in the cell compared to the wellmixed ODEmodel (D).
Likewise the setups where the enzymes are close to the plasma membrane (i.e. channel (A) or layer (B)) lead to a faster formation of the product because the substrate enters the cell through the plasma membrane (note, that this setup also promotes a faster export of the metabolite because it is produced next to the plasma membrane). This is clearly visible in the excerpt of the initial phase shown in Figure 6c. Due to the optimal location of the enzymes, the product formation is even faster than in the wellmixed ODEmodel. Locally the enzyme concentration is much higher than the average concentration in the cell  right where it is needed. Interestingly, the product formation rate is much faster for the slower diffusion  in this case the metabolites stay longer in the vicinity of the plasma membrane where they can interact with the enzymes. As such, the cell has become compartmentalized although no explicit compartments are defined.
The setup where the respective enzymes are colocalized in an enzyme channel indeed shows the fastest (initial) product formation rate. It can be expected that the differences between the enzyme distributions tested in this paper will increase if the MichaelisMenten enzyme kinetics is used. The high local enzyme concentration close to the surface leads to a locally higher V_{ max } value  right were the highest substrate concentration is found in the given setup. Accordingly, the reactions in the channeled and layered setups should become even faster.
The improved reaction rate in the colocalized channel structure is in agreement with the findings of Bauler et al. [44], which found that a sequential reaction is faster if the two active zones of the respective enzymes are aligned to face each other in a Brownian dynamics simulation. However, it should be noted that the faster reaction rate arises solely from the fact that the intermediate metabolites have a higher probability to hit the next enzyme within the next diffusion steps in the simulation but are still allowed to diffuse away. In reality, the metabolites might be directed through the entire enzyme complex, which leads to a completely different description of the overall reaction. The analysis of the latter effect, in turn, requires a molecular dynamics study based on the molecular multi enzyme structure of the proposed channeling complex. Experimental observations [21, 22, 45] indicate that indeed enzyme channels might be formed in vivo. However, the theoretical analysis did not yet identify channeling as the only possibility to describe the observed kinetics [21].
The present study shows that the location of the reactants (here enzymes and metabolites) can play an important role. This work focused on the influence of spatial aspects and the possible enzyme colocalization, which allows a more realistic study of enzyme channeling properties. Future work could include more advanced reaction kinetics in order to verify channeling, as well as a study of the resulting control properties on the metabolic flux [45].
Conclusions
The present simulation allows a detailed analysis of the effects of the intracellular properties on the reaction rates. The results have shown that the in vivo reaction rate differs from the in vitro reaction rate. The difference is related to the crowded conditions in the cell and three factors, namely (i) the increased effective concentration, (ii) the reduced accessibility of the reactants, and (iii) the reduced mobility of the reactants could be determined.
In addition, the influence of the subcellular localization of the reactants was tested. The results show that the colocalization of enzymes in a metabolicchanneling framework can improve the product formation. It is worth noting that the advantage of a specific location of the enzymes is accompanied by the disadvantage of the reduced enzyme mobility. Hence the reaction rate will be reduced in the diffusion limited case. This reduction could even outbalance the superior product formation rate of enzyme channeling. Since this depends on the actual diffusion and reaction rate constants, further simulations are required in order to quantify the advantage of the channel configuration  especially in the context of a more advanced kinetics within the multienzymecomplex.
Thus the present simulation framework is a promising tool to investigate intracellular reactions and signal transduction processes in the detailed spatial organization of the cell [46]. If all intracellular factors are put together correctly, the simulation will return a prediction for the in vivo reaction rate. As such, the present simulation method enables to reconstruct the in vivo properties in silico.
On the way to a model which is in agreement with living cells, several parameters like the correct cytoskeleton structure, molecular crowding, and additional unspecific interactions which can for example transiently immobilize the molecules have to be adjusted, giving a deeper insight into the cell [5]. The resulting detailed in silico cell can also be visualized by advanced and interactive visualization tools, thus providing a powerful virtual microscope [13, 47, 48].
Methods
Description of the agentbased simulation
where D_{0} is the diffusion coefficient. ζ is a Gaussian random number with mean 0 and variance 1. If the motion step would end in an obstacle, it is rejected and the molecule stays at the previous position waiting for the next timestep bringing a new chance to move [16].
The simulation only requires defining the particle radius and diffusion coefficient for each species as well as the initial number and distribution of the molecules. The particles are initially placed in the virtual cell at positions which are not restricted by the cytoskeleton or crowding molecules. Likewise all reactions have to be defined (educts, products, rate constants).
Reactions between molecules
A reaction between two molecules can only occur, if the reactants are close enough together. The reaction probability between two molecules is therefore given by the probability of the collision and the probability that a reaction occurs given that a collision is occurring. The claim of the simulation is that it can reproduce the macroscopic (mass action kinetics) rate constant k_{ ij } for a bimolecular reaction between species i and j in homogeneous conditions. This means that the combination of the collision and reaction probability has to yield the given macroscopic reaction rate.
The discrete time simulation framework complicates the estimation of the reaction probability. The position of the molecules is only known at t_{ n } and t_{n+1}= t_{ n } + Δt. All the collisions that happen within the interval [t, t + Δt) are not directly accessible. Furthermore, the number of tractable collisions depends on Δt. A smaller Δt leads to a finer sampling of the original time interval and reveals more collisions. The reaction probability per collision therefore has to be adjusted with Δt.
The flux across the boundary within [t, t + Δt) is determined by the surface reaction rate constant k'. The flux accordingly returns the diffusion controlled reaction probability for two molecules which are initially separated by the distance r_{0}. By this approach the requested true number of reactions can be estimated [51, 52]. In order to increase the performance of the simulation, a simpler method was developed based on the approach of Pogson et al. [53].
Derivation of the simulation method
of the i and j molecules respectively will react. According to mass action kinetics, the number of reactions is proportional to the number of reaction partners and the rate constant k_{ ij } .
So in the completely homogeneous framework the fraction of reacting molecules corresponds to a fraction of the volume in which all molecules react, while they do not react in the remaining volume.
This reaction radius is used by Pogson et. al. [53]. Since the reaction volume is wrapped around the j molecules from the perspective of the i molecules, it is multiplied with N_{ j } as required by Equation (19) leading to the right number of reactions in the homogeneous case. From the perspective of j molecules it is accordingly multiplied by N_{ i } . Since the reaction volume is now bound to the molecules and not arbitrarily distributed in the cell, the approach is not limited to uniform particle distributions.
A molecule of species i will react with one molecule of species j, if both are closer than the critical reaction distance (and vice versa j will react with i). This distance grows ∝ Δt^{1/3} according to Equation (20), compensating the Δtdependency in the sampled collision frequency in the given framework, which was discussed above. Note, that the particles have to overlap in order to react. This is allowed in the present simulation framework for the moving agents. Since the concentration of each signaling molecule species is remarkably low, so the differences between overlapping and nonoverlapping molecules are negligible. In contrast, in the case of high concentrations, a particle based simulation tracking each molecule individually becomes unreasonable [46].
From macroscopic theory to one microscopic reaction: impact of diffusion
Initially, a uniform random distribution of molecules is assumed. On average, ΔN_{ i } molecules are closer to j molecules than the reaction distance and will therefore react. Subsequently, the reaction rate depends on the flux of the remaining i molecules towards the remaining j molecules. The number of molecules entering the reaction volume is accordingly determined by the combined diffusion coefficient D_{ i } + D_{ j } and the size of the surface of the reaction volume. A comparison with the theory of diffusion limited reactions leads to the following conclusions [40]:

The collision radius (r_{ i }+ r_{ j }) will most likely not match the critical reaction radius determined above in Equation (20). Using an artificially smaller radius would reduce the collision rate constant k_{ D } requiring a different k_{ micro }. In other words, the flux through the reaction surface would be reduced due to the smaller surface area. In turn, a higher fraction of this flux has to react in order to yield the original macroscopic reaction rate. A different reaction rate constant would however lead to a different critical reaction radius in the volumebased framework developed above.

Solution: reaction probability in the interaction volume: Both concepts, the flux/surfacebased description and the macroscopic, volumebased framework can be brought into agreement in the following way:
 1.
The true collision radius is used in the simulation as critical reaction radius.
 2.
The microscopic reaction rate constant k_{ micro }is calculated as shown in Equation (22) and subsequently used to determine the fraction of the collisions which lead to a reaction within Δt:

the corresponding reaction volume should be in analogy to Equation(18)
 1.
which effectively reduces the reaction volume determined by the collision radius to the reaction volume given by Equation (23) while it retains the correct interaction surface.
This approach also reflects the nature of reactions in a probabilistic framework: the overall, macroscopic reaction probability is now determined by the probability to collide and the probability to react, given that a collision has occurred.

Resulting reaction algorithm: Two particles i and j will react if the distance between them is smaller than and a random number of the interval [0,1] is smaller than (which on average leads to a reaction with the probability ).
Adsorption to cellular structures
The association with the cytoskeleton can be described in the same way, and also the adsorption to surfaces like the plasma membrane. Since these objects are impenetrable, the reaction volume has to be outside of the cellular structures  leading to a reaction layer around them. The height of this layer is given by k_{ binding } × Δt, and the reaction probability is 1. The total reaction volume is determined by multiplying the height with the total surface of the structures (the curvature can be neglected because k_{ binding } × Δt ≪ r_{ structure } ). For simple binding reactions not the molecule type is changed, but its mobility is set to zero at the given position. A reverse first order dissociation reaction restores the mobility. The corresponding dissociation probability within [t, t + Δt) is P_{ diss } = k_{ diss } × Δt for each bound molecule (cf. [54]).
Remarks on reversible reactions
The binding and unbinding process to the cytoskeleton is a diffusion controlled process by itself. The details of the effective rates in diffusion controlled reversible processes have been studied for instance in [55, 56]. In the present study we adjusted the binding and unbinding rate constants to approximately achieve the desired steady state fu. Future work will analyze the details of the diffusion controlled binding, unbinding, and rebinding process.
Parallelization
Parallelization of the simulation is possible and benefits from the fact that all agents are updated simultaneously with a global Δt. Since the mobile agents can overlap with each other their random walk steps could be computed in parallel in order to reduce the computation time (either on a multicore CPU or GPU [13, 47]). The pairwise testing of agents for the reactions however requires to make sure that the following situation is treated correctly: (i) Assume A and B are supposed to react together to form complex C. (ii) At some point three molecules A,B, and another A will be close enough to react. (iii) A parallel implementation could now find two ABpairs simultaneously, while B can only react with one of the two A molecules.
Review and comparison with other simulation methods
For the given purpose of the simulation environment, i.e. modeling of the cell including a realistic intracellular environment such as a detailed cytoskeleton structure, only agentbased offlattice methods can be used. Therefore we leave out the spatial Gillespie method as well as derivatives thereof, and also the ECell plugin of Arjunan and Tomita [57].
We also require that the treatment of bimolecular reactions is implemented efficiently and as correctly as possible. As such, the Greensfunction reaction dynamics allows to do large steps if reactants are far apart from each other which would suit this need [58]. However, in the crowded environment the next obstacle is always close, which cancels out the advantage of the method.
The distancedependent reaction probability derived from the FokkerPlanck Equation as outlined above based on Equations (12) and (13) (cf. [51, 52]) requires a lookup table and is therefor slower than a method which uses a fixed critical reaction radius (and if necessary a fixed reaction probability). The reaction method from Ridgway et al. [56] is likewise derived from Equation (12) and (13) but aims at such a simplified description with a critical radius. However it remains unclear how their reaction probability corresponds to the macroscopic reaction rate because it depends on Δx. Likewise the relationship between the macroscopic reaction rate and the reaction parameters in Smoldyn [54] and the cellular dynamics simulator from Byrne et al. [59] is only established by an iterative search or a lookup table. In contrast, the approach of Pogson et al. [53] promises to give a simple answer how to get the reaction radius from the macroscopic reaction rate (cf. the derivation of the present method above). However we found, that it does not work correctly for diffusion controlled reactions. The present method extends Pogson's method by matching the collision and reaction radius which correspond to the microscopic reaction rate. The new method was tested for different time steps and reaction rate constants. The results are in agreement both with the results obtained with the more detailed reaction scheme based on the FokkerPlanck equation [51, 52], as well as with ODE models for well mixed conditions. The only limitation is that the step length Δt should be chosen such that the reaction probability (cf. Equation 24). Thus we claim that we have found a simple, efficient, and sufficiently accurate description of the reactiondiffusion process in Brownian dynamics simulations for simulations on the cell level.
Quantifying the influence of the reduced diffusion on a bimolecular reaction
k_{ D } is accordingly calculated based on the collision distance and the combined diffusion coefficient of the reactants.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Martin Falk and Thomas Ertl for the valuable discussions about the visualization method as well as on the possible parallelization of the simulation and acknowledge the funding by the State of BadenWürttemberg/Center Systems Biology in Stuttgart.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 LubyPhelps K: Cytoarchitecture and Physical Properties of Cytoplasm: Volume, Viscosity, Diffusion, Intracellular Surface Area. Int Rev Cytol. 2000, 192: 189221.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 De Silva A, Fraenkel D: The 6Phosphogluconate Dehydrogenase Reaction in Escherichia coli. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1979, 254 (20): 1023710242.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ellis R: Macromolecular crowding: an important but neglected aspect of the intracellular environment. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2001, 11: 114119. 10.1016/S0959440X(00)00172XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Minton AP: The Inuence of Macromolecular Crowding and Macromolecular Confinement on Biochemical Reactions in Physiological Media. J Bio Chem. 2001, 276 (14): 1057710580. 10.1074/jbc.R100005200.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Minton A: How can biochemical reactions within cells differ from those in test tubes?. Journal of Cell Science. 2006, 119 (14): 2863 10.1242/jcs.03063View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Klann M, Lapin A, Reuss M: Stochastic Simulation of Signal Transduction: Impact of the Cellular Architecture on Diffusion. Biophys J. 2009, 96 (12): 51225129. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.03.049PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Torney D, McConnel H: DiffusionLimited Reaction Rate Theory for TwoDimensional Systems. Proc R Soc Lond A. 1983, 387 (1792): 147170. 10.1098/rspa.1983.0055.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Rice S: Diffusionlimited reactions. 1985, Elsevier AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
 Weiss M, Elsner M, Kartberg F, Nilsson T: Anomalous Subdiffusion Is a Measure for Cytoplasmic Crowding in Living Cells. Biophys J. 2004, 87: 35183524. 10.1529/biophysj.104.044263PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schnell S, Turner T: Reaction kinetics in intracellular environments with macromolecular crowding: simulations and rate laws. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology. 2004, 85 (23): 235260. 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2004.01.012View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grima R, Schnell S: A systematic investigation of the rate laws valid in intracellular environments. Biophys chem. 2006, 124: 110. 10.1016/j.bpc.2006.04.019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Haugh J: Analysis of ReactionDiffusion Systems with Anomalous Subdiffusion. Biophys J. 2009, 97 (2): 435442. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.05.014PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Falk M, Klann M, Reuss M, Ertl T: Visualization of Signal Transduction Processes in the Crowded Environment of the Cell. Proceedings of IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium 2009 (PacificVis '09). 2009, 169176.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Medalia O, Weber I, Frangakis AS, Nicastro D, Gerisch G, Baumeister W: Macromolecular Architecture in Eukaryotic Cells Visualized by Cryoelectron Tomography. Science. 2002, 298: 12091213. 10.1126/science.1076184View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Novak I, P K, Slepchenko B: Diffusion in Cytoplasm: Effects of Excluded Volume Due to Internal Membranes and Cytoskeletal Structures. Biophys J. 2009, 97 (3): 758767. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.05.036PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Trinh S, Arce P, Locke BR: Effective Diffusivities of PointLike Molecules in Isotropic Porous Media by Monte Carlo Simulation. Transport in Porous Media. 2000, 38: 241259. 10.1023/A:1006616009669.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Netz P, Dorfmüller T: Computer simulation studies of anomalous diffusion in gels: Structural properties and probesize dependence. J Chem Phys. 1995, 103 (20): 90749082. 10.1063/1.470018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chang R, Jagannathan K, Yethiraj A: Diffusion of hard sphere fluids in disordered media: A molecular dynamics simulation study. PhysRev E. 2004, 69: 051101Google Scholar
 Welch G: The 'fuzzy' interactome. Trends in Biochemical Sciences. 2009, 34: 12. 10.1016/j.tibs.2008.10.007View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Saxton M: A Biological Interpretation of Transient Anomalous Subdiffusion. I. Qualitative Model. Biophys J. 2007, 92: 11781191. 10.1529/biophysj.106.092619PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Welch G, Easterby J: Metabolic channeling versus free diffusion: transitiontime analysis. Trends in biochemical sciences. 1994, 19 (5): 193197. 10.1016/09680004(94)900191View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Winkel B: Metabolite Channeling and Multienzyme Complexes. Plantderived Natural Products: Synthesis, Function, and Application. 2009, 195208.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ovadi J, Sreret P: Macromolecular compartmentation and channeling. International Review of Cytology. 1999, 192: 255280.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 AlHabori M: Microcompartmentation, metabolic channelling and carbohydrate metabolism. International Journal of Biochemistry and Cell Biology. 1995, 27 (2): 123132. 10.1016/13572725(94)00079QView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Masters C: Interactions between glycolytic enzymes and components of the cytomatrix. Journal of Cell Biology. 1984, 99: 222225. 10.1083/jcb.99.1.222s.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ovadi J: Old pathwaynew concept: control of glycolysis by metabolitemodulated dynamic enzyme associations. Trends in biochemical sciences. 1988, 13: 486450. 10.1016/09680004(88)90237XView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Klipp E, Liebermeister W: Mathematical modeling of intracellular signaling pathways. BMC neuroscience. 2006, 7 (Suppl 1): S10 10.1186/147122027S1S10PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 McKay M, Ritt D, Morrison D: Signaling dynamics of the KSR1 scaffold complex. PNAS. 2009, 106 (27): 1102211027. 10.1073/pnas.0901590106PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Force T, Woulfe K, Koch W, Kerkela R: Molecular Scaffolds Regulate Bidirectional Crosstalk Between Wnt and Classical SevenTransmembrane Domain Receptor Signaling Pathways. Science Signaling. 2007, 2007 (397):Google Scholar
 Harding A, Tian T, Westbury E, Frische E, Hancock J: Subcellular localization determines MAP kinase signal output. Current Biology. 2005, 15 (9): 869873. 10.1016/j.cub.2005.04.020View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Are A, Galkin V, Pospelova T, Pinaev G: The p65/RelA Subunit of NFκ B Interacts with ActinContaining Structures. Experimental Cell Research. 2000, 256: 533544. 10.1006/excr.2000.4830View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pogson M, Holcombe M, Smallwood R, Qwarnstrom E: Introducing Spatial Information into Predictive NFκ B Modelling  An AgentBased Approach. PLoS ONE. 2008, 3 (6): e2367 10.1371/journal.pone.0002367PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Paine S, Parker A, Gardiner P, Webborn P, Riley R: Prediction of the pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin, cerivastatin, and indomethacin using kinetic models applied to isolated rat hepatocytes. Drug Metabolism and Disposition. 2008, 36 (7): 13651374. 10.1124/dmd.107.019455View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gao H, Steyn S, Chang G, Lin J: Assessment of in silico models for fraction of unbound drug in human liver microsomes. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology. 2010, 2010 (5): 533542.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Maier K, Hofmann U, Bauer A, Niebel A, Vacun G, Reuss M, Mauch K: Quantification of statin effects on hepatic cholesterol synthesis by transient 13Cflux analysis. Metabolic Engineering. 2009Google Scholar
 Kholodenko B: Fourdimensional organization of protein kinase signaling cascades: the roles of diffusion, endocytosis and molecular motors. J Exp Biol. 2003, 206 (12): 20732082. 10.1242/jeb.00298View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Markevich N, Tsyganov M, Hoek J, Kholodenko B: Longrange signaling by phosphoprotein waves arising from bistability in protein kinase cascades. Mol Syst Biol. 2006, 2 (61):Google Scholar
 LubyPhelps K: Cytoarchitecture and Physical Properties of Cytoplasm: Volume, Viscosity, Diffusion, Intracellular Surface Area. Int Rev Cytol. 2000, 192: 189221.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Hall D, Hoshino M: Effects of macromolecular crowding on intracellular diffusion from a single particle perspective. Biophys Rev. 2010, 2: 3953. 10.1007/s1255101000290PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Berg O, von Hippel P: Diffusioncontrolled macromolecular interactions. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry. 1985, 14: 131158. 10.1146/annurev.bb.14.060185.001023View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Smoluchowski M: Versuch einer mathematischen Theorie der Koagulationskinetik kolloider Lösungen. Z phys Chem. 1917, 92: 129168.Google Scholar
 Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P: Molekularbiologie der Zelle. 2004, WILEYVCH VerlagGoogle Scholar
 Gillespie D: A General Method for Numerically Simulating the Stochastic Time Evolution of Coupled Chemical Reactions. J Comp Phys. 1976, 22: 403434. 10.1016/00219991(76)900413.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Bauler P, Huber G, Leyh T, McCammon J: Channeling by proximity: the catalytic advantages of active site colocalization using Brownian dynamics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. 2010, 1 (9): 13321335. 10.1021/jz1002007PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Rohwer J, Postma P, Kholodenko B, Westerhoff H: Implications of macromolecular crowding for signal transduction and metabolite channeling. PNAS. 1998, 95 (18): 1054710552. 10.1073/pnas.95.18.10547PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Takahashi K, Arjunan S, Tomita M: Space in systems biology of signaling pathways  towards intracellular molecular crowding in silico. FEBS Lett. 2005, 579: 17831788. 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.01.072View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Falk M, Klann M, Reuss M, Ertl T: 3D visualization of concentrations from stochastic agentbased signal transduction simulations. Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro, 2010 IEEE International Symposium on, IEEE. 2010, 13011304.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Shillcock J: Insight or illusion? Seeing inside the cell with mesoscopic simulations. HFSP Journal. 2008, 2: 16. 10.2976/1.2833599PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Tolle D, Le Novere N: ParticleBased Stochastic Simulation in Systems Biology. Curr Bioinf. 2006, 1 (3): 315320. 10.2174/157489306777827964.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fox RO: Computational Models for Turbulent Reacting Flows. 2003, Cambridge University PressView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Lapin A, Klann M, Reuss M: Stochastic Simulations of 4Dspatial Temporal Dynamics of Signal Transduction Processes. Proceedings of the FOSBE 2007, Stuttgart, Germany. 2007, 421425.Google Scholar
 Lapin A, Klann M, Reuss M: MultiScale SpatioTemporal Modeling: Lifelines of Microorganisms in Bioreactors and Tracking Molecules in Cells. Biosystems Engineering II, Advances in Biochemical Engineering Biotechnology. Edited by: Wittmann C, Krull R. 2010, 21:Google Scholar
 Pogson M, Smallwood R, Qwarnstrom E, Holcombe M: Formal agentbased modelling of intracellular chemical interactions. Biosystems. 2006, 85: 3745. 10.1016/j.biosystems.2006.02.004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Andrews S, Bray D: Stochastic simulation of chemical reactions with spatial resolution and single molecule detail. Phys Biol. 2004, 1: 137151. 10.1088/14783967/1/3/001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Morelli M, Ten Wolde P: Reaction Brownian dynamics and the effect of spatial fluctuations on the gain of a pushpull network. J chem phys. 2008, 129: 054112 10.1063/1.2958287View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ridgway D, Broderick G, LopezCampistrous A, Ru'aini M, Winter P, Hamilton M, Boulanger P, Kovalenko A, Ellison M: Coarsegrained molecular simulation of diffusion and reaction kinetics in a crowded virtual cytoplasm. Biophys J. 2008, 94 (10): 37483759. 10.1529/biophysj.107.116053PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Arjunan S, Tomita M: A new multicompartmental reactiondiffusion modeling method links transient membrane attachment of E. coli MinE to Ering formation. M Syst Synth Biol. 2010, 4: 3553. 10.1007/s1169300990472.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 van Zon J, Ten Wolde P: Simulating biochemical networks at the particle level and in time and space: Green's function reaction dynamics. Phys rev let. 2005, 94 (12): 128103View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Byrne M, Waxham M, Kubota Y: Cellular Dynamic Simulator: An Event Driven Molecular Simulation Environment for Cellular Physiology. Neuroinformatics. 2010, 8 (2): 6382. 10.1007/s120210109066xPubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Collins F, Kimball G: Diffusioncontrolled reaction rates. J Colloid Sci. 1949, 4 (4): 425437. 10.1016/00958522(49)900239.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.