Limits of feedback control in bacterial chemotaxis

Abstract

Inputs to signaling pathways can have complex statistics that depend on the environment and on the behavioral response to previous stimuli. Such behavioral feedback is particularly important in navigation. Successful navigation relies on proper coupling between sensors, which gather information during motion, and actuators, which control behavior. Because reorientation conditions future inputs, behavioral feedback can place sensors and actuators in an operational regime different from the resting state. How then can organisms maintain proper information transfer through the pathway while navigating diverse environments? In bacterial chemotaxis, robust performance is often attributed to the zero integral feedback control of the sensor, which guarantees that activity returns to resting state when the input remains constant. While this property provides sensitivity over a wide range of signal intensities, it remains unclear how other parameters affect chemotactic performance, especially when considering that the swimming behavior of the cell determines the input signal. Using analytical models and simulations that incorporate recent experimental evidences about behavioral feedback and flagellar motor adaptation we identify an operational regime of the pathway that maximizes drift velocity for various environments and sensor adaptation rates. This optimal regime is outside the dynamic range of the motor response, but maximizes the contrast between run duration up and down gradients. In steep gradients, the feedback from chemotactic drift can push the system through a bifurcation. This creates a non-chemotactic state that traps cells unless the motor is allowed to adapt. Although motor adaptation helps, we find that as the strength of the feedback increases individual phenotypes cannot maintain the optimal operational regime in all environments, suggesting that diversity could be beneficial.

arXiv commentCorrected one typo. First two authors contributed equally. Notably, there were various typos in the values of the parameters in the model of motor adaptation. The results remain unchanged

References in corpus (4)

• Relationship between cellular response and behavioral variability in bacterial chemotaxis
• The Bacterial Chemotactic Response Reflects a Compromise Between Transient and Steady State Behavior
• Persistence of direction increases the drift velocity of run and tumble chemotaxis
• Adaptation dynamics in densely clustered chemoreceptors

Cited by in corpus (17)

• E. coli chemotaxis is information-limited
• Bet-hedging strategies in expanding populations
• Non-genetic diversity modulates population performance
• Chemotactic smoothing of collective migration
• Feedback Between Motion and Sensation Provides Nonlinear Boost in Run-and-tumble Navigation
• Influence of confinement on the spreading of bacterial populations
• A connection between bacterial chemotactic network and optimal filtering
• Optimal sensing and control of run-and-tumble chemotaxis
• Drift and behavior of E. coli cells
• Optimal methylation noise for best chemotactic performance of {\sl E. coli}
• Effect of receptor clustering on chemotactic performance of Escherichia coli: sensing versus adaptation
• Effect of switching time scale of receptor activity on chemotactic performance of Escherichia coli
• Effect of receptor cooperativity on methylation dynamics in bacterial chemotaxis with weak and strong gradient
• Remark on the Entropy Production of Adaptive Run-and-Tumble Chemotaxis
• Bacterial chemotaxis: information processing, thermodynamics, and behavior
• Bacterial Chemotaxis in a Traveling Wave Attractant Environment
• Dynamics of chemo-receptor activity with time-periodic attractant field