Physical limits on chemical sensing in bounded domains

Daniel R. McCusker,David K. Lubensky
2024-08-20
Abstract:Cells respond to chemical cues, and the precision with which they can sense these cues is fundamentally limited by the stochastic nature of diffusion and ligand binding. Berg and Purcell famously investigated how well a small sensor in an infinite ligand bath can determine the ligand concentration, and a number of subsequent analyses have refined and built upon their classical estimates. Not all concentration sensing problems, however, occur in such an infinite geometry. At different scales, subcellular sensors and cells in tissues are both often confronted with signals whose diffusion is affected by confining boundaries. It is thus valuable to understand how basic limits on chemosensation depend on the sensor's size and on its position in the domain in which ligand diffuses. Here we compute how sensor size and proximity to reflecting boundaries affect the diffusion-limited precision of chemosensation for various geometries in one and three dimensions. We derive analytical expressions for the sensing limit in these geometries. Among our conclusions is the surprising result that, in certain circumstances, smaller sensors can be more effective than larger sensors. This effect arises from a trade-off between spatial averaging and time averaging that we analyze in detail. We also find that proximity to confining boundaries can degrade a sensor's precision significantly compared to the precision of the same sensor far from any boundaries.
Biological Physics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to understand how the fundamental limitations of chemosensing in a finite domain depend on the size of the sensor and its position in the diffusion domain. Specifically, the author explores the influence of sensor size and proximity to reflective boundaries on the accuracy of chemosensing under different geometries (one - dimensional and three - dimensional). Through analysis, the author obtains analytical expressions for the sensing limits in these cases and discovers some interesting results. For example, in some cases, a smaller sensor may be more effective than a larger one, which is due to the trade - off between spatial averaging and temporal averaging. In addition, they also find that the accuracy of a sensor close to a restrictive boundary is significantly lower than that of the same sensor far from any boundary. ### Background of the Paper Cells are able to sense and respond to chemical signals, and this ability is fundamentally limited by molecular diffusion and the randomness of ligand binding. Berg and Purcell were the first to study the ability of a small sensor to determine ligand concentration in an infinite ligand bath and proposed a classical estimation method. However, many practical concentration - sensing problems occur in finite geometric environments, such as sub - cellular sensors and cells in tissues, where signal diffusion in these environments is affected by restrictive boundaries. Therefore, it becomes particularly important to understand how the fundamental limitations of chemosensing depend on the size and position of the sensor. ### Research Objectives This paper aims to calculate the influence of sensor size and proximity to reflective boundaries on the accuracy of chemosensing under diffusion limitations in different geometries (one - dimensional and three - dimensional). The author derives analytical expressions for the sensing limits in these geometries and analyzes these results. ### Main Conclusions 1. **Influence of Sensor Size**: - In some cases, a smaller sensor may be more effective than a larger one. This is because there is a trade - off between spatial averaging and temporal averaging for a smaller sensor. - Although a larger sensor can provide better spatial averaging, its correlation time is longer, resulting in a decrease in accuracy. 2. **Boundary Influence**: - The accuracy of a sensor close to a restrictive boundary is significantly lower than that of a sensor far from the boundary. This is because molecules can only escape from one side, causing molecules to stay near the sensor for a longer time and the correlation to decay more slowly. 3. **Influence of Geometry**: - The position of the sensor (center or close to the boundary) has a significant impact on its accuracy. A sensor in the center position usually has higher accuracy. - The sensing accuracies of different geometries (rectangular, cylindrical, and spherical) also vary, and the author analyzes these differences in detail through analytical expressions. ### Formulas and Analytical Expressions - **One - Dimensional Case**: - The expression for the sensing variance \(\frac{\delta n^2}{\langle n \rangle^2}\) is: \[ \frac{\delta n^2}{\langle n \rangle^2} = \frac{4}{\langle c \rangle L D T} \sum_{p = 1}^{\infty} \left( \frac{L^2}{p^2 \pi^2} \left( \frac{1}{l} \int_{\text{sensor}} \psi_p(x) dx \right)^2 \right) \] - where \(\psi_p(x)=\cos\left(\frac{p \pi x}{L}\right)\), \(k_p^2 = \frac{p^2 \pi^2}{L^2}\). - **Three - Dimensional Case**: - The expression for the sensing variance \(\frac{\delta n^2}{\langle n \rangle^2}\) is: \[ \frac{\delta n^2}{\langle n \rangle^2} = \frac{2}{V \langle c \rangle D T} \sum_{\ell m p} g_{\ell m p} \left( \frac{1}{v} \int_{\text{sensor}} \psi_{\ell m p}(\vec{x}) d^3 \right) \]