Cited by 1Protein Kinase Regulation and GTPase SignalingLipid Membrane Structure and BehaviorGene Regulatory Network Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mesoscale simulations of membrane-tethered reactions to parameterize cell-scale models of signaling

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

ABSTRACT Biochemical interactions at membranes are the starting points for cell signaling networks. But bimolecular reaction kinetics are difficult to experimentally measure on 2-dimensional membranes and are usually measured in volumetric in vitro assays. Membrane tethering produces confinement and steric effects that will significantly impact binding rates in ways that are not readily estimated from volumetric measurements. Also, there are situations when 2D reactions do not conform to simple mass action kinetics. Here we show how highly coarse-grained molecular simulations using the SpringSaLaD software can be used to estimate membrane-tethered rate constants from experimentally determined volumetric kinetics. The approach is validated using an analytical solution for dimerization of binding sites anchored via stiff linkers. This approach can provide 2-dimensional bimolecular rate constants to parameterize cell-scale models of receptor-mediated signaling. We explore how factors such as molecular reach, steric effects, disordered domains, local concentration and diffusion affect the kinetics of binding. We also develop a general scheme to assess whether simple mass action rate constants can be applied for a given scenario, taking into account the diffusivity of the membrane anchors and tethered binding sites, the initial membrane densities of the reactants and the desired level of completion for the fitted rate constant. We then apply our approach to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mediated activation of the membrane-bound small GTPase Ras. The analysis reveals how binding of Ras to the allosteric site of SOS, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) that is recruited to EGFR, significantly accelerates Ras binding to the SOS catalytic site. A small biochemical network model parametrized with the derived 2D rate constants shows how recruitment of SOS via EGFR can significantly enhance Ras activation. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT In cell signaling, the activation of a surface receptor leads to a cascade of intracellular biochemical events. Many protein interactions occur near the inner plasma membrane surface. However, accurate rate parameters for these steps in models of signaling are rarely available because membrane-tethered reaction kinetics are difficult to experimentally measure. Here, we use a highly coarse-grained molecular simulator to model the kinetics of reactions between binding sites that are tethered to a membrane. We can fit these simulation outputs with 2-dimensional rate laws to obtain rate constants that can be used to build complex models of cell signaling. The derived rate constants can also be analyzed to understand the key biophysical features controlling the kinetics of bimolecular membrane reactions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bpj.2026.04.015

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 53

  1. Slepchenko, 2003, Quantitative cell biology with the Virtual Cell, Trends Cell Biol., 13, 570, 10.1016/j.tcb.2003.09.002 · DOI
  2. Eungdamrong, 2004, Modeling Cell Signaling Networks, Biol. Cell, 96, 355, 10.1111/j.1768-322X.2004.tb01426.x · DOI
  3. Myers, 2021, Mechanistic and data-driven models of cell signaling: tools for fundamental discovery and rational design of therapy, Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol., 28
  4. Banga, 2025, Mechanistic dynamic modelling of biological systems: The road ahead, Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol., 42
  5. Shinobu, 2026, Network structures and parameters in multiscale modeling in ErbB signaling networks, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol., 98, 10.1016/j.ceb.2025.102603 · DOI
  6. Groves, 2003, Supported planar bilayers in studies on immune cell adhesion and communication, J. Immunol. Methods, 278, 19, 10.1016/S0022-1759(03)00193-5 · DOI
  7. Gavutis, 2006, Probing 2-dimensional protein–protein interactions on model membranes, Nat. Protoc., 1, 2091, 10.1038/nprot.2006.270 · DOI
  8. Pólya, 1921, Über eine Aufgabe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung betreffend die Irrfahrt im Straßennetz, Math. Ann., 84, 149, 10.1007/BF01458701 · DOI
  9. Torney, 1983, Diffusion-limited reaction rate theory for two-dimensional systems, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 387, 147, 10.1098/rspa.1983.0055 · DOI
  10. Yogurtcu, 2015, Theory of bi-molecular association dynamics in 2D for accurate model and experimental parameterization of binding rates, J. Chem. Phys., 143, 10.1063/1.4929390 · DOI
  11. Axelrod, 1994, Reduction-of-dimensionality kinetics at reaction-limited cell surface receptors, Biophys. J., 66, 588, 10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80834-3 · DOI
  12. Keizer, 1987, Diffusion effects on rapid bimolecular chemical reactions, Chem. Rev., 87, 167, 10.1021/cr00077a009 · DOI
  13. Collins, 1949, Diffusion-controlled reaction rates, J. Colloid Sci., 4, 425, 10.1016/0095-8522(49)90023-9 · DOI
  14. Szabo, 1989, Theory of diffusion-influenced fluorescence quenching, J. Phys. Chem., 93, 6929, 10.1021/j100356a011 · DOI
  15. Haugh, 2002, A Unified Model for Signal Transduction Reactions in Cellular Membranes, Biophys. J., 82, 591, 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75424-6 · DOI
  16. Windisch, 2006, Balls and Chains—A Mesoscopic Approach to Tethered Protein Domains, Biophys. J., 91, 2383, 10.1529/biophysj.105.078543 · DOI
  17. Bell, 1978, Models for the Specific Adhesion of Cells to Cells, Science, 200, 618, 10.1126/science.347575 · DOI
  18. Bell, 1984, Cell adhesion. Competition between nonspecific repulsion and specific bonding, Biophys. J., 45, 1051, 10.1016/S0006-3495(84)84252-6 · DOI
  19. Wu, 2011, Transforming binding affinities from three dimensions to two with application to cadherin clustering, Nature, 475, 510, 10.1038/nature10183 · DOI
  20. Weikl, 2016, Binding equilibrium and kinetics of membrane-anchored receptors and ligands in cell adhesion: Insights from computational model systems and theory, Cell Adh. Migr., 10, 576, 10.1080/19336918.2016.1180487 · DOI
  21. Xu, 2015, Binding constants of membrane-anchored receptors and ligands: A general theory corroborated by Monte Carlo simulations, J. Chem. Phys., 143, 10.1063/1.4936134 · DOI
  22. Jhaveri, 2025, Binding affinities for 2D protein dimerization benefit from enthalpic stabilization, bioRxiv
  23. Xie, 2014, Linking 3D and 2D binding kinetics of membrane proteins by multiscale simulations, Protein Sci., 23, 1789, 10.1002/pro.2574 · DOI
  24. Hu, 2015, Binding kinetics of membrane-anchored receptors and ligands: Molecular dynamics simulations and theory, J. Chem. Phys., 143, 243137, 10.1063/1.4936135 · DOI
  25. Zhang, 2019, The Influence of Molecular Reach and Diffusivity on the Efficacy of Membrane-Confined Reactions, Biophys. J., 117, 1189, 10.1016/j.bpj.2019.08.023 · DOI
  26. Michalski, 2016, SpringSaLaD: A Spatial, Particle-Based Biochemical Simulation Platform with Excluded Volume, Biophys. J., 110, 523, 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.12.026 · DOI
  27. Chattaraj, 2018, The interplay of structural and cellular biophysics controls clustering of multivalent molecules, bioRxiv
  28. Masison, 2018, mol2sphere: spherical decomposition of multi-domain molecules for visualization and coarse grained spatial modeling, Bioinformatics, 34, 3948, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty487 · DOI
  29. Kamioka, 2010, Multiple decisive phosphorylation sites for the negative feedback regulation of SOS1 via ERK, J. Biol. Chem., 285, 33540, 10.1074/jbc.M110.135517 · DOI
  30. Fujioka, 2006, Dynamics of the Ras/ERK MAPK Cascade as Monitored by Fluorescent Probes, J. Biol. Chem., 281, 8917, 10.1074/jbc.M509344200 · DOI
  31. Hoops, 2006, COPASI: a COmplex PAthway SImulator, Bioinformatics, 22, 3067, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl485 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Schaff, 1997, A general computational framework for modeling cellular structure and function, Biophys. J., 73, 1135, 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78146-3 · DOI
  33. Cowan, 2012, Spatial modeling of cell signaling networks, Methods Cell Biol., 110, 195, 10.1016/B978-0-12-388403-9.00008-4 · DOI
  34. Kopelman, 1986, Rate processes on fractals: Theory, simulations, and experiments, J. Stat. Phys., 42, 185, 10.1007/BF01010846 · DOI
  35. Berry, 2002, Monte Carlo Simulations of Enzyme Reactions in Two Dimensions: Fractal Kinetics and Spatial Segregation, Biophys. J., 83, 1891, 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)73953-2 · DOI
  36. Ovchinnikov, 1978, Role of density fluctuations in bimolecular reaction kinetics, Chem. Phys., 28, 215, 10.1016/0301-0104(78)85052-6 · DOI
  37. Toussaint, 1983, Particle–antiparticle annihilation in diffusive motion, J. Chem. Phys., 78, 2642, 10.1063/1.445022 · DOI
  38. Tachiya, 1983, Theory of diffusion-controlled reactions: Formulation of the bulk reaction rate in terms of the pair probability, Radiat. Phys. Chem., 21, 167
  39. Bandaru, 2019, The Interdependent Activation of Son-of-Sevenless and Ras, Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med., 9, 10.1101/cshperspect.a031534 · DOI
  40. Jorissen, 2003, Epidermal growth factor receptor: mechanisms of activation and signalling, Exp. Cell Res., 284, 31, 10.1016/S0014-4827(02)00098-8 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Ren, 2024, Positive feedback in Ras activation by full-length SOS arises from autoinhibition release mechanism, Biophys. J., 123, 3295, 10.1016/j.bpj.2024.07.014 · DOI
  42. Giubellino, 2008, Grb2 signaling in cell motility and cancer, Expert Opin. Ther. Targets, 12, 1021, 10.1517/14728222.12.8.1021 · DOI
  43. Chook, 1996, The Grb2-mSos1 complex binds phosphopeptides with higher affinity than Grb2, J. Biol. Chem., 271, 30472, 10.1074/jbc.271.48.30472 · DOI
  44. Margarit, 2003, Structural Evidence for Feedback Activation by Ras·GTP of the Ras-Specific Nucleotide Exchange Factor SOS, Cell, 112, 685, 10.1016/S0092-8674(03)00149-1 · DOI
  45. Gureasko, 2008, Membrane-dependent signal integration by the Ras activator Son of sevenless, Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol., 15, 452, 10.1038/nsmb.1418 · DOI
  46. McCloskey, 1986, Rates of Membrane-associated Reactions: Reduction of Dimentionality Revisited, J. Cell Biol., 102, 88, 10.1083/jcb.102.1.88 · DOI
  47. Eungdamrong, 2007, Compartment-specific feedback loop and regulated trafficking can result in sustained activation of Ras at the Golgi, Biophys. J., 92, 808, 10.1529/biophysj.106.093104 · DOI
  48. Tian, 2007, Plasma membrane nanoswitches generate high-fidelity Ras signal transduction, Nat. Cell Biol., 9, 905, 10.1038/ncb1615 · DOI
  49. Coyle, 2016, Mapping the functional versatility and fragility of Ras GTPase signaling circuits through in vitro network reconstitution, eLife, 5, 10.7554/eLife.12435 · DOI
  50. Erickson, 2019, New insights into RAS biology reinvigorate interest in mathematical modeling of RAS signaling, Semin. Cancer Biol., 54, 162, 10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.02.008 · DOI
  51. Huang, 2019, A molecular assembly phase transition and kinetic proofreading modulate Ras activation by SOS, Science, 363, 1098, 10.1126/science.aau5721 · DOI
  52. Huang, 2021, Relating cellular signaling timescales to single-molecule kinetics: A first-passage time analysis of Ras activation by SOS, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, 10.1073/pnas.2103598118 · DOI
  53. Pylayeva-Gupta, 2011, RAS oncogenes: weaving a tumorigenic web, Nat. Rev. Cancer, 11, 761, 10.1038/nrc3106 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Peterson, K. J., Slepchenko, B. M., & Loew, L. M.
Affiliations
University of Connecticut (US)
Corresponding author
Loew, Leslie M.
Venue
Biophysical Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2026-06
Volume
125
Issue
11
Pages
2632-2647
ISSN
0006-3495 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7155600125
Cited by
1
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
2.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biophysical Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R24 GM137787)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 GM132859)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Lipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
membrane tethering, steric effects, confinement effects, mass action kinetics, membrane diffusion, epidermal growth factor receptor, Ras activation, allosteric binding, receptor signaling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review