INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING
Phys. Biol. 2 (2005) 81–88doi:10.1088/1478-3975/2/2/001
Environmental selection of the
feed-forward loop circuit in
Erez Dekel, Shmoolik Mangan and Uri Alon
Department of Molecular Cell Biology and Department of Physics of Complex Systems,
The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, 76100, Israel
Received 23 December 2004
Accepted for publication 31 March 2005
Published 28 April 2005
Online at stacks.iop.org/PhysBio/2/81
Gene-regulation networks contain recurring elementary circuits termed network motifs. It is of
interest to understand under which environmental conditions each motif might be selected. To
address this, we study one of the most significant network motifs, a three-gene circuit called
the coherent feed-forward loop (FFL). The FFL has been demonstrated theoretically and
experimentally to perform a basic information-processing function: it shows a delay following
ON steps of an input inducer, but not after OFF steps. Here, we ask under what environmental
conditions might the FFL be selected over simpler gene circuits, based on this function. We
employ a theoretical cost–benefit analysis for the selection of gene circuits in a given
environment. We find conditions that the environment must satisfy in order for the FFL to be
selected over simpler circuits: the FFL is selected in environments where the distribution of the
input pulse duration is sufficiently broad and contains both long and short pulses. Optimal
values of the biochemical parameters of the FFL circuit are determined as a function of the
environment such that the delay in the FFL blocks deleterious short pulses of induction. This
approach can be generally used to study the evolutionary selection of other network motifs.
Biological networks contain network motifs: connectivity
patterns that recur in many different systems [1–3]. Network
motifs may be readily detected because they appear much
more often than in randomized networks [1–3]. Transcription
regulation networks show several highly significant network
motifs. Each of the network motifs in transcription networks
has been demonstrated to carry out a basic information-
processing function .
One of the most significant network motifs is the feed-
forwardloop(FFL),inwhichatranscription factor Xregulates
a second transcription factor Y, and both jointly regulate gene
Z (or several genes Z1,...,Zn) (figure 1(a)) . The FFL
appears in diverse organisms including E. coli [1–3, 5, 6], B.
subtilis [3, 7], yeast [2, 5, 8, 9], C. elegans , fruit-fly ,
sea urchin [3,10] and humans . For example, sporulation
of B. subtilis is controlled by a transcriptional network made
of several feed-forward loops . Evolution appears to have
independently converged on this motif in different organisms
as well as in different systems within the same organism
The dynamical behavior of the FFL depends on the
nature of the regulatory interactions (activation or repression)
between X, Y and Z, and on the cis-regulatory input function,
that integrates the effects of X and Y on Z [13–15]. A common
input function is an AND-gate in which both X and Y are
needed to activate Z [5, 6].
possible FFL variants have been analyzed [5, 6].
The most common FFL configuration, called the coherent
type-1 FFL , has three activation regulations (figure 1(a)).
This circuit functions as a sign-sensitive delay element
[1, 5, 6]: followingastep-likeadditionofthestimulusofX,Sx,
fact that Y must accumulate and cross its activation threshold
in order to activate Z. No delay occurs, however, upon a step-
like removal of the stimulus Sx. This is because only one
input of the AND-gate needs to go off for Z to be deactivated.
The functions of the various
1478-3975/05/020081+08$30.00© 2005 IOP Publishing LtdPrinted in the UK
E Dekel et al
Figure 1. Feed-forward loop (FFL) and simple-AND regulation
circuits. (a) Feed-forward loop, where X activates Y and both jointly
activate gene Z in an AND-gate fashion. The inducers are Sxand Sy.
In the ara system, for example, X = CRP, Y = araC, Z = araBAD,
Sx= cAMP and Sy= L-arabinose. (b) A simple-AND-gate
regulation-circuit, where X and Y activate gene Z. In the lac system,
for example, Y = lacI is a repressor that is induced by Sy= lactose,
X = CRP and Sx= cAMP.
This function can be viewed as a persistence detector: Z is
expressed only in response to sufficiently long pulses of the
input, Sx, whereas rapid deactivation of Z expression occurs
when Sxis removed. These dynamical features have been
experimentally demonstrated in the FFL that regulates the L-
arabinose utilization system of E. coli .
Not all systems regulated by two inputs exhibit the FFL:
for example, the lactose system of E. coli [14, 16, 17] is a
simple-AND-gate structure, where X (CRP) does not regulate
Y (LacI) (figure 1(b)). The FFL is found in other E. coli
sugar systems with the same X (CRP), such as the arabinose,
operons known to be regulated by two inputs participate in a
and not others? It is known that the arrows in regulatory
networks can rapidly change over evolutionary timescales
[9, 12]. For example, it only takes a few point mutations in the
binding site of X in the promoter of Y to abolish the interaction
X → Y. Of the three arrows in the FFL, two are essential for
maintaining the circuits’ AND-gate decision-making logic.
These are the arrows X → Z and Y → Z. The third arrow,
X → Y, can be removed without disrupting the AND-gate
logic of the circuit. Therefore, we can ask, what preserves the
regulation of Y by X in the FFL against mutations that would
rapidly abolish this interaction?
to test the hypothesis that the dynamical properties of the FFL
convey an advantage to the cell under certain environmental
conditions. Evolutionary analysis based on optimality
principles is a classic approach . Examples have been
presented for several design features in biological regulatory
rules for determining the mode of regulation based on demand
theory [25, 31, 37]; the structure of the pentose–phosphate
pathway as an evolutionary game minimizing the number of
reaction steps [28, 30]; rules for optimal design of metabolic
pathways for maximal efficiency and rapid responses while
minimizing total enzyme production [26, 27, 29, 30, 32,
35, 38, 40, 42, 47]; mathematically controlled comparison
of different designs for genetic switches [12, 31, 34–37,
45]; analysis of optimal genome arrangement in phage ;
and global optimization of metabolic fluxes [30, 38, 42,
Here, we present a simple model for the selection of the
FFL, based on a cost–benefit analysis of protein action in
a changing environment. We find analytical conditions for
FFL selection in terms of the environmental input distribution.
This may provide an explanation why FFL is found in some
systems and not in others. It also provides insight into the
selected values of the biochemical parameters of the FFL in a
Cost–benefit analysis of a simple gene-regulation circuit
We analyze a gene-regulation system with two inputs that
control expression of gene Z. We begin with regulation by a
simple-AND circuit (figure 1(b)) and consider the FFL in the
in the presence of both input inducers Sxand Sy, and otherwise
We consider the effects of production of protein Z on
the growth rate of the cells. The cost of Z production entails a
reductioningrowthrate–ηβ, whereβ istherateofproduction
of Z and η is the reduction in growth rate per Z molecule
On the other hand, the action of the Z gene-product
conveys an advantage to the cells. This advantage is described
by δf(Z), the increase in growth rate due to the action of Z.
f(Z) is typically an increasing function of Z that saturates at
high values of Z.
An example is the arabinose sugar catabolism system of
E. coli. Here, δf(Z) represents the increase in growth rate due
to the energy and carbon supplied to the cells by catabolism of
the sugar Sy= arabinose. The input signal Sxin the arabinose
system is cAMP, a signaling molecule produced in the cell
upon glucose starvation. In the arabinose system, both Sx=
cAMP and Sy= arabinose need to be present for benefit,
because of catabolite-exclusion in the absence of Sx, e.g. in the
Menten enzyme kinetics: δf(Z) = δ0vSyZ/(K +Z), where K
1Typically, the costs for the production of the transcription factors X and
Y are negligible compared to the production cost of the effector protein Z
, since transcription factors are typically produced in far fewer copies
per cell than enzymes or structural proteins. If Y costs are not negligible,
the advantage of FFL over simple-AND increases, because the FFL prevents
unneeded Y production. Y production costs are included in the detailed model
in the appendix.
Environmental selection of the feed-forward loop circuit in gene-regulation networks
pulse width, D/Dc
Figure 2. Fitness (integrated growth rate) of simple regulation
during short pulses of inputs Sxand Sy. Fitness is negative for
D < Dc.
is the Michaelis constant of the enzyme, v is the rate at which
The overall effect of Z on the growth maximal rate is the
sum of the cost and benefit [25, 30]:
g = −ηβ + δf(Z).
We now consider a pulse of activation, in which both Sx
and Syare present at saturating levels for a pulse of duration
D. The growth of cells with a simple-AND circuit, integrated
over time D, is given by
When the pulse begins, protein Z begins to be produced
at rate β, and degraded or diluted out by cell growth at rate α
. The dynamics of Z concentration are given by
resulting in an exponential convergence to steady-state Zm=
Z(t) = Zm(1 − e−αt).
This solution is in good agreement with high-resolution
gene expression measurements .
For long pulses (Dα ? 1), Z is saturated Z = Zm, and has
a net positive effect on cell growth
g(t)dt = −ηβD +
= β − αZ
ϕ(D) = −ηβD + δf(Zm)D
provided that the benefit of Z exceeds its production costs
Short pulses, however, can have a deleterious effect on
growth. To see this, consider short pulses such that Dα ? 1.
In this case Z(t) ∼ βt and using the series expansion f(Z) ∼
f’Z, the integrated growth rate is (figure 2)
generally, the quadratic form of f(Z), which includes sub-saturating Sy, is
described in the appendix.
(−ηβ + δf?βt)dt = −ηβD + δf?βD2
Growth is reduced (ϕ(D) < 0) for pulses shorter than a
critical pulse duration Dc(figure 2)
Hence, short pulses are deleterious. Simple regulation leads
to reduction in growth in environments with short pulses, even
though Z confers a net advantage for sufficiently long input
pulses (figure 3(a)).
Cost–benefit analysis of the FFL gene circuit
In the FFL (figure 1(a)), upon a pulse of Sx, the transcription
factor Y begins to be produced
= βy− αyY
and exponentially converges to its steady-state level Ym =
Y(t) = Ym(1 − e−αyt).
Gene Z in the FFL is regulated in an AND-gate fashion by
X and Y. Therefore, to activate Z, Y needs to accumulate to
levels sufficient to bind the Z promoter and cause activation
of transcription. A simple description of regulation of Z by
Y, allowing analytical solution of the dynamics, is threshold
regulation, where Z is produced at rate β when Y > TY, and not
produced when Y < TY. Many genes are indeed regulated with
sharp regulation functions that resemble threshold regulation
[14, 15, 52]. Other, less sharp, regulation functions yield the
same qualitative results, as discussed in the appendix.
Thus, gene Z is only activated at a delay, at time t = τ
when Y reaches its activation threshold, Y(τ) = TY. The delay,
τ, can be found from equation (9):
This equation relates the magnitude of the delay in Z
expression to the biochemical parameters of protein Y. Typical
parameter values in bacteria yield delays of the order of
1–100 min. The delay in the FFL can in principle be tuned
to optimal values by mutations that change these biochemical
parameters. The delay acts to filter out pulses that are shorter
than τ (figure 3(b)). This avoids the reduction in growth for
τ = α−1
1 − TY/Ym
ϕ(D) = 0for
D < τ.
However, the filtering of short pulses has a disadvantage,
because during long pulses, Z is produced at a delay and
misses some of the potential benefit of the pulse (figure 3(b)).
To assess whether the FFL confers a net advantage to the
cells, relative to simple regulation, requires analysis of the
distribution of pulses in the environment.
Conditions for FFL selection
The environment of the cell can be characterized by the
probability distribution of the duration of input pulses, P(D).
E Dekel et al
Figure 3. Dynamics of gene expression and growth rate in a short, non-beneficial pulse and a long pulse of Sxand Sy. (a) Simple regulation
shows a growth deficit for both pulses, (b) FFL filters out the short pulse, but has reduced benefit during the long pulse. The figure shows
(top to bottom): (1) Pulse of Sxand Sy. (2) Dynamics of Z expression. Z is turned on after a delay τ (τ = 0 in the case of simple regulation),
and approaches its steady-state level Zm. (3) Normalized production cost (reduction in growth rate) due to the production load of Z. Cost
begins after the delay τ. (4) Normalized growth rate advantage (benefit) from the action of gene product Z. (5) Net normalized growth rate.
We assume for simplicity that the pulses are far apart, so that
the system starts each pulse from zero initial Z levels (and Y
levels in the case of the FFL). In this case, the overall fitness
can be found by integrating the fitness ϕ(D) over the pulse
distribution. For simple-AND circuits,
For FFL circuits, production starts after a delay τ. Pulses
shorter than τ result in no Z production and ϕ(D < τ) = 0.
Long pulses begin to be utilized after a delay τ, so that their
duration is effectively D − τ (figure 3(b)), resulting in
Note that the simple regulation is equivalent to an FFL with
τ = 0.
The resulting conditions for selection of FFL over simple
P(D)ϕ(D − τ)dD.
?2> ?1,?2> 0.
Simple regulation is selected when
?1> ?2,?1> 0.
Neither circuit is selected otherwise (?1< 0 and ?2<
0).3For the purpose of this comparison, the FFL is chosen
to have the optimal value for τ (τ which maximizes ?2).
3Using the present approach, it is easy to show that a cascade design, X →
Y → Z, is never more optimal than an FFL or a simple-AND design. The
reason is that the cascade shows delay after X goes off, resulting in unneeded
production of Z. The FFL avoids these delays because it shows a delay only
after ON steps of Sx and not OFF steps [5, 6]. Indeed, cascades are not
network motifs in any known sensory transcription network  although they
are common in developmental transcription networks .
these gene circuits and the environment (specifically, relations
between certain integrals of the pulse distribution).
We now consider two specific environments P(D) where
these conditions can be solved analytically.
The FFL is not selected in the case of exponential pulse
Environments in which pulses have a constant probability per
unit time to end have an exponential pulse distribution
P(D) = D−1
where D0is the mean pulse duration.
Using equations (12) and (13), we find that
0e−D/D0ϕ(D − τ)dD
0e−D/D0ϕ(D)dD = e−τ/D0?1< ?1.
Thus, the FFL is never selected since ?2< ?1. Simple
regulation is selected when ?1> 0, which occurs (using
equations (12) and (6)) when the mean pulse duration is long
enough D0> η/δf?. When the mean pulse duration is long
enough D0< η/δf?, simple regulation is not selected because
of the negative effect of the short pulses in the environment.
In this case, gene Z is likely to be lost from the genome on
Hence, the FFL is not better than simple regulation in an
an environment where the filtering properties of the FFL can
Environmental selection of the feed-forward loop circuit in gene-regulation networks
pulse width, D1/Dc
Figure 4. Optimal delay τ0for an FFL circuit in an environment
with two types of pulses, short pulses of duration D1and long pulses
of duration D2. When D1> Dc, the optimal delay is τ0= 0 and
simple-AND regulation may be selected.
The FFL can be selected in bimodal distributions with long
and short pulses
Consider an environment with two kinds of pulses. A pulse
can have either a short duration D1? Dcwith probability p,
or a long duration D2? 1/α with probability 1 − p.
The short pulses D1are non-beneficial, since they are
shorter than the critical pulse width at which costs equal
benefit, D1<Dc. Incontrast, thelongpulsesD2arebeneficial,
ϕ(D2) = −ηβD2+ δf(Zm),D2> 0.
In this case, it is easy to calculate the optimal delay in
the FFL, τ0(figure 4): the optimal delay is τ0= D1. That is,
the optimal FFL has a delay, which blocks the short pulses
precisely; a longer delay would reduce the benefit of the long
pulses. The condition for selection of FFL over a simple-
AND-gate found by solving equations (12) and (13) is that the
probability of short pulses is large enough
p > 1 −
The phase diagram for selection is shown in figure 5:
when δf(Zm)/ηβ is small, neither circuit is selected
(production costs outweigh benefits). At large δf(Zm)/ηβ,
the FFL is selected if short pulses are common enough
(equation (19)). If short pulses are rare, simple-AND circuits
are selected. At a given p, the higher the ratio of benefit to
Similar considerations apply in general to P(D) with
multiple peaks.Long-tailed pulse distributions, such as
P(D) ∼ D−γwith γ > 2, tend to show FFL selection (data
not shown). Equations (12) and (13) can be used to test
any distribution for its selection properties, and to generate
a selection ’phase diagram’ similar to figure 5.
The present model is a simplified treatment of the
dynamics of these gene circuits. In the appendix, we present
a more detailed model which takes into account the reactions
between an enzyme and its sugar substrate, as well as graded
input functions. The detailed model gives the same qualitative
Figure 5. Selection diagram for an environment with two types of
pulses, a short pulse D1with probability p, and a long pulse with
probability 1 − p. The parameter δf(Zm)/ηβ is the ratio of benefit
to production costs of protein Z. Three selection phases are shown,
where FFL, simple-AND regulation or neither circuit is selected.
Figure 6. Selection diagram in the environment of figure 5, for the
more detailed model presented in the appendix. The detailed model
includes costs for Y production, graded activation of Z and f(Z)
based on enzyme-ligand binding. Numerical solution of the detailed
model equations was used to find the optimal circuit for each value
of p and δf(Zm)/ηβ.
results as the analytical model discussed above (figure 6,
We presented a simple analysis of selection of gene-regulation
circuits with two inputs. This analysis is based on a cost–
benefit economy in an environment with a given distribution
of inputs. It yields general conditions on the environment
for selection of FFLs over simple regulation circuits.
find that FFLs can be better than simple regulation in long-
tailed or multi-modal environments with many short pulses.
E Dekel et al
The FFL is better when the environmental parameters are
such that the cell is exposed to frequent short pulses that
cannot be beneficially utilized.
in environments with exponential pulse distribution.
FFL is only useful in environments where pulse duration can
effectively be predicted based on whether it has outlasted a
given delay. The optimal delay in the FFL can also be readily
calculated for each environment.
The present cost–benefit analysis compares production
costs with benefits under a time-varying environment. This
cost is used as a criterion for a ’mathematically controlled
comparison [25, 31, 37] between different designs. It can be
stable solution . More generally, it would be important to
for gene circuits.
It is interesting to qualitatively apply the present analysis
in some sugar system, such as the arabinose (ara) system
[18–22], whereas simple-AND is selected in others, such as
the lactose (lac) system ?
Both ara and lac systems share the same X = CRP, a
transcription activator stimulated by Sx= cAMP, a signaling
molecule produced in the cell upon glucose starvation. Thus,
both ara and lac systems have the same Sxpulse distribution.
on the ratio of benefit to cost δf(Zm)/ηβ, in each system.
The benefit per lactose molecule (which is split into glucose +
molecule (approximately 70 ATPs per lactose utilized versus
approximately 30 ATPs per arabinose). Thus, the parameter
δf(Zm)/ηβ for the ara system may be more to the left in
figure 5 relative to the lac system, favoring selection of FFL
in the former.
Furthermore, the availability of Sy in the natural
environment of E. coli is different in the two systems. The
sugar arabinose (Syin the ara system) is thought to be far
more common than lactose (Syin the lac system) over most of
the natural habitat of E. coli within its mammalian host .
Wedonot, however, knowthejointprobabilitydistributionfor
pulses of the two signals Sxand Syin the natural environment.
The present theory suggests how differences in the joint pulse
distributions of the two sugars might affect FFL selection.
Evolutionary cost–benefit analysis can also explain the
selection of the values of the biochemical parameters in a
given circuit [12, 25–48], as demonstrated by calculating the
optimal FFL delay τ (equations (12)–(16)) as function of the
environment. The value of τ is predicted to be on the time-
scale of the deleterious short Sxpulses in the environment.
In the ara system of E. coli, τ was experimentally found to
be about 0.2 cell generations (about 20 min) . Indeed,
Sx(cAMP) is known to have spike-like pulses on a similar
time-scale when E. coli cells make transitions between
carbon sources  or undergo sudden changes in growth
rate .Therefore, the FFL in this system may have
’learned’ the typical timescale of deleterious input pulses in
The FFL is not selected
Conclusions and outlook
The present study examined the selection of a network
motif, the feed-forward loop, over simpler regulation circuits,
using cost–benefit analysis. The selection between simple
distribution of input signals in the organisms’ environment.
This study makes predictions that are, in principle,
experimentally testable. For example, the theory could be
tested by studying a gene-regulation system in cells evolving
under laboratory environments [55–58] of pulse distributions.
One could then track the evolution of circuit architectures that
according to the theory should be either selected or lost.
We currently have more information about the structure
of some gene circuits than about the precise ecology in which
they evolved. The present approach makes predictions on the
environment based on the observed gene-regulation networks.
constraints on the possible environments that could give rise
to observed circuits. It would be interesting to analyze the
environmental selection of the structure and parameters of
other gene circuits.
We thank all members of our lab and M Savageau, M Elowitz,
R Heinrich and E Klipp for discussions.
supported by NIH, Minerva and ISF. ED was supported by
a Clore postdoctoral fellowship.
This study was
We analyze a detailed model based on E. coli sugar
utilization systems. The analysis employs the large separation
of timescales in the problem: sugars bind and activate
transcription factors within milliseconds, transcription factors
bind to promoters within seconds and transcription changes
are therefore taken at steady state within the equations for
Protein production dynamics
configuration, and is not regulated in the case of simple-AND
configuration. Transcription factor X becomes active when it
binds Sx. When no Sxis present, X is in its inactive form, X∗=
0. When saturating Sxis added, X∗= Xst. The active protein
Kxy, resulting in a Michaelis–Menten term for the promoter
activity of Y. As a result, Y is produced and degraded/diluted
When Syis present at saturating levels, we have
Environmental selection of the feed-forward loop circuit in gene-regulation networks
Z is regulated by both X and Y, which bind the Z promoter
with dissociation constants Kxz and Kyz, respectively. We
the probability that both X∗and Y∗bind their sites in the Z
promoter is the product of the Michaelis–Menten probabilities
The resulting dynamics of Z expression is
to Sxattime t=0according toequation (A.1):
Kxy+ Xst(1 − e−αt) + Y0e−αt
1 + a2
1 − e−αt
?ln(eαt(1 + a2) − a2)
1 + a2
and Y0, Z0 are the values of Y, Z at time t = 0.
similar manner, one can readily construct the solution for
environmental conditions, that changes between piecewise
constant values of Sxand Sy.
We now describe the effective optimization goal in order to
growth rate integrated over time. The growth rate is
g = −ηxβx− ηyβy
Y + Kyz
where ηxβx, ηyβyand ηzβzare the growth cost for producing
X, Y and Z. The last term represents the benefit from Sy
metabolism, which is proportional to the action of enzyme
Z and its substrate Syupon binding. Z and Syform a complex
[ZSy] whose concentration at equilibrium is
[ZSy] = Kz[Z][Sy](A.10)
where Kzis the dissociation constant of enzyme Z to sugar
Sy. Two conservation laws for Z and Syhold
[ZT] = [Z] + [ZSy],
are the total (bound and unbound)
concentrations of Z and Sy.
?= [Sy] + [ZSy],
where ZT and ST
Equations (A.10)–(A.12) can be solved to yield a
quadratic form for [ZSy]:
Note equation (A.13) for [ZSy] reduces to standard Michaelis–
Menten forms when enzyme concentration is much lower than
the sugar concentration, or vice versa.
The benefit function is the rate of metabolism of Sytimes
the growth advantage per Symolecule metabolized, δ0. In the
Michaelis–Menten enzyme picture, the velocity of enzyme Z
is v[ZSy], and
δf(Z) = δ0v[ZSy],
where v is the velocity of enzyme Z.
We compare the FFL and the simple-AND circuits under
conditions (Sx(t) and Sy(t) profiles), we calculated the
dynamics of Y and Z using equations (A.1)–(A.14). Then,
using the fitness function (equation (A.9)), we calculated
the temporally integrated growth rate of cells with FFL or
simple-AND circuits. We optimized the growth rate of cells
by finding the optimal values for the affinity and production
constants βy,βz,Kxy,Kyz,Kxz that give maximal growth.
The optimization was done separately for the FFL and for the
simple-AND configurations by using numerical Nelder–Mead
simplex optimization (Matlab 6.5). The optimal growth rate
of the two circuits was used to calculate the selection diagram
on the cells economy of costs and benefits. Production of
proteins costs energy and other resources and therefore
reduces the cells growth rate. The benefit comes from the
function of the proteins (for example, the utilization of sugar
by enzymes) that increases the growth rate. Cost–benefit
analysis can design the optimal protein levels that maximize
a fitness function such as growth rate.
Evolutionary analysis that is based
ecology of an organism based on the structure of the gene
circuits that have evolved in that ecology.
Finding constraints on the possible
are parameters of the system, into regions in which the
system behavior has a particular characteristic. When the
region boundaries are crossed, the system characteristic
Diagram that sections a space, whose axes
Simple regulation, simple-AND-gate regulation.
A configuration where transcription factor X and
transcription factor Y both regulate gene Z, but X does not
regulate Y and vice versa. Both inputs are needed to be active
in order to cause transcription of the gene.
E Dekel et al
Feed-forward loop (FFL).
transcription factor X regulates transcription factor Y and
both regulate gene Z. In this study, we considered an FFL
where both X and Y are needed to activate Z (an AND-gate
coherent type-1 FFL according to ).
A gene circuit in which
 Shen-Orr S S, Milo R, Mangan S and Alon U 2002 Nat. Genet.
 Milo R, Shen-Orr S, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Chklovskii D and
Alon U 2002 Science 298 824–7
 Milo R, Itzkovitz S, Kashtan N, Levitt R, Shen-Orr S,
Ayzenshtat I, Sheffer M and Alon U 2004 Science 303
 Alon U 2003 Science 301 1866–7
 Mangan S and Alon U 2003 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100
 Mangan S, Zaslaver A and Alon U 2003 J. Mol. Biol. 334
 Eichenberger P et al 2004 PLoS Biol. 2 1664–83
 Lee T I et al 2002 Science 298 799–804
 Teichmann S A and Babu M M 2004 Nat. Genet. 36 492–6
 Davidson E H 2002 Science 295 1669–78
 Odom D T et al 2004 Science 303 1378–81
 Conant G C and Wagner A 2003 Nat. Genet. 34 264–6
 Buchler N E, Gerland U and Hwa T 2003 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.
USA 100 5136–41
 Setty Y, Mayo A E, Surette M G and Alon U 2003 Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 100 7702–7
 Bolouri H and Davidson E H 2002 Bioessays 24 1118–29
 Kremling A, Bettenbrock K, Laube B, Jahreis K, Lengeler J W
and Gilles E D 2001 Metab. Eng. 3 362–79
 Ozbudak E M, Thattai M, Lim H N, Shraiman B I and
Van Oudenaarden A 2004 Nature 427 737–40
 Wilcox G, Meuris P, Bass R and Englesbe E 1974 J. Biol.
Chem. 249 2946–52
 Casadaban M J 1976 J. Mol. Biol. 104
 Johnson C M and Schleif R F 1995 J. Bacteriol. 177 3438–42
 Schleif R 1996 Two positively regulated systems, ara and mal
Escherichia coli and Salmonella vol 1 ed F C Neidhardt
(Washington, DC: ASM Press) pp 1300–9
 Schleif R 2000 Trends Genet. 16 559–65
 Brown C T and Callan C G Jr 2004 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
 Rosen R 1967 Optimality Principles in Biology (London:
 Savageau M 1976 Biochemical Systems Analysis: A Study of
Function and Design in Molecular Biology (Reading, MA:
 Heinrich R and Holzhutter H G 1985 Biomed. Biochim. Acta
 Arkin A and Ross J 1994 Biophys. J. 67 560–78
 Melendez-Hevia E, Waddell T G and Montero F 1994 J. Theor.
Biol. 166 201–20
 Heinrich R and Klipp E 1996 J. Theor. Biol. 182 243–52
 Heinrich R and Schuster S 1996 The Regulation of Cellular
Systems (London: Chapman and Hall)
 Savageau M A 1998 Genetics 149 1677–91
 Klipp E and Heinrich R 1999 Biosystems 54 1–14
 McAdams H H and Arkin A 2000 Curr. Biol. 10 R318–20
 Ouzounis C A and Karp P D 2000 Genome Res. 10 568–76
 Timothy S G, Cantor C R and Collins J J 2000 Nature 403
 Becskei A and Serrano L 2000 Nature 405 590–3
 Savageau M A 2001 Chaos 11 142–59
 Ibarra R U, Edwards J S and Palsson B O 2002 Nature 420
 Hasty J 2002 Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99 16516–8
 Yokobayashi Y, Weiss R and Arnold F H 2002 Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 99 16587–91
 Lenski R E, Ofria C, Pennock R T and Adami C 2003 Nature
 Fong S S, Marciniak J Y and Palsson B O 2003 J. Bacteriol.
 Xie G, Keyhani N O, Bonner C A and Jensen R A 2003
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 67 303–42
 Thattai M and Shraiman B I 2003 Biophys. J. 85 744–54
 McAdams H H, Srinivasan B and Arkin A P 2004 Nat. Rev.
Genet. 5 169–78
 Wall M E, Hlavacek W S and Savageau M A 2004 Nat. Rev.
Genet. 5 34–42
 Zaslaver A, Mayo A E, Rosenberg R, Bashkin P, Sberro H,
Tsalyuk M, Surette M G and Alon U 2004 Nat. Genet. 36
 Reich J G 1983 Biomed. Biochim. Acta. 42 839–48
 Endy D, You L, Yin J and Molineux I J 2000 Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 97 5375–80
 Segre D, Vitkup D and Church G M 2002 Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 99 15112–7
 Rosenfeld N, Elowitz M B and Alon U 2002 J. Mol. Biol. 323
 Perkins T J, Hallett M and Glass L 2004 J. Theor. Biol. 230
 Maynard Smith J 1974 J. Theor. Biol. 47 209–21
 Weber J, Kayser A and Rinas U 2005 Microbiology 151
 Dykhuizen D E and Hartl D L 1983 Microbiol. Rev. 47 150–68
 Elena S F and Lenski R E 2003 Nat. Rev. Genet. 4 457–69
 Cooper T F, Rozen D E and Lenski R E 2003 Proc. Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 100 1072–7
 De Visser J A and Lenski R E 2002 BMC Evol. Biol. 2 19
 Rosenfeld N and Alon U 2003 J. Mol. Biol. 13 645–54