Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Biomolecular LQR under Partial Observation

Xiaoyu Zhang, Zhou Fang

TL;DR

This work introduces a biomolecular Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) framework to study gene regulatory networks and shows that LQR-designed controllers implemented via Hill-function motifs reproduce common network motifs like negative autoregulation and incoherent feedforward loops under partial observation. By deriving analytical mappings between LQR parameters and biomolecular reaction rates, the authors connect the quadratic cost weights $Q$ to environmental survival goals, defining performance bounds such as $Q<3ar{ ext{ } }^2$ that constrain feasible control in simple circuits. The approach is validated through one- and two-gene simulations, demonstrating that biomolecular LQR controllers can achieve faster regulation, better disturbance rejection, and lower cumulative cost compared to open-loop designs, even when observing only partial states. Overall, the paper provides a theoretical link between evolutionary pressures and regulatory motifs, offering a principled framework for designing robust synthetic biological circuits that balance performance and resource costs.

Abstract

This paper introduces a biomolecular Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) to investigate the design principles of gene regulatory networks. We show that for fundamental gene regulation network, the bio-controller derived from LQR theory precisely recapitulate natural network motifs, such as auto-regulation and incoherent feedforward loops. This emulation arises from a fundamental principle: the LQR cost function mathematically encodes environmental survival demands, which subsequently drives the selection of both network topology and biochemical parameters. Our work thus establishes a theoretical basis for interpreting biological circuit design, directly linking evolutionary pressures to observable regulatory structures.

Biomolecular LQR under Partial Observation

TL;DR

This work introduces a biomolecular Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) framework to study gene regulatory networks and shows that LQR-designed controllers implemented via Hill-function motifs reproduce common network motifs like negative autoregulation and incoherent feedforward loops under partial observation. By deriving analytical mappings between LQR parameters and biomolecular reaction rates, the authors connect the quadratic cost weights to environmental survival goals, defining performance bounds such as that constrain feasible control in simple circuits. The approach is validated through one- and two-gene simulations, demonstrating that biomolecular LQR controllers can achieve faster regulation, better disturbance rejection, and lower cumulative cost compared to open-loop designs, even when observing only partial states. Overall, the paper provides a theoretical link between evolutionary pressures and regulatory motifs, offering a principled framework for designing robust synthetic biological circuits that balance performance and resource costs.

Abstract

This paper introduces a biomolecular Linear Quadratic Regulator (LQR) to investigate the design principles of gene regulatory networks. We show that for fundamental gene regulation network, the bio-controller derived from LQR theory precisely recapitulate natural network motifs, such as auto-regulation and incoherent feedforward loops. This emulation arises from a fundamental principle: the LQR cost function mathematically encodes environmental survival demands, which subsequently drives the selection of both network topology and biochemical parameters. Our work thus establishes a theoretical basis for interpreting biological circuit design, directly linking evolutionary pressures to observable regulatory structures.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 7 sections, 38 equations, 5 figures.

Figures (5)

  • Figure 1: LQR design of birth-death process
  • Figure 2: LQR of Case I for two-gene expression process.
  • Figure 3: LQR of Case II for two-gene expression process.
  • Figure 4: Camparsion between closed loop and open loop.
  • Figure 5: Comparison between closed loop and open loop.

Theorems & Definitions (8)

  • Remark 1
  • Remark 2
  • Remark 3
  • Remark 4
  • Remark 5
  • Remark 6
  • Example 1
  • Example 2