Open access peer-reviewed chapter

# Mechanical Models of Microtubules

By Slobodan Zdravković

Submitted: May 7th 2017Reviewed: September 21st 2017Published: May 2nd 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.71181

## Abstract

Microtubules are the major part of the cytoskeleton. They are involved in nuclear and cell division and serve as a network for motor proteins. The first model that describes nonlinear dynamics of microtubules was introduced in 1993. Three nonlinear models are described in this chapter. They are longitudinal U-model, representing an improved version of the first model, radial φ -model and new general model. Also, two mathematical procedures are explained. These are continuum and semi-discrete approximations. Continuum approximation yields to either kink-type or bell-type solitons, while semi-discrete one predicts localized modulated waves moving along microtubules. Some possible improvements and suggestions for future research are discussed.

### Keywords

• microtubules
• partial and ordinary differential equations
• kink solitons
• breathers

## 1. Introduction

A cell is defined as eukaryotic if it has a membrane-bound nucleus. Such cells are generally larger and much more sophisticated than prokaryotic ones. Microtubules (MTs) are the basic components of cytoskeleton existing in eukaryotes [1]. They are long structures that spread between a nucleus and a cell membrane. MTs play an essential role in the shaping and the maintenance of cells and are involved in cell division. Also, they represent a network for motor proteins. These proteins move with a velocity of 0.12μm/s[2] carrying a certain cargo such as mitochondrion.

All eukaryotic cells produce two kinds of tubulin proteins. These are αand βtubulins, or monomers, and they spontaneously arrange head to tail forming biologically functional subunit that we call a heterodimer, or a dimer for short. When intracellular conditions favor assembly, the dimers assemble into long structures called protofilaments (PFs). Microtubules are usually formed of 13 PFs, as shown in Figure 1.

Hence, MTs are long cylindrical polymers whose lengths vary from a few hundred nanometers up to meters in long nerve axons [4]. Each dimer is an electric dipole whose mass and length are m=1.8×1022 kgand l=8 nm, respectively [5]. The component of its electric dipole moment in the direction of PF is p=337Debye=1.13×1027 Cm[6]. Consequently, MT as a whole appears to be a giant dipole with negatively charged end coinciding with biologically positive end (more active) and vice versa. This is the reason why an intrinsic electric field exists within MT.

MTs in non-neuronal cells are unstable structures. They exhibit dynamic instability behavior existing in phases of elongation (polymerization) or rapid shortening (depolymerization). This size fluctuation has been called as dynamic instability [7, 8]. Notice that the shrinkage rate is bigger than the growth rate (see Ref. [9] and references therein). MTs grow steadily at positive end, corresponding to the β– subunit, and then shrink rapidly by loss of tubulin dimers at the negative end, corresponding to the α–monomer. Many anticancer drugs, for example, taxol (paclitaxel), prevent growth and shrinkage of MTs and thus prevent cell proliferation [10].

MTs existing in neuronal cells are stable and, consequently, neurons, once formed, do not divide [4]. This stability is crucial as there are evidences that neuronal MTs are responsible for processing, storage and transduction of biological information in a brain [4, 11].

It was mentioned that MTs represent the traffic road for motor proteins. Some more information can be found in Ref. [9] and in an exhaustive review paper [12]. It suffices now to state that the cellular motors with dimensions of less than 100 nm convert chemical energy into useful work. These small machines have the fundamental role of dissipation in biological systems, which has been confirmed by both the theoretical and the experimental investigations [13]. The molecular motors dissipate continuously and operate as irreversible systems [13].

It is clear that any molecular motor, to start moving, should obtain a certain signal. One of the promising dynamical mechanisms for intracellular signaling is solitary waves, which is explained in this chapter.

## 2. Mechanical models

MTs, as well as all biological systems, are nonlinear in nature. Strong covalent chemical bonds are usually modeled by linear “springs”, while weak chemical interactions, existing in all biological systems, are modeled by nonlinear “springs”. This means that expressions for energy of biological systems require nonlinear terms, which brings about nonlinear partial differential equations (PDEs) explaining nonlinear dynamics of these systems. This is the topic of the present chapter. We will see that, in case of MTs, the solutions of these nonlinear PDEs are solitary waves.

The word soliton was introduced in 1965 to designate solitary waves describing the propagation of excitations in continuous media with nonlinearity and dispersion [14]. The first qualitative description of solitary waves dates back to 1834 when hydrodynamic engineer John Scott Russell observed them on a surface in a shallow channel [15]. The wave was so stable that the engineer followed it about 1 or 2 miles. From then, there has been tremendous interest for various kinds of solitons in many branches of physics [15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. In this chapter, the terms soliton and solitary waves are treated as synonyms, which is commonly accepted in literature.

Solitons are localized waves possessing some interesting properties. The most important is their stability in a sense that they conserve their shape and energy after mutual interaction. In other words, they can pass through one another without annihilation. This was experimentally observed in neurons [20].

To model complex MT dynamics, we should introduce some simplifications. To the best of the author’s knowledge, all the models introduced so far have only one degree of freedom per dimer. Hence, for the models explained in this chapter, elementary subunits of PFs are dimers and they perform either longitudinal or angular oscillations and the appropriate models can be called as longitudinal or angular (radial), respectively.

The longitudinal contacts along PFs are much stronger than those between adjacent PFs [21, 22], which allows us to construct a simplified Hamiltonian of MT, which is, practically, Hamiltonian for a single PF only. However, the influence of the neighboring PFs is taken into consideration through the electric field. Namely, each dimer exists in the electric field coming from the dimers belonging to all PFs. Also, the nearest neighbor approximation is assumed.

## 3. U-model

The first model that describes nonlinear dynamics of MTs is a longitudinal one. It was introduced in 1993 by Satarić et al. [23]. According to the model, the dimers perform angular oscillations but a coordinate u, describing the dimer’s displacement, is a projection of the top of the dimer on the direction of PF. Therefore, the displacements are radial but the used coordinate is longitudinal. There is a real longitudinal model assuming longitudinal displacements of the dimers that we call as Z-model [24]. Both U- and Z-models bring about equal crucial differential equations and the latter one will not be studied here.

Somewhat improved and more general version of the first nonlinear model is what we call as U-model [25] and this will be explained in the following paragraphs. Both models are based on the fact mentioned above that the dimers are electric dipoles and that the whole MT can be regarded as ferroelectric [23, 26], which means that the interaction between a single dimer and its surrounding can be modeled by W-potential [23, 27]. This yields to the following Hamiltonian for MT [23, 25, 28]

Hu=nm2u̇n2+ku2un+1un212Aun2+14Bun4QEunE1

where dot means the first derivative with respect to time while the integer ndetermines the position of the considered dimer in PF. The first term obviously represents a kinetic energy of the dimer of mass m. The second one is interaction between the neighboring dimers belonging to the same PF in the nearest neighboring approximation and kis an intradimer stiffness parameter. The next two terms represent the W-potential energy mentioned earlier, where the parameters Aand Bshould be determined or, at least, estimated and are assumed to be positive. We should point out that the double-well potential is rather common in physics [27, 29, 30]. The very last term is coming from the fact that the dimer is the electric dipole existing in the field of all other dimers, where Q > 0 represents the excess charge within the dipole and E > 0 is internal electric field. The last three terms together can be regarded as unsymmetrical W-potential.

Our final goal is the function unt, describing nonlinear dynamics of MT. This function is a solution of so-called dynamical equation of motion, which can be obtained from Eq. (1). To derive it, we introduce generalized coordinates qnand pndefined as qn=unand pn=mdun/dt. Using well-known Hamilton’s equations of motion dpn/dt=dH/dqnand dqn/dt=dH/dpn, we obtain the following discrete differential equation that should be solved

mu¨n=kuun+1+un12un+AunBun3+QEγu̇nE2

The last term is a viscosity force with γbeing a viscosity coefficient [23]. Therefore, nonlinear dynamics of MTs has been described by Eq. (2). Obviously, nonlinearity is coming from the fourth degree term in the W-potential.

It was explained earlier that we used some approximations to derive Eq. (2). However, we need one more to solve it. We now explain two mathematical methods for solving this equation. Practically, these two approaches are two approximations. They are continuum and semi-discrete approximations. We will see that the different mathematical procedures yield to different solutions. Therefore, the function untdepends not only on the physical system but also on the used mathematical method.

Let us explain the continuum approximation first. A question if MTs are discrete or continuum systems was studied in Ref. [31], where it was shown that the continuum approximation is valid. The continuum approximation means a transition untuxt, which allows a series expansion of the terms un±1, that is, un±1u±uxl+122ux2l2, where lis the dimer’s length explained earlier. In fact, PF can be seen as one-dimensional crystal with lbeing a period of the lattice. This straightforwardly brings about the following continuum dynamical equation of motion

m2ut2kul22ux2QEAu+Bu3+γut=0E3

This is PDE that cannot be easily solved. Hopefully, this equation can be transformed into an ordinary differential equation (ODE). It is well known that, for a given wave equation, a traveling wave uξis a solution which depends upon xand tonly through a unified variable ξas ξ=κxωt, where κand ωare constants. If we substitute the variables xand tby ξwe straightforwardly transform Eq. (3) into the following ODE

αuΨρuΨΨ+Ψ3σ=0E4

where udu/dξand

u=ABΨ,αu=mω2kul2κ2A,σ=qEAA/B,ρu=γωAE5

Eq. (4) becomes the appropriate one in Ref. [23] for αu=1. Therefore, the U-model is more general than its predecessor introduced in Ref. [23]. It is crucial that the parameter αucan be determined together with the function Ψfor known or estimated σand ρu. This is because αuhas very important physical meaning. The first term in Eq. (3) is the inertial term and it is coming from the kinetic energy in Hamiltonian (1), while the second one is the elastic one. Therefore, positive αumeans that the inertial term is bigger than the elastic one and vice versa.

Eq. (4) has already been solved using different mathematical procedures like standard procedure [23, 27, 29, 30] and method of factorization [31, 32]. There exists a group of procedures where the function Ψis represented as a serious expansion over other known function like Ψ=k=0NAkΦk. The function Φis usually known and we plug Ψinto Eq. (4) and determine the coefficients Ak. A common example for Φis a solution of Riccati equation, which is either tangent or tangent hyperbolic. As only the latter function may have physical meaning, we call the method as tangent hyperbolic function method (THFM) [25, 33, 34, 35] and extended or modified extended THFM [36]. The function Φcan also be one of Jacobian elliptic functions [37] and, even, unknown [38].

It is very likely that the most general procedure is the simplest equation method (SEM) [39, 40, 41] and its simplified version called as modified simplest equation method (MSEM) [42]. According to SEM, the series expansion is [39, 40, 41].

Ψ=A0+k=1NAkΦk+BkΦΦkE6

where A0, Akand Bkare coefficients that should be determined and Φrepresents the first derivative. In general, the function Φ=Φξis known and represents a solution of a certain ODE of lower order than the equation that should be solved. A commonly used example is the Riccati equation [40]

Φ+Φ22aΦb=0,a,b=constE7

To determine the positive integer Nin Eq. (6), we should plug Ψ=c/ξp, c=const, into Eq. (4) and concentrate our attention on the leading terms [42]. One can easily show that N=1for Eq. (4) as the leading terms are proportional to ξp+2and ξ3p.

The well-known general solution of Eq. (7) is [39, 40]

Φ=a+a2+btanha2+bξξ0E8

In what follows, we assume ξ0=0.

Our next step is determination of the parameters A0, A1, B1, a, band αu. According to Eqs. (6) for N=1and (7), we obtain the expressions for Ψ, Ψand Ψ3as required by Eq. (4), which yields to the following expression:

K3Φ3+K3'Φ3+K2Φ2+K2'Φ2+K1Φ+K1'Φ1+K0=0E9

Obviously, this is satisfied if all the coefficients are simultaneously equal to zero. This brings about a system of seven equations, which can be obtained using Mathematica or similar software [39]. One of them can be written as

K3A1B1×2αu+A1B12=0E10

indicating two possible relationships between the parameters A1and B1. Hence, there are a few cases to be studied. They are as follows [39]: (1) B1=0, a=0; (2) B1=0, a0; (3) A1=B1; (4) 2αu=A1B12, A1B10; (5) A1=0, a0and (6) A1=0, a=0.

It is obvious that the first case represents nothing but a simpler method called extended tanh-function method. The system mentioned earlier brings about [39]

8A032A0+σ=0,αu=A122,A1=ρu3A0,b=13A02A12E11

The final result is [39]

Ψi=A0i+A1iΦi,Φi=bitanhbiξE12

where A0iis the following three real solutions of the first of Eqs. (11)

A01=123cosF+3sinF,A02=123cosF3sinFE13
A03=13cosF,F=13arccosσσ0,σ0=233E14

Of course, these three solutions exist for σ<σ0. The case σ>σ0was discussed in Ref. [25].

All the three solutions are shown in Figure 2 for σ0.9σ0and ρu=1. Of course, these solutions reproduce previously known results [25]. Figure 2 shows that the solutions of Eq. (4) are kink and antikink solitons. More detailed analysis of their physical meaning is given in Ref. [25].

It was shown [42] that the second case is equal to the first one indicating that the value of ais irrelevant if B1=0. In other words, we could have assumed a simpler version of the Riccati equation neglecting the term 2aΦ.

The third case is more interesting. It turns out that, instead of the three lines in Figure 2, that is, the three solutions, we obtain infinitely many lines corresponding to each of them [39]. However, they represent three groups of parallel lines, which means that all these solutions are only shifted functions and, consequently, have equal physical meaning. Therefore, this case does not bring about any physically new result.

Case 4 is suggested by Eq. (10). The system of seven equations, mentioned earlier, gives the first and the last term in Eq. (11) as well as

a=0,A1=2B1,αu=B122,B1=ρu3A0E15

The final expression for Ψis

Ψξ=A013A02tanhy+1sinhy,y=3A02ρu13A02ξE16

This case yields to a new solution, which was not obtained using less general mathematical methods. However, it may be interesting from mathematical point of view only as Ψdiverges for ξ=0.

Case 5 is a simplified version of SEM, explained in Ref. [42]. The mentioned system brings about ρu=0as well as

B1=A0a,αu=B122,A03A0σ=0,b=a2A0212A02E17

where a notation A0has been introduced to distinguish this parameter from A0, used in the previous cases. It is interesting to compare the polynomials for A0and A0, existing in Eqs. (11) and (17). We can see that.

A0i=2A0i,i=1,2,3E18

which means that the values for A0iare given by Eqs. (13), (14) and (18). We can easily show that the final solution for Ψis [39]

Ψ=A0A0K2cosh2aKξ1+KtanhaKξ,K=3A021A02E19

Obviously, this function cannot diverge for any value of but only for 1<K<1. Also, Kshould be real and these two requirements eliminate Ψ2and Ψ3[39], which means that Ψand A0in Eq. (19) are Ψ1and A01.

The function Ψ1ξis shown in Figure 3 for a=0.1and for two values of the parameter σ. We notice very interesting result that is a bell-type soliton! This certainly demonstrates the advantage of SEM method over the less general ones.

It is important to study the physical meanings of the parameters aand σ. Eq. (19) indicates that solitonic width is inversely proportional to aand that adoes not affect maximum of the wave. Figure 3 shows that the amplitude of Ψ1is a decreasing function with respect to σ.

Finally, the last case gives the solution

Ψ=±2sin2bξ,b<0E20

which is obviously divergent for bξ=, k=0,±1,±2,.

Therefore, all the cases are explained and we can see that the continuum approximation yields to both kink solitons and bell-type solitons. The latter may exist only if viscosity is neglected.

It was stated earlier that the coordinate uwas the projection of the top of the dimer on the direction of MT. A patient reader may ask how ucan be negative when this is the projection. This question is answered in Ref. [28].

It was mentioned earlier that there are two approximations that can be used to solve Eq. (2). Now we get back to Eq. (2) and study semi-discrete one [15, 28, 43]. A mathematical basis for the method is a multiple-scale method or a derivative-expansion method [16, 44]. We assume small oscillations

unt=εΦnt,ε<<1E21

which straightforwardly transforms Eq. (2) into

εmΦ¨n=εkΦn+1+Φn12Φn+εAΦnε3BΦn3+qE+Oε4E22

According to the semi-discrete approximation, we look for wave solution which is a modulated wave, that is [28, 45]

Φnt=Fξeiθn+εF0ξ+εF2ξei2θn+cc+Oε2E23
ξ=εnlεt,θn=nqlωtE24

where ω is the optical frequency of the linear approximation, q = 2π/λ > 0 is the wave number, cc represents complex conjugate terms and the function F0 is real. Of course, lis the dimer’s length, as mentioned earlier. The function Fis continuous and represents an envelope, while exp(iθn), including discreteness, is a carrier component. Notice that the parameter ε exists in the function F, but does not in exp(iθn). This is because the frequency of the carrier wave is much higher than the frequency of the envelope and we need two time scales, tand εt, for those two functions. The same holds for the coordinate scales.

To simplify the problem, a continuum limit nlzshould be introduced as well as new transformations Z=εzand T=εt. This allows a series expansion of Fξ, that is

Fεn±1lεtFZT±FZZTεl+12FZZZTε2l2E25

where indexes Zand ZZdenote the first and the second derivative with respect to Z. Hence, the function Φntbecomes

Φnt=Fe+Fe+εF0+F2ei2θ+F2ei2θE26

where stands for complex conjugate and FFZT. All this allows us to obtain the expressions existing in Eq. (22), such as Φn+1+Φn12Φn, Φnand Φn3, and Eq. (22) becomes [28]

ε3FTT2iε2ωFTεω2Fe4iε3ωF2T+4ε2ω2F2ei2θ+cc==εkm2Fcosql1+2lFZsinql+ε2l2FZZcosqle+εkm2εF2cos2ql1+2iε2lF2Zsin2qlei2θ+Cm+εAmFe+εF0+εF2ei2θε3Bm3F2Fe+F3ei3θ+cc+Oε4E27

This crucial expression represents a starting point for a series of important expressions. They can be obtained equating the coefficients for the various harmonics. For example, equating the coefficients for eand neglecting all the terms with ε2and ε3one obtains the following expressions for the dispersion relation ω=ωqand the group velocity dω/dq:

ω2=2kum1cosqlAm,Vg=lkusinqlE28

Also, the coefficients for ei0=1and ei2θ, respectively give [28]

ε2F0=CA,F2=0E29

which yields to

un=εFeiθnCA+ccE30

Eqs. (28) and (29) and new coordinates Sand τ, defined as S=ZVgTand τ=εT, allows us to simplify Eq. (27). An explanation for why the parameter εexists in the time scaling but is absent in the space scaling is given in Refs. [45, 46]. If we consider the terms for eagain we obtain the well-known nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) for the function F

iFτ+PFSS+QF2F=0E31

where the dispersion coefficient Pand the coefficient of nonlinearity Qare

P=12ωkul2mcosqlVg2,Q=3B2E32

Even though Eq. (31) is PDE, its solution exists. This well-known solution, existing for PQ>0, is [15, 47, 48]

FSτ=AesechSueτLeexpiueSucτ2P,ue>2ucE33

where parameters ueand ucrepresent envelope and carrier component velocities, while the amplitude Aeand the soliton width Lehave the forms

Ae=ue22ueuc2PQ,Le=2Pue22ueucE34

It is very difficult to deal with the parameters ueand ucas ue>2ucis completely unprecise statement. However, uc/ue<0.5seems to be more practical. Hence, new parameters Ueand ηhave been introduced as Ue=εue, η=uc/ueand 0η<0.5[45]. Finally, we can easily obtain the expression for the longitudinal displacement of the dimer at the position n

unt=A0sechnlVetLcosΘnlΩtCAUntCAE35

where

A02εAe=2Ue12η2PQ,LLeε=2PUe12ηE36
Ve=Vg+Ue,Θ=q+Ue2P,Ω=ω+Vg+ηUeUe2PE37

One more parameter can be eliminated using the idea of coherent mode [49]. This mode means that the envelope and the carrier wave velocities are equal. It follows from Eq. (35) that Ve=Ω/Θ, which yields to the function Ueη. This means that the wave untis the one phase function, preserving its shape in time.

To plot the function untor, equivalently, Untwe should know or estimate the values of a couple of the parameters. Of course, if 2D plot is chosen, Untcan be presented as either a function of tat a certain position nor as a function of nfor chosen t. Very detailed analysis of the parameter selection was done in Ref. [28]. One example for q=2π/Nlis shown in Figure 4. Obviously, this is a localized modulated wave usually called as breather. We can see that its width is about 200 nm, which means that it covers about 25 dimers.

As a conclusion, we can state that the two mathematical procedures bring about even three results, that is, three different solitons. These are kinks, bell-type solitons and breathers. They may be signals for the motor proteins to start moving, as explained in Introduction.

Obviously, viscosity has been neglected. This will be explained in the following section, within the φ-model.

## 4. φ-model

A weak point of the U-model is the last term in Eq. (1). A scalar product pE=QdEcosφnwould be better choice for the potential energy, where dis the distance between the centers of positive and negative charges within the dipole. This potential indicates the angle as a coordinate instead of the projection uand the Hamiltonian for the radial model, which we call as φ-model, is [50, 51]

Hφ=nI2φ̇n2+kφ2φn+1φn2pEcosφnE38

where Iis a moment of inertia of the dimer at the position n. Notice that the W-potential does not exist in Eq. (38) even though the terms including φn2and φn4appear as a result of a series expansion of the cosine function. Instead of viscosity force introduced in the previous section, we introduce viscosity momentum Mv=Γφ̇, where Γis the viscosity coefficient [51, 52, 53]. Following the procedure explained earlier, we obtain

αφΨρφΨ+ΨΨ3=0E39

where

φ=Ψ6,αφ=Iω2kφl2κ2pE,ρφ=ωΓpEE40

Like above, the solutions are kink solitons [50].

It is very interesting to compare the expressions for αuand αφ, given by Eqs. (5) and (40). They can be written as

αu=mκ2Av2cu2,cu2=kul2mE41

and

αφ=Iκ2pEv2cφ2,cφ2=kφl2IE42

where v=ω/κis the soliton velocity, while cuand cφare corresponding sound velocities. According to Eq. (11), we can see that the U-model predicts cu>vas Ais positive. On the other hand, αφ=2ρφ2/9>0[50] means that, according to the φ-model, the kink belongs to the class of supersonic solitons. We will return to this issue in the next section.

Now, we switch to the semi-discrete approximation within the φ-model to solve the dynamical equation of motion, which is [51]

εIΦ¨n=εkφΦn+1+Φn12ΦnεpEΦn+ε3pEΦn3+Oε4E43

where φ=εΦhas been used. Of course, Eq. (43) is analog to Eq. (22). Following the procedure explained in the previous section, we straightforwardly obtain F0=0and F2ξ=0, as well as

ω2=ω02+4kIsin2ql/2,ω0=pE/I,Vg=lksinqlE44

where ω0is the lowest frequency of the oscillations [59]. Also, we easily obtain NLSE (31), where

P=12ωl2kIcosqlVg2,Q=3pE2.E45

The final solution φntis the same as Untexcept that Pand Qare different. Therefore, both the U- and the φ-models predict the breather waves moving through MT.

Finally, viscosity should be introduced in the semi-discrete approximation [51]. Due to viscosity momentum Mv=ΓΦ̇n, the final result φntincludes the expected exponential term eβt, where β=Γ/2I[51].

## 5. General model of MTs

It was mentioned earlier that the weak point of the U-model is the last term in Eq. (1). Also, it is better to use the radial coordinate φthan the longitudinal one as we assume angular oscillations of the dimers. The scalar product pE=QdEcosφn, existing in the φ-model, solved these problems but the W-potential has been missing. In fact, a series expansion of cosφngives φn2and φn4terms but with opposite signs from those in the U-model. These two terms are, practically, a potential that looks like W in a mirror having only one minimum surrounded by two maxima and, due to its shape, can be called as M-potential [54]. This potential brings about αφ>0, which is disputable result.

Therefore, we want to solve the mentioned problem regarding the U-model but to keep the W-potential, the coordinate φand, probably, Iω2<kl2κ2, that is, α<0. This suggests the following Hamiltonian

H=nI2φ̇n2+k2φn+1φn2A2φn2+B4φn4pEcosφnE46

where A>0, B>0and φnhas the same meaning as in the φ-model. Let us call the model as general one (GM). The procedure mentioned earlier brings about

Iω2kl2κ2φΓωφApEφ+BpE6φ3=0E47

where, of course, φφξ. If we consider Eqs. (3) and (47), we can see that the last two terms in Eq. (47) may be the first derivatives of either W- or M-potential, depending on the sign of the terms in the brackets. However, these brackets may have different signs or can be zero. Therefore, the possible cases are:

Case 1: ApEBpE6>0,      Case 2: ApEBpE6<0,

Case 3: A=pE, BpE6,                  Case 4: ApE, B=pE/6.

All of them are studied in Ref. [54] and they will be explained here briefly.

Case 1 straightforwardly yields to

α1Ψρ1Ψ+ΨΨ3=0E48

where

φ=±ApEBpE/6Ψ,α1=Iω2kl2κ2pEA,ρ1=ΓωpEAE49

and the final solution is [54]

φξ=K21+tanh34ρ1ξ,α1>0E50

Eq. (50) holds for both positive and negative ρ1. Therefore, φξrepresents kink soliton if ρ1>0and antikink one for negative ρ1, which is shown in Figure 5.

One of the advantages of the GM over the φ-model is the value of amplitude. Namely, the amplitude of the kink soliton, according to the φ-model, is 6, coming from Eq. (40). This is unrealistic, too big value. Instead of 6, the appropriate factor, existing in the GM, is K, given by Eq. (49).

If viscosity is neglected, the GM brings about

φ0=Ktanhξ/a,a2=2α1E51

Case 2 straightforwardly yields to

α2Ψρ2Ψ+Ψ+Ψ3=0,φ=±pEABpE/6ΨKΨE52

and to the final results

φ2=iK21+tanh34ρ2ξ,ρ20E53

and

φ20=Ktanξ/a,a2=2α,ρ2=0E54

It is obvious that these results do not have physical meaning as φ2is complex, while φ20may diverge.

α3Ψρ3Ψ+Ψ3=0,α3=Iω2kl2κ2BpE/6,ρ3=ΓωBpE/6E55

as well as a0=a=α3=ρ3=0, which certainly means that Eq. (55) does not have any solution having physical sense.

The remaining Case 4 linearizes Eq. (47) and will not be studied here.

Therefore, the GM yields to the kink solitons as the previous two models do. However, this is the radial model and the problems with both the last term in Eq. (1) and the huge amplitude in the case of the φ-model have been solved. We should study one more issue. It was mentioned earlier that the U-model predicts the subsonic kink soliton, while the φ-model predicts the supersonic wave. How about the GM? It was shown that Case 1 yields to the solutions having physical sense and that α1>0. According to Eq. (49), we easily reach the final conclusion:

1. If A>pEand B>pE/6, then ρ1<0and the function φxtis subsonic soliton, kink for the positive Kin Eq. (50) and antikink otherwise.

2. If A<pEand B<pE/6, then ρ1>0and the function φxtis supersonic soliton, antikink for the positive Kin Eq. (50) and kink otherwise.

All this certainly suggests the advantages of the GM with respect to the previous two.

## 6. Conclusion and future research

In this chapter, the three models describing nonlinear dynamics of MTs are shown. The first one, the U-model, is the improved version of the first nonlinear model and it predicts subsonic kink solitons moving along MT. The second one, the radial φ-model, predicts the supersonic kinks. Finally, the GM is explained. This is the radial model which yields both possibilities regarding the kink’s speed. If we assume that the kink soliton is subsonic wave then we know the minimum value of the parameter A, that is, A>pE, as explained earlier.

Two mathematical procedures are explained, continuum and semi-discrete approximations. It is very interesting that the final result depends not only on the physical system but on the mathematical methods as well. These solutions are the kink soliton and the breather. The question is which one, if any, really moves along MTs. This is not known in the moment and cannot be without experimental results.

It was demonstrated that the GM is better than the previous two models. However, this does not mean that it should not be improved. For example, there has been an attempt to improve the model introducing Morse potential instead of the harmonic one [55]. The harmonic potential energy assumes that attractive and repulsive forces are equal. Morse potential is not symmetric and is good for both strong and weak interactions.

In this chapter, the dimers are considered as elementary units. However, their structure is more complicated and they include tubulin tales (TTs). Consequently, nonlinear dynamics of TTs should also be studied and some results already exist [56, 57].

The W-potential has two minima which means that it assumes existence of the two angles between the dimer and the direction of PF around which the dimer oscillates. One of the future tasks should be measuring these angles. First of all, such experiment would check if the W-potential is correct or not. If it is, then our knowledge of their values would improve the theory a lot.

One of the future research goals should be two-component model. This may mean that we should construct the model assuming two degrees of freedom. However, one of these degrees can be an internal one, which means that oscillations if monomers within the dimer should be taken into consideration. Notice that the two-component model may be the one studying electro-acoustic wave excitations [58].

Finally, we should bear in mind the cytological and medical applications of the research explained in this chapter [59, 60, 61].

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funds from Serbian Ministry of Education, Sciences and Technological Development (grant No. III45010).

## How to cite and reference

### Cite this chapter Copy to clipboard

Slobodan Zdravković (May 2nd 2018). Mechanical Models of Microtubules, Complexity in Biological and Physical Systems - Bifurcations, Solitons and Fractals, Ricardo López-Ruiz, IntechOpen, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.71181. Available from:

### Related Content

Next chapter

#### The Dynamics Analysis of Two Delayed Epidemic Spreading Models with Latent Period on Heterogeneous Network

By Qiming Liu, Meici Sun and Shihua Zhang

First chapter

#### Some Commonly Used Speech Feature Extraction Algorithms

By Sabur Ajibola Alim and Nahrul Khair Alang Rashid

We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Built by scientists, for scientists. Our readership spans scientists, professors, researchers, librarians, and students, as well as business professionals. We share our knowledge and peer-reveiwed research papers with libraries, scientific and engineering societies, and also work with corporate R&D departments and government entities.

View all Books