Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review Topical Sections

How membrane lipids control the 3D structure and function of receptors

  • The cohabitation of lipids and proteins in the plasma membrane of mammalian cells is controlled by specific biochemical and biophysical rules. Lipids may be either constitutively tightly bound to cell-surface receptors (non-annular lipids) or less tightly attached to the external surface of the protein (annular lipids). The latter are exchangeable with surrounding bulk membrane lipids on a faster time scale than that of non-annular lipids. Not only do non-annular lipids bind to membrane proteins through stereoselective mechanisms, they can also help membrane receptors acquire (or maintain) a functional 3D structure. Cholesterol is the prototype of membrane lipids that finely controls the 3D structure and function of receptors. However, several other lipids such as sphingolipids may also modulate the function of membrane proteins though conformational adjustments. All these concepts are discussed in this review in the light of representative examples taken from the literature.

    Citation: Jacques Fantini, Francisco J. Barrantes. How membrane lipids control the 3D structure and function of receptors[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(1): 22-35. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.1.22

    Related Papers:

    [1] Eric Ruggieri, Sebastian J. Schreiber . The Dynamics of the Schoener-Polis-Holt model of Intra-Guild Predation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2005, 2(2): 279-288. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2005.2.279
    [2] Ming Chen, Meng Fan, Congbo Xie, Angela Peace, Hao Wang . Stoichiometric food chain model on discrete time scale. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(1): 101-118. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019005
    [3] Renji Han, Binxiang Dai, Lin Wang . Delay induced spatiotemporal patterns in a diffusive intraguild predation model with Beddington-DeAngelis functional response. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(3): 595-627. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018027
    [4] Guangyu Sui, Meng Fan, Irakli Loladze, Yang Kuang . The dynamics of a stoichiometric plant-herbivore model and its discrete analog. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2007, 4(1): 29-46. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2007.4.29
    [5] Yangyang Li, Fengxue Zhang, Xianglai Zhuo . Flip bifurcation of a discrete predator-prey model with modified Leslie-Gower and Holling-type III schemes. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2003-2015. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020106
    [6] Yuanfu Shao . Bifurcations of a delayed predator-prey system with fear, refuge for prey and additional food for predator. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(4): 7429-7452. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023322
    [7] Ceyu Lei, Xiaoling Han, Weiming Wang . Bifurcation analysis and chaos control of a discrete-time prey-predator model with fear factor. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6659-6679. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022313
    [8] Soumitra Pal, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Arvind Kumar Misra, Hao Wang . Fear effect in a three-species food chain model with generalist predator. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1-33. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024001
    [9] Adnan Sami, Amir Ali, Ramsha Shafqat, Nuttapol Pakkaranang, Mati ur Rahmamn . Analysis of food chain mathematical model under fractal fractional Caputo derivative. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(2): 2094-2109. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023097
    [10] Md Nazmul Hassan, Angela Peace . Mechanistically derived Toxicant-mediated predator-prey model under Stoichiometric constraints. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(1): 349-365. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020019
  • The cohabitation of lipids and proteins in the plasma membrane of mammalian cells is controlled by specific biochemical and biophysical rules. Lipids may be either constitutively tightly bound to cell-surface receptors (non-annular lipids) or less tightly attached to the external surface of the protein (annular lipids). The latter are exchangeable with surrounding bulk membrane lipids on a faster time scale than that of non-annular lipids. Not only do non-annular lipids bind to membrane proteins through stereoselective mechanisms, they can also help membrane receptors acquire (or maintain) a functional 3D structure. Cholesterol is the prototype of membrane lipids that finely controls the 3D structure and function of receptors. However, several other lipids such as sphingolipids may also modulate the function of membrane proteins though conformational adjustments. All these concepts are discussed in this review in the light of representative examples taken from the literature.


    Ecological stoichiometry is an important part of ecology that links the metabolic demands of organisms with the relative supply of elements in the environment [1]. It examines the balance between energy and chemical elements and the extent to which this balance plays a part in determining the organisms' growth and reproduction and their ecological interactions. Recognizing the importance of stoichiometric limitations between predator requirements and the nutrient composition of prey has greatly enhanced our appreciation of trophic relationships. Many studies have demonstrated that ecological stoichiometry is a highly suitable framework for explaining predator responses to prey food quality [1,2,3,4].

    ons among individual organisms of different species (notably competition, predation/parasitism, mutualism, commensalism, or amensalism). Intraguild predation (IGP) within the cotope group contains two interaction types: competition and predation, and usually, there is not only a predatory relationship but also a potential competition relationship between two predatory species in order to compete for limited resources. IGP distinguishes itself from traditional predation by the fact that the behavior reduces potential competition for exploitation. The direct energy gain of predators makes IGP different from the traditional competition [5]. Thus, its effect on population dynamics is more complex and worth studying. IGP is a significant factor in predicting the stability of food webs and the maintenance of biodiversity, in addition to being a taxonomically widespread interaction within communities that can occur at different trophic levels [6]. The development of the IGP model can be traced back to Holt and Polis [7], who developed a three-species Lotka–Volterra food web model to study the species coexistence of IGP and found that achieving a stable three-species steady state is challenging. Following that, a series of studies examined IGP models with different structures and forms such as the Lotka–Volterra type [8,9,10], special forms of the functional and numerical response [11,12,13], prey switching or adaptive prey behavior [14,15], generalist predators or time delays [16,17,18], stochastic approaches [19,20,21], and stoichiometry [22,23].

    Diehl [22] investigated a model of competition among predators to explore stoichiometry as an IGP-intraguild mechanism. Later, the dynamic resource model of Loladze et al. [24] assumed that omnivores were the inferior carbon competitors and showed that dynamic interaction between autotroph quality and quantity could facilitate coexistence when resource quality is low. The system investigated in [22] is based on a continuous time scale. However, many plants in the wild and agricultural contexts have non-overlapping generations, and many herbivores have distinct annual or seasonal dynamics. Therefore, the main purpose of this paper is to propose a discrete-time version of the stoichiometric IGP model based on the continuous stoichiometric IGP model [22] and compare the differences in the dynamic behavior of models under different time scales. In particular, we focus on the following four questions: 1) How do the stoichiometric effects of food quality affect IGP? 2) What is the coexistence interval of the population for both models when the environmental parameter changes? 3) Can chaotic dynamics emerge under a biologically plausible parameter set, and if so, do the parameter ranges of the discrete-time model admit chaos, as in the continuous-time model? 4) Does multistability exist in both models?

    We construct the discrete-time IGP model with stoichiometry following the discretization approach in [25] and theoretically analyze the dynamical behavior of this model. The dynamical behavior is compared between the discrete- and continuous-time models, which leads to our conclusions.

    We consider the IGP system in [22] in the aquatic ecosystem. Zooplankton competes with fish for algae and is consumed by fish, which constitutes an IGP system. We use $ A(t) $, $ Z(t) $, and $ F(t) $ to represent the population density of algae, zooplankton, and fish at time $ t $, respectively. Then the continuous IGP model with stoichiometry takes the form [22]

    $ dAdt=rA(1Amin{K,(PTθZZθFF)/q})aAZ(A)ZaAF(A,Z)F,dZdt=eAZmin{1,(PTθZZθFF)/AθZ}aAZ(A)ZaZF(A,Z)FdZZ,dFdt=eAFmin{1,(PTθZZθFF)/AθF}aAF(A,Z)F+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A,Z)FdFF. $ (2.1)

    Here, $ r $ is the maximum growth rate of algae, $ K $ is the algae carrying capacity, and $ P_T $ is the total Phosphorus in the system. $ \theta_Z $ and $ \theta_F $ are the constant P (Phosphorus): C (Carbon) ratios of the zooplankton and fish, respectively. $ q $ is the minimal algae P:C ratio. $ d_Z $ and $ d_F $ are the specific loss rates of the zooplankton and fish, respectively. $ e_{AZ} $ denotes the conservation of algae into the zooplankton, $ e_{AF} $ represents the conservation of algae into the fish, and $ e_{ZF} $ denotes the conservation of zooplankton into the fish. The functions $ a_{AZ}(A) $, $ a_{AF}(A, Z) $, and $ a_{ZF}(A, Z) $ are the functional responses of the zooplankton feeding on algae, the fish feeding on algae, and the fish feeding on zooplankton, respectively.

    Similar to the functional response properties outlined in [26], it is assumed that $ a_{AZ}(A) $, $ a_{AF}(A, Z) $, and $ a_{ZF}(A, Z) $ are bounded smooth functions satisfying the following conditions:

    $ aAZ(0)=0,aAZ(A)>0,andaAZ(A)<0 for A>0.aAF(0,Z)=0,aAF(A,Z)A>0,2aAF(A,Z)2A<0,andaAF(A,Z)Z<0forA>0,Z>0.aZF(A,0)=0,aZF(A,Z)A<0,aZF(A,Z)Z>0,and2aZF(A,Z)2Z<0forA>0,Z>0. $

    Based on the above model, the time is discretized, and a discrete stoichiometry model is established. There are several approaches to deriving discrete-time dynamical systems that correspond to continuous time [27,28]. We discretize Eq (2.1) using the method developed by Fan [25]. This method employs differential equations with piecewise constant arguments by assuming that the per capita growth rate remains constant on a given time interval $ [t, t + 1] $. Then Eq (2.1) turns to the following system:

    $ 1A(t)dA(t)dt=r(1A[t]min{K,(PTθZZ[t]θFF[t])/q})aAZ(A[t])Z[t]A[t]aAF(A[t],Z[t])F[t]A[t],1Z(t)dZ(t)dt=eAZmin{1,PTθZZ[t]θFF[t]θZA[t]}aAZ(A[t])aZF(A[t],Z[t])F[t]Z[t]dZ,1F(t)dF(t)dt=eAFmin{1,PTθZZ[t]θFF[t]θFA[t]}aAF(A[t],Z[t])+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A[t],Z[t])dF,t0,1,2,... $ (2.2)

    where $ [t] $ denotes the integer part of $ t\in(0, +\infty) $. Then, we integrate both sides of Eq (2.2) on any interval $ [n, n+1), n = 0, 1, 2, ... $, and obtain, for $ n\leq t < n+1 $, $ n = 0, 1, 2, ... $,

    $ A(t)=A(n)exp{[r(1A(n)min{K,(PTθZZ(n)θFF(n))/q})aAZ(A(n))Z(n)A(n)aAF(A(n),Z(n))F(n)A(n)](tn)},Z(t)=Z(n)exp{[eAZmin{1,PTθZZ(n)θFF(n)θZA(n)}aAZ(A(n))aZF(A(n),Z(n))F(n)Z(n)dZ](tn)},F(t)=F(n)exp{[eAFmin{1,PTθZZ(n)θFF(n)θFA(n)}aAF(A(n),Z(n))+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A(n),Z(n))dF](tn)}. $

    Let $ t $ tends to $ n+1 $, then we get the final discrete-time system

    $ A(n+1)=A(n)exp{r(1A(n)min{K,(PTθZZ(n)θFF(n))/q})aAZ(A(n))Z(n)A(n)aAF(A(n),Z(n))F(n)A(n)},Z(n+1)=Z(n)exp{eAZmin{1,PTθZZ(n)θFF(n)θZA(n)}aAZ(A(n))aZF(A(n),Z(n))F(n)Z(n)dZ},F(n+1)=F(n)exp{eAFmin{1,PTθZZ(n)θFF(n)θFA(n)}aAF(A(n),Z(n))+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A(n),Z(n))dF} $ (2.3)

    for $ n \in \mathbb{N} $.

    Initial values should be considered in the biologically meaningful regions. Thus, we assume that $ 0 < A(0) $, $ 0 < Z(0) < P_T/\theta_Z $, and $ 0 < F(0) < P_T/\theta_F $. The meaning and values of most parameters are selected from [26] and [22], and are listed in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Parameters of Models (2.1) and (2.3).
    Parameter Description Values Unit
    $ P_T $ Total phosphorus in system $ 0.33 $ $ \mathrm{mg P L}^{-1} $
    $ e_{AZ} $ Conservation of algae to zooplankton $ 0.8 $
    $ e_{AF} $ Conservation of algae to fish $ 0.6 $
    $ e_{ZF} $ Conservation of zooplankton to fish $ 0.6 $
    $ r $ Maximal growth rate of algae $ 0.58 $ $ \mathrm{day}^{-1} $
    $ d_Z $ Loss rate of zooplankton $ 0.25 $ $ \mathrm{day}^{-1} $
    $ d_F $ Loss rate of fish $ 0.15 $ $ \mathrm{day}^{-1} $
    $ \theta_Z $ Constant $ \mathrm{P:C} $ of zooplankton 0.03 $ \mathrm{mgP/mgC} $
    $ \theta_F $ Constant $ \mathrm{P:C} $ of fish 0.03 $ \mathrm{mgP/mgC} $
    $ q $ Minimal $ \mathrm{P:C} $ of algae $ 0.003 $ $ \mathrm{mgP/mgC} $
    $ s_{AZ} $ Search and attack rate of zooplankton on algae $ 0.085 $ $ \mathrm{day^{-1}(mgC/m^3)^{-1}} $
    $ h_{AZ} $ Handing time of zooplankton feeding on algae $ 0.16 $ $ \mathrm{day/(mgC/m^3)} $
    $ s_{AF} $ Search and attack rate of fish on algae $ 0.08 $ $ \mathrm{day^{-1}(mgC/m^3)^{-1}} $
    $ h_{AF} $ Handing time of fish feeding on algae $ 0.4 $ $ \mathrm{day/(mgC/m^3)} $
    $ s_{ZF} $ Search and attack rate of fish on zooplankton $ 0.05 $ $ \mathrm{day^{-1}(mgC/m^3)^{-1}} $
    $ h_{ZF} $ Handing time of fish feeding on zooplankton $ 0.5 $ $ \mathrm{day/(mgC/m^3)} $
    $ K $ Carrying capacity of algae 0–120 $ \mathrm{mg C L}^{-1} $

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    In this section, boundedness and positive invariance results are fully analyzed for Eq (2.3) using arguments similar to those in Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 of [25]. It is easy to show that solutions of Eq (2.3) remain nonnegative when they exist.

    For convenience, we assume that $ a_{AZ}(A) = Af_{AZ}(A) $, $ a_{AF}(A, Z) = Af_{AF}(A, Z) $, and $ a_{ZF}(A, Z) = Zf_{ZF}(A, Z) $. From [29], we have

    $ limA0fAZ(A)=aAZ(0)<,andfAZ(A)<0forA>0.limA0fAF(A,Z)=aAF(0,Z)A<,fAF(A,Z)A<0andfAF(A,Z)Z<0forA>0,Z>0.limZ0fZF(A,Z)=aZF(A,0)Z<,fZF(A,Z)A<0andfZF(A,Z)Z<0forA>0,Z>0. $

    Theorem 3.1. For System (2.3), the following statements hold for all $ n > 0 $;

    $ A(n)max{A(0),K/rexp(r1)}S,Z(n)max{Z(0),g}exp(2eAZaAZ(S)2dZ)G,F(n)max{F(0),h}exp(2eAFaAF(S,0)+2eZFaZF(0,G)2dF)H, $

    where $ g $ and $ h $ satisfy

    $ eAZaAZ(exp(rfAZ(S)g))<dZ and eAFaAF(Sexp(rfAZ(S)gfAF(S,G)h),0)+eZFaZF(0,Gexp(eAZaAZ(S)fZF(S,G)hdZ))<dF. $

    Proof. Note that all components of the solution to Eq (2.3) are non-negative when they exist. It is easy to find that $ R(A) = A\exp r(1-A/K) $ attains its maximum value at $ A = K/r $. We obtain

    $ A(n+1)<A(n)exp{rrA(n)K}Krexp(r1)s. $

    Then

    $ A(n)max{A(0),s}S $

    for all non-negative integers $ n $.

    If $ e_{AZ}a_{AZ}(S)\leq{d_Z} $, it is easy to show that $ Z(n)\leq{Z(0)} $ for all $ n > 0 $. Thus, it is assumed that $ e_{AZ}a_{AZ}(S) > d_Z $. Let $ g $ be sufficiently large such that

    $ eAZaAZ(exp(rfAZ(S)g))<dZ. $

    We claim that

    $ Z(n)max{Z(0),g}exp(2eAZaAZ(S)2dZ)G $

    for all non-negative integers $ n $. This holds for $ n = 1, 2 $. Let us assume that this claim is false. We consider two cases.

    (Ⅰ) $ Z(0)\leq{g} $. Then for some $ n_1 > 2 $, $ g < Z(n_1-2)\leq{G} $, $ g < Z(n_1-1)\leq{G} $, and $ Z(n_1) > G $. In this case, we get

    $ A(n11)A(n12)exp(rfAZ(A(n12))Z(n12)fAF(A(n12),Z(n12))F(n12))A(n12)exp(rfAZ(A(n12))Z(n12))Sexp(rfAZ(S)g). $

    This implies that

    $ Z(n1)<Z(n11)exp{eAZaAZ(Sexp(rfAZ(S)g))dZ}<Z(n11)<G, $

    which is a contradiction, implying that the claim is true for this case.

    (Ⅱ) $ Z(0) > g $. In this case, we have

    $ A(1)<Sexp(rfAZ(S)g), $

    which indicates that

    $ Z(2)<Z(1). $

    That is, as long as $ Z(n) > g $, then $ Z(n+2) < Z(n+1) $. Then, there exists two cases: (ⅰ) $ Z(n^*)\leq{g} $ for some $ n^* > 0 $ or (ⅱ) $ Z(n) > g $ for all $ n > 0 $. In case (ⅱ), we have that $ Z(n) $ is strictly decreasing for $ n > 1 $, and the claim is obviously true. In case (ⅰ), from the proof of case (Ⅰ), we find that $ Z(n) < G $ for $ n > n^* $, and hence the claim is again true.

    If $ e_{AF}a_{AF}(S, 0)+e_{ZF}a_{ZF}(0, G)\leq{d_F} $, then it is clear that, for all $ n > 0 $, we have $ F(n)\leq{F(0)} $. Thus, we assume that $ e_{AF}a_{AF}(S, 0)+e_{ZF}a_{ZF}(0, G) > d_F $. Let $ g $, $ h $ be sufficiently large such that

    $ eAFaAF(Sexp(rfAZ(S)gfAF(S,G)h),0)+eZFaZF(0,Gexp(eAZfZF(S,G)hdZ))<dF. $

    We conclude that, for all non-negative integers $ n $,

    $ F(n)max{F(0),h}exp(2eAFaAF(S,0)+2eZFaZF(0,G)2dF)H. $

    This holds for $ n = 1, 2 $. Let us assume that this claim is not true. We consider two cases

    (Ⅰ$ ' $) $ F(0)\leq{h} $. Then, for some $ n_1 > 2 $, $ h < F(n_1-2)\leq{H} $, $ h < F(n_1-1)\leq{H} $, and $ F(n_1) > H $. In this case, we have

    $ F(n1)<F(n11)exp{eAFaAF(Sexp(rfAZ(S)gfAF(S,G)h),0)+eZFaZF(0,Gexp(eAZaAZ(S)fZF(S,G)hdZ))dF}<F(n11)<H, $

    which is a contradiction, implying that the claim is true for this case.

    (Ⅱ$ ' $) $ F(0) > h $. In this case, we have

    $ A(1)<Sexp(rfAZ(S)gfAF(S,G)h),Z(1)<Gexp(eAZaAZ(S)fZF(S,G)hdZ), $

    which implies that

    $ F(2)<F(1). $

    In other words, as long as $ F(n) > h $, then $ F(n+2) < F(n+1) $. Hence, there are two possibilities: (i$ ' $) $ F(n^*)\leq{h} $ for some $ n^* > 0 $ or (ii$ ' $) $ F(n) > h $ for all $ n > 0 $. In case (ii$ ' $), we have that $ F(n) $ is strictly decreasing for $ n > 1 $, and the claim is obviously true. In case (i$ ' $), from the proof of case (I$ ' $), we see that $ F(n) < H $ for $ n > n^* $, and then the claim is again true.

    From the above theorem, we obtain the conclusion that

    $ △={(A,Z,F):0<A<Krexp(r1),0<Z<g,0<F<h} $

    is positively invariant. Indeed, we have the following theorem.

    Theorem 3.2. $ \triangle $ is globally attractive for System (2.3) with initial values satisfying $ A(0) > 0 $, $ 0 < Z(0) < P_T/\theta_Z $ and $ 0 < F(0) < P_T/\theta_F $.

    Proof. From the above theorem, it is apparent that, for large values of $ n $, $ 0 < A(n) < (K/r)\exp(r-1) $. Note that if $ Z(n) > g $ for $ n\gg0 $, then $ Z(n) $ tends to $ Z^*\geq{g} $. Hence, for $ n\gg $ 0, we obtain

    $ Z(n)<Z(n1)exp{eAZaAZ(Sexp(rfAZ(S)g))dZ}. $

    Letting $ n\rightarrow {\infty} $ yields

    $ ZZexp{eAZaAZ(Sexp(rfAZ(S)g))dZ}<Z. $

    This contradicts $ Z^* > g > 0 $. Then, for $ n\gg0 $, $ 0 < Z(n) < g $. Note that if $ F(n) > h $ for any $ n > 0 $, then $ F(n) $ tends to $ F^*\geq{h} $. Hence, for $ n\gg0 $, we obtain

    $ F(n)<F(n1)exp{eAFaAF(Sexp(rfAZ(S)gfAF(S,G)h),0)+eZFaZF(0,Gexp(eAZfZF(S,G)hdZ))dF}. $

    Letting $ n\rightarrow {\infty} $ yields

    $ FFexp{eAFaAF(Sexp(rfAZ(S)gfAF(S,G)h),0)+eZFaZF(0,Gexp(eAZfZF(S,G)hdZ))dF}<F. $

    This contradicts $ F^* > h > 0 $, proving the theorem.

    For convenience, we rewrite Eqs (2.1) and (2.3) as

    $ dAdt=AL(A,Z,F),dZdt=ZM(A,Z,F),dFdt=FN(A,Z,F), $

    and

    $ A(n+1)=A(n)exp{L(A(n),Z(n),F(n))},Z(n+1)=Z(n)exp{M(A(n),Z(n),F(n))},F(n+1)=F(n)exp{N(A(n),Z(n),F(n))}, $

    respectively, where

    $ L(A,Z,F)=r(1Amin{K,(PTθZZθFF)/q})fAZ(A)ZfAF(A,Z)F,M(A,Z,F)=eAZmin(1,PTθZZθFFθZA)aAZ(A)fZF(A,Z)FdZ,N(A,Z,F)=eAFmin{1,PTθZZθFFθFA}aAF(A,Z)+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A,Z)dF. $

    To find equilibria of Eqs (2.1) and (2.3), we solve the following equations

    $ AL(A,Z,F)=0,ZM(A,Z,F)=0,FN(A,Z,F)=0, $ (4.1)

    and

    $ A[1exp{L(A,Z,F)}]=0,Z[1exp{M(A,Z,F)}]=0,F[1exp{N(A,Z,F)}]=0, $ (4.2)

    respectively. (4.1) and (4.2) both lead to

    $ A=0 or L(A,Z,F)=0,Z=0 or M(A,Z,F)=0,F=0 or N(A,Z,F)=0, $

    which shows that Systems (2.3) and (2.1) share exactly the same equilibria.

    After some straightforward algebraic calculations, the variational matrix of Systems (2.1) and (2.3) lead

    $ J(A,Z,F)=(L+ALAALZALFZMAM+ZMZZMFFNAFNZN+FNF) $

    and

    $ J(A,Z,F)=(eL+AeLLAAeLLZAeLLFZeMMAeM+ZeMMZZeMMFFeNNAFeNNZeN+FeNNF), $

    respectively, where

    $ LA=LA=rmin{K,(PTθZZθFF)/q}fAZ(A)ZfAF(A,Z)AF.LZ=LZ={fAZ(A)fAF(A,Z)ZF,qK+θZZ+θFF<PT,rqθZA(PTθZZθFF)2fAZ(A)fAF(A,Z)ZF,qK+θZZ+θFF>PT.LF=LF={fAF(A,Z)<0,qK+θZZ+θFF<PT,rqθFA(PTθZZθFF)2fAF(A,Z)<0,qK+θZZ+θFF>PT.MA=MA={eAZaAZ(A)fZF(A,Z)AF>0,θZA+θZZ+θFF<PT,eAZPTθZZθFFθZfAZ(A)fZF(A,Z)AF,θZA+θZZ+θFF>PT.MZ=MZ={fZF(A,Z)ZF>0,θZA+θZZ+θFF<PT,eAZfAZ(A)fZF(A,Z)ZF,θZA+θZZ+θFF>PT.MF=MF={fZF(A,Z)<0,θZA+θZZ+θFF<PT,eAZθFθZfAZ(A)fZF(A,Z)<0,θZA+θZZ+θFF>PT.NA=NA={eAFaAF(A,Z)A+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A,Z)A,θFA+θZZ+θFF<PT,eAFPTθZZθFFθFfAF(A,Z)A+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A,Z)A<0,θFA+θZZ+θFF>PT.NZ=NZ={eAFaAF(A,Z)Z+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A,Z)Z,θFA+θZZ+θFF<PT,eAFfAF(A,Z)θZθF+eAFPTθZZθFFθFfAF(A,Z)Z+eZFmin{1,θZθF}aZF(A,Z)Z,θFA+θZZ+θFF>PT.NF=NF={0,θFA+θZZ+θFF<PT,eAFfAF(A,Z)<0,θFA+θZZ+θFF>PT. $

    System (2.3) has four possible boundary equilibria: $ E_0(0, 0, 0) $, $ E_1(k, 0, 0) $, $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $, and $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $, where $ k = \min(K, P_T/q) $. The equilibrium $ E_0(0, 0, 0) $ represents the extinction of all species; The equilibrium $ E_1(k, 0, 0) $ denotes the extinction of zooplankton and fish and the persistence of algae; The equilibrium $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $ represents the extinction of fish and persistence of algae and zooplankton; The equilibrium $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ denotes the extinction of zooplankton and persistence of algae and fish.

    Theorem 4.1. For System (2.3), $ E_0 $ is always unstable. $ E_1 $ is locally asymptotically stable if

    $ 0<r<2,eAZmin{1,PTkθZ}aAZ(k)<dZ and ,eAFmin{1,PTkθF}aAF(k,0)<dF; $

    $ E_1 $ is unstable if

    $ r>2 or eAZmin{1,PTkθZ}aAZ(k)>dZ or eAFmin{1,PTkθF}aAF(k,0)>dF. $

    Proof. At the extinction equilibrium $ E_0(0, 0, 0) $, the form of Jacobian matrix is as follows

    $ J(E0)=(er000edZ000edF). $

    Obviously, the characteristic roots $ e^{-d_Z} $ and $ e^{-d_F} $ are less than $ 1 $, while the other characteristic root $ e^r $ is greater than $ 1 $. Therefore, the extinction equilibrium $ E_0 $ is always unstable.

    At $ E_1(k, 0, 0) $ the Jacobian is

    $ J(E1)=(1rkLZ(k,0,0)kLF(k,0,0)0exp{M(k,0,0)}000exp{N(k,0,0)}), $

    where

    $ M(k,0,0)=eAZmin{1,PTkθZaAZ(k)}dZ,N(k,0,0)=eAFmin{1,PTkθFaAF(k,0)}dF. $

    Let $ \lambda_1 $, $ \lambda_2 $ and $ \lambda_3 $ denote the characteristic roots of $ J(E_1) $, then the following inequalities

    $ 0<r<2,eAZmin{1,PTkθZ}aAZ(k)<dZ and ,eAFmin{1,PTkθF}aAF(k,0)<dF $

    ensure that $ |\lambda_i| < 1 $, $ i = 1, 2, 3 $. While the following inequalities

    $ r>2 or eAZmin{1,PTkθZ}aAZ(k)>dZ or eAFmin{1,PTkθF}aAF(k,0)>dF $

    imply $ \lambda_i > 1 $ for some $ i $.

    The equilibrium $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $ represents the extinction of fish. So, $ E_2 $ is the internal equilibrium of a two-dimensional system in which only algae and zooplankton exist. $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $ can be explored in the $ A-Z $ phase plane. Since both Eqs (2.1) and (2.3) share the same equilibria, from [29], we can conclude that $ E_2 $ in Eq (2.3) possibly contains multiple equilibria.

    Theorem 4.2. If $ N(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) < 0 $, then the following hold.

    In region $ i $ (i.e., $ \bar{Z} < P_T/\theta_Z-\bar{A} $), if the algae's nullcline is decreasing at $ E_2 (i.e., L_A < 0) $, and

    $ 12ˉAˉZLZMA2<ˉALA<ˉAˉZLZMA, $ (4.3)

    then $ E_2 $ is locally asymptotically stable.

    In region $ ii $ (i.e., $ \bar{Z} > P_T/\theta_Z-\bar{A} $), if the slope of the zooplankton's nullcline at $ E_2 $ is greater than the algae's ($ i.e., -M_A/M_Z > -L_A/L_Z $), and

    $ 12ˉAˉZ[LZMALAMZ]2<ˉALA+ˉZMZ<ˉAˉZ[LZMALAMZ], $ (4.4)

    then $ E_2 $ is locally asymptotically stable.

    Proof. In order to study local stability of $ E_2 $, the Jacobian at $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $ can be described as

    $ J(E2)=(Jsub(E2)J10exp{N(ˉA,ˉZ,0)}) $

    where

    $ Jsub(E2)=(1+ˉALAˉALZˉZMA1+ˉZMZ) and J1=(ˉALFˉZMF). $

    $ N(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) < 0 $ ensures that one characteristic root has a magnitude less than 1. Then we focus on the characteristic roots of $ J_{sub}(E_2) $. The trace and determinant of $ J_{sub}(E_2) $ are

    $ \mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2)) = 2+\bar{A}L_A + \bar{Z}M_Z $

    and

    $ \mathrm{Det}(J_{sub}(E_2)) = \mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2))-1+\bar{A}\bar{Z}[L_AM_Z - L_ZM_A ]. $

    We discuss the stability of $ E_2 $ in region i and region ii, respectively.

    Suppose $ E_2 $ lies in region i. Then $ L_Z < 0 $, $ M_A > 0 $, $ M_Z = 0 $. Note that,

    $ \mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2)) = 2+\bar{A}L_A = 2+A\left(-\frac{L_A}{L_Z}\right)(-L_Z), $

    where $ -(L_A/L_Z) $ is the slope of the algae's nullcline. Assume that the algae's nullcline is increasing at $ E_2 $, i.e., $ L_A > 0 $. Then $ \mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2)) > 2 $ and $ E_2 $ is unstable. If the algae's nullcline is decreasing at $ E_2 $, i.e., $ L_A < 0 $, and Eq (4.3) holds, then one can prove that $ 2 > 1+\mathrm{Det}(J_{sub}(E_2)) > |\mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2))| $. From Jury Test in [25], $ E_2 $ is stable. On the contrary, if Eq (4.3) does not hold, then $ E_2 $ is unstable.

    Suppose $ E_2 $ is in region ii. Then at $ E_2 $, $ L_Z < 0 $, $ M_A < 0 $, $ M_Z < 0 $. Note that

    $ \mathrm{Det}(J_{sub}(E_2)) = 1+\bar{A}L_A +\bar{Z}M_Z+\bar{A}\bar{Z}L_ZM_Z \left[\left(-\frac{M_A}{M_Z}\right)-\left(-\frac{L_A}{L_Z}\right)\right]. $

    If the slope of the algae's nullcline at $ E_2 $ is greater than the zooplankton's, i.e., $ -M_A/M_Z < -L_A/L_Z $, then $ 1+\mathrm{Det}(J_{sub}(E_2)) < |\mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2))| $, which means that $ E_2 $ is unstable. If the slope of the zooplankton's nullcline at $ E_2 $ is greater than the algae's, then $ -L_A/L_Z < -M_A/M_Z < 0 $. If Eq (4.4) holds, then $ 2 > 1+\mathrm{Det}(J_{sub}(E_2)) > |\mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_2))| $ holds and $ E_2 $ is stable. On the contrary, if Eq (4.4) does not hold, then $ E_2 $ is unstable.

    Similarly, the boundary equilibrium $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ indicates the extinction of zooplankton. $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ can be considered the internal equilibrium of a simple two-dimensional system with only fish and algae. $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ can be explored in the $ A-F $ phase plane. The Jacobian at $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ can be described as

    $ J(E3)=(Jsub(E3)J20exp{M(˜A,0,˜F)}) $

    where

    $ Jsub(E3)=(1+˜ALA˜ALF˜FNA1+˜FNF) and J2=(˜ALZ˜FNZ) $

    The trace and determinant of $ J_{sub}(E_3) $ are

    $ \mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_3)) = 2+\tilde{A}L_A + \tilde{F}N_F $

    and

    $ \mathrm{Det}(J_{sub}(E_3)) = \mathrm{Tr}(J_{sub}(E_3))-1+\tilde{A}\tilde{F}[L_AN_F - L_FN_A ]. $

    We find that the Jacobian matrixes of $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $ and $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ take similar forms. The locally asymptotic stabilities of $ E_2 $ and $ E_3 $ can both be studied with the help of the stability of internal equilibria of a stoichiometric predator-prey system in discrete time scale [25]. Due to the similarity between the stability conditions of $ E_2 $ and $ E_3 $ and the similar argument in [25], we only provide the conclusion on the stability of $ E_3 $. Therefore, details of proofs will be skipped here.

    Theorem 4.3. If $ M(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) < 0 $, then the following are true.

    In region i (i.e., $ \tilde{F} < P_T/\theta_F-\tilde{A} $), if algae's nullcline is decreasing at $ E_3 $ (i.e., $ L_A > 0 $), and

    $ 12˜A˜FLFNA2<˜ALA<˜A˜FLFNA, $ (4.5)

    then $ E_3 $ is locally asymptotically stable.

    In region $ ii $ (i.e., $ \tilde{F} > P_T/\theta_F-\tilde{A} $), if the slope of the fish's nullcline at $ E_3 $ is greater than algae's ($ i.e., -N_A/N_F > -L_A/L_F $), and

    $ 12˜A˜F[LFNALANF]2<˜ALA+˜FNF<˜A˜F[LFNALANF], $ (4.6)

    then $ E_3 $ is locally asymptotically stable.

    Through theoretical analysis, we present Table 2 to better summarize stability conditions of boundary equilibria between continuous model and discrete model.

    Table 2.  Comparison of stability conditions of boundary equilibria.
    Equilibria Discrete model System (2.3) Continuous model System (2.1) Results
    $ E_0(0, 0, 0) $ Always unstable. Always unstable. Same
    $ E_1(k, 0, 0) $ $ M(k, 0, 0) < 0 $, $ N(k, 0, 0) < 0 $, $ M(k, 0, 0) < 0 $, $ N(k, 0, 0) < 0 $. Eq (2.3) Stronger
    $ 0 < r < 2 $.
    $ E_2(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) $ $ N(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) < 0 $. $ N(\bar{A}, \bar{Z}, 0) < 0 $. Eq (2.3) Stronger
    Region ⅰ: $ L_A < 0 $ and Eq (4.3); Region ⅰ: $ L_A < 0 $;
    Region ⅱ: $ -M_A/M_Z > -L_A/L_Z $ and Eq (4.4). Region ⅱ: $ -M_A/M_Z > -L_A/L_Z $.
    $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ $ M(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) < 0 $. $ M(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) < 0 $. Eq (2.3) Stronger
    Region ⅰ: $ L_A < 0 $ and Eq (4.5); Region ⅰ: $ L_A < 0 $;
    Region ⅱ: $ -N_A/N_F > -L_A/L_F $ and Eq (4.6). Region ⅱ: $ -N_A/N_F > -L_A/L_F $.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The coexistence equilibrium $ E^*(A^*, Z^*, F^*) $ can be solved by

    $ L(A,Z,F)=0,M(A,Z,F)=0 and N(A,Z,F)=0. $

    To determine the species interactions of intraguild predation, it is necessary to explore the Jacobian matrix of continuous model (System (2.1)) and discrete model (System (2.3)) at $ E^* $, which present as follows,

    $ J(A,Z,F)|(2.1)=(ALAALZALFZMAZMZZMFFNAFNZFNF)=(A000Z000F)(LALZLFMAMZMFNANZNF) $

    and

    $ J(A,Z,F)|(2.3)=(1+ALAALZALFZMA1+ZMZZMFFNAFNZ1+FNF)=(100010001)+(A000Z000F)(LALZLFMAMZMFNANZNF). $

    Define

    $ M(A,Z,F)=(LALZLFMAMZMFNANZNF) $

    as the ecosystem matrix of Systems (2.1) and (2.3) at $ E^* $.

    The ecological matrix of the continuous model and discrete model take the same form. We can use the ecosystem matrix to study the interactions between species in intraguild predations. In this matrix, the $ ij $-th term measures the effect of the $ j $-th species on the $ i $-th species' per capita growth rate [30]. That is, the positive sign in the ecological matrix means that the $ j $-th species is favorable to the growth of the $ i $-th species, and the negative sign means that the $ j $-th species is adverse to the growth of the $ i $-th species. According to the relationship between the P:C ratio in the three species, the symbol of the ecological matrix is determined. The differences in P:C ratio of the three species affect the system. We study the matrix in two cases: $ \theta_Z > \theta_F $ and $ \theta_Z < \theta_F $. The different cases on the ecological matrix can be shown in Table 3.

    Table 3.  The ecosystem matrix of model (2.3).
    Conditions $ \theta_Z > \theta_F $ $ \theta_Z < \theta_F $
    $ Q^*=(P_T-\theta_ZZ^*-\theta_FF^*)/A^* > \max\{\theta_Z, \theta_F\} $ $ \left(+/+/+++/+/0\right) $ $ \left(+/+/+++/+/0\right) $
    $ \min\{\theta_Z, \theta_F\} < Q^* < \max\{\theta_Z, \theta_F\} $ $ \left(+/+/+/+/+/+/0\right) $ $ \left(+/+/+++/\right) $
    $ Q^* < \min\{\theta_Z, \theta_F\} $ $ \left(+/+/+/+/+/\right) $ $ \left(+/+/+/+/+/\right) $

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    When the P:C ratio in algae is bigger than those in zooplankton and fish, the algae quality is good for both zooplankton and fish. The ecological matrices for both cases take the same form. The relationship between algae and zooplankton is $ (+, +/-) $. The increase in algae is certainly positive for zooplankton. Due to the existence of fish, the effect of zooplankton on algae is unconcern. The interactions of algae–fish and zooplankton–fish take the form $ (+/-, -) $. The effect of algae and zooplankton on fish is unconcern. When the P:C ratio in algae changes between the P:C ratio of zooplankton ($ \theta_Z $) and the P:C ratio of fish ($ \theta_F $), something shows different. 1) When $ \theta_Z > \theta_F $, the quality of the algae is good for the fish but bad for the zooplankton. The interaction between algae and zooplankton has changed from $ (+, +/-) $ to $ (+/-, +/-) $. The increase of algae is uncertain for zooplankton due to the decline in food quality. 2) When $ \theta_Z < \theta_F $, the quality of the algae is good for the zooplankton but bad for the fish. The increase of algae is positive for zooplankton. The relationship between algae and fish has changed from traditional $ (+/-, -) $ to $ (-, -) $. The increase in algae is certainly negative for fish due to poor food quality. When the P:C ratio in algae is smaller than those in zooplankton and fish, the algae quality is bad for both zooplankton and fish. The ecological matrices for both cases take the same form. The algae-zooplankton relationship is $ (+/-, +/-) $. And algae-fish interactions take the form $ (-, -) $. The symbols of ecological matrixes reveal that the increase in algae has an uncertain effect on zooplankton, but can have a certain negative impact on fish.

    In summary, with the decline of algae food quality, the relationship between algae and fish changes from positive correlation $ (+, +/-) $ to uncertainty $ (+/-, +/-) $. The relationship between algae and fish changes from uncertainty $ (+/-, -) $ to negative correlation $ (-, -) $. The interaction of zooplankton – fish takes $ (+/-, -) $ form. The impact of the increase of zooplankton on fish is uncertain. The interaction between fish and zooplankton is not only predation but also competition. Predation in accompanies by competition jointly affects the interaction between fish and zooplankton. In general, the decline in food quality has a negative impact on the flow of energy.

    Numerical simulations on the continuous model and discrete model can be conducted to verify and deepen the results of our analysis. We will compare the two models with intraguild structure by choosing Holling type Ⅱ functional response, which has been used in [22]. Let

    $ a_{AZ}(A) = \frac{s_{AZ}A}{1+s_{AZ}h_{AZ}A}, \; a_{AF}(A, Z) = \frac{s_{AF}A}{1+s_{AF}h_{AF}A+s_{ZF}h_{ZF}Z}, \; a_{ZF}(A, Z) = \frac{s_{ZF}Z}{1+s_{AF}h_{AF}A+s_{ZF}h_{ZF}Z}, $

    where the meanings of the related parameters have been listed in Table 1. The three functional response functions mean that the predations in the intraguild structure are saturated. We numerically study the following models:

    $ A(n+1)=A(n)exp{r(1A(n)min{K,(PTθZZ(n)θFF(n))/q})sAZZ(n)1+sAZhAZA(n)sAFF(n)1+sAFhAFA(n)+sZFhZFZ(n)},Z(n+1)=Z(n)exp{eAZmin{1,PTθZZ(n)θFF(n)θZA(n)}sAZA(n)1+sAZhAZA(n)sZFF(n)1+sAFhAFA(n)+sZFhZFZ(n)dZ},F(n+1)=F(n)exp{eAFmin{1,PTθZZ(n)θFF(n)θFA(n)}sAFA(n)1+sAFhAFA(n)+sZFhZFZ(n)+eZFmin(1,θZθF)sZFZ(n)1+sAFhAFA(n)+sZFhZFZ(n)dF}, $ (5.1)

    and

    $ dAdt=rA(1Amin{K,(PTθZZθFF)/q})sAZAZ1+sAZhAZAsAFAF1+sAFhAFA+sZFhZFZ,dZdt=eAZmin(1,PTθZZθFFθZA)sAZAZ1+sAZhAZAsZFZF1+sAFhAFA+sZFhZFZdZZ,dFdt=eAFmin{1,PTθZZθFFθFA}sAFAF1+sAFhAFA+sZFhZFZ+eZFmin{1,θZθF}sZFZF1+sAFhAFA+sZFhZFZdFF. $ (5.2)

    The main parameters are selected from [26] and [22] for numerical simulation of the two models at different initial conditions, as shown in Table 1. For convenience, we record four typical initial conditions. $ 1^{st} $ initial conditions is $ (A(0), Z(0), F(0)) = (58.5, 1.07, 1.6) $; $ 2^{nd} $ initial conditions is $ (A(0), Z(0), F(0)) = (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) $; $ 3^{rd} $ initial conditions is $ (A(0), Z(0), F(0)) = (5, 5, 5) $; and $ 4^{th} $ initial conditions is $ (A(0), Z(0), F(0)) = (0.1, 0.05, 0.01) $. The carrying capacity of the primary producer, $ K $, is an indirect index to evaluate the light intensity or energy input of the system. Bifurcation diagrams can intuitively show the equilibrium of a dynamical model changing with a parameter. The bifurcation diagrams in Figure 1 reveal how the dynamics of the populations in Systems (5.1) and (5.2) change with $ K $. To facilitate intuitive analysis, Figure 2 fully reflects the dynamic behavior differences between the discrete model and the continuous model along the gradient of light levels $ K $ from $ 0 $ to $ 120 $ $ \mathrm{mg \; C L}^{-1} $ with different initial values.

    Figure 1.  The bifurcation curves versus carrying capacity for the discrete model ($ a_i $, $ i = 1, 2, 3 $) and continuous model ($ b_i $, $ i = 1, 2, 3 $). The red, blue, and black lines represent the bifurcation diagrams of algae, zooplankton, and fish, respectively.
    Figure 2.  Phase plot for discrete model ($ a_i $, $ i = 1, 2, ..., 6 $) and continuous model ($ b_i $, $ i = 1, 2, ..., 6 $). The red points and cycles denote the stable equilibria and limit cycle, respectively.

    When the carrying capacity varies at the low level (e.g., $ 0 < K < 18.2 $ in Figure 1), both discrete model and continuous model show similar dynamic behaviors. When the carrying capacity is extremely low (e.g., $ 0 < K < 3.4 $ in Figure 1 and $ K = 3 $ in Figure 2a1, b1), the zooplankton and the fish of discrete model and continuous model cannot be sustained due to starvation and the equilibrium $ E_1(k, 0, 0) $ is stable. When carrying capacity further increases (e.g., $ 3.4 < K < 18.2 $ in Figure 1), the algae and fish persist but the lack of food and the pressure of predator still can't maintain the survival of fish, which implies that $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ is stable. Figure 2a2, Figure 2b2 show the typical case with $ K = 10 $. Space trajectories with different initial values tend to steady state.

    When $ K $ varies in the intermediate level, a clear difference between the continuous and discrete models appears for the first time, as shown in $ 18.2 < K < 55.6 $ in Figure 1. When $ K = 18.2 $, Hopf bifurcation appears in the discrete model, and a limit cycle is generated. But the continuous model is always in a stable state (e.g., $ K = 20 $ in Figure 2a3, Figure 2b3). This region shows that, compared with the continuous model, the discrete model is more prone to oscillations. We notice that when $ 37.2 < K < 42.2 $, different types of bistability appeared in the discrete model and continuous model. For the discrete model, one stable state maintains the previous periodic oscillation. Another stable state ends the oscillation, and the system is in a stable equilibrium state (e.g., $ K = 40 $ in Figure 2a4); For the continuous model, two local stable steady states coexist (e.g., $ K = 40 $ in Figure 2b4). With the further increase of $ K $ ($ 42.2 < K < 55.6 $), the continuous model still admits two local stable steady states. While the discrete model shows one global stable state. As $ K $ increases in this region, the density of algae increases while the density of fish decreases due to poor food quality. The stoichiometric effect can be found in this region.

    When carrying capacity varies at the high level (e.g., $ 55.6 < K < 120 $ in Figure 1), models with different initial values show different dynamic behaviors. Some differences in dynamical behaviors between the continuous model and discrete model can also be observed in this region. During this interval, different from the previous, due to the abundance of food and the reduction of predation pressure, the zooplankton can persist. Three species can coexist in this interval. That is the equilibrium $ E^*(A^*, Z^*, F^*) $ is stable. Especially, for the discrete model, $ E^*(A^*, Z^*, F^*) $ is globally asymptotically stable (e.g., $ 55.6 < K < 97.5 $ in Figure 1); for the continuous model, the model exhibits bistable states (e.g., $ 55.6 < K < 101.5 $ in Figure 1). $ E^*(A^*, Z^*, F^*) $ together with $ E_3(\tilde{A}, 0, \tilde{F}) $ are both locally asymptotically stable. The survival of the zooplankton in the continuous model will be affected by different initial values, while the survival of the zooplankton in the discrete model will not be affected by the initial values. Figure 2a5, Figure 2b5 show the typical cases with $ K = 80 $.

    When carrying capacity varies at an extremely high level, rich dynamic behaviors show in this region. The discrete model exhibits bistable states (e.g., $ 97.5 < K < 120 $ in Figure 1), while the continuous model shows tristable states (e.g., $ 101.5 < K < 120 $ in Figure 1). For the discrete model, the limit set can be a stable equilibrium and a strange attractor (e.g., $ K = 120 $ in Figure 2a6); For the continuous model, the limit set can be two local stable equilibria and a strange attractor (e.g., $ K = 120 $ in Figure 2b6).

    The continuous stoichiometric model with intraguild structure can be used to explore interactions of the species with overlapping generations. However, when facing the situation of non-overlapping generations of herbivores, annuals, and regularly collected experimental data, we need to consider the impact of time discretization on the model. In this paper, discrete intraguild predation models with biological stoichiometry are developed and analyzed. The continuous model and discrete model share the same ecological matrix, which helps us study the interspecific relationship under different food qualities. In comparing the dynamic behaviors of the continuous model and discrete model, we conduct numerical simulations and mainly focus on the following aspects: the stoichiometric effects of food quality, multistability, coexistence, and chaos.

    Nutrient recycling rates have a significant impact on ecosystem-level nutrient availability. Figure 4 shows the density of algae, zooplankton, and fish with respect to food quality $ (P: C) $. When the carrying capacity is low, the transfer efficiency of zooplankton and fish can reach their maximum value. As $ K $ increases, the food quality of algae shows a decreasing trend (Figure 4a). When the food quality varies in $ (q, \theta_F) $, the density of algae increases, but the density of fish decreases (Figure 4b). Poor food quality causes negative effects on fish. Due to the combined effects of food quality and high trophic level predation, the impact of increased algae on zooplankton is uncertain. Due to the combined effects of interspecific competition and high trophic level predation, the impact of increased zooplankton on fish is also uncertain. This phenomenon is consistent with the results of the ecological matrix.

    In some parameter intervals, the attractors of continuous and discrete models differ. When the carrying capacity varies at an intermediate level, the steady state of the continuous model is a stable equilibrium, and the steady state of the discrete model is a stable limit cycle. When the carrying capacity is at a high level, there exist three and two stable states in the continuous model and discrete model, respectively. The reason why the steady state of the continuous model is more than that of the discrete model is that the stability condition of the equilibrium point of the discrete model is stronger than that of the continuous model [31].

    The coexistence regions of three species in continuous and discrete models are the same, which both persist when the carrying capacity is high. When the carrying capacity is high, both types of models exhibit chaos. Figure 3 shows the spectrum of the maximum Lyapunov exponent (MLE) for K, revealing the presence of chaotic behavior for both discrete and continuous models. The difference point is that the interval of existence of chaotic behavior of the continuous model is smaller than that of the discrete model.

    Figure 3.  Spectrum of the maximum Lyapunov exponent ($ \lambda $) with respect to carrying capacity ($ K $) for the discrete-time model (a) and continuous-time model (b).
    Figure 4.  Bifurcation diagram of the densities of algae, zooplankton, and fish plotted against food quality for Model (2.3). The red curve, the blue curve, and the black curve represent the density of algae, zooplankton, and fish with respect to food quality, respectively. The red vertical dashed lines represent the algae minimal P:C ($ q $). The blue vertical dashed line represents the zooplankton constant P:C ($ \theta_Z $) and fish constant P:C ($ \theta_F $), here $ \theta_Z = \theta_F = 0.03 $.

    In comparison, the continuous model has a high level of robustness to time discretization. The population changes of continuous and discrete models show similar trends as parameters are changed. Some interesting dynamical features can be simulated in both continuous and discrete models, according to the numerical simulations. There are also distinctions to be made between continuous and discrete models. The results show that we should pay close attention to the selection of time scale in the research of intraguild system model prediction.

    In summary, our analytical and numerical analysis suggest the following similarities and differences between continuous model and discrete model, which have been listed in Table 4.

    Table 4.  Comparisons between continuous model (2.1) and discrete model (2.3).
    Similarities Differences
    1) The equilibria and the ecological matrix take the same forms. A negative effect of poor food quality on top predator can be observed. 1) The stability conditions of equilibria in the discrete model are stronger than those in the continuous model.
    2) The coexistence regions of populations in continuous and discrete models are the same and occur under high carrying capacity conditions. 2) The coexistence of populations in continuous models depends on initial values, while in discrete models, the coexistence of populations does not depend on initial values.
    3) Chaos phenomena can be observed in both types of model dynamics. 3) The chaos interval of the discrete model is larger than that of the continuous model.
    4) Multistability can be observed in both types of model dynamics. 4) There are more types of multistabilities in the continuous model than in the discrete model.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Models on algae-zooplankton-fish have been widely studied from many perspectives, like bifurcation [32,33], chaos [34], toxicity [35], and fear effect [33,34]. The effect of discretization on the dynamic behavior of these models is worth studying. Because of the difference in dynamic behavior between continuous and discrete models, we can try to fit the predictions of the two types of models with the collected experimental data. The comparisons can be used to test which model is more suitable for prediction. This question can be used as a subject for future research.

    This research has been supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11801052, No. 12271144) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. 3132023207).

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Singer SJ, Nicolson GL (1972) The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes. Science 175: 720–731. doi: 10.1126/science.175.4023.720
    [2] Simons K, Ikonen E (1997) Functional rafts in cell membranes. Nature 387: 569–572. doi: 10.1038/42408
    [3] Sonnino S, Prinetti A (2013) Membrane domains and the "lipid raft" concept. Curr Med Chem 20: 4–21.
    [4] Fantini J (2003) How sphingolipids bind and shape proteins: Molecular basis of lipid-protein interactions in lipid shells, rafts and related biomembrane domains. Cell Mol Life Sci 60: 1027–1032. doi: 10.1007/s00018-003-3003-1
    [5] Fantini J (2007) Interaction of proteins with lipid rafts through glycolipid-binding domains: Biochemical background and potential therapeutic applications. Curr Med Chem 14: 2911–2917. doi: 10.2174/092986707782360033
    [6] Sezgin E, Levental I, Mayor S, et al. (2017) The mystery of membrane organization: Composition, regulation and roles of lipid rafts. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18: 361–374. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.16
    [7] Schutz GJ, Kada G, Pastushenko VP, et al. (2000) Properties of lipid microdomains in a muscle cell membrane visualized by single molecule microscopy. Emboj 19: 892–901. doi: 10.1093/emboj/19.5.892
    [8] Owen DM, Williamson DJ, Magenau A, et al. (2012) Sub-resolution lipid domains exist in the plasma membrane and regulate protein diffusion and distribution. Nat Commun 3: 1256. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2273
    [9] Fantini J, Barrantes FJ (2009) Sphingolipid/cholesterol regulation of neurotransmitter receptor conformation and function. Biochim Biophys Acta 1788: 2345–2361. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2009.08.016
    [10] And DAB, London E (1998) Functions of lipid rafts in biological membranes. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 14: 111–136. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.14.1.111
    [11] Pike LJ (2006) Rafts defined: A report on the Keystone Symposium on lipid rafts and cell function. J Lipid Res 47: 1597–1598. doi: 10.1194/jlr.E600002-JLR200
    [12] Frisz JF, Klitzing HA, Lou K, et al. (2013) Sphingolipid domains in the plasma membranes of fibroblasts are not enriched with cholesterol. J Biol Chem 288: 16855–16861. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.473207
    [13] Frisz JF, Lou K, Klitzing HA, et al. (2013) Direct chemical evidence for sphingolipid domains in the plasma membranes of fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110: E613–E622. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1216585110
    [14] Fantini J, Garmy N, Mahfoud R, et al. (2002) Lipid rafts: Structure, function and role in HIV, Alzheimer's and prion diseases. Expert Rev Mol Med 4: 1–22.
    [15] Fantini J, Barrantes FJ (2013) How cholesterol interacts with membrane proteins: An exploration of cholesterol-binding sites including CRAC, CARC, and tilted domains. Front Physiol 4: 31.
    [16] Battari AE, Ah-Kye E, Muller JM, et al. (1985) Modification of HT 29 cell response to the vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) by membrane fluidization. Biochimie 67: 1217–1223. doi: 10.1016/S0300-9084(85)80130-9
    [17] Merrill AH Jr (2011) Sphingolipid and glycosphingolipid metabolic pathways in the era of sphingolipidomics. Chem Rev 111: 6387–6422. doi: 10.1021/cr2002917
    [18] Westover EJ, Covey DF (2004) The enantiomer of cholesterol. J Membr Biol 202: 61–72. doi: 10.1007/s00232-004-0714-7
    [19] Mustafi D, Palczewski K (2009) Topology of class A G protein-coupled receptors: Insights gained from crystal structures of rhodopsins, adrenergic and adenosine receptors. Mol Pharmacol 75: 1–12. doi: 10.1124/mol.108.051938
    [20] Coleman JL, Ngo T, Smith NJ (2017) The G protein-coupled receptor N-terminus and receptor signalling: N-tering a new era. Cell Signalling 33: 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2017.02.004
    [21] Topiol S, Sabio M (2009) X-ray structure breakthroughs in the GPCR transmembrane region. Biochem Pharmacol 78: 11–20. doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2009.02.012
    [22] Jafurulla M, Tiwari S, Chattopadhyay A (2011) Identification of cholesterol recognition amino acid consensus (CRAC) motif in G-protein coupled receptors. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 404: 569–573. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.12.031
    [23] Rasmussen SG, Choi HJ, Rosenbaum DM, et al. (2007) Crystal structure of the human beta2 adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450: 383–387. doi: 10.1038/nature06325
    [24] Lu ZL, Saldanha JW, Hulme EC (2002) Seven-transmembrane receptors: Crystals clarify. Trends Pharmacol Sci 23: 140–146. doi: 10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01973-8
    [25] Russ WP, Engelman DM (2000) The GxxxG motif: A ramework for transmembrane helix-helix association. J Mol Biol 296: 911–919. doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1999.3489
    [26] Fantini J, Yahi N (2015) Brain lipids in synaptic function and neurological disease. Clues to innovative therapeutic strategies for brain disorders. Elsevier, New-York.
    [27] Stangl M, Schneider D (2015) Functional competition within a membrane: Lipid recognition vs. transmembrane helix oligomerization. Biochim Biophys Acta 1848: 1886–1896. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.03.011
    [28] Hanson MA, Cherezov V, Griffith MT, et al. (2008) A specific cholesterol binding site is established by the 2.8 A structure of the human β2-adrenergic receptor. Structure 16: 897–905.
    [29] Paila YD, Chattopadhyay A (2010) Membrane cholesterol in the function and organization of G-protein coupled receptors. Springer Neth 51: 439–466.
    [30] Paila YD, Ganguly S, Chattopadhyay A (2010) Metabolic depletion of sphingolipids impairs ligand binding and signaling of human serotonin1A receptors. Biochemistry 49: 2389–2397. doi: 10.1021/bi1001536
    [31] Paila YD, Tiwari S, Chattopadhyay A (2009) Are specific nonannular cholesterol binding sites present in G-protein coupled receptors? Biochim Biophys Acta 1788: 295–302. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2008.11.020
    [32] Audet M, Bouvier M (2012) Restructuring G-protein- coupled receptor activation. Cell 151: 14–23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.003
    [33] Luttrell LM (2006) Transmembrane signaling by G protein-coupled receptors. Methods Mol Biol 332: 3–49.
    [34] Pluhackova K, Gahbauer S, Kranz F, et al. (2016) Dynamic Cholesterol-Conditioned Dimerization of the G Protein Coupled Chemokine Receptor Type 4. PLoS Comput Biol 12: e1005169. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005169
    [35] Gregory H, Taylor CL, Hopkins CR (1982) Luteinizing hormone release from dissociated pituitary cells by dimerization of occupied LHRH receptors. Nature 300: 269–271. doi: 10.1038/300269a0
    [36] Fantini J, Di Scala C, Baier CJ, et al. (2016) Molecular mechanisms of protein-cholesterol interactions in plasma membranes: Functional distinction between topological (tilted) and consensus (CARC/CRAC) domains. Chem Phys Lipids 199: 52–60. doi: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2016.02.009
    [37] Di Scala C, Fantini J (2017) Hybrid In Silico/In Vitro Approaches for the Identification of Functional Cholesterol-Binding Domains in Membrane Proteins. Methods Mol Biol 1583: 7–19. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6875-6_2
    [38] Li H, Papadopoulos V (1998) Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor function in cholesterol transport. Identification of a putative cholesterol recognition/interaction amino acid sequence and consensus pattern. Endocrinology 139: 4991–4997.
    [39] Epand RF, Thomas A, Brasseur R, et al. (2006) Juxtamembrane protein segments that contribute to recruitment of cholesterol into domains. Biochemistry 45: 6105–6114. doi: 10.1021/bi060245+
    [40] Epand RM (2006) Cholesterol and the interaction of proteins with membrane domains. Prog Lipid Res 45: 279–294. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2006.02.001
    [41] Epand RM (2008) Proteins and cholesterol-rich domains. Biochim Biophys Acta 1778: 1576–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2008.03.016
    [42] Epand RM, Thomas A, Brasseur R, et al. (2010) Cholesterol interaction with proteins that partition into membrane domains: An overview. Subcell Biochem 51: 253–278. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-8622-8_9
    [43] Baier CJ, Fantini J, Barrantes FJ (2011) Disclosure of cholesterol recognition motifs in transmembrane domains of the human nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. Sci Rep 1: 69. doi: 10.1038/srep00069
    [44] Di Scala C, Baier CJ, Evans LS, et al. (2017) Relevance of CARC and CRAC Cholesterol-Recognition Motifs in the Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor and Other Membrane-Bound Receptors. Curr Top Membr 80: 3–23. doi: 10.1016/bs.ctm.2017.05.001
    [45] Fantini J, Di Scala C, Evans LS, et al. (2016) A mirror code for protein-cholesterol interactions in the two leaflets of biological membranes. Sci Rep 6: 21907. doi: 10.1038/srep21907
    [46] Rosenhouse-Dantsker A, Noskov S, Durdagi S, et al. (2013) Identification of novel cholesterol-binding regions in Kir2 channels. J Biol Chem 288: 31154–31164. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.496117
    [47] Levitan I, Singh DK, Rosenhouse-Dantsker A (2014) Cholesterol binding to ion channels. Front Physiol 5: 65.
    [48] Nishio M, Umezawa Y, Fantini J, et al. (2014) CH-pi hydrogen bonds in biological macromolecules. Phys Chem Chem Phys 16: 12648–12683. doi: 10.1039/C4CP00099D
    [49] Barrantes FJ, Fantini J (2016) From hopanoids to cholesterol: Molecular clocks of pentameric ligand-gated ion channels. Prog Lipid Res 63: 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2016.03.003
    [50] Barbera N, Ayee MAA, Akpa BS, et al. (2017) Differential effects of sterols on ion channels: Stereospecific Binding vs Stereospecific Response. Curr Top Membr 80: 25–50. doi: 10.1016/bs.ctm.2017.06.001
    [51] Romanenko VG, Rothblat GH, Levitan I (2002) Modulation of endothelial inward-rectifier K+ current by optical isomers of cholesterol. Biophys J 83: 3211–3222. doi: 10.1016/S0006-3495(02)75323-X
    [52] Mannock DA, Lewis RNAH, Mcelhaney RN, et al. (2008) Comparative calorimetric and spectroscopic studies of the effects of cholesterol and epicholesterol on the thermotropic phase behaviour of dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine bilayer membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 1778: 2191–2202. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2008.05.004
    [53] Bukiya AN, Osborn CV, Kuntamallappanavar G, et al. (2015) Cholesterol increases the open probability of cardiac KACh currents. Biochim Biophys Acta 1848: 2406–2413. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2015.07.007
    [54] Song Y, Kenworthy AK, Sanders CR (2014) Cholesterol as a co-solvent and a ligand for membrane proteins. Protein Sci 23: 1–22. doi: 10.1002/pro.2599
    [55] Zhou X, Xu J (2012) Free cholesterol induces higher beta-sheet content in Abeta peptide oligomers by aromatic interaction with Phe19. PLoS One 7: e46245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046245
    [56] Beel AJ, Mobley CK, Kim HJ, et al. (2008) Structural studies of the transmembrane C-terminal domain of the amyloid precursor protein (APP): Does APP function as a cholesterol sensor? Biochemistry 47: 9428–9446. doi: 10.1021/bi800993c
    [57] Beel AJ, Sakakura M, Barrett PJ, et al. (2010) Direct binding of cholesterol to the amyloid precursor protein: An important interaction in lipid-Alzheimer's disease relationships? Biochim Biophys Acta 1801: 975–982. doi: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2010.03.008
    [58] Nadezhdin KD, Bocharova OV, Bocharov EV, et al. (2011) Structural and dynamic study of the transmembrane domain of the amyloid precursor protein. Acta Nat 3: 69–76.
    [59] Barrett PJ, Song Y, Van Horn WD, et al. (2012) The amyloid precursor protein has a flexible transmembrane domain and binds cholesterol. Science 336: 1168–1171. doi: 10.1126/science.1219988
    [60] Di Scala C, Yahi N, Lelièvre C, et al. (2013) Biochemical identification of a linear cholesterol-binding domain within Alzheimer's β amyloid peptide. ACS Chem Neurosci 4: 509–517. doi: 10.1021/cn300203a
    [61] Palmer M (2004) Cholesterol and the activity of bacterial toxins. FEMS Microbiol Lett 238: 281–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2004.tb09768.x
    [62] Rohmer M, Bouvier P, Ourisson G (1979) Molecular evolution of biomembranes: Structural equivalents and phylogenetic precursors of sterols. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 76: 847–851. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.2.847
    [63] Saenz JP, Grosser D, Bradley AS, et al. (2015) Hopanoids as functional analogues of cholesterol in bacterial membranes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112: 11971–11976. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1515607112
    [64] Arish M, Husein A, Kashif M, et al. (2015) Orchestration of membrane receptor signaling by membrane lipids. Biochimie 113: 111–124. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2015.04.005
    [65] Westover EJ, Covey DF, Brockman HL, et al. (2003) Cholesterol depletion results in site-specific increases in epidermal growth factor receptor phosphorylation due to membrane level effects. Studies with cholesterol enantiomers. J Biol Chem 278: 51125–51133.
    [66] Liu Y, Li R, Ladisch S (2004) Exogenous ganglioside GD1a enhances epidermal growth factor receptor binding and dimerization. J Biol Chem 279: 36481–36489. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M402880200
    [67] Goldkorn T, Dressler KA, Muindi J, et al. (1991) Ceramide stimulates epidermal growth factor receptor phosphorylation in A431 human epidermoid carcinoma cells. Evidence that ceramide may mediate sphingosine action. J Biol Chem 266: 16092–16097.
    [68] Alexander LD, Ding Y, Alagarsamy S, et al. (2006) Arachidonic acid induces ERK activation via Src SH2 domain association with the epidermal growth factor receptor. Kidney Int 69: 1823–1832. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5000363
    [69] Petiot A, Faure J, Stenmark H, et al. (2003) PI3P signaling regulates receptor sorting but not transport in the endosomal pathway. J Cell Biol 162: 971–979. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200303018
    [70] Singh P, Paila YD, Chattopadhyay A (2012) Role of glycosphingolipids in the function of human serotonin 1A receptors. J Neurochem 123: 716–724. doi: 10.1111/jnc.12008
    [71] Fernández Nievas GA, Barrantes FJ, Antollini SS (2008) Modulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor conformational state by free fatty acids and steroids. J Biol Chem 283: 21478–21486. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M800345200
    [72] Crain SM, Shen KF (1998) GM1 ganglioside-induced modulation of opioid receptor-mediated functions. Ann N Y Acad Sci 845: 106–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09665.x
    [73] Mahfoud R, Garmy N, Maresca M, et al. (2002) Identification of a common sphingolipid-binding domain in Alzheimer, prion, and HIV-1 proteins. J Biol Chem 277: 11292–11296. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111679200
    [74] Fantini J, Yahi N, Garmy N (2013) Cholesterol accelerates the binding of Alzheimer's β-amyloid peptide to ganglioside GM1 through a universal hydrogen-bond-dependent sterol tuning of glycolipid conformation. Front Physiol 4: 120.
    [75] Fantini J, Garmy N, Yahi N (2006) Prediction of glycolipid-binding domains from the amino acid sequence of lipid raft-associated proteins: Application to HpaA, a protein involved in the adhesion of Helicobacter pylori to gastrointestinal cells. Biochemistry 45: 10957–10962. doi: 10.1021/bi060762s
    [76] Fantini J, Yahi N (2011) Molecular basis for the glycosphingolipid-binding specificity of alpha-synuclein: key role of tyrosine 39 in membrane insertion. J Mol Biol 408: 654–669. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.03.009
    [77] Fantini J, Yahi N (2010) Molecular insights into amyloid regulation by membrane cholesterol and sphingolipids: Common mechanisms in neurodegenerative diseases. Expert Rev Mol Med 12: e27. doi: 10.1017/S1462399410001602
    [78] Levy M, Garmy N, Gazit E, et al. (2006) The minimal amyloid-forming fragment of the islet amyloid polypeptide is a glycolipid-binding domain. FEBS J 273: 5724–5735. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2006.05562.x
    [79] Taieb N, Maresca M, Guo XJ, et al. (2009) The first extracellular domain of the tumour stem cell marker CD133 contains an antigenic ganglioside-binding motif. Cancer Lett 278: 164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2009.01.013
    [80] Chakrabandhu K, Huault S, Garmy N, et al. (2008) The extracellular glycosphingolipid-binding motif of Fas defines its internalization route, mode and outcome of signals upon activation by ligand. Cell Death Differ 15: 1824–1837. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2008.115
    [81] Di Scala C, Nouara Y, Sonia B, et al. (2016) Common molecular mechanism of amyloid pore formation by Alzheimer's β-amyloid peptide and α-synuclein. Sci Rep 6: 28781. doi: 10.1038/srep28781
    [82] Di Scala C, Yahi N, Flores A, et al. (2016) Broad neutralization of calcium-permeable amyloid pore channels with a chimeric Alzheimer/Parkinson peptide targeting brain gangliosides. Biochim Biophys Acta 1862: 213–222. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2015.11.012
    [83] Di Scala C, Yahi N, Flores A, et al. (2016) Comparison of the amyloid pore forming properties of rat and human Alzheimer's beta-amyloid peptide 1–42: Calcium imaging data. Data Brief 6: 640–643. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2016.01.019
    [84] Sarnataro D, Campana V, Paladino S, et al. (2004) PrPC association with lipid rafts in the early secretory pathway stabilizes its cellular conformation. Mol Biol Cell 15: 4031–4042. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E03-05-0271
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Shufei Gao, Hao Wang, Sanling Yuan, Theory of Stoichiometric Intraguild Predation: Algae, Ciliate, and Daphnia, 2024, 86, 0092-8240, 10.1007/s11538-024-01306-z
    2. SHUFEI GAO, SANLING YUAN, DYNAMICS OF A TRI-TROPHIC LEVEL MODEL WITH EXCESS FOOD NUTRIENT CONTENT AND INTRAGUILD PREDATION STRUCTURE, 2024, 32, 0218-3390, 1133, 10.1142/S0218339024500384
    3. Debjit Pal, Dipak Kesh, Debasis Mukherjee, Study of a diffusive intraguild predation model, 2025, 2, 2997-6006, 10.20935/AcadEnvSci7508
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(6949) PDF downloads(1473) Cited by(5)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog