The lonely Moon, double asteroids, and multiple collisions

Abstract: The Chelyabinsk meteor sailed over skies in a streak of light that was momentarily brighter than the Sun. The Chelyabinsk superbolide is a complex and multi-aspect phenomenon. The Appendix to the book examines the role of cosmic collisions in the formation and evolution of such bodies of the solar system as the Moon, double asteroids and irregular satellites of giant planets.

\section{Introduction}
Space collisions, of which the fall of the Chelyabinsk bolide to Earth is an example,
are a catalyst of planetary evolution. Without considering the process of multiple
collisions,  it  is  impossible  to  understand  the  key  issues  of  celestial
arrangement, in other words, the origin of asteroids and the natural satellites of
planets, including the Moon. How did the Moon appear? This issue has concerned astronomy for over 2,500
years, and begins with the question:

\textbf{Where did the matter, from which the Moon formed, come from?}

A related question has not been puzzled over for quite as long, a mere 200
years:

\textbf{How did the belt of asteroids appear between Mars and Jupiter and why did the belt
of asteroids not shape into a planet?}

It has been found that the asteroid belt did not accumulate into a planet because
its current weight is only equal to the weight of our Moon, or 0.05\% of
Earth’s mass. Therefore, the question about the origin of the asteroid belt can be
reformulated:

\textbf{Where did the 99.9\% of the original matter of the asteroid belt go to?}

The problem of the asteroid matter seems to be opposite to that of the source of
matter for the formation of the Moon, but in reality, these are two closely related
questions. The significant moment in this confusing story was the discovery of
double asteroids, or asteroids with natural satellites, i.e. moons. From this, a new question arose:

\textbf{How did the moons of asteroids, or double asteroids, appear?}

This question shed some unexpected light
on the problem of the formation of the Moon and the asteroid belt.
However, let us return to square one. Until 1610, the Moon was believed to be
unique; there were no other natural satellites known in the Solar System. Then,
400 years ago, Galileo Galilei looked into his telescope and observed four new
moons  near  Jupiter,  beginning  a  new  age  of  research  into  the  Solar  System.
The Moon was no long a unique phenomenon, but in spite of the rapid growth in
the number of discovered moons, the Moon did keep some of its exclusivity: all
the new moons discovered were only found near the gas giants Jupiter, Saturn,
Uranus, and Neptune, with the exception of the two tiny satellites of Mars, Phobos
and Deimos. They were the only rivals to our Moon as satellites of planets with a
solid surface and were only discovered relatively recently, in 1877. In terms of the
relative mass (mass of the satellite divided by the mass of the planet), our Moon
surpassed all the other known moons of the Solar System.

Its reputation as a unique natural satellite, different from any other, brought
about a unique origin model for the Moon: the theory of a mega-impact. The theory
was proposed by the Canadian geologist Reginald Daly in 1946 and was later
was given a second life in a 1975 article by American scientists Bill Hartmann and
Donald Davis. According to this theory (see its present-day discussion in \citet{Canup}),
the huge planet Theia collided with Earth 4.5 billion
years ago. Theia was a similar size to Mars (diameter about 7,000 km) and as a
result of this truly unique event, some splinters from the collision went into an
orbit around Earth, or more accurately, into an orbit as the new body resulting
from the merging of Earth and Theia.

Although  this  model  became  almost  universally  accepted,  geochemists
J.H. Jones and H. Palme \citep{Jones} opposed the mega-impact theory \citep{Canup2}.
The geochemical conclusions from the catastrophe model were:

a) the Moon must have approximately the same chemical composition as Earth’s mantle;

b) the Moon must have no core:

c) the Moon that was born from Earth must be younger than Earth;

d) as a result of the mega-impact, there should have been melting of the Moon and Earth. Thus,
Earth and the Moon must have had oceans of liquid magma;

e) that the Moon is lacking in volatile elements is a consequence of the heating
of Earth’s matter thrown into orbit upon the mega-impact.

In reality, according to the data of these geochemists, the picture is somewhat different:

a) chemical composition of the Moon is notably different from that of Earth. In particular,
the iron content in the Moon proved to be 1.5-2 times higher than in Earth’s mantle;

b) the Moon has a significant core (1-3\% by mass, or 300-400 km in radius, which is about 20\% of
the Moon’s radius of 1,738 km);

c) the Moon is older than Earth or, more correctly, the Moon’s core appeared earlier than Earth’s core;

d) the Moon was relatively cold and had been only partially flooded with magma. Geochemical data also refute
the existence of an ocean of molten mantle on Earth. For example, the contemporary mantle of
Earth is differentiated notably less than it would have been if an ancient molten magma ocean had existed;

e) content of volatile elements on the Moon does not support the mega-impact model. Their content cannot
be derived from Earth’s mantle by heating \citep{Jones}.

But the criticism from space chemists was ignored, and the theory, none of whose space predictions came true,
still remains almost universally accepted. Different variations of the giant impact theory seem to have
provided solutions to the problem of increased iron content in the Moon’s rocks. According to these
new theories, 80 percent of the Moon’s matter originated from the collision with
Theia.  If  that  were  true,  however,  then  the  isotopic  composition  of  the  Moon
would differ significantly from that of Earth (all space bodies have individual isotopic
composition). Various groups of space chemists conducted analyses of the
lunar minerals brought back from the Moon by the Apollo expeditions and found
that the isotopic composition matched almost exactly with that of the Earth.

In order to explain this isotopic similarity, supporters of the mega-impact theory
began to propose ever more catastrophic models, in which the mass of Theia
increased from 10–20 percent to 30–45 percent of Earth’s mass \citep{Canup2}.
This configuration better fitted the isotopic similarity, but raised a new problem of excessive
angular momentum and did not address the existing problem of the absence of any
signs of global melting on Earth.

In contrast, researchers who addressed the problem differently, by considering
that the mass of Theia was actually less than ten percent that of Earth, solved the
problem of the isotopic composition easily, because it would have been mostly
matter from Earth rather than Theia that would have been thrown out to form the
Moon in the event of a collision. Of course, if the mass of the impactor is less, the
problem of the angular momentum deficit of the resulting Moon-Earth system
arises. Scientists tried to overcome this problem by assuming that Earth’s rotation
was very rapid before the mega-impact \citep{Stewart}. But does this not all suggest that too
many  assumptions  are  being  made  in  order  to  save  the  mega-impact  theory?
Perhaps it would be better to wait until scientists overcome the intellectual barrier
of the one-collision hypothesis and instead consider several collisions of not
very large bodies which would not change the solution of the isotopic problem
but would make it easier to solve the  angular momentum problem.
The solution to the problem of the formation of the asteroid belt is equally
deplorable: over the past two hundred years, not a single model has been suggested
that would clearly explain what happened to the majority of the mass from
the asteroid belt.

Since 1978, there has been a chain of events that, sooner or later, will change
the established paradigm of a catastrophic birth of our Moon. Charon, a moon
of Pluto, the small, cold dwarf planet on the edge of the Solar System, was discovered
in 1978. In terms of relative mass (12 percent of Pluto’s mass), Charon far
outstrips the Moon (1.2 percent of Earth’s mass) and has thus deprived the Moon
of its last unique characteristic (in terms of absolute mass, several satellites have
been found around the giant planets which exceed that of the Moon).

In 1988, a group of astronomers led by V.V. Prokof’yeva-Mikhailovskaya from
the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory began observations of the apparent magnitude
of  asteroids.  The  characteristic  variability  recorded  for  the  asteroid  87
Sylvia proved that the asteroid had a moon, and this was stated in a publication in
1992 \citep{Prok}. The Crimean astronomers also found signs of duality with other asteroids,
but nobody believed them. Asteroids were considered to be splinters; debris
at the location of a planet that failed to form. The notion of satellites around
asteroids was considered laughable.
The  laughter  stopped  instantly  when  the  interplanetary  station  Galileo  took
photographs of the moon Dactyl around the asteroid Ida. As of April 2015, 270
moons of asteroids and transneptunians (large bodies beyond Neptune; Pluto is
now considered to be a transneptunian object) have been discovered. The asteroid
87 Sylvia was found to have two moons and there are now several known triple
asteroid systems. Pluto was found to have four more moons in addition to Charon,
and became the first sextuple system of the asteroid type.
According to assessments by astronomers-observers, about 15 percent of asteroids
have moons. This means that there is a rather regular, often realizable scenario
for the formation of moons near small planets with a solid surface.

How can this scenario be combined with the giant mega-impact theory for our own Moon?
Perhaps, the Moon was formed in a similar way to other moons and is not actually
unique?
Many asteroids, for example, Itokawa have a dumbbell form, or that of
two agglutinated bodies. Apparently, in such cases, they are formed by the slow
approach and attachment of the former moon and the primary body. Such nondestructive
attachment between the asteroid and its moon is only possible if the
orbital velocity of the moon is low, i.e., if the asteroid has a low mass. In the case
of large asteroids, the merging of the moon with the central body would occur at
a high velocity and end with the complete destruction of the moon. If the moon
followed a circular orbit and the asteroid itself was large and quasi-spherical, the
tangential collision of the moon would have left a long fossa (trench) on the surface
of the primary body. Of note is that the large, fast-rotating asteroid Vesta
(with an average diameter of 525 km) was found to have no moons, although two
series of giant fossae were found on it – one in the equator area (Divalia Fossae
Formation) and the other at $30\degr$N (Saturnalia Fossae Formation). The fossae reach
300–400 km in length, 10–20 km in width, and up to 5 km in depth.

A moon should rotate around Vesta (near its surface) at a speed of 900 km/h. If
its orbital rotation is prograde (coincides with the direction of the asteroid’s own
rotation), the moon will move with a speed of about 600 km/h relative to Vesta’s
surface. Assessments show that a moon with a mass a thousand times lower than
that of Vesta, with the same density and a diameter of about 50 km, has enough
kinetic energy before stopping (or full destruction) to make a canyon 5 km deep,
10 km wide, and 1,000 km long even in strong granite, with a specific crushing
energy of about $10^{9}$ erg/cm$^{3}$.
Such a moon could leave a fossa, in a material comparable with ice in terms of strength
($10^{8}$ erg/cm$^{3}$),
of 10,000 km long (or a shorter but  deeper  fossa).  The  two  series  of  grooves
mean  that Vesta  swallowed  two
moons, whose orbits were inclined to each other. Imagine a moon that flies above
the asteroid’s surface at a speed of a turbojet airplane and crushes mountains several
kilometers high – an impressive sight.

Another criteria is that of a more gentle attachment of a moon to an asteroid,
assuming that the moon in this case has little energy and is incapable of digging a
canyon (or crater) larger in volume than the moon itself. Thus, the conditions for
forming  a  dumbbell  asteroid  would  include  a  restricted  orbital  velocity  of  the moon $V$:
$V^{2}<2E_v/\rho$, where $E_v$ is the specific volumetric energy of the asteroid’s destruction,  and
 $\rho$ is  the  moon’s  density.  This  velocity  is  about  100 m/sec.
 Consequently, fast-rotating asteroids of up to several hundred thousand kilometers
can have equatorial grooves, the footprints from the falls of their moons. For an
asteroid with a diameter less than one hundred kilometers, merging with the moon
must result in the formation of a dumbbell shape.
Vesta’s lack of moons has actively been discussed in specialist literature and
popular journals. Journalist Jeff Hecht asked one of the authors of this appendix
why Vesta has no moons. Having heard a hypothesis about Vesta engulfing its
moons, he cited this hypothesis in an article on May 30, 2015, entitled: “Vesta has
no moons—is it unlucky or did it eat them?” \citep{Hecht}

The process of moons and asteroids merging means that asteroids with moons
could have been more numerous, possibly as much as half of the asteroid population.
Perhaps  only  slowly-rotating  asteroids  and  planets  –  such  as Venus  and
Mercury – did not have moons? Freshly-formed asteroids involved in strong collisions
might also not have had sufficient time to acquire a moon.
In  1995,  Prokof’yeva-Mikhailovskaya,  Tarashchuk,  and  Gorkavyi  wrote  a
review in Physics Physics-Uspekhi, in which, apart from describing the observational
data of the Crimean astronomers, the dynamic stability of the orbits of the
moons of asteroids that are located within the Hill sphere of their primary bodies
was shown \citep{Prok2}.
 However, the reasons for the formation of relatively large moons
around small asteroids with weak gravity remains unclear so far. The formation
of our own Moon – comparatively large in relation to Earth – presented a similar
problem,  but  the  mystery  of  small  moons  near  small  asteroids  was  most
complicated.

Between 2004 and 2007, Gorkavyi proposed a single model for the formation
of our Moon and those of the asteroids \citep{Gor1, Gor2}.
 According to this model, the Moon
grew out of the regular circumplanetary cloud, whose mass multiplied due to a
ballistic transfer of matter from Earth’s mantle (see Figure 1).
This transfer is similar to that used by the mega-impact theory, but in this model it occurs as several
less catastrophic events rather than one mega-impact.

\begin{figure}
    \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig1.jpg}
    \caption{The density of the circumplanetary disk around the Earth grows because of
the ballistic transfer of the ejecta from Earth’s surface.}
    \label{fig:fg1}
\end{figure}

Taking into account the results obtained by the authors in other works focused
on analytical and numerical research of the dust cloud dynamics, a general picture
of the origin of the asteroid belt, the moons of asteroids, and our own Moon can
be drawn \citep{Gor3, Gor4, Gor5}.

Asteroids lose their mass under micrometeorite bombardment. According to
the experimental data of Japanese researchers, the asteroid Itokawa, which moves
between Earth and Mars, loses many dozen centimeters of its surface layer over a
million years \citep{Keis}.

Over 4.5 billion years, such loss would amount to a layer of
2–3 km. Taking into account that the micrometeorite bombardment is more intensive
in the zone of the asteroid belt and that the dust cloud density must have been
much higher in the past, it can be concluded that asteroids can lose dozens and
even hundreds of kilometers of their surface layers.

Where did all that mass, which turned into splinters and dust, go? If the asteroid
belt was a closed system, nothing would happen; the dust would leave the surface
of the asteroids and return without changing the general mass of the asteroid belt.
However, in reality the asteroid belt is open to influence: it is lit by the Sun. The
Sun’s rays create sufficient light pressure for the finest newly-formed dust grains
of submicron size to be thrown out of the Solar System. Larger dust grains, of 1
micron,  are  thrown  into  elliptical  orbits  immediately  after  their  formation  and
approach Jupiter at their apocenters. Jupiter in turn treats them bluntly, throwing
them in all directions at colossal speeds. Numerical calculations by the authors
show that 50 percent of such dust grains are thrown out of the Solar System into
interstellar space \citep{Gor4, Gor2}.

Jupiter, together with the solar pressure, works as a giant
vacuum cleaner that removes fine dust from the asteroid belt. Larger dust particles,
which do not reach Jupiter’s orbit and escape its ‘gravitational kick’, are
affected differently and drift slowly to the Sun under the influence of the
Poynting-Robertson effect. This effect makes a particle, which moves along the orbit in the
media of solar wind quanta, lose its angular momentum (similarly, a man running
during a vertical rain shower is hit in the face by raindrops due to his own speed)
and crawl towards the Sun. This also decreases the asteroid belt mass.
The Sun and Jupiter are the ‘thieves’ that quietly and discreetly stole the main
mass of the asteroid belt, preventing the material from forming a full-scale planet.
Data from the asteroid Itokawa suggest that such a process is highly efficient.
Each  asteroid  was  gradually  reduced  over  cosmological  time,  sending  dust
flows in all directions that, by its total mass, exceeded its current residue. From the
point of view of Ilya Prigozhin’s concept of self-organization, this is a typical
open system prone to the formation of structures. A reducing asteroid creates a
space of opportunity around itself.
Moons are self-organizing structures that grow by feeding on the dust flying
from asteroids. In fact, it is sufficient to create quite a small seed disk around an
asteroid (the creation of such a disk from particles passing around planets was
discussed in detail in the monograph Vityazev A.V.,  Pechernikova G.V., Safronov V.S.
"Terrestrial planets: origin and early evolution", 1990)
and this begins to intercept the flying matter efficiently as it sorts: the
retrograde  bodies  (in  terms  of  their  rotation  relative  to  the  disk  rotation)  are
thrown to the planet and the prograde particles are captured by the disk, increasing
its mass \citep{Gor2}.

Numerical calculations showed that even with isotropic bombardment of an
asteroid by micrometeorites, a prograde disk, i.e. a disk rotating in the same direction
as the asteroid itself, grows around it; such a disk has its peak density not far
from the central body. As shown by research into the available observations, the
main mass of the moons of asteroids is situated in the orbits equal to 3–4 radii of
the central body (Figure 2).

\begin{figure}
    \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig2.jpg}
    \caption{Distribution of planetary rings, moons of asteroids, and the Chariklo ring
(the altitude of its peak is selected arbitrarily) by their distance from the planet. The dashed
line means the outer borderline of planetary rings. It follows from this image that the
Chariklo ring is a proto-moon disk rather than a planetary ring.}
    \label{fig:fg2}
\end{figure}

The rings recently discovered near the Centaur-class asteroids Chariklo and
Chiron were announced as planetary rings; however, in reality these are protomoon
discs situated at a distance of exactly three radii from the asteroid, in contrast
to planetary rings that are limited to a maximum radius of 2.6 (Figure 2).

How is the formation of our Moon different from the formation of the moons of
asteroids? Actually, it does not differ in any principle respect. Micrometeorites
and meteorites collide with an asteroid’s surface at a colossal speed and throw
flows  of  friable  surface  matter  from  it. These  flows  have  much  slower  speeds
(about 10 as shown by laboratory experiments \citep{Schultz}. In the case of the Moon,
such micrometeorites and meteorites are replaced by larger bodies (planetesimals)
from dozens of kilometers, up to 1,000 km. However, even 1,000-km planetesimals
are hundreds of times lighter than Theia, meaning that the Moon appeared as
a result of multiple moderate collisions, not a single catastrophic impact. The matter
from Earth’s mantle was gradually thrown to orbit, to the proto-moon disk
from which the Moon later formed, without the need for Earth to melt and without
a unique mega-impact. The fact that the Moon formed quite near Earth and later
moved to a distance equal to 60 Earth radii has been known for some time (the
Moon is currently moving away from Earth at a speed of 4 cm per year).

One intriguing question is whether Earth had smaller, outer moons like those of
Pluto. If so, then, the moving Moon must have engulfed its smaller brothers.
Thus, we have proposed a model that explains the three key problems of current
planetology at once: the asteroid belt formation (or its mass loss); the appearance
of multiple moons around asteroids (that were formed using the lost mass),
and the birth of the Moon. This model does not require any unique events and, in
the final analysis, better agrees with the geochemical data than the theory of a
catastrophic mega-impact. This multi-impact model unites the most important
and  significant  moments  of  the  mega-impact  theory  (throwing  Earth’s  mantle
matter to space upon collision with a large body) and the accretion model (existence
of a long-lived proto-satellite disk) and removes the difficulties of both
concepts.
The  authors  have  learned  relatively  recently  that  the  theory  of  the  Moon’s
origin as a result of a number of smaller impacts has also been developed independently
by  the  Moscow  cosmogonic  group  of  Safronov-Ruskol-Vityazev-Pechernikova
(see the history of this model in review \citet{Vit2}). This group also used
the theory to develop the model of the Moon’s formation by accretion. According
to the calculations of the Moscow specialists, the maximum size of bodies falling
to  Earth  did  not  exceed  one  percent  of  Earth’s  mass,  meaning  they  were  of
‘Lunar’, rather than ‘Martian’ size. This immediately renders the mega-impact
model unrealistic.

An article by Gaftonyuk and Gorkavyi studied the patterns of the double asteroid
database, which had already provided rather rich data \citep{Gor6}. It showed that the
probability  of  a  moon’s  existence  grows  with  the  increased  rotation  speeds  of
asteroids. Additionally, all the discovered moons rotate in the same direction as
their central body and lie close to the plane of its equator. Thus, the moon systems
of asteroids are regular and similar to those of the large planets.
In terms of relative mass, the Moon is in the middle of the distribution of moons
of  solid  bodies. The  Moon  stopped  being  a  unique  body  in  the  planetological
sense because many analogs for it have been discovered over time. Until recently,
there were eight or nine planets in the Solar System and a lot of space debris. Now,
we have millions of planets in our system, with their own origins, histories, and
moons. Therefore, the models of moon formation near solid planetoids, including
the Moon near Earth, must be unified to explain the formation of both the moons
of asteroids and our own Moon. Any theory of the Moon’s formation that cannot
explain the formation of the moons of asteroids is morally outdated, even if it has
been suggested quite recently.
The  mega-impact  model  of  the  Moon’s  formation  is  also  connected  with
the significant issue of the origin of Earth’s oceans. Where would the water have
come from?

Tobi Owen, a Hawaiian astronomer and specialist in the origin of Earth’s hydrosphere,
postulated  three  possible  sources  of  Earth’s  oceans  in  his  interview
to Scientific American  of October 21, 1999: 1) Water that was contained in the
asteroids (planetesimals) that agglutinated in the past to form the planet Earth.
(This is, of course, a realistic source, because the primary bodies contained a lot
of moisture.); 2) Water that was delivered to Earth during subsequent falls of
asteroids and meteoroids such as carbonaceous chondrites from the asteroid belt; 3)
Water from the comets that hit Earth infrequently \citep{Canup}.

In principle, asteroids and comets as sources of Earth’s water are realistic. The
question is how much water has been delivered this way. Space chemists researched
this issue and observed that if water had been delivered to Earth by meteorites,
which contain a lot of the inert gas xenon, then Earth’s atmosphere would likely
have contained ten times more xenon than it does. As the inert gas xenon does not
engage in chemical reactions, its quantity has not changed since the time of Earth’s
formation. Thus,  the  ‘meteoritic  hypothesis’  of  the  origin  of  Earth’s  oceans  is
unlikely. Space chemists also criticized the ‘comet hypothesis’, because the deuterium/hydrogen
ratio  in  cometary  ice  is  twice  as  high  as  in  Earth’s  oceans.
Relatively  recent  measurements  taken  by  Rosetta  near  the
Churyumov-Gerasimenko comet indicated that the deuterium/hydrogen ratio in that comet was
three times higher than in Earth’s water, so any relationship between comets and
Earth’s oceans is not confirmed \citep{Altwegg}.

 In their article ‘Oceans from Heaven’ in
Scientific American  of March 2015, D. Jewitt and E. Young suggested that there is
“no simple solution” to the choice between the comet hypothesis and the meteoritic
hypothesis for the origin of oceans. However, why are researchers not happy
with the first hypothesis, the simplest and most logical among the possibilities that
were enumerated by Owen?
It is because the mega-impact model, which only creates the Moon with great
difficulty,  also  deprives  Earth  of  its  oceans. As  Jewitt  and Young  noted:  “The
energy of this global-scale impact would have swept away much of the atmosphere,
flash-boiled any watery oceans and produced an ocean of magma hundreds of kilometers
deep. Regardless of whether Earth formed wet or dry, the
devastating blow of this Moon-forming impact must have cleansed our planet of
nearly all its primordial water.”
Having  adopted  the  mega-impact  catastrophic  theory,  scientists  started
racking their brains to devise sophisticated scenarios for returning the oceans to
Earth.  There  is  no  need  to  rack  one’s  brains,  but  there  is  a  need  to  break
stereotypes.
For any young scientists reading, catastrophism is a true sign of the scientific
inadequacy of a theory. A theory based on the assumption of a rare event is
inherently not good, because it has a low probability. What is worse is that a
catastrophic event provides many free parameters for a model which on the one
hand allows easy adaptation of a parametric model to the observed phenomenon,
but on the other hand drastically decreases the scientific value of such a
flexible model.
Catastrophic models have a low prediction value, because they are not applicable
to other physical systems and cannot say anything about them. As a rule,
catastrophic theories are debunked over time; if they have not been debunked so
far, it simply means that not enough time has passed and that some of the proponents
of the old model remain to defend it.

Let  us  consider  Jupiter’s  irregular  moons  and  the  theory  of  the  accidental
capture by Neptune of its moon Triton, which has a retrograde orbit, as examples
of the catastrophic formation model. According to the first model, the group of
prograde (rotating in the same direction as the planet) and retrograde moons of
Jupiter appeared due to the accidental collision of two large asteroids on head-on
trajectories.
In 1993–95, the authors developed a numerical model to analyze the capture of
small asteroids near a giant planet \citep{Gor7}.
 The model took into account the existence
of a disc of prograde particles orbiting around the planet, and of collisions between
particles of this disc and asteroids flying by. All the typical trajectories of passing
asteroids were studied and hundreds of thousands of the splinter trajectories that
formed from the collision of particles and asteroids were calculated, with different
assumptions of their masses. The model was used for the systems of the three
giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune.
Surprisingly, it was found that all small asteroids are captured in quite specific
zones near each planet, which are determined by the different geometry of the
trajectories of the oncoming bodies. These zones are different for prograde and
retrograde asteroids, and are where the real groups of retrograde and prograde
irregular moons are located.

Thus, the position of external moons that were considered
to be irregular for a long time was found to be compliant with stringent
celestial-mechanical regularities. The model explained the existence of Jupiter’s
outer moons including the retrograde group Pasiphae, Saturn’s retrograde moon
Phoebe, and Neptune’s big retrograde moon Triton. The diversity of the moon
systems of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune proved to be connected to changes in only
one significant parameter of the model – the evolution duration. Increasing evolution
durations resulted in the formation of ever more massive retrograde moons.
Therefore, Saturn has more such moons than Jupiter, and Neptune’s retrograde
moon bodies dominated over prograde bodies and formed the giant retrograde
Triton.
The article made a conclusion, based on the model for Saturn, that the planet
had an undiscovered group of outer retrograde moons at twice the distance of the
orbit radius of the retrograde Phoebe (13 million km), similar to Jupiter’s outer
group Pasiphae (Figure 3).

\begin{figure}
    \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{Fig3.jpg}
    \caption{The original density profile (1) of the prograde near-planet disk evolves
due to the capture of retrograde asteroids and their fragments (profiles 2–4) up to the
zone where retrograde moons dominate (shaded zones below the axis). One such zone
happens  to  be  around  the  orbit  of  Phoebe,  while  the  other,  outer  zone  contained  no
known moons in 1995. A whole group of retrograde moons of Saturn were discovered in
that zone some years later.}
    \label{fig:fg3}
\end{figure}

 The prediction of the existence of this outermost group
of retrograde moons was confirmed several years later: 25 retrograde moons of
Saturn were discovered over 2000–2007, at a distance of 18–24 million km.
In 2001, the authors made an additional prediction, based on their 1995 calculations,
that Nereid, the outermost moon of Neptune at that time, was the largest of
the prograde moons in a group of outer moons, which would consist of a mixture
of moons with prograde and retrograde orbits and with the retrograde moons dominant
\citep{Gor8}.
 This prediction was confirmed with the discovery of two prograde and
three retrograde moons of Neptune beyond Nereid’s orbit in 2002–2003.
Thus, developments in science have systematically expelled catastrophic models,
replacing them with theories that are based on regular rather than accidental
phenomena.
The concept of the formation of the Moon, double asteroids, and the asteroid
belt  itself  through  multiple  systematic  space  collisions  contains  a  lot  of
little- studied and unclear phenomena, which is exactly why it presents a great
opportunity  for  young  scientists  and  postgraduates,  including  those  from
Chelyabinsk State University, to apply their abilities.

Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)


Collective effects in intra-cellular molecular motor transport: coordination, cooperation and competetion

Abstract: Molecular motors do not work in isolation {\it in-vivo}. We highlight some of the coordinations, cooperations and competitions that determine the collective properties of molecular motors in eukaryotic cells. In the context of traffic-like movement of motors on a track, we emphasize the importance of single-motor bio-chemical cycle and enzymatic activity on their collective spatio-temporal organisation. Our modelling strategy is based on a synthesis- the same model describes the single-motor mechano-chemistry at sufficiently low densities whereas at higher densities it accounts for the collective flow properties and the density profiles of the motors. We consider two specific examples, namely, traffic of single-headed kinesin motors KIF1A on a microtubule track and ribosome traffic on a messenger RNA track.

\section{\label{sec1} Introduction}

Molecular motors \cite{schliwa,hacktama} perform crucial functions at
almost every stage in the life of a cell. The motor-dependent activities
begin with DNA replication \cite{alberts} which is essential before
cell division. A motor
called DNA helicase \cite{levin,lohmann} unzips the double-stranded
DNA so that another motor, called DNA polymerase \cite{rothwell} can
synthesize two copies of the DNA using the two single strands as
templates.  Protein synthesis \cite{alberts}, one of the crucial
activities within a cell, is accomplished by some other motors at
different stages of operation, the most notable among these are RNA
polymerase \cite{gelles} and ribosomes \cite{ramakrishnan}. Normally,
the proteins are synthesized near the cell center and need to be
transported to appropriate locations some of which are far from the
cell center. Besides, some cargoes are also transported from the cell
periphery to the cell center.
Most of these transportations of cargoes (often in appropriately
packaged form) in the cytoplasm are carried out by yet another set
of molecular motors which are collectively referred to as cytoskeletal
motors \cite{howard}.

The molecular motors at the cellular and subcellular levels can
be grouped together is several different ways. One possible way of
grouping these is based on the nature of the tracks on which the
motors move- one group moves on filamentary proteins whereas the
other moves on nucleic acid strands. Among the cytoskeletal motors,
which walk on filamentary proteins, kinesin and dynein move on
microtubules (MT) whereas myosins move on actin filaments. Some
motors are processive, i.e., capable of long walk without getting
detached from the track. Kinesins and dyneins are not only
processive but can carry molecular cargo; therefore, these are
functionally similar to ``porters''.

Molecular motors do not work in isolation {\it in-vivo}. Wide range
of biophysical phenomena observed at sub-cellular and cellular
levels are manifestations of different types of collective processes,
involving molecular motors, at several different levels of biological
organisation \cite{vermeulen}. The nature of the collective effect
depends on the situation; it can be the {\it coordination} of different
parts of a single motor or, on a larger scale, it can be a
{\it cooperation} or {\it competition} between two different motors.
These collective effects can manifest as spontaneous oscillations,
dynamic instabilities, hysteresis, dynamical phase transitions
\cite{kruse05,vilfan05} and motor traffic jam \cite{polrev}.
In this paper, we first give examples of different types of
coordination, cooperation and competition in molecular motor
transport. Then, we focus on our works on molecular motor traffic
on two different types of tracks, namely, on MT and on messenger
RNA (mRNA).

\section{Coordination through elastic coupling}

In this section we consider coordination of elastically coupled
motor domains of a given motor as well as that of motors which
are elastically coupled to a common backbone. The structures and
mechanisms of single cytoskeletal motors have been discussed in
this proceedings by Ray \cite{ray}, and by Mallik and Gross
\cite{mallikgross} while those of helicase motors have been
reviewed by Tuteja and Tuteja \cite{tutejas}.

\subsection{Coordination of different heads of oligomeric motors}

Most of the known common molecular motor proteins are dimeric or,
in general, oligomeric \cite{mei05}. It is
generally believed that coordination of the ATPase activities of
different motor domains is essential for the processivity of a
given motor. The mechanism of this coordination has been
investiagted extensively over the last decade using many different
techniques.

It is now quite well established that the conventional double-headed
kinesins follow a hand-over-hand mechanism (exactly similar to the
steppings used by humans for walking)
\cite{vale97,hackney04,yildiz05,cross04,carter05,carter06}.
Similar hand-over-hand mechanism is also believed to govern the
movement of myosin-V, an unconventional processive myosin
\cite{rock04,sellers06}.
However, the corresponding mechanism for dimeric cytoplasmic
dynein is much more complex because the architecture of its motor
domain is very different from those of kinesin and myosin-V
\cite{oiwa,mallik}.

Majority of the molecular motors that move on nucleic acid tracks (DNA
or RNA) are also oligomeric. For example, most DNA helicases are
either dimeric or hexameric \cite{levin}. Both ``inchworm'' and
``hand-over-hand'' (also called ``rolling'') mechanisms for the
coordination of the motor domains of dimeric DNA helicases have
been considered \cite{lohmann04}. The corresponding mechanism for
hexameric DNA helicases remains unclear; at least three different
plausible scenarios have been suggested. The ATPase activity of
the motor domains in hexameric DNA helicases can run (i) in parallel,
or (ii) in ordered sequential, or (iii) in random-sequential manner
\cite{patel}.

\subsection{Collective dynamics of cytoskeletal motors bound to a common elastic backbone}

Consider a group of identical motors bound to an elastic backbone as
shown in fig.\ref{fig-badoual}. It has been shown \cite{badoual} that,
even if each individual motor is non-processive, such a system of
elastically coupled motors can move collectively on a filamentary
track in a processive manner in one direction for a period of time
and, then, spontaneously reverse its direction of motion.
Such spontaneous oscillations can account for the dynamics of axonemes,
which are core constituents of eucaryotic cilia, as well as oscillatory
motions of flight muscles of many insects \cite{kruse05,hilfinger}.

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig1.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic description of the model of elastically coupled
cytoskeletal motors \cite{badoual}; the horizontal curve represents
the elastic backbone.}
\label{fig-badoual}
\end{figure}

\section{Two superfamilies of porters: load-sharing versus tug-of-war}

Kinesins and dyneins are both processive (i.e.,
``porters''), but move in opposite directions along MT tracks. Often
several members of the same superfamily together carry a single cargo.
On the other hand, if members of both the superfamilies are adsorbed
simultaneously on the same cargo, they compete against each other
trying to pull the cargo in opposite directions. Recent progress in
theoretical modelling of these phenomena have been summarized in this
proceedings by Lipowsky et al.\cite{lipoetal}

\subsection{Unidirectional transport: load-sharing by members of one superfamily}

Two types of {\it in-vitro} motility assays have been used for studying
cytoskeletal molecular motors. In particular, in the bead assay the
filamentary tracks are fixed to a substrate and motors are attached to a
micron-sized bead (usually made of glass or plastic). The movement of the
bead in the presence of ATP is monitored using appropriate optical
micropscopic methods.
In such situations, each bead is likely to be covered by $N$ motors
where, in general, $N > 1$. More than one motor is also used for
transportation of large organelles {\it in-vivo}. This phenomenon of
unidirectional cooperative cargo transport by more than one motor of
the same superfamily has been studied theoretically \cite{lipopnas}.
The average walking
distance increase with increasing $N$.
In the face of opposition by external load force, the force is shared
by the $N$ motors.

Cooperative pulling of lipid bilayer membranes by kinesin motors can
generate membrane tubes \cite{roux,koster,leduc}. Such minimal systems
are adequate to gain insight into the role of motor-mediated interaction
between the cytoskeleton and organelles in the formation of endoplasmic
reticulum and Golgi membrane networks.

In case of transport by cytoplasmic dynein motors, if more than one
motor work together then collectively they can improve the
performance as porter although individually, while working in isolation,
they often pause and experience slippage in presence of load force
\cite{malliketal}.

\subsection{\label{sec3} Bidirectional transport: tug-of-war between two superfamiles}

In the preceeding section we have mentioned how the a single assembly of elastically
coupled motors can spontaneously reverse its direction of motion on the
same track. It is also well known that some motors reverse the direction
of motion by switching over from one track to another which are oriented
in anti-parallel fashion. In contrast to these types of reversal of
direction of motion, we consider in this section those reversals where
the cargo uses a ``tug-of-war'' between kinesins and dyneins to execute
bidirectional motion on the same MT track \cite{welte04,gross04}.
Several possible functional advantages of bidirectional transport have been conjectured \cite{gross04,welte04}.

Wide varieties of bidirectional cargoes have already been identified so
far; these include organelles (for example, mitochondria) as well as
secretaory vesicles and even viruses. If motion in one direction dominates
overwhelmingly over the other, it becomes extremely difficult to identify
the movement unambiguously as ``bidirectional'' because of the limitations
of the spatial and temporal resolutions of the existing techniques of
imaging.

The main challenge in this context is to understand the mechanisms
of this bidirectional transport and those which control the duration of
unidirectional movement in between two successive reversals. This insight
will also be utilized for therapeutic strategies. For example, the motor
or the motor-cargo link may be targeted blocking the virus that hijacks
the motor transport system to travel towards the nucleus. On the other
hand, a virus executing bidirectional movements can be turned away from
the outskirts of the nucleus by tilting the balance in favour of the
kinesins.

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig2.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic description of the three possible mechanisms of
bidirectional traffic. The three figures from top to bottom
correspond to the three mechanisms (i), (ii) and (iii) explained
in the text. The open circle and the rectangular box represent,
respectively, a micron-size bead and a regulator of bidirectional
transport.
}
\label{fig-bidir}
\end{figure}

At least three possible mechanisms of bidirectional transport have been
postulated (see
fig.\ref{fig-bidir}). (i) One possibility is that either only + end
directed motors or only - end directed motors are attached to the
cargo at any given instant of time. Reversal of the direction of movement of the cargo
is observed when the attached motors are replaced by motors of opposite
polarity. (ii) The second possible mechanism is the closest to the
real life ``tug-of-war''; the competion between the motors of opposite
polarity, which are simultaneously attached to the same cargo and tend
to walk on the same filament generates a net displacement in a direction
that is decided by the stronger side. (iii) The third mechanism is
based on the concept of regulation; although motors of opposite polarity
are simultaneously attached to the cargo, only one type of motors are
activated at a time for walking on the track. In this mechanism, the
reversal of the cargo movement is caused by the regulator when it
disengages one type of motor and engages motors of the opposite polarity.
For experimentalists, it is a challenge not only to identify the
regulator, if such a regulator exists, but also to identify the mechanism
used by the regulator to act as a switch for causing the reversal of
cargo movement. Dynactin has been identified as a possible candidate
for the role of such a regulator \cite{gross03,dell03}.

\section{\label{sec4} Transfer from MT networks to actin networks: Park-and-Ride transport system }

The networks of MTs and actin filaments are not disconnected.
The cytoskeleton is MT-rich near the cell center whereas dense actin filaments
dominate the cytoskeleton near the cell periphery. In recent years
functional cooperation between the MT-based and actin-based transport
systems have been discovered \cite{brown,goode,rodionov}.

Several organisms are known to have an intrinsic ability to manipulate
their skin colour. For example, in fish and frog this change of skin
colour is caused by the appropriate movement of pigment-containing
vesicles called melanosome within a special type of cells called
melanophore. When stimulated,
melanosomes disperse throughout the cell causing darkening of the
skin colour. A second stimulus can reverse the process by aggregation
of the melanosomes near the cell center. During dispersion melanosomes
are transported, some part of their way towards the cell periphery, by
kinesin motors. Then, melanosomes switch from the MT-based kinesin
motors to actin-based myosin motor (unconventional myosin-V which is
a processive motor) for further distribution around the cell periphery.
During the reverse process, the melanosomes begin their journey on
the actin-based transportation network and, somewhere along the way,
switch over to the MT-based network for continuing their onward
journey towards the cell center. This switching of the transport
system is similar to park-and-ride system-
one drives a car from the suburban areas to the nearest station of the
urban high-speed mass transit system (railways or metro trains) for
reaching the central part of a city \cite{maniak}.

Cooperation of MT-based and actin-based transportation networks also
play crucial roles in neuronal transport. Actin filaments help in
the transport of the cargo to bridge the gaps between MT filaments
\cite{brown}. The linkers of the two networks and the mechanisms of
regulation and control of the proper switchover of cargo from one
system to the other have received some attention in the last few
years \cite{fuchs1,fuchs2,rodionov}.

\section{Collective transport by kinesins: molecular motor traffic jam}

Most of the multi-motor phenomena we have considered in the preceeding
section are restricted to sufficiently low densities where direct
interaction of the cargoes did not occur. As the cargoes are always
much bigger than the motors (in-vitro as well as in-vivo), direct
steric interactions of the cargoes become significant when several
cargoes are carried by sufficiently dense population of motors along
the same track. Such situations are reminiscent of vehicular traffic
where mutual hindrance of the vehicles cause traffic jam at sufficiently
high densities. In analogy with vehicular traffic, we shall refer to
the collective movement of molecular motors along a filamentary track
as ``molecular motor traffic''; we shall explore the possibility of
molecular motor traffic jam and its possible functional implications.

\subsection{TASEP-like minimal models of molecular motor traffic}

Most of the minimal theoretical models of interacting molecular motors
\cite{lipo,frey,frey2,santen,popkov} utilize the similarities
between molecular motor traffic on MT and vehicular traffic on highways
\cite{css} both of which can be modelled by appropriate extensions of
driven diffusive lattice gases \cite{sz,schuetz}. In such models the
motor is represented by a ``self-propelled'' particle and its dynamics
is formulated as an appropriate extension of the totally asymmetric
simple exclusion process (TASEP) which is one of the simplest models
of interacting driven particles. Many aspects TASEP and its extentions
as well as generalizations have been discussed in detail in the articles
by Stinchcombe \cite{stinch}, Kolomeisky \cite{kolo} and Barma \cite{barma}
in this proceedings. The novel feature of these models, which distinguish
these from TASEP are the Langmuir-like kinetics of adsorption and
desorption of the motors.

Let us consider the model suggested by Parmeggiani et al.\cite{frey}.
In this model (see fig.\ref{fig-frey}) the self-propelled particle
can hope from one lattice site to the next immediately in front of it,
provided the target site is empty, with hopping probability $q$ per
unit time. Moreover, a particle gets attached to an empty site
with probability $A$ per unit time time, whereas a particle attached
to a site can get detached with probability $D$ per unit time.
Furthermore, the attachment probability at the entrance and the
detachment probability at the exit are denoted by $\alpha$ and $\beta$,
respectively, per unit time. In spite of the extreme simplicity of this
model, it predicted a novel jammed phase on the $\alpha-\beta$ phase
diagram. The progress made so far has been reviewed in this proceedings
by Lipowsky et al.\cite{lipoetal}.

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig3.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic description of the model of cytoskeletal motor traffic
developed by Parmeggiani et al.\cite{frey}}
\label{fig-frey}
\end{figure}

\subsection{\label{seckif}KIF1A traffic: effects of biochemical cycle}

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig4.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Biochemical cycle in the absence and presence of the track.
The symbols above (or below) the arrows are the rate constants
for to the chemical reactions represented by the corresponding arrows.}
\label{fig-bccycle}
\end{figure}

In reality, a molecular motor is an enzyme that hydrolyses ATP.
In the presence of the track, usually the ATPase activity of the
motor increases by one or two orders of magnitude; moreover,
the mechanical movement of the motor is coupled to its biochemical
cycle that includes its enzymatic activity (see fig.\ref{fig-bccycle}).
Models developed for
describing the mechanisms of operation of a single motor of a specific
type incorporate not only the mechanical states of the motor but also
its chemical states in each biochemical cycle.
On the other hand, the models of interacting motors in traffic,
which we mentioned in the preceeding subsection, do not
explicitly take into account the distinct chemical states of each
motor during its biochemical cycle.  Therefore, one common
theme of our recent works on molecular motors  has
been to achieve a synthesis- we incorporate the essential steps of the
biochemical cycle, in addition to the mutual interactions of the motors,
to develope models for their collective traffic-like dynamics. In the
low-density limit, the model describes single-motor dynamics while the
same model at higher densities predicts the collective spatio-temporal
organization of the motors.

In a recent paper \cite{nosc} we considered specifically the
{\it single-headed} kinesin motor, KIF1A \cite{okada1,okada3,Nitta};
the movement of a single KIF1A motor had already been modelled with a
Brownian ratchet mechanism \cite{julicher,reimann}. In contrast to the
earlier models \cite{frey,frey2,santen,popkov,lipo} of molecular motor traffic,
which take into account only the mutual interactions of the motors, our
model (from now referred to as the NOSC model) explicitly incorporates
also the Brownian ratchet mechanism of individual KIF1A motors, including
its biochemical cycle that involves ATP hydrolysis.

The biochemical cycle of a single-headed kinesin motor KIF1A can
be described by the four states shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-kif1acycle}
\cite{okada1,Nitta}: bare kinesin (K), kinesin bound with ATP (K.ATP),
kinesin bound with the products of hydrolysis, i.e., adenosine
diphosphate and phosphate (K.ADP.P), and, finally, kinesin bound with
ADP (K.ADP) after releasing phosphate.

Through a series of in-vitro experiments, Okada, Hirokawa and
co-workers established that \\
(i) each KIF1A motor, while weakly bound to a MT, remains tethered
to the MT filament by the electrostatic attraction between the
positively charged $K$-loop of the motor and the negatively
charged $E$-hook of the MT filament. \\
(ii) In the weakly bound state, a KIF1A cannot wander far away from
the MT, but can execute (essentially one-dimensional) diffusive motion
parallel to the MT filament. However, in the strongly bound state,
the KIF1A motor remains strongly bound to a motor binding site on
the MT.\\
(iii) A transition from the strongly bound state to the weakly bound
state is caused by the hydrolysis of the bound ATP molecule. After
releasing all the products of hydrolysis (i.e., ADP and phosphate),
the motor again binds strongly with the nearest binding site on the MT.

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig5.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{The biochemical cycle of a single-headed kinesin motor KIF1A.}
\label{fig-kif1acycle}
\end{figure}

In the NOSC model a single protofilament of MT is modelled by a
one-dimensional lattice of
$L$ sites each of which corresponds to one KIF1A-binding site on the MT;
the lattice spacing is equivalent to $8$ nm which is the separation
between the successive binding sites on a MT \cite{howard}. Each kinesin
is represented by a particle with two possible internal states, labelled
by the indices $1$ and $2$, in which it binds strongly and weakly,
respectively, to the MT track. Attachment of a motor to the MT occurs
stochastically whenever a binding site on the latter is empty.
Such a two-state approximation to the full sequence of biochemical
states (conformations) has been successfully exploited also for
conventional two-headed kinesin and unconventional myosin-V both
of which are known to be processive \cite{kolo03,kolo05a}.

For the dynamical evolution of the system, one of the $L$ sites is
picked up randomly and updated according to the rules given below
together with the corresponding probabilities (Fig.~\ref{fig-kifbrat}):
\begin{eqnarray}
 &&{\rm Attachment:} \,\,\,\,\,  0\to 1 \,\,\,{\rm with} \,\, \omega_a dt\\
 &&{\rm Detachment:} \,\,\,\, 1\to 0 \,\,\, {\rm with} \,\, \ \omega_d dt\\
 &&{\rm Hydrolysis:} \,\,\,\,\,  1\to 2 \,\,\,{\rm with} \,\, \omega_h dt\\
 &&{\rm Ratchet:}\,\,\,\,\, \left\{\begin{array}{c}
     2 \to 1\,\,\,{\rm with} \,\, \omega_s dt\\
     20 \to 01\,\,\,{\rm with} \,\, \omega_f dt
   \end{array}\right.\\
 &&{\rm Brownian\ motion:}\,\,\,\,\, \left\{\begin{array}{c}
     20 \to 02\,\,\,{\rm with} \,\, \omega_b dt\\
     02 \to 20\,\,\,{\rm with} \,\, \omega_b dt
   \end{array}\right.
\end{eqnarray}

The physical processes captured by the rate constants $w_f$ and $w_s$
can be understood as follows by analyzing the Brownian ratchet mechanism
illustrated in fig.\ref{fig-kifbrat}. For the sake of simplicity, let
us imagine that the potential seen by the motor periodically oscillates
between the sawtooth shape and the flat shape shown in fig.\ref{fig-kifbrat}.
When the sawtooth form remains ``on'' for some time, the particle
settles at the bottom of a well. Then, when the potential is switched
``off'', the probability distribution of the position of the particle
is given by a delta function which, because of free diffusion in the
absence of any force, begins to spread. After some time the Gaussian
profile spreads to such an extent that it has some overlap also with
the well in front, in addition to the overlap it has with the original
well. At that stage, when the sawtooth potentil is again switched on,
there is a non-vanishing probability that the particle will find itself
in the well in front; this probability is proportional to the area of
that part of the Gaussian profile which overlaps with the potential
well in front
and is accounted for in our model by the parameter $w_f$. There is
also significant probability that the particle will fall back into
the original well; this is captured in our model by the parameter
$w_s$.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.3\textwidth]{debchfig6.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic description of the Brownian-ratchet.
}
\label{fig-kifbrat}
\end{figure}

Let us denote the probabilities of finding a KIF1A molecule in
the states $1$ and $2$ at the lattice site $i$ at time $t$ by the
symbols $r_i$ and $h_i$, respectively. In mean-field approximation the
master equations for the dynamics of motors in the bulk of the system
are given by \cite{nosc}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dr_i}{dt}&=&\omega_a (1-r_i-h_i) -\omega_h r_i -\omega_d r_i
+\omega_s h_i\nonumber\\
&&+\omega_f h_{i-1}(1-r_i-h_i),\\
\frac{dh_i}{dt}&=&-\omega_s h_i +\omega_h r_i
-\omega_f h_i (1-r_{i+1}-h_{i+1}) \nonumber\\
&&-\omega_b h_i (2-r_{i+1}-h_{i+1}-r_{i-1}-h_{i-1})  \nonumber\\
&&+\omega_b (h_{i-1}+h_{i+1})(1-r_i-h_i).
\label{eq-bulk}
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding equations for the boundaries, which depend on the rate
constants of entry and exit at the two ends of the MT, are similar and
will be presented elsewhere \cite{greulich}.

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig7.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{A schematic representation of the NOSC model of KIF1A traffic.
The integer $i$ denotes the discrete equispaced binding sites for
kinesin motors on the MT track. The symbols $1$ and $2$ within circles
at a given site $i$ represent the ``chemical'' (conformational) states
of a kinesin at the same spatial location. }
\label{fig-half}
\end{figure}

The single KIF1A properties are reproduced by this model \cite{nosc} in
the appropriate low-density limit. For example, $v$, the mean speed of
the kinesins, is about $0.2$~nm/ms if the supply of ATP is sufficient,
and that $v$ decreases with the lowering of ATP concentration following
a Michaelis-Menten type relation.

Assuming {\em periodic} boundary conditions, the solutions
$(r_i, h_i)=(r,h)$ of the mean-field equations
(\ref{eq-bulk}) in the steady-state are found to be
\begin{eqnarray}
r&=&\frac{ -\Omega_h - \Omega_s -  (\Omega_s -1)K  +
{\sqrt{D}} }{2 K(1+K)},\label{eqr}\\
h&=&\frac{\Omega_h +\Omega_s + (\Omega_s +1)K
-{\sqrt{D}} }{2 K}\label{eqh}
\end{eqnarray}
where $K=\omega_d/\omega_a$,
$\Omega_h=\omega_h/\omega_f$, $\Omega_s=\omega_s/\omega_f$, and
\begin{equation}
 D=4\Omega_s K(1+K)+
{\left( \Omega_h +\Omega_s + ( \Omega_s-1)K  \right) }^2.
\end{equation}
The probability of finding an empty binding site on a MT is $Kr$ as
the stationary solution satisfies the equation $r+h+Kr=1$.
The corresponding flux is given by \cite{greulich}
\begin{eqnarray}
J &=& W\omega_f \nonumber \\
  &=& \frac{\omega_a\omega_h\omega_f}{\omega_f(\omega_a + \omega_d) + \omega_a(\omega_s+\omega_h) + \omega_d\omega_s} \nonumber \\
   &=& \frac{\omega_h(1+K)}{(1+K)[(1+K) + (\Omega_s + \Omega_h) + \Omega_s K]}.
\end{eqnarray}

We have also computed the average density profile of the motors along
a MT track with open boundary conditions. For a given $\omega_a$, the
density of motors in state 2 away from the edges of the MT exceeds
that of those in state 1 as $\omega_h$ increases beyond a certain value.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{debchfig8a.eps}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\columnwidth]{debchfig8b.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{The stationary density profiles for $\omega_h=0.1$ (left) and
$\omega_h=0.2$ (right) in the case $\omega_a=0.001$.
The blue and red lines correspond to the densities of state 1 and 2,
respectively. The dashed lines are the mean-field predictions
for periodic systems with the same parameters.
}
\label{fig-density}
\end{figure}

In contrast to the phase diagrams in the $\alpha-\beta$-plane reported
by earlier investigators \cite{frey,santen,lipo}, we have drawn the
phase diagram of our model in the $\omega_a-\omega_h$ plane by carrying
out extensive computer simulations for realistic parameter values of
the model with open boundary conditions \cite{nosc,greulich}.
The phase diagram shows the strong influence of hydrolysis on
the spatial distribution of the motors along the MT. For very low
$\omega_h$ no kinesins can exist in state 2; the kinesins, all of which
are in state 1, are distributed rather homogeneously over the entire
system. However, immobile (but fluctuating) shock is observed in the
densiti profiles of kinesins if $\omega_h$ is finite.

\section{\label{secribo} Ribosome traffic and protein synthesis }

{\it Translation}, the process of synthesis of proteins \cite{kapp} by
decoding genetic
information stored in the mRNA, is carried out by {\it ribosomes}.
Understanding the physical principles underlying the mechanism of operation
of this complex macromolecular machine \cite{spirin02} will not only provide
insight into the regulation and control of protein synthesis, but may also
find therapeutic applications as ribosome is the target of many antibiotics
\cite{hermann}.

Most often many ribosomes move simultaneously on the same mRNA
strand while each synthesises a protein. In all the earlier models of
collective traffic-like movements of ribosomes
\cite{macdonald69,lakatos03,shaw03,shaw04a,shaw04b,chou03,chou04},
the entire ribosome is modelled as a single ``self-propelled particle''
ignoring its molecular composition and architecture. The typical size
of an individual ribosome is much larger than that of a single codon
(i.e., a triplet of nucleotides).
This feature of the ribosome is captured in most of the recent
theoretical models by postulating that the size of the self-propelled
particle is $\ell$ ($\ell > 1$) where the unit of length is set by the
size of a codon.  Moreover, in
these models the inter-ribosome interactions are captured through
hard-core mutual exclusion and the dynamics of the system is formulated
in terms of rules that are essentially straightforward extensions of
the TASEP \cite{schuetz}. The qualitative features of the flow
properties and spatio-temporal organisation in these models are very
similar to those of TASEP which corresponds to the special limit
$\ell = 1$.

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig9.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic description of the traffic of ribosomes where each
ribosome has been treated as an ``extended'' particle ($\ell = 2$
in this figure.}
\label{fig-ribotasep}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[tb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{debchfig10.eps}\\
\end{center}
\caption{A simplified biochemical cycle of s ribosome.}
\label{fig-circle}
\end{figure}

In reality, a ribosome has a complex architecture. Each ribosome consists
of two subunits and has four binding sites. Of these, three sites (called
E, P, A), which are located in the larger subunit, bind to tRNA, while
the fourth binding site, which is located on the smaller subunit, binds
to the mRNA strand. The translocation of the smaller subunit of each
ribosome on the mRNA track is coupled to the biochemical processes (see
fig.\ref{fig-circle}) occuring in the larger subunit.

Let us begin the biochemical cycle with state 1 where a tRNA is bound to
the site P of the ribosome. A tRNA-EF-Tu complex now binds to site A and
the system makes transition from the state 1 to the state 2. As long as
the EF-Tu is attached to the tRNA, codon-antiodon binding can take place,
but the peptide bond formation is prevented. The EF-Tu has a GTP part
which is hydrolized to GDP, driving the transition from state 2 to 3.
Following this, a phosphate group leaves, resulting in the intermediate
state 4. This hydrolysis, finally, releases the EF-Tu, and the peptide
formation is now possible. After this step, EF-G, in the GTP bound form,
comes in contact with the ribosome. This causes the tRNAs to shift from
site P to E and from site A to P, site A being occupied by the EF-G,
resulting in the state 5. Hydrolysis of the GTP to GDP then releases the
EF-G followed by
conformatinal changes that are responsible for pulling
the mRNA-binding smaller subunit by one step forward. Finally, the tRNA
on site A is released, resulting in completion of one biochemical cycle;
in the process the ribosome moves forward by one codon \cite{alberts}.

Very recently we \cite{basuchow} have developed a quantitative model
that not only
incorporates the hard-core mutual exclusion of the interacting
ribosomes, but also captures explicitly the essential steps in the
biochemical cycle of each ribosome, including GTP (guanine
triphosphate) hydrolysis, and couples it to its mechanical movement
during protein synthesis.
The modelling strategy adopted in ref.\cite{basuchow} for incorporating
the biochemical
cycle of ribosomes is similar to that followed in our earlier work
\cite{nosc} on single-headed kinesin motors KIF1A. However, the
implementation of the strategy is more difficult in case of
ribosome traffic not only
because of the higher complexity of composition, architecture and
mechano-chemical processes of the ribosomal machinery but also
because of the {\it heterogeneity} of the mRNA track \cite{nelson}.
The details of our work on ribosome traffic has been reported
elsewhere \cite{basuchow}.

\section{Summary and conclusion}

In this paper we have presented examples of collective behaviours of
molecular motors that emerge from the coordinations, cooperations
and competitions at different levels in the sub-cellular world.
In our original works so far we have synthesized the single-motor
mechano-chemistry and multi-motor interactions to develope theoretical
models that make experimentally testable quantitative predictions.
In particular, we have developed models of KIF1A traffic on a MT
track and ribosome traffic on a mRNA track.

\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements}: It is my great pleasure to acknowledge
enjoyable collaborations with Aakash Basu, Ashoke Garai, Philip
Greulich, Katsuhiro Nishinari, Yasushi Okada and Andreas Schadschneider.
I thank Aakash Basu for a critical reading of the manuscript.
I also thank Otger Campas, Erwin Frey, Frank J\"ulicher, Stefan Klumpp,
Anatoly Kolomeisky, Reinhard Lipowsky, Gautam Menon and Alex Mogilner
for useful discussions over the last few years on various aspects of
molecular motors.

Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph); Statistical Mechanics (cond-mat.stat-mech); Subcellular Processes (q-bio.SC)