Phospholipid synthetic and turnover pathways elicited upon exposure to different xenobiotics

Teresa M. Fonovich; Teresa M. Fonovich

doi:10.3934/molsci.2020010

AIMS Molecular Science

2020, Volume 7, Issue 3: 211-228. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2020010

Previous Article Next Article

Review

Phospholipid synthetic and turnover pathways elicited upon exposure to different xenobiotics

Teresa M. Fonovich ^{1,2
,
,}

1.
School of Science and Technology, National University of San Martín, San Martín, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina
2.
Laboratory of Ecotoxicology, Institute of Research and Environmental Engineering, National University of San Martín, San Martín, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina

Received: 25 March 2020 Accepted: 15 June 2020 Published: 18 June 2020

Phospholipids, neutral lipids and glycolipids metabolism take the place during cell responses to different stimuli. Phospholipase and acyl glycerol lipase activities have been demonstrated to release second messengers that trigger cascade responses. Studies on lipid droplets structure, formation and interaction with other organelles have recently been described in prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Remodeling of membrane phospholipids has also been reported. NMR studies performed on synthetic membranes allowed to postulate membrane lipids polymorphism and to explain how processes like cell division, endocytosis and exocytosis can take place, due to special arrangements of the membranes. Studies from our research group on the pesticide dieldrin and Cu²⁺ effects through exposure of amphibian oocytes and embryos to sub-lethal and acclimation concentrations followed by toxic concentration challenges respectively, are discussed. Membrane phospholipids structure alterations allowing stabilization of bilayer arrangements were found for both stressors in cell and tissues. Metallothionein induction response that prevents oxidative stress was also found in acclimated embryo tissues. Probable connections between enzyme activities taking place on lysophospholipid and triacylglycerol substrates present in lipid droplets as well as phospholipid trafficking leading to modifications on membrane phospholipid ratios are discussed. Current new evidences in agreement with our findings allow us to suggest that our previously published results of dieldrin effects on amphibian cells correspond to joint coordinated activities, which probably had involved various metabolic pathways, in line with the acclimation experiment results and discussion. Independently of the cascade responses each toxicant is able to elicit, lipids play an important role in cell responses, both through rapid turnover and final stabilization of membrane bilayers.

Keywords:

Citation: Teresa M. Fonovich. Phospholipid synthetic and turnover pathways elicited upon exposure to different xenobiotics[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2020, 7(3): 211-228. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2020010

Related Papers:

[1]	Jens Lorenz, Wilberclay G. Melo, Suelen C. P. de Souza . Regularity criteria for weak solutions of the Magneto-micropolar equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(1): 1625-1639. doi: 10.3934/era.2020083
[2]	Hua Qiu, Zheng-An Yao . The regularized Boussinesq equations with partial dissipations in dimension two. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(4): 1375-1393. doi: 10.3934/era.2020073
[3]	Zhi-Ying Sun, Lan Huang, Xin-Guang Yang . Exponential stability and regularity of compressible viscous micropolar fluid with cylinder symmetry. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(2): 861-878. doi: 10.3934/era.2020045
[4]	Changjia Wang, Yuxi Duan . Well-posedness for heat conducting non-Newtonian micropolar fluid equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(2): 897-914. doi: 10.3934/era.2024043
[5]	Jinheng Liu, Kemei Zhang, Xue-Jun Xie . The existence of solutions of Hadamard fractional differential equations with integral and discrete boundary conditions on infinite interval. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2286-2309. doi: 10.3934/era.2024104
[6]	Noelia Bazarra, José R. Fernández, Ramón Quintanilla . Numerical analysis of a problem in micropolar thermoviscoelasticity. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(2): 683-700. doi: 10.3934/era.2022036
[7]	Xiaojie Yang, Hui Liu, Haiyun Deng, Chengfeng Sun . Pullback $\mathcal{D}$ -attractors of the three-dimensional non-autonomous micropolar equations with damping. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 314-334. doi: 10.3934/era.2022017
[8]	Wenlong Sun . The boundedness and upper semicontinuity of the pullback attractors for a 2D micropolar fluid flows with delay. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(3): 1343-1356. doi: 10.3934/era.2020071
[9]	Haibo Cui, Junpei Gao, Lei Yao . Asymptotic behavior of the one-dimensional compressible micropolar fluid model. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 2063-2075. doi: 10.3934/era.2020105
[10]	José Luis Díaz Palencia, Saeed Ur Rahman, Saman Hanif . Regularity criteria for a two dimensional Erying-Powell fluid flowing in a MHD porous medium. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(11): 3949-3976. doi: 10.3934/era.2022201

Abstract

1. Introduction

In this paper, we consider the three-dimensional magneto-micropolar fluid equations with fractional dissipation

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} { \partial_{t}u+\mu (-\Delta)^{\alpha} u-\chi\Delta u+u\cdot\nabla u-b\cdot\nabla b+\nabla p-2\chi\nabla\times v = 0, }\\ { \partial_{t}v+\eta (-\Delta)^{\beta} v-\kappa\nabla\nabla\cdot v+4\chi v+u\cdot\nabla v-2\chi\nabla\times u = 0, }\\ { \partial_{t}b+\lambda (-\Delta)^{\gamma} b+u\cdot\nabla b-b\cdot\nabla u = 0, }\\ { \nabla\cdot u = 0, \nabla\cdot b = 0, }\\ \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(1.1)

with an initial value

$\begin{equation} t = 0: u = u_0(x), \; \; v = v_0(x), \; \; b = b_0(x), \; \; x\in \mathbb{R}^{3}. \end{equation}$

(1.2)

Here $u = u(x, t)$ , $v = v(x, t)$ , $b = b(x, t)\in \mathbb{R}^{3}$ , and $p = p(x, t)\in \mathbb{R}$ are the velocity, micro-rotational velocity, magnetic fields, and scalar pressure, respectively. $\mu$ , $\chi$ , and $\frac{1}{\lambda}$ represent the kinematic viscosity, vortex viscosity, and magnetic Reynolds number, respectively. $\eta$ and $\kappa$ are angular viscosities. $\alpha$ , $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the parameters of the fractional dissipations corresponding to the velocity, micro-rotational velocity and magnetic field, respectively. The fractional Laplace operator $(-\Delta)^\alpha$ is defined through the Fourier transform as

$\begin{equation*} \widehat{(-\Delta)^\alpha f}(\xi) = \widehat{\Lambda ^{2\alpha }f} = |\xi|^{2\alpha}\hat f(\xi). \end{equation*}$

The incompressible magneto-micropolar fluid equations have made analytic studies a great challenge but offer new opportunities due to their distinctive mathematical features. Regularity criteria for weak solutions are established by Fan and Zhong ^[1] in pointwise multipliers for $1\leq \alpha = \beta = \gamma\leq \frac{5}{4}$ . Local and global well-posedness have been established in ^[2,3,4], respectively. For $\alpha = \beta = \gamma = 1$ , we refer to ^[5,6,7] for the existence of strong solutions and weak solutions, respectively. In the study field of the magneto-micropolar fluid equations, regularity criteria for weak solutions and blow-up criteria for smooth solutions are very important topics. The readers may refer to regularity criteria of weak solutions in Morrey-Campanato space ^[8], in Lorentz space ^[9], Besov space ^[10], Triebel-Lizorkin space ^[11] and other regularity criteria for weak solutions ^{[12,13,14,15]}, and ^[16,17] for blow-up criteria of smooth solutions in different function spaces, respectively. Serrin-type regularity criteria for weak solutions via the velocity fields and the gradient of the velocity field were established in Yuan ^[13], respectively. We may refer to ^[18,19,20] for global well-posedness. On the other hand, the global regularity of weak solutions to (1.1) with partial viscosities becomes more complex. In the case of 2D, we may refer to ^{[22,23,24,25]}, and in the case of 3D, we may refer to ^[26,27].

If $v = 0$ and $\chi = 0$ , then (1.1) reduces to MHD equations with fractional dissipation. The MHD equations govern the dynamics of the velocity and magnetic fields in electrically conducting fluids such as plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water. We only recall regularity criteria for our purpose. If $\alpha, \beta > \frac{5}{4}$ , some regularity criteria have been established by Wu ^[28,29], which are given in terms of the velocity $u$ . If $1\leq \alpha = \beta\leq \frac{3}{2}$ , Zhou ^[30] obtained the Serrin-type criteria $u\in L^p_TL^q_x$ with $\frac{2\alpha}{p}+\frac{3}{q}\leq 2\alpha-1$ and $\frac{3}{2\alpha-1} < q\leq\infty$ . Later, Yuan ^[14] extended the above function space $L^q$ to $B^s_{q, \infty}$ . Recently, the regularity criterion involving $u_3, b \in L^\omega_TL^q_x$ is given in ^[31]. We also refer to ^[32,33] for well-posedness and ^[34] for blow up criterion of smooth solutions.

Motivated by the Serrin-type regularity criterion of weak solutions to Navier-Stokes equations ^[35,36] and MHD equations ^[30,31]. The main purpose is to investigate the regularity criterion of weak solutions to the systems (1.1) and (1.2) in this paper and establish the Serrin-type regularity criterion of weak solutions involving partial components. We state our main result as follows:

Theorem 1.1. Let $1\le\alpha = \beta = \gamma \le \frac{3}{2}$ and $\chi, \kappa\geq 0$ . Assume that $(u_0, v_0, b_0)\in H^1(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\nabla\cdot u_0 = \nabla\cdot b_0 = 0$ . Furthermore, if

$\begin{equation*} u_3, v, b \in L^{\varrho} (0, T;L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^3)), \end{equation*}$

with

$\begin{equation} \frac{2\alpha }{\varrho} + \frac{3}{q} \le \frac{3}{4} (2\alpha-1 )+\frac{3(1-\epsilon )}{4q}, \ \ \frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q\le \infty , \ \ 0 < \epsilon\le \frac{1}{3}, \end{equation}$

(1.3)

then the solution $(u, v, b)$ to the systems (1.1) and (1.2) remains smooth on $\big [0, T \big]$ .

Remark 1.2. Since the concrete values of the constants $\mu$ , $\eta$ , and $\lambda$ play no role in our proof, for this reason, we shall assume them to be all equal to one throughout this paper. For convenience of description, we define horizontal derivatives $\nabla_h: = (\partial_{1}, \partial_{2})$ .

Remark 1.3. When $v = 0$ and $\chi = 0$ , the conclusion in Theorem 1.1 is reduced to the one in ^[31].

Remark 1.4. Compared with ^[31], the main difficulty in this paper comes from the nonlinear term $u\cdot\nabla v$ . In order to overcome the difficulty caused by the nonlinear term, owing to the energy functional (see (2.2)), we first use integrating by parts and $\nabla\cdot u = 0$ to transform it into a control of the horizontal derivative, and then use Hölder's inequality, multiplicative Sobolev inequality, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, and Young's inequality to control the nonlinear term.

2. Proof of main result

In this section, our main purpose is to complete the proof of Theorem 1.1. To this end, we introduce the following lemma:

Lemma 2.1. (^[37]) The multiplicative Sobolev inequality

$\begin{equation} \|\nabla u\|_{L^{3q}}\le C\|\partial_1\nabla u\|_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{3}} \|\partial_2\nabla u\|_{L^2}^{\frac{1}{3}} \|\partial_3\nabla u\|_{L^q}^{\frac{1}{3}}, \ \ 1\le q < \infty, \end{equation}$

(2.1)

holds.

In what follows, we prove Theorem 1.1.

Proof. Let

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} E(t) : = & \|\nabla _hu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hv(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hb(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ \int_0^t(\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ & \|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+ \kappa\int_0^t\|\nabla _h \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau. \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.2)

The proof is divided into two cases: $\frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q < \infty$ and $q = \infty$ . We first consider the case $\frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q < \infty$ .

Taking the inner product of the first three equations of (1.1) with $(u, v, b)$ , and adding them up, using integrating by parts, the divergence-free condition, and Cauchy inequality, we obtain

$\begin{equation*} \label{5} \begin{split} & \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|b(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \\ & +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \leq 0. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

Integrating the above inequality with respect to $t$ and then obtaining

$\begin{equation*} \begin{split} & \|u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|b(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +2\int^t_0(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2 \\ & +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau \leq \|u_0\|_{L^2}^2+\|v_0\|_{L^2}^2+\|b_0\|_{L^2}^2. \end{split} \end{equation*}$

By multiplying the first three equations of (1.1) by $\Delta_hu$ , $\Delta_hv$ , and $\Delta_hb$ , respectively, and adding them up, using integrating by parts and the divergence-free condition, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla _hu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hv(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hb(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \\ && +\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla _h \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\chi\|\nabla _h\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ 4\chi\|\nabla _hv\|_{L^2}^2 \\ & : = & \sum\limits_{i = 1}^6I_i, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.3)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{} I_1 & = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta_hu\;dx, \\ I_2& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta_hu\;dx, \\ I_3& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta_hb\;dx, \\ I_4& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta_hb\;dx, \\ I_5& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla v)\cdot\Delta_hv\;dx, \\ I_6& = &-2\chi \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}[(\nabla \times v)\cdot\Delta_h u + (\nabla \times u) \cdot\Delta_h v]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

Thanks to integration by parts and Cauchy's inequality, we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray} I_6 & = & 4\chi\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \nabla_h(\nabla \times u) \cdot \nabla_h v\;dx \\ &\leq & \chi\|\nabla_h (\nabla \times u)\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla_hv\|^2_{L^2} \\ & = & \chi\|\nabla_h \nabla u\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla_hv\|^2_{L^2}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.4)

For $I_1$ , we divide it into the following three items: $I_{1i}(i = 1, 2, 3)$ as

$\begin{eqnarray} I_1 & = & \sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u_k\Delta_hu_k\;dx +\sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u_3\Delta_hu_3\;dx+ \\ && \sum\limits_{k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 u_k\Delta_hu_k\;dx \\ &: = & I_{11}+ I_{12}+ I_{13}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.5)

The divergence-free condition and integration by parts entail that

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{11}& = &\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u_k\partial^2_{ii}u_k\;dx\\& = & -\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{i}u_j\partial_j u_k\partial_{i}u_k\;dx+\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{j}u_j|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & -\sum\limits_{i, j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{i}u_j\partial_j u_k\partial_{i}u_k\;dx-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_1\partial_1 u_1\partial_{1}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_1\partial_1 u_2\partial_{1}u_2\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_2\partial_2 u_1\partial_{1}u_1\;dx\\&&-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_2\partial_2 u_2\partial_{1}u_2\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_1\partial_1 u_1\partial_{2}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_1\partial_1 u_2\partial_{2}u_2\;dx\\&&-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_2\partial_2 u_1\partial_{2}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_2\partial_2 u_2\partial_{2}u_2\;dx-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{1}u_1\partial_1 u_1\partial_{1}u_1\;dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{2}u_2\partial_2 u_2\partial_{2}u_2\;dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3\partial_2 u_1\partial_{2}u_1\;dx\\&&+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3\partial_1 u_2\partial_{1}u_2\;dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3\partial_2 u_1\partial_{1}u_2\;dx-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{i, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_{3}u_3|\partial_i u_k|^2\;dx\\& = & \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_k u_j\partial_k u_j\;dx -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_1 u_1\partial_2 u_2\;dx +\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_2 u_1\partial_1 u_2\;dx \\& = & -\sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} u_3\partial_{3k}^{2} u_j\partial_k u_j\;dx +\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} u_3(\partial_{32}^{2} u_2\partial_1 u_1+\partial_{31}^{2} u_1 \partial_2 u_2)\;dx \\&& -\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} u_3(\partial_{32}^{2} u_1\partial_1 u_2+\partial_{31}^{2} u_2 \partial_2 u_1)\;dx, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.6)

and

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{12} = - \sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_j\partial_j u_3\partial_l u_3\;dx = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_j u_3\partial_{jl}^{2} u_3\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.7)

Therefore, we obtain

$\begin{equation} |I_1|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |u_3||\nabla u||\nabla_h\nabla u|\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.8)

From Hölder's inequality, Lemma 2.1, the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, and Young's inequality, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray} |I_1| &\leq & C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |u_3||\nabla u||\nabla_h\nabla u|\;dx \\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _1}} \|\nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta u\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3} } \|\nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla_h u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\| \nabla_h u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\\ &\leq & C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\\ &\leq& C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3}\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 } \\ &\leq & C\big[ \|u_3\|_{L^{q}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } \big]^{m^{\prime }} +\frac{1}{6}\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 )m}, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.9)

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} { \frac{1}{\theta _1} + \frac{1}{\theta _2}+\frac{1}{q} = 1, }\\ { 2-\frac{3}{2} = \big(1-\frac{3}{2}\big) s_1+\big(1+\alpha-\frac{3}{2}\big) \big(1-s_1\big), }\\ { 2-\frac{3}{\theta_1/3} = \big(1-\frac{3}{2}\big) s_2+\big(1+\alpha-\frac{3}{2}\big)\big(1-s_2\big), }\\ { 2-\frac{3}{\theta_2} = \big(1-\frac{3}{2}\big) s_3+\big(1+\alpha-\frac{3}{2}\big)\big(1-s_3\big), }\\ { \frac{1}{m} + \frac{1}{m^{\prime }} = 1, }\\ { \big(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3\big)m = 2.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.10)

Noting that $1\le\alpha\le\dfrac{3}{2}$ and $\frac{3+\epsilon }{2\alpha -1} < q\le \infty$ , one solution to (2.10) can be written as

$\begin{equation} \left\{ \begin{array}{l} { \theta _1 = \frac{18q}{5q-18\epsilon}, }\\ { \theta _2 = \frac{18q}{13q-18(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { s _1 = 1-\frac{1}{\alpha}, }\\ { s _2 = 1-\frac{9\epsilon}{\alpha q}, }\\ { s _3 = 1-\frac{1}{3\alpha}-\frac{3(1-\epsilon)}{\alpha q}, }\\ { m = \frac{2\alpha q}{q+3(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { m^{\prime } = \frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}.} \end{array} \right. \end{equation}$

(2.11)

To bound $I_3$ , we decompose it into three pieces as

$\begin{eqnarray} I_3& = &\sum\limits_{j, k = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j b_k\Delta_hb_k\;dx +\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j b_3\Delta_hb_3\;dx+\sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 b_k\Delta_h b_k\;dx \\&: = & I_{31}+ I_{32}+ I_{33}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.12)

By using integrating by parts (see^[31]), we have

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{31}& = & \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{ll}^{2} u_j\partial_j b_k b_k +\partial_l u_j\partial_{lj}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx - \\ && \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{lj}^{2} u_j\partial_l b_k b_k +\partial_j u_j\partial_{ll}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.13)

Similarly, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{32} & = & \sum\limits_{j, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{ll}^{2} u_j\partial_j b_3 b_3 +\partial_l u_j\partial_{lj}^{2} b_3 b_3\big]\;dx -\\ && \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{lj}^{2} u_j\partial_l b_3 b_3 +\partial_j u_j\partial_{ll}^{2} b_3 b_3\big]\;dx, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.14)

and

$\begin{eqnarray} I_{33} & = & \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3 \sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{3l}^{2} u_3\partial_l b_k b_k +\partial_l u_3\partial_{3l}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx +\\ && \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\sum\limits_{j, l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \big[\partial_{lj}^{2} u_j\partial_l b_k b_k +\partial_j u_j\partial_{ll}^{2} b_k b_k\big]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.15)

Collecting (2.13)–(2.15), it is easy to derive that

$\begin{equation} |I_3|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.16)

Furthermore, we have

$\begin{equation} |I_2+I_3+I_4|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.17)

Similar to (2.13), it follows from Hölder's inequality, Lemma 2.1, Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality, and Young's inequality that

$\begin{eqnarray} && |I_2+I_3+I_4| \\ &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\| |\nabla u|+|\nabla b|\|_{L^{\theta _1}} \||\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla b|\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta u\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3} } +\| \nabla_h\nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta b\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3} }\big)\cdot\\ && \quad \big(\|\nabla_h\nabla u\|_{L^{\theta _2}}+\|\nabla_h\nabla b\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\Big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } + \\ && \quad\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\Big)\cdot \\ && \quad \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } +\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} }\big) \big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} }\big)\cdot \\ &&\quad \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} }\big) \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\big)\cdot \\ &&\quad \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 }\big) \big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{1-s_2}{3}}\cdot \\ &&\quad \big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3}\\ &\le& C\big [ \|b\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } \big ]^{m^{\prime}}+\\ &&\quad \frac{1}{6}\big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b\|_{L^{2}}\big)^{\big(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 \big)m}, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.18)

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy (2.10).

Similar to $I_3$ , we bound $I_5$ as

$\begin{equation} |I_5|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla v|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.19)

Using the same steps as (2.18), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{22} |I_5| &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\nabla_h\nabla u|+|\nabla_h\nabla v|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\big [ \|v\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} } \big ]^{m^{\prime}}+\\ &&\quad \frac{1}{6}\big(\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v\|_{L^{2}}\big)^{\big(\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+1-s_3 \big)m}, \end{eqnarray}$

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy (2.10).

Combining (2.3), (2.4), (2.9), (2.18), and (2.20), we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray} &&\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla _hu(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hv(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _hb(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla _h\Lambda ^{\alpha } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla _h \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\ &\le& C\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}} \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} } +\\ && \|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} }+\\ && \|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)} }\\ &\le& C\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.20)

Set

$\begin{equation} \begin{array}{lll} { \Theta_1 = \frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { \Theta_2 = \frac{2\big((2\alpha-1) q-3\big)}{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}, }\\ { \Theta_3 = \frac{6\epsilon }{(2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)}.} \end{array} \end{equation}$

(2.21)

Integrating (2.20) with respect to $t$ , we obtain

$\begin{equation} \begin{split} E(t) &\le CJ_0+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_1} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ & \quad \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_2}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_3}d\tau, \end{split} \end{equation}$

(2.22)

where $J_0 = \|\nabla u(0)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(0)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(0)\|_{L^2}^2$ .

By taking the inner product of the first three equations of (1.1) with $(-\Delta u, -\Delta v, -\Delta b)$ and integrating by parts, the divergence-free condition, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 }u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 }v(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\chi\|\nabla \nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ 4\chi\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\ &: = & \sum\limits_{i = 1}^6J_i, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.23)

where

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{} J_1& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta u\;dx, \\ J_2& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta u\;dx, \\ J_3& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla b)\cdot\Delta b\;dx, \\ J_4& = &-\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(b\cdot\nabla u)\cdot\Delta b\;dx, \\ J_5& = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(u\cdot\nabla v)\cdot\Delta v\;dx, \\ J_6& = &-2\chi \int_{\mathbb{R}^3}[(\nabla \times v)\cdot\Delta u + (\nabla \times u) \cdot\Delta v]\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

By integration by parts and Cauchy's inequality, we arrive at

$\begin{eqnarray} J_6 & = & 4\chi\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \nabla(\nabla \times u) \cdot \nabla v\;dx \\ &\leq& \chi\|\nabla (\nabla \times u)\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla v\|^2_{L^2} \\ & = & \chi\|\nabla \nabla u\|^2_{L^2}+4\chi\|\nabla v\|^2_{L^2}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.24)

For $J_1$ , we divide it into the following three items: $J_{1i}(i = 1, 2, 3)$

$\begin{eqnarray} J_1 & = &\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 u\cdot\Delta_hu\;dx +\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_j\partial_j u\cdot\Delta u\;dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}u_3\partial_3 u\cdot \partial_{33}^{2} u\;dx \\ &: = & J_{11}+ J_{12}+ J_{13}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.25)

Integrating by parts and using the divergence-free condition yields

$\begin{equation} J_{11} = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_3 u_3\partial_l u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx -\sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\sum\limits_{l = 1}^2\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_3\partial_3 u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx, \end{equation}$

(2.26)

$\begin{equation} J_{12} = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^3\sum\limits_{k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_j u_j\partial_l u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx -\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2\sum\limits_{k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l u_j\partial_j u_k\partial_l u_k\;dx, \end{equation}$

(2.27)

and

$\begin{equation} J_{13} = \frac{1}{2} \sum\limits_{k = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}(\partial_1 u_1+\partial_2 u_2)\partial_3 u_k\partial_3 u_k\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.28)

Therefore, we have

$\begin{equation} |J_1|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |\nabla_h u||\nabla u|^{2}\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.29)

From Hölder's inequality and Lemma 2.1, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray} |J_1| &\le & C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^4}^{2} \\ &\le& C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{6} }^{\frac{3}{2\alpha} } \\ &\le& C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} }. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.30)

By using integrating by parts and the divergence-free condition, we have

$\begin{eqnarray} J_{3} & = & -\sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\partial_l (u_j\partial_j b_k)\partial_l b_k\;dx \\ & = & -\sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (\partial_l u_j\partial_j b_k\partial_l b_k+u_j\partial_{lj}^{2} b_k\partial_l b_k)\;dx \\ & = & \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}b_k\partial_l (\partial_lu_j\partial_j b_k)\;dx\\ & = & \sum\limits_{j, k, l = 1}^3\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} (b_k\partial_{ll}^{2} u_j\partial_j b_k+b_k\partial_l u_j\partial_{jl}^{2} b_k)\;dx. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.31)

Then we arrive at

$\begin{equation} |J_3|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.32)

Furthermore, we have

$\begin{equation} |J_2+J_3+J_4|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(\Delta u|+|\Delta b|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.33)

It follows from the same procedure (2.18) that

$\begin{eqnarray} && |J_2+J_3+J_4| \\ &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |b|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla b|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta b|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\| |\nabla u|+|\nabla b|\|_{L^{\theta _1}} \||\Delta u|+|\Delta b|\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\big(\| \Delta u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta u\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3}}}^{\frac{1}{3} } +\| \Delta b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{3} } \| \Delta b\|_{L^{\frac{\theta _1}{3} } }^{\frac{1}{3}}\big) \big(\|\Delta u\|_{L^{\theta _2}}+\|\Delta b\|_{L^{\theta _2}} \big) \\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}\Big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{\frac{1-s_2}{3}} +\\ && \| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2s_1}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3} } \| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{s_2}{3} } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1-s_2}{3} }\Big)\times \\ && \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{s_3 } \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{1-s_3 }\big) \\ &\le & C\|b\|_{L^{q}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2s_1}{3}+\frac{s_2}{3}+s_3 } \big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{2(1-s_1)}{3}+\frac{1-s_2}{3}+1-s_3 }\\ &\le& C\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) +\frac{1}{8}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big), \end{eqnarray}$

(2.34)

where the constants $1 < \theta _1, \theta _2, m, m^{\prime } < \infty$ and $0\le s_1, s_2, s_3\le1$ satisfy (2.10).

Similar to $J_3$ , we bound $J_5$ as

$\begin{equation} |J_5|\le C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta v|)\;dx. \end{equation}$

(2.35)

The same procedure leads to (2.34) yields

$\begin{eqnarray} \label{38} |J_5| &\le& C\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |v|(|\nabla u|+|\nabla v|)(|\Delta u|+|\Delta v|)\;dx \\ &\le& C\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}} \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) +\frac{1}{8}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} v\|_{L^{2}}^{2}\big). \end{eqnarray}$

Combining (2.23), (2.24), (2.30), (2.34), and (2.36), we have

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2) +\frac{3}{4}(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(t)\|_{L^2}^2)\\ && +\frac{3}{4}\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1}b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(t)\|_{L^2}^2\\ &\le& C(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big)+ \\ && C\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.36)

Integrating (2.36) over the interval $(0, t)$ and using Hölder's inequality, it was deduced that

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2)+ \frac{3}{4}\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau +\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C+ C\int_0^t(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau +\\ && C \int_0^t\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} } d\tau \\ &\le& C+ C\int_0^t(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau+\\ && C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \int_0^t\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} } d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.37)

From Young's inequality, it follows that

$\begin{eqnarray} && C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \int_0^t\| \nabla u\|_{L^2}^{2-\frac{3}{2\alpha}} \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{\alpha} }\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{1}{2\alpha} } d\tau \\ &\le& C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{1-\frac{3}{4\alpha}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{4\alpha}} \\ &\le& C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2\alpha}{1+\alpha}} \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{\frac{2}{1+\alpha}} d\tau\big]^{1-\frac{3}{4\alpha}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{4\alpha}} \\ &\le & C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2\alpha}}\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{4\alpha}+\frac{4\alpha-3}{4\alpha(1+\alpha)}} \\ &\le& C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \big( \int_0^t \| \nabla_h\Lambda ^{\alpha } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau\big)^{\frac{1}{2}} +1\big]\big[\big( \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau\big)^{\frac{1}{4}}+1 \big] \\ &\le& CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}} \big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+\\ && CE(t)+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|_{L^{2}}\\ &\le & CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big( \sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+1 \big) \big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} +\\ && CE(t)+C\sup\limits_{0\leq\tau\leq t}\|\nabla_h u\|^{2}_{L^{2}}+C \\ &\le& CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C \big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} u\|_{L^{2}}^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+CE(t)+C. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.38)

Then, we have

(2.39)

By using Hölder's inequality, Young's inequality, and (2.22), we deduce that

$\begin{eqnarray} CE(t)&\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_1}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_2}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1} v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_3} d\tau \\ &\le& C+C\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big]^{\Theta_2} \big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{1}{2}\Theta_3} \\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau + \\ && \frac{1}{16} \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.40)

Similarly, it follows from (2.22) and Hölder's inequality and Young's inequality that

$\begin{eqnarray} && CE(t)\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}} \\ &\le& C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}\int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\\ && \|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_1}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\frac{\Theta_2}{2}}\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{\Theta_3}d\tau\\ &\le & C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\\ && \|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big] ^{\frac{\Theta_2}{2}}\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\\ && \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{\Theta_3}{2}} \\ &\le& C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{2\Theta_3+1}{4}}\cdot \\ &&\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big] ^{\Theta_2}\\ &\le& C\big[ \int_0^t \| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2} d\tau \big]^{\frac{1}{4}}+C\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau\big]^{\frac{2\Theta_3+1}{4}}\cdot\\ &&\big[ \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_4}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau \big] ^{\frac{3(2\alpha-1)q+3(1-\epsilon)-12}{4\big[ (2\alpha-1)q-3(1-\epsilon)\big] } } \\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_4}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\\ && \| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau + \frac{1}{16} \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau, \end{eqnarray}$

(2.41)

where $\Theta_4 = \frac{8\alpha q}{3(2\alpha-1)q+3(1-\epsilon)-12}.$

We substitute (2.40) and (2.41) into (2.39) and then use Young's inequality to obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} && \frac{1}{2}(\|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2)+\frac{3}{4}\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ &&\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C+ C\int_0^t(\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}) \big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau+\\ && C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\Theta_4}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau +\\ && C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha q}{(2\alpha-1)q-3}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau +\\ && \frac{1}{8}\big[ \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2}d\tau\big]\\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}\big)\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau +\\ && \frac{1}{4} \int_0^t\big(\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b\|_{L^{2} }^{2}+\| \Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v\|_{L^{2} }^{2}\big) d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.42)

Then we have

$\begin{eqnarray} && \|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}\big)\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2} d\tau. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.43)

Thanks to Gronwall's inequality and condition (1.3), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} && \|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau+\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C\exp \big[ C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|b\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}+\|v\|_{L^{q}}^{\Theta_4}\big)d\tau \big] < \infty. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.44)

Finally, we consider the case $q = \infty$ . By repeating the above procedure, we derive that

$\begin{equation*} \label{48} E(t) \le CJ_0+C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|b\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}\big)^{\frac{2\alpha }{2\alpha-1}}\big(\| \nabla u\|_{L^{2} }+\| \nabla b\|_{L^{2}}+\| \nabla v\|_{L^{2} }\big)^{2 }d\tau. \end{equation*}$

Thanks to Gronwall's inequality and condition (1.3), we obtain

$\begin{eqnarray} && \|\nabla u(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla b(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +\int_0^t(\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } u(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\\ && \|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\Lambda ^{\alpha+1 } b(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2)d\tau +\int_0^t\kappa\|\nabla \nabla\cdot v(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2d\tau \\ &\le& C\exp \big[ C \int_0^t\big(\|u_3\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{8\alpha }{3(2\alpha-1)}}+\|b\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{8\alpha }{3(2\alpha-1)}}+\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{8\alpha }{3(2\alpha-1)}}\big)d\tau\big ] < \infty. \end{eqnarray}$

(2.45)

By the above steps, we establish a higher-order a priori estimate of the solutions, and then we obtain that the higher-order norm of the solutions is bounded, thus proving the smoothness of the solutions. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

3. Conclusions

In this paper, the regularity criterion of the weak solution of the three-dimensional magnetic micropolar fluid equation when $1\le\alpha = \beta = \gamma \le \frac{3}{2}$ is studied. However, the regularity of the weak solution of the magnetic micropolar fluid equation when $1\le\alpha, \beta, \gamma \le \frac{3}{2}$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ is still an open problem, and it is hoped that the method in this paper can provide inspiration for the solution of this problem.

Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by [the Basic Research Project of Key Scientific Research Project Plan of Universities in Henan Province (Grant No. 20ZX002)].

Conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Science, Technology and Innovation Ministry (under grant FONCyT PICT 2017-0706) and by the School of Science and Technology from National University of San Martín. Figures 1 and 2 were illustrated by Silvina Mariel Schroeder. The author appreciates Cristina Pérez Coll kindly provision of embryo photograph shown in Figure 2. Photograph shown in Figure 1 belongs to the author.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest for the contributions in this manuscript.

References

[1]	Lou HY, Zhao W, Li X, et al. (2019) Membrane curvature underlies actin reorganization in response to nanoscale surface topography. Procced Natl Acad Sci 116: 23143-23151. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910166116
[2]	Jensen MO, Mouritsen OG (2004) Lipids do influence protein function—the hydrophobic matching hypothesis revisited. Biochim Biophys Acta 1666: 205-226. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2004.06.009
[3]	Dawaliby R, Trubbia C, Delporte C, et al. (2015) Phosphatidylethanolamine Is a Key Regulator of Membrane Fluidity in Eukaryotic Cells. J Biol Chem 291: 3658-3667. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.706523
[4]	Bieberich E (2018) Sphingolipids and lipid rafts: Novel concepts and methods of analysis. Chem Phys Lipids 216: 114-131. doi: 10.1016/j.chemphyslip.2018.08.003
[5]	Sezgin E, Levental I, Mayor S, et al. (2017) The mistery of membrane organization: composition, regulation and physiological relevance of lipid rafts. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 18: 361-374. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.16
[6]	Athenstaedt K, Daum G (1999) Phosphatidic acid, a key intermediate in lipid metabolism. Eur J Biochem 266: 1-16. doi: 10.1046/j.1432-1327.1999.00822.x
[7]	Bernat P, Gajewska E, Szewczyk R, et al. (2014) Tributyltin (TBT) induces oxidative stress and modifies lipid profile in the filamentous fungus Cunninghamella elegans. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21: 4228-4235. doi: 10.1007/s11356-013-2375-5
[8]	Voelker DR (2003) New perspectives on the regulation of intermembrane glycerophospholipid traffic. J Lipid Res 44: 441-449. doi: 10.1194/jlr.R200020-JLR200
[9]	Carman GM, Han GS (2018) Phosphatidate phosphatase regulates membrane phospholipid synthesis via phosphatidylserine synthase. Adv Biol Regul 67: 49-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jbior.2017.08.001
[10]	Zhang P, Csaki LS, Ronquillo E, et al. (2019) Lipin 2/3 phosphatidic acid phosphatases maintain phospholipid homeostasis to regulate chylomicron synthesis. J Clin Invest 129: 281-295. doi: 10.1172/JCI122595
[11]	Fonovich T, Magnarelli G (2013) Phosphoinositide and phospholipid phosphorylation and hydrolysis pathways – Organophosphate and organochlorine pesticides effects. Adv Biol Chem 3: 22-35. doi: 10.4236/abc.2013.33A004
[12]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM, Pechén de D'Angelo AM (1991) Dieldrin effects on phospholipid metabolism in Buffo arenarum oocytes. Comp Biochem Physiol 98C: 287-292.
[13]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM, Pechén de D'Angelo AM (1995) Dieldrin modifies the hydrolysis of PIP₂ and decreases the fertilization rate in Buffo arenarum oocytes. Comp Biochem Physiol 112C: 61-67.
[14]	Nishio K, Sugimoto Y, Fujiwara Y, et al. (1992) Phospholipase C-mediated hydrolysis of phosphatidylcholine is activated by cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (II). J Clin Invest 89: 1622-1628. doi: 10.1172/JCI115758
[15]	Nakamura Y, Awai K, Masuda T, et al. (2005) A novel phosphatidylcholine-hydrolyzing phospholipase C induced by phosphate starvation in Arabidopsis. J Biol Chem 280: 7469-7476. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M408799200
[16]	Cruz-Ramírez A, Oropeza-Aburto A, Razo-Hernández F, et al. (2006) Phospholipase DZ2 plays an important role in extraplastidic galactolipid biosynthesis and phosphate recycling in Arabidopsis roots. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 6765-6770. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0600863103
[17]	Zavaleta-Pastor M, Sohlenkamp C, Gao JL, et al. (2010) Sinorhizobium meliloti phospholipase C required for lipid remodeling during phosphorus limitation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107: 302-307. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0912930107
[18]	Billah MM, Anthes JM (1990) The regulation and cellular functions of phosphatidylcholine hydrolysis. Biochem J 269: 281-291. doi: 10.1042/bj2690281
[19]	Richmond GS, Smith TK (2011) Phospholipases A1. Int J Mol Sci 12: 588-612. doi: 10.3390/ijms12010588
[20]	Köhler GA, Brenot A, Haas-Stapleton E, et al. (2006) Phospholipase A2 and Phospholipase B Activities in Fungi. Biochim Biophys Acta 1761: 1391-1399. doi: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2006.09.011
[21]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM, Pechén de D'Angelo AM (2000) The turnover of phospholipid fatty acyl chains is activated by the insecticide Dieldrin in Buffo arenarum oocytes. J Biochem Molec Toxicol 14: 82-87. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0461(2000)14:2<82::AID-JBT3>3.0.CO;2-0
[22]	Wocławek-Potocka I, Rawińska P, Kowalczyk-Zieba I, et al. (2014) Lysophosphatidic Acid (LPA) Signaling in Human and Ruminant Reproductive Tract. Mediators Inflamm 2014: 1-14. doi: 10.1155/2014/649702
[23]	Ye X, Chun J (2010) Lysophosphatidic Acid (LPA) Signaling in Vertebrate Reproduction. Trends Endocrinol Metab 21: 1-17. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2009.09.006
[24]	Kuriyama S, Theveneau E, Benedetto A, et al. (2014) In vivo collective cell migration requires an LPAR2-dependent increase in tissue fluidity. J Cell Biol 206: 113-127. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201402093
[25]	Jasieniecka-Gazarkiewicz K, Lager I, Carlsson AS, et al. (2017) Acyl-CoA: Lysophosphatidylethanolamine Acyltransferase Activity Regulates Growth of Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 174: 986-998. doi: 10.1104/pp.17.00391
[26]	Cullis PR, De Kruijff B (1979) Lipid polymorphism and the functional roles of lipids in biological membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta 559: 399-420. doi: 10.1016/0304-4157(79)90012-1
[27]	Dowhan W, Bogdanov M, Mileykovskaya E (2008) Functional roles of lipids in membranes. Biochemistry of lipids, lipoproteins and membranes Canada: Elsevier, 1-35.
[28]	Ball WB, Neff JK, Gohil VM (2018) The role of non-bilayer phospholipids in mitochondrial structure and function. FEBS Lett 592: 1273-1290. doi: 10.1002/1873-3468.12887
[29]	Baker CD, Ball WB, Pryce EN, et al. (2016) Specific requirements of nonbilayer phospholipids in mitochondrial respiratory chain function and formation. Mol Biol Cell 27: 2161-2171. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E15-12-0865
[30]	Gasanov SE, Kim AA, Yaguzhinsky LS, et al. (2018) Non-bilayer Structures in Mitochondrial Membranes Regulate ATP Synthase Activity. Biochim Biophys Acta 1860: 586-599. doi: 10.1016/j.bbamem.2017.11.014
[31]	Fonovich TM, Perez-Coll CS, Fridman O, et al. (2016) Phospholipid changes in Rhinella arenarum embryos under different acclimation conditions to copper. Comp Biochem Physiol Part C 189: 10-16.
[32]	Garay LA, Boundy-Mills KL, Germa JB (2014) Accumulation of High-Value Lipids in Single-Cell Microorganisms: A Mechanistic Approach and Future Perspectives. J Agric Food Chem 67: 2709-2727. doi: 10.1021/jf4042134
[33]	Welte MA (2015) Expanding roles for lipid droplets. Curr Biol 25: R470-R481. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.04.004
[34]	Meyers A, Weiskittel TM, Dalhaimer P (2017) Lipid Droplets: Formation to Breakdown. Lipids 52: 465-475. doi: 10.1007/s11745-017-4263-0
[35]	Olzmann JA, Carvalho P (2019) Dynamics and functions of lipid droplets. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 20: 137-155. doi: 10.1038/s41580-018-0085-z
[36]	Li Z, Thiel K, Thul PJ, et al. (2012) Lipid droplets control the maternal histone supply of Drosophila embryos. Curr Biol 22: 2104-2113. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.018
[37]	Li Z, Johnson MR, Ke Z, et al. (2014) Drosophila lipid droplets buffer the H2Av supply to protect early embryonic development. Curr Biol 24: 1485-1491. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.022
[38]	Huang X, Warren JT, Gilbert LI (2008) New players in the regulation of ecdysone biosynthesis. J Genet Genomics 35: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/S1673-8527(08)60001-6
[39]	Herms A, Bosch M, Ariotti N, et al. (2013) Cell-to-cell Heterogeneity in Lipid Droplets Suggests a Mechanism to Reduce Lipotoxicity. Curr Biol 23: 1489-1496. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.06.032
[40]	Grygiel-Górniak B (2014) Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors and Their Ligands: Nutritional and Clinical Implications. A Review. Nutr J 13: 17-26. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-13-17
[41]	Poursharifi P, Madiraju SRM, Prentki M (2017) Monoacylglycerol Signalling and ABHD6 in Health and Disease Diabetes. Obes Metab 19: 76-89. doi: 10.1111/dom.13008
[42]	Walker OLlS, Holloway AC, Raha S (2019) The role of the endocannabinoid system in female reproductive tissues. J Ovarian Res 12: 3-12. doi: 10.1186/s13048-018-0478-9
[43]	Fan C, Yan J, Qian Y, et al. (2006) Regulation of Lipoprotein Lipase Expression by Effect of Hawthorn Flavonoids on Peroxisome Proliferator Response Element Pathway. J Pharmacol Sci 100: 51-58. doi: 10.1254/jphs.FP0050748
[44]	Rotman N, Guex N, Gouranton E, et al. (2013) PPARβ interprets a chromatin signature of pluripotency to promote embryonic differentiation at gastrulation. PLoS One 8: e83300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083300
[45]	Michalik L, Desvergne B, Dreyer C, et al. (2002) PPAR expression and function during vertebrate development. Int J Dev Biol 46: 105-114.
[46]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM (1993) Efecto del Dieldrin sobre la transducción de señales en ovocitos de sapo Bufo arenarum, Hensel. PhD thesis. Pharmacy and Biochemistry Faculty. Buenos Aires University 1-181.
[47]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM (1997) Pretreatment ofamphibian oocytes with the organochlorinated pesticide Dieldrin facilitates the formation of the fertilization membrane after insemination. Acta Toxicol Arg 5: 81-83.
[48]	Wozniak KL, Tembo M, Phelps WA, et al. (2018) PLC and IP 3-evoked Ca2+ Release Initiate the Fast Block to Polyspermy in Xenopus laevis Eggs. J Gen Physiol 150: 1239-1248. doi: 10.1085/jgp.201812069
[49]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM, Pechén de D'Angelo AM (1995) The effect of Dieldrin on Clostridium perfringens posphatidylcholine phospholipase C activity. Pest Biochem Physiol 51: 170-177. doi: 10.1006/pest.1995.1017
[50]	Carattino MD, Peralta S, Pérez-Coll C, et al. (2004) Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Cu2+ and Cd2+ on the Pentose Phosphate Pathway Dehydrogenase Activities in the Ovary of Adult Bufo Arenarum: Possible Role as Biomarker for Cu2+ Toxicity. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 57: 311-318. doi: 10.1016/S0147-6513(03)00081-2
[51]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM, Preller AF, Naab F, et al. (2000) Acumulación de Zn en ovocitos de sapo Bufo arenarum: efecto sobre el metabolismo de carbohidratos. Rev Bras Toxicol 13: 55-61.
[52]	Naab F, Volcomirsky M, Burlón A, et al. (2001) Metabolic Alterations Without Metal Accumulation in the Ovary of Adult Bufo Arenarum Females, Observed After Long-Term Exposure to Zn(2+), Followed by Toxicity to Embryos. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 41: 201-207. doi: 10.1007/s002440010238
[53]	Fonovich de Schroeder TM (2005) The effect of Zn on glucose 6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity from Bufo arenarum toad ovary and alfalfa plants. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 60: 123-131. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2004.07.008
[54]	Rokitskaya TI, Kotova EA, Agapov II, et al. (2014) Unsaturated lipids protect the integral membrane peptide gramicidin A from singlet oxygen. FEBS Lett 588: 1590-1595. doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2014.02.046
[55]	Kim SH, Kim BK, Park S, et al. (2019) Phosphatidylcholine extends lifespan via DAF-16 and reduces Amyloid-beta-Induced toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2019: 2860642.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2020 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

AIMS Molecular Science

0.7

Metrics

Article views(3659) PDF downloads(226) Cited by(1)

Preview PDF

Download XML

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)

AIMS Molecular Science

Phospholipid synthetic and turnover pathways elicited upon exposure to different xenobiotics

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Proof of main result

3. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Catalog

AIMS Molecular Science

Phospholipid synthetic and turnover pathways elicited upon exposure to different xenobiotics

Related Papers:

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Proof of main result

3. Conclusions

Use of AI tools declaration

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

References

Reader Comments

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

Metrics

Figures and Tables

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

Export File

Citation

Format

Content

Catalog