pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08317 · v2 · pith:VMO5ZOOQnew · submitted 2019-06-19 · 🧬 q-bio.MN

Hunchback promoters can readout morphogenetic positional information in less than a minute

Jonathan Desponds , Massimo Vergassola , Aleksandra M. Walczak This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 19:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.MN
keywords hunchbackbicoidmorphogencell fatepromoter architecturepositional informationfly embryolikelihood comparison
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hunchback promoters can read Bicoid positional information reliably in less than a minute via on-the-fly likelihood updates.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how hunchback decides anterior versus posterior cell fate in the fly embryo by reading the Bicoid morphogen gradient. Fixed-time concentration sampling cannot reach the needed accuracy within the few minutes available experimentally. On-the-fly schemes that update and compare location likelihoods continuously achieve reliable decisions on those short timescales. Specific promoter architectures are shown to control decision time and error, and the work gives concrete designs plus predictions for Bicoid mutant tests.

Core claim

Decisions made on-the-fly, based on updating and comparing the likelihoods of being at an anterior or a posterior location, can complete reliable cell fate decisions even within the very short embryological timescales. Promoter architectures influence the mean decision time and decision error rate, and specific architectures allow for the fast readout of the morphogen. Explicit predictions are formulated for new experiments involving Bicoid mutants.

What carries the argument

On-the-fly scheme that updates and compares likelihoods of anterior versus posterior location, realized through promoter architectures.

Load-bearing premise

The decision process consists of updating and comparing the likelihoods of being at an anterior or a posterior location.

What would settle it

Direct measurement showing that hunchback promoter activity does not implement likelihood comparison of location, or that decision error stays high at experimental timescales even with the proposed architectures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08317 by Aleksandra M. Walczak, Jonathan Desponds, Massimo Vergassola.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Decision between anterior and posterior developmental blueprints. a. The early Drosophila embryo and the Bicoid morphogen gradient. The cartoon shows a projection on one plane of the embryo at nuclear cycles 10-13, when nuclei (red dots) have migrated to the surface of the embryo [6]. The activity of the hunchback gene decreases along the Anterior-Posterior (AP) axis. The green dots represent active transc… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The relation between promoter structure and on-the-fly decision-making. a. Using six Bicoid binding sites, the promoter decides between two hypothetical Bcd concentrations L = L1 and L = L2, given the actual (unknown) concentration L in the nucleus. The number of occupied Bicoid sites fluctuates with time (b.) and we assume the gene is expressed (c.) when the number of occupied Bicoid binding sites on the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparing the performance of two promoter activation rules. a. The dynamics of the six Bcd binding site promoter is represented by a 7 state Markov chain where the state number indicates the number of occupied Bicoid binding sites. The boxes indicate the states n which the gene is expressed for the 2-or-more activation rule (red box and red in panels b.- d.) where the gene is active when 2-or-more TF are b… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance, constraints and statistics of fastest decision-making architectures. a. Mean decision time for discriminating between two concentrations with |L2 − L1| = 0.1L and e = 0.32. Results shown for the fastest decision-making architectures for different activation rules and steepness constraints. For a given activation rule (k), we optimize over all values of ON rates µi and OFF rates νi (see [PITH_… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The effects of different promoter architectures on the mean decision time. We compare promoters of different complexity: the all-or-nothing k = 2 out-of-equilibrium model (a), the 1-or-more k = 1 out-of-equilibrium model (b), the two binding site all-or-nothing k = 2 equilibrium model (c) and the one binding site equilibrium model (d). e. Comparison of the mean decision time between k = 2 (a) and k = 1 (b)… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The mean decision time as a function of the error rate e for the fastest architecture identified with H > 5 and k = 1 (see Fig. 4a). When the error rate is 32%, decisions are made in less than a minute (red dashed lined). Parameters are L = L1 = 1.05 · 5.6µm−3 , L2 = 0.95 · 5.6µm−3 , µ1 = 0.13µm3 s −1 , µ2 = 0.11µm3 s −1 , µ3 = 0.086µm3 s −1 , µ4 = 0.066µm3 s −1 , µ5 = 0.043µm3 s −1 , µ6 = 0.022µm3 s −1 , … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The equality V = D holds for close hypotheses We compare the exact drift and diffusion computed from the formulae derived in [27] for the case of one binding site. We find that drift and diffusion are approximately equal for close concentrations (i.e small δL/L). Parameters are ν = 1 s −1 , µ = 1 µm3 s −1 , L2 = L = 1µm−3 , L1 = L + δL. we can connect it to the drift-diffusion parameters. The drift and dif… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing methods to compute the mean decision time for the one binding site case. a. We compute the mean decision time for one binding site using the method from [27] hTiSV (i.e hTiSV = K tanh(V K/2D)/V and Eq. 2 and 26) in black and mean decision time hTi from the approximate method using V = D, Eq. 2 and Eq. 4 in red. In panel b we show for the same results the error made from using V = D: 100 ∗ |hTiSV … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparing two approximations for the diffusivity For different values of the relative difference in concentrations δL/L and for one binding site with ON rate µL and OFF rate ν, we compute the mean time to decision using the exact formula from [27] hTiSV (computing D according to Eq. 26), the mean time to decision computing D as a variable per cycle as in Eq. 39 hTipc and the mean time per cycle using V = … view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the drift for the one and two binding site equilibrium architectures We compare the drift V (1) of the one binding-site architecture of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Changing the bounds of the rates does not change the qualitative results on the optimal number of binding sites We proceed as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Comparison of fit to data from Mir et al [52] and prediction from one of the fastest architectures for time spent bound to DNA by Bicoid molecules. In blue we show the two exponential fit for the pdf of the time spent bound to the DNA by Bicoid molecules at the boundary for the Zelda null conditions in [52]. They fit two exponentials to the data obtaining a coefficient of determination above 0.99 for a le… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Weak binding sites are optimal for a range of parameters. In the k = 1, two binding site cycle architecture of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The first cell fate decisions in the developing fly embryo are made very rapidly : hunchback genes decide in a few minutes whether a given nucleus follows the anterior or the posterior developmental blueprint by reading out the positional information encoded in the Bicoid morphogen. This developmental system constitutes a prototypical instance of the broad spectrum of regulatory decision processes that combine speed and accuracy. Traditional arguments based on fixed-time sampling of Bicoid concentration indicate that an accurate readout is not possible within the short times observed experimentally. This raises the general issue of how speed-accuracy tradeoffs are achieved. Here, we compare fixed-time sampling strategies to decisions made on-the-fly, which are based on updating and comparing the likelihoods of being at an anterior or a posterior location. We found that these more efficient schemes can complete reliable cell fate decisions even within the very short embryological timescales. We discuss the influence of promoter architectures on the mean decision time and decision error rate and present concrete promoter architectures that allow for the fast readout of the morphogen. Lastly, we formulate explicit predictions for new experiments involving Bicoid mutants.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that hunchback promoters enable reliable anterior-posterior cell fate decisions by reading out Bicoid morphogen positional information in under a minute via on-the-fly sequential likelihood-ratio tests between anterior and posterior location hypotheses; these outperform fixed-time concentration sampling, and the authors present concrete promoter architectures realizing the fast scheme together with explicit predictions for Bicoid mutant experiments.

Significance. If the central mapping from promoter kinetics to likelihood updates holds, the work supplies a mechanistic resolution to the speed-accuracy tradeoff in morphogen interpretation and supplies falsifiable predictions; the use of standard statistical decision theory applied to a concrete developmental system is a strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [section presenting concrete promoter architectures] The assertion that the proposed promoter architectures implement exactly the sequential likelihood-ratio test (rather than, e.g., a threshold on integrated occupancy) is made by construction; no derivation is supplied showing how the binding/unbinding rates and promoter state transitions produce the precise likelihood update rule, so the claimed decision-time reduction does not automatically follow for the molecular implementation.
  2. [modeling or methods section] The model treats Bicoid binding/unbinding rates and the anterior-posterior decision threshold as free parameters; without an explicit statement of how these are fixed or constrained by existing data, it is unclear whether the reported sub-minute decision times are robust or require fine-tuning.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the abstract and introduction whether the likelihood comparison is performed continuously or at discrete molecular events; the current phrasing leaves the update schedule ambiguous.
  2. The comparison between fixed-time and sequential schemes would benefit from an explicit table or figure reporting mean decision time and error rate as functions of Bicoid concentration for both strategies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight important points regarding the rigor of our molecular implementation claims and parameter choices. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [section presenting concrete promoter architectures] The assertion that the proposed promoter architectures implement exactly the sequential likelihood-ratio test (rather than, e.g., a threshold on integrated occupancy) is made by construction; no derivation is supplied showing how the binding/unbinding rates and promoter state transitions produce the precise likelihood update rule, so the claimed decision-time reduction does not automatically follow for the molecular implementation.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation is required rather than an assertion by construction. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or supplementary note) that derives the mapping from the promoter binding/unbinding rates and state-transition matrix to the exact sequential likelihood-ratio update rule, thereby confirming that the reported reduction in decision time is realized by the molecular kinetics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [modeling or methods section] The model treats Bicoid binding/unbinding rates and the anterior-posterior decision threshold as free parameters; without an explicit statement of how these are fixed or constrained by existing data, it is unclear whether the reported sub-minute decision times are robust or require fine-tuning.

    Authors: The rates were selected to lie within experimentally reported ranges for Bicoid-DNA interactions, yet we acknowledge the absence of an explicit constraints section. The revision will include a methods paragraph that cites the literature values used to bound the parameters and will add a brief robustness analysis (varying rates and thresholds within those bounds) demonstrating that sub-minute reliable decisions remain possible without fine-tuning. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation applies standard sequential hypothesis testing to morphogen readout without reducing to fitted inputs or self-citation chains

full rationale

The paper contrasts fixed-time concentration sampling against on-the-fly likelihood-ratio updating between anterior/posterior hypotheses, then discusses promoter architectures that could realize fast decisions. This comparison follows directly from statistical decision theory applied to the Bicoid gradient; no equations or claims in the abstract reduce a prediction to a parameter fit by construction, nor does the central result rest on a load-bearing self-citation whose content is unverified. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks of sequential analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Model rests on standard assumptions from statistical decision theory and stochastic gene regulation; several kinetic rates and thresholds are expected to be chosen or fitted to match observed embryological timescales.

free parameters (2)
  • Bicoid binding and unbinding rates
    Control the speed of likelihood updating and must be set to biological values.
  • decision threshold for anterior vs posterior
    Determines when the likelihood comparison triggers a fate decision.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bicoid molecule arrivals follow a Poisson process whose rate encodes position
    Standard modeling choice for morphogen noise.
  • domain assumption Promoter state transitions are Markovian
    Allows the likelihood update to be computed recursively.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5728 in / 1271 out tokens · 48586 ms · 2026-05-25T19:28:30.626066+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Establishment of developmental precision and proportions in the early drosophila embryo

    Bahram Houchmandzadeh, Eric Wieschaus, and Stanislas Leibler. Establishment of developmental precision and proportions in the early drosophila embryo. Nature, 415:798 EP –, 02 2002. 34 hunchback promoters can readout morphogenetic positional information in less than a minute A PREPRINT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 in s-1 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 optimal 2*/ 1 0 50 ...

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Perry, Jacques P

    Michael W. Perry, Jacques P. Bothma, Ryan D. Luu, and Michael Levine. Precision of hunchback expression in the Drosophila embryo. Current Biology, 22(23):2247–2252, 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Incoherent feedforward control governs adaptation of activated ras in a eukaryotic chemotaxis pathway

    Kosuke Takeda, Danying Shao, Micha Adler, Pascale G Charest, William F Loomis, Herbert Levine, Alex Groisman, Wouter-Jan Rappel, and Richard A Firtel. Incoherent feedforward control governs adaptation of activated ras in a eukaryotic chemotaxis pathway. Science signaling, 5(205):ra2–ra2, 01 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Marcelletti and David H

    John F. Marcelletti and David H. Katz. Antigen concentration determines helper t cell subset participation in ige antibody responses. Cellular Immunology, 143(2):405–419, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Environmental sensing, information transfer, and cellular decision-making

    Clive G Bowsher and Peter S Swain. Environmental sensing, information transfer, and cellular decision-making. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 28:149–155, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Growing an Embryo from a Single Cell: A Hurdle in Animal Life

    Patrick H O’Farrell. Growing an Embryo from a Single Cell: A Hurdle in Animal Life. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, 7(11), nov 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    O’Farrell, Jason Stumpff, and Tin Tin Su

    Patrick H. O’Farrell, Jason Stumpff, and Tin Tin Su. Embryonic cleavage cycles: How is a mouse like a fly? Current Biology, 14(1):R35 – R45, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    3 minutes to precisely measure morphogen concentration

    Tanguy Lucas, Huy Tran, Carmina Angelica Perez Romero, Aurélien Guillou, Cécile Fradin, Mathieu Coppey, Aleksandra M Walczak, and Nathalie Dostatni. 3 minutes to precisely measure morphogen concentration. PLoS Genet, 14(10):e1007676, Oct 2018

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Nüsslein-V olhard, E

    C. Nüsslein-V olhard, E. Wieschaus, and H. Kluding. Mutations affecting the pattern of the larval cuticle indrosophila melanogaster. Wilhelm Roux’s archives of developmental biology, 193(5):267–282, 1984

    work page 1984

  10. [10]

    The gap gene network

    Johannes Jaeger. The gap gene network. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences , 68(2):243–274, 2011

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Precision of readout at the hunchback gene: Analyzing short transcription time traces in living fly embryos

    Jonathan Desponds, Huy Tran, Teresa Ferraro, Tanguy Lucas, Carmina Perez Romero, Aurelien Guillou, Cecile Fradin, Mathieu Coppey, Nathalie Dostatni, and Aleksandra M Walczak. Precision of readout at the hunchback gene: Analyzing short transcription time traces in living fly embryos. PLoS Computational Biology, 2016

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    Stability and nuclear dynamics of the bicoid morphogen gradient

    Thomas Gregor, Eric F Wieschaus, Alistair P McGregor, William Bialek, and David W Tank. Stability and nuclear dynamics of the bicoid morphogen gradient. Cell, 130(1):141–52, 2007

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    The time to measure positional information: maternal hunchback is required for the synchrony of the Bicoid transcriptional response at the onset of zygotic transcription

    Aude Porcher, Asmahan Abu-Arish, Sébastien Huart, Baptiste Roelens, Cecile Fradin, and Nathalie Dostatni. The time to measure positional information: maternal hunchback is required for the synchrony of the Bicoid transcriptional response at the onset of zygotic transcription. Development, 137(16):2795–804, 2010. 35 hunchback promoters can readout morphoge...

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Quantitative imaging of transcription in living Drosophila embryos links polymerase activity to patterning

    Hernan G Garcia, Mikhail Tikhonov, Albert Lin, and Thomas Gregor. Quantitative imaging of transcription in living Drosophila embryos links polymerase activity to patterning. Current Biology, 23(21):2140–5, 2013

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Petkova, Gašper Tkaˇcik, William Bialek, Eric F

    Mariela D. Petkova, Gašper Tkaˇcik, William Bialek, Eric F. Wieschaus, and Thomas Gregor. Optimal decoding of cellular identities in a genetic network. Cell, 176(4):844–855.e15, 2019

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Only accessible information is useful : insights from patterning Subject Category :

    Mikhail Tikhonov, Shawn C Little, and Thomas Gregor. Only accessible information is useful : insights from patterning Subject Category :. Royal Society Open Science , 2(150486), 2015

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Physics of chemoreception

    H C Berg and E M Purcell. Physics of chemoreception. Biophysical journal, 20(2):193–219, November 1977

    work page 1977

  18. [18]

    Physical limits to biochemical signaling

    William Bialek and Sima Setayeshgar. Physical limits to biochemical signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2005(102):10040–10045, 2005

    work page 2005

  19. [19]

    The Berg-Purcell Limit Revisited

    Kazunari Kaizu, Wiet De Ronde, Joris Paijmans, Koichi Takahashi, and Filipe Tostevin. The Berg-Purcell Limit Revisited. Biophysical journal, 106(4):976–985, 2014

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Endres and Ned S

    Robert G. Endres and Ned S. Wingreen. Accuracy of direct gradient sensing by single cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 105(41):15749–15754, 2008

    work page 2008

  21. [21]

    Endres and Ned S

    Robert G. Endres and Ned S. Wingreen. Maximum likelihood and the single receptor.Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:158101, Oct 2009

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    Wingreen

    Thierry Mora and Ned S. Wingreen. Limits of sensing temporal concentration changes by single cells. Phys. Rev. Lett., 104:248101, Jun 2010

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Tank, Eric F

    Thomas Gregor, David W. Tank, Eric F. Wieschaus, and William Bialek. Probing the limits to positional information. Cell, 130(1):153–164, 2007

    work page 2007

  24. [24]

    Role of spatial averaging in the precision of gene expression patterns

    Thorsten Erdmann, Martin Howard, and Pieter Rein ten Wolde. Role of spatial averaging in the precision of gene expression patterns. Physical Review Letters, 103(25):258101, 2009

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Wingreen, and Robert G

    Gerardo Aquino, Ned S. Wingreen, and Robert G. Endres. Know the single-receptor sensing limit? think again. Journal of Statistical Physics, 162(5):1353–1364, 2016

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses

    A Wald. Sequential tests of statistical hypotheses. Ann Math Stat, 1945

    work page 1945

  27. [27]

    Decisions on the fly in cellular sensory systems

    Eric D Siggia and Massimo Vergassola. Decisions on the fly in cellular sensory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2013

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Gold and Michael N

    Joshua I. Gold and Michael N. Shadlen. The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30(1):535–574, 2019/01/23 2007

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    James A. R. Marshall, Rafal Bogazc, Anna Dornhaus, Robert Planque, Tim Kovacs, and Nigel R. Franks. On optimal decision-making in brains and social insect colonies. Journals of the Royal Society Interface , 2009

    work page 2009

  30. [30]

    Decision making in the arrow of time

    Édgar Roldán, Izaak Neri, Meik Dörpinghaus, Heinrich Meyr, and Frank Jülicher. Decision making in the arrow of time. Physical Review Letters, 115(25):250602–, 12 2015

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    Anterior-posterior positional information in the absence of a strong bicoid gradient.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(10):3823, 03 2009

    Amanda Ochoa-Espinosa, Danyang Yu, Aristotelis Tsirigos, Paolo Struffi, and Stephen Small. Anterior-posterior positional information in the absence of a strong bicoid gradient.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(10):3823, 03 2009

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Relief of gene repression by torso rtk signaling: role of capicua in drosophila terminal and dorsoventral patterning

    Gerardo Jiménez, Antoine Guichet, Anne Ephrussi, and Jordi Casanova. Relief of gene repression by torso rtk signaling: role of capicua in drosophila terminal and dorsoventral patterning. Genes & Development, 14(2):224– 231, 01 2000

    work page 2000

  33. [33]

    Sokolowski, Thorsten Erdmann, and Pieter Rein ten Wolde

    Thomas R. Sokolowski, Thorsten Erdmann, and Pieter Rein ten Wolde. Mutual repression enhances the steepness and precision of gene expression boundaries. PLOS Computational Biology, 8(8):e1002654–, 08 2012

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Huy Tran, Jonathan Desponds, Carmina Angelica Perez Romero, Mathieu Coppey, Cecile Fradin, Nathalie Dostatni, and Aleksandra M. Walczak. Precision in a rush: Trade-offs between reproducibility and steepness of the hunchback expression pattern. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(10):e1006513–, 10 2018

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Multiple enhancers ensure precision of gap gene- expression patterns in the Drosophila embryo

    Michael W Perry, Alistair N Boettiger, and Michael Levine. Multiple enhancers ensure precision of gap gene- expression patterns in the Drosophila embryo. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108(33):1–12, 2011

    work page 2011

  36. [36]

    Principles of development Fifth Edition

    Cheryll Tickle Lewis Wolpert and Alfonso Martinez Arias. Principles of development Fifth Edition . Oxford University Press, 2015

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    The bicoid protein determines position in the drosophila embryo in a concentration-dependent manner

    Wolfgang Driever and Christiane Nüsslein-V olhard. The bicoid protein determines position in the drosophila embryo in a concentration-dependent manner. Cell, 54(1):95–104, 1988. 36 hunchback promoters can readout morphogenetic positional information in less than a minute A PREPRINT

    work page 1988

  38. [38]

    Lawrence

    Gary Struhl, Paul Johnston, and Peter A. Lawrence. Control of drosophila body pattern by the hunchback morphogen gradient. Cell, 69(2):237–249, 1992

    work page 1992

  39. [39]

    Bicoid determines sharp and precise target gene expression in the Drosophila embryo

    Olivier Crauk and Nathalie Dostatni. Bicoid determines sharp and precise target gene expression in the Drosophila embryo. Current Biology, 15(21):1888–98, 2005

    work page 2005

  40. [40]

    Live imaging of bicoid-dependent transcription in Drosophila embryos

    Tanguy Lucas, Teresa Ferraro, Baptiste Roelens, Jose De Las Heras Chanes, Aleksandra M Walczak, Mathieu Coppey, and Nathalie Dostatni. Live imaging of bicoid-dependent transcription in Drosophila embryos. Current Biology, 23(21):2135–9, 2013

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Differential regulation of the two transcripts from the drosophila gap segmentation gene hunchback

    C Schröder, D Tautz, E Seifert, and H Jäckle. Differential regulation of the two transcripts from the drosophila gap segmentation gene hunchback. The EMBO journal, 7(9):2881–2887, 09 1988

    work page 1988

  42. [42]

    Determination of spatial domains of zygotic gene expression in the drosophila embryo by the affinity of binding sites for the bicoid morphogen

    Wolfgang Driever, Gudrun Thoma, and Christiane Nüsslein-V olhard. Determination of spatial domains of zygotic gene expression in the drosophila embryo by the affinity of binding sites for the bicoid morphogen. Nature, 340(6232):363–367, 1989

    work page 1989

  43. [43]

    Macdonald

    Gary Struhl, Kevin Struhl, and Paul M. Macdonald. The gradient morphogen bicoid is a concentration-dependent transcriptional activator. Cell, 57(7):1259–1273, 1989

    work page 1989

  44. [44]

    The role of binding site cluster strength in bicoid-dependent patterning in drosophila

    Amanda Ochoa-Espinosa, Gozde Yucel, Leah Kaplan, Adam Pare, Noel Pura, Adam Oberstein, Dmitri Papatsenko, and Stephen Small. The role of binding site cluster strength in bicoid-dependent patterning in drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 102(14):4960, 04 2005

    work page 2005

  45. [45]

    Information Integration and Energy Expenditure in Gene Regulation

    Javier Estrada, Felix Wong, Angela DePace, and Jeremy Gunawardena. Information Integration and Energy Expenditure in Gene Regulation. Cell, 166(1):234–44, 2016

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    A Guide to First-Passage Processes

    Sidney Redner. A Guide to First-Passage Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

    work page 2001

  47. [47]

    Some generalizations of the theory of cumulative sums of random variables

    Abraham Wald. Some generalizations of the theory of cumulative sums of random variables. 16(3):287–293, 1945

    work page 1945

  48. [48]

    Probability: Theory and Examples

    Rick Durrett. Probability: Theory and Examples . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Receptor crosstalk improves concentration sensing of multiple ligands

    Martín Carballo-Pacheco, Jonathan Desponds, Tatyana Gavrilchenko, Andreas Mayer, Roshan Prizak, Gautam Reddy, Ilya Nemenman, and Thierry Mora. Receptor crosstalk improves concentration sensing of multiple ligands. Physical Review E, 99(2):022423–, 02 2019

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Infomax strategies for an optimal balance between exploration and exploitation

    Gautam Reddy, Antonio Celani, and Massimo Vergassola. Infomax strategies for an optimal balance between exploration and exploitation. Journal of Statistical Physics, 163(6):1454–1476, 2016

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    V . E. Foe and B. M. Alberts. Studies of nuclear and cytoplasmic behaviour during the five mitotic cycles that precede gastrulation in drosophila embryogenesis. Journal of Cell Science , 61(1):31, 05 1983

    work page 1983

  52. [52]

    Haines, Xiao Yong Li, Michael Steidler, Hernan Garcia, Michael B

    Mustafa Mir, Armando Reimer, Jenna E. Haines, Xiao Yong Li, Michael Steidler, Hernan Garcia, Michael B. Eisen, and Xavier Darzacq. Dense bicoid hubs accentuate binding along the morphogen gradient. Genes and development, 2017

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Jeehae Park, Javier Estrada, Gemma Johnson, Chiara Ricci-Tam, Meghan Bragdon, Yekaterina Shulgina, Anna Cha, Jeremy Gunawardena, and Angela H. DePace. Dissecting the sharp response of a canonical developmental enhancer reveals multiple sources of cooperativity. bioRxiv, page 408708, 01 2018

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Siggia, and Barak A

    Jason Gertz, Eric D. Siggia, and Barak A. Cohen. Analysis of combinatorial cis-regulation in synthetic and genomic promoters. Nature, 457:215 EP –, 11 2008

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in drosophila

    Christiane Nüsslein-V olhard and Eric Wieschaus. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in drosophila. Nature, 287(5785):795–801, 1980

    work page 1980

  56. [56]

    Regulation of the drosophila segmentation gene hunchback by two maternal morphogenetic centres

    Diethard Tautz. Regulation of the drosophila segmentation gene hunchback by two maternal morphogenetic centres. Nature, 332(6161):281–284, 1988

    work page 1988

  57. [57]

    Precise developmental gene expression arises from globally stochastic transcriptional activity

    Shawn C Little, Mikhail Tikhonov, and Thomas Gregor. Precise developmental gene expression arises from globally stochastic transcriptional activity. Cell, 154(4):789–800, 2013

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    High mobility of bicoid captured by fluorescence correlation spectroscopy: Implication for the rapid establishment of its gradient

    Asmahan Abu-Arish, Aude Porcher, Anna Czerwonka, Nathalie Dostatni, and Cécile Fradin. High mobility of bicoid captured by fluorescence correlation spectroscopy: Implication for the rapid establishment of its gradient. Biophysical Journal, 99(4):33–35, 2010

    work page 2010

  59. [59]

    On cumulative sums of random variables

    Abraham Wald. On cumulative sums of random variables. Ann. Math. Statist., 15(3):283–296, 1944. 37

    work page 1944