Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Single-cell stochastic gene expression kinetics with coupled positive-plus-negative feedback

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A coupled positive-plus-negative feedback gene circuit has an exact steady-state solution, and its noise decomposes into five biophysical terms.

desk verdict Solid exact distributions for coupled feedback gene circuits and a useful discrete-to-continuous bridge, but the headline 'wide range' claim rests on a small-feedback expansion and the time-dependent FCX solution may already be in ref [35]. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00042 v2 pith:VYIFMMYT submitted 2019-08-30 q-bio.MN math.PRphysics.bio-phq-bio.QM

Chen Jia , Le Yi Wang , George G. Yin , Michael Q. Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.MNmath.PRphysics.bio-phq-bio.QM MSC 92C4260J2833C05
keywords stochasticgeneexpressionchemicalmasterequationpositiveandnegativefeedbacknoiseproteinburstinghypergeometricdistributionmacroscopiclimitbifurcation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks what happens when a single gene is regulated by both positive and negative feedback at once, and it answers the question exactly for a minimal three-stage model of promoter switching, transcription, translation, and protein bursting. Its central result is a closed-form steady-state protein distribution built from Gauss hypergeometric functions, from which the mean, the active probability, and a five-term decomposition of expression noise follow. The paper's main biological discovery is a triphasic stochastic bifurcation: as the ratio of positive to negative feedback strength increases, the circuit first reduces mean and noise, then enters a transitional phase in which mean is amplified while noise is reduced, and finally amplifies both. This transitional phase is wide when promoter switching is slow, so coupled feedback can stabilize gene expression around a relatively high mean, something neither feedback loop achieves alone. The paper also derives the continuous limits of the model, a switching ordinary differential equation for large burst frequency and a switching stochastic differential equation for large burst size, plus the time-dependent distribution of the classical random-bursting model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the steady-state generating function $F(z)$ of the reduced chemical master equation with promoter switching rates $a_n=a+\mu n$ and $b_n=b+\nu n$. Solving the generating-function equations gives the closed form $F(z)=\frac{{}_2F_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2;\beta;w(z-z_0))}{{}_2F_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2;\beta;w(1-z_0))}$, where ${}_2F_1$ is Gauss's hypergeometric function and the five parameters $\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta,w,z_0$ encode the original eight rates. The machinery is a chain of standard identities: the Taylor coefficients of $F$ give the protein distribution, its logarithmic derivative gives the mean, and hypergeometric differentiation formulas give the noise. The same function, under a scaling limit, becomes a confluent hypergeometric function in the no-bursting case, and under the macroscopic scaling becomes the Laplace transform of the continuous steady-state distribution, $\beta$-like in the Kurtz limit and involving the Whittaker function in the L\'evy limit. For the time-dependent problem, Laplace transforms reduce the classical random-bursting equation to a first-order partial differential equation solved by the method of characteristics.

What would settle it

Run Gillespie simulations of the reduced model with slow promoter switching at feedback strengths comparable to the protein decay rate, for example $\mu=d$ and $\nu$ between $0.1d$ and $0.5d$, and check whether an interval of $\mu/\nu$ still shows rising mean with falling Fano factor. If the interval disappears or its boundaries differ from $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$, the wide-range claim fails; alternatively, comparing the exact distribution $p_n$ to simulations at extreme parameter values would settle whether the hypergeometric formula itself is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a coupled positive-plus-negative feedback gene circuit has an exact steady-state solution, not just approximations. After averaging out fast mRNA dynamics, the steady-state generating function of protein number is a ratio of two Gauss hypergeometric functions, $F(z)=\frac{{}_2F_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2;\beta;w(z-z_0))}{{}_2F_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2;\beta;w(1-z_0))}$, and the protein copy-number distribution is $p_n=\frac{(\alpha_1)_n(\alpha_2)_n}{(\beta)_n}\frac{w^n}{n!}\frac{{}_2F_1(\alpha_1+n,\alpha_2+n;\beta+n;-wz_0)}{{}_2F_1(\alpha_1,\alpha_2;\beta;w(1-z_0))}$. Every later formula in the paper, whether the mean, the gene-active probability, the weak-feedback approximations for mean and noise, or the two continuous limits, is obtained by differentiating or taking limits of this identity. The biological claim that follows is that the two feedback loops do not cancel: the ratio $\mu/\nu$ of their strengths separates the circuit into three phases, and in the middle phase the positive loop's mean amplification coexists with the negative loop's noise suppression. The paper states this as a robust phenomenon for slow promoter switching over a wide range of feedback strengths, with the small-feedback analysis providing the thresholds and numerical simulation supporting the wide-range statement.

Load-bearing premise

The five-term mean and noise decompositions, and hence the exact thresholds of the three-phase transition, are derived only for feedback strengths much smaller than the protein decay rate; the paper's claim that the transitional phase persists over a wide range of strengths relies on simulation rather than proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With the exact distribution in hand, parameter estimation from single-cell protein data can use likelihoods instead of simulations, at least in the regime where the reduced model is valid.
  • For slow promoter switching, a coupled feedback circuit can be tuned to a regime where the mean protein level rises and cell-to-cell noise falls, so the circuit stabilizes expression at a high level without paying a noise penalty.
  • The thresholds $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ predict that fast switching collapses the transitional phase, so in fast-switching cells the circuit behaves as either positive or negative feedback, not both.
  • The Kurtz and L\'evy limits justify using simpler continuous models: switching ODEs are appropriate when bursts are frequent and small, switching SDEs when bursts are large, and the classical random-bursting model now has a closed time-dependent solution with a measurable spike.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The explicit distribution suggests a testable experimental signature: in a synthetic circuit with tunable feedback strengths, the Fano factor should dip while the mean rises exactly in the ratio window between $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$, and a failure of that signature would localize where the small-feedback approximation breaks.
  • The same hypergeometric machinery could be pushed to two coupled genes or a protein pair, since the generating-function method is not tied to one-dimensional state spaces, though the paper does not do this.
  • The delta spike and jump in the time-dependent solution of the random-bursting model imply that in single-cell time-lapse data with large bursts, one should see a subpopulation decaying exponentially without a burst, an observable prediction the paper does not highlight.
  • If the wide-range robustness claim is confirmed numerically for arbitrary feedback strengths, the five-term decomposition may be replaceable by a rigorous phase-diagram or large-deviation analysis, extending the result beyond the $\mu,\nu\ll d$ regime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a minimal three-stage gene expression model with promoter switching, transcription, translation, and degradation, and reduces it to a two-state model with geometrically distributed protein bursts. The authors assume feedback-dependent switching rates an=a+μn and bn=b+νn, and claim an explicit steady-state generating function and protein distribution expressed through Gauss hypergeometric functions. They use this result to derive a five-term decomposition of the Fano factor into protein, mRNA, promoter-switching, positive-feedback, and negative-feedback contributions, and to predict a triphasic stochastic bifurcation in the feedback-strength ratio μ/ν: a negative-feedback-like regime, a positive-feedback-like regime, and an intermediate regime in which the mean is amplified while the noise is reduced. The paper also analyzes two macroscopic limits of the discrete CME: a Kurtz limit leading to a switching ODE with beta-like stationary densities, and a Lévy limit leading to a switching SDE with Whittaker-function stationary densities, plus a new time-dependent solution of the Friedman-Cai-Xie bursting model.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, the manuscript is a useful analytic unification: it reproduces negative-binomial, Poisson, beta, and gamma limits, extends earlier results of Shahrezaei-Swain, Kumar et al., Liu et al., and Jia et al., and adds a closed-form time-dependent solution for the classical Friedman-Cai-Xie model. The predicted triphasic bifurcation is a concrete, falsifiable claim about coupled positive and negative feedback. The paper's main weaknesses are that the core derivations are deferred to an absent Supplemental Material and that the headline wide-range claim currently rests on first-order perturbative expansions without fully documented exact or numerical verification. No code, data, or machine-checked proofs are included, so the analytic results cannot be independently checked from the submitted text.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (2)–(4)] The central analytic result, namely the explicit generating function F(z) and the steady-state distribution p_n, is stated as being "given by [62, Section 1]", but the Supplemental Material is not part of the reviewed file. The underlying ODE system has state-dependent coefficients, so the hypergeometric solution is a nontrivial claim, not a routine check. Because Eqs. (4), (10), (16), (17), (18), and the macroscopic-limit formulas all derive from this solution, the central result of the paper cannot be verified from the submitted text. Please include the derivation in the main text or make the supplement available for review.
  2. [§5.1–§5.5, Eqs. (25)–(26), (31)–(32)] The Kurtz and Lévy limit derivations, including the limiting PDEs (24) and the subsequent Laplace-transform inversions leading to the beta-like density (26) and the Whittaker-function density (32), are also delegated to [62]. These are separate limiting theorems rather than immediate corollaries of Eq. (3), and each involves a limit passage and an inverse transform. As submitted, these results are unverifiable. Please provide the derivations or the supplement.
  3. [§4, Eqs. (17)–(18) and Fig. 4(d)–(e)] The headline prediction that coupled positive-plus-negative feedback amplifies the mean and reduces the noise over a wide range of feedback strengths is derived from first-order expansions in μ,ν that are explicitly valid only for μ,ν≪d. The captions of Fig. 4(d) and (e) describe the plotted quantities as "total feedback contributions" but do not state whether they are evaluations of the linearized formulas (17)–(18) or exact computations from Eq. (16) and the corresponding mean. If they are the linearized contributions, they cannot justify claims for large feedback strengths, and the parameters used in Fig. 4(f), μ=5, ν=1 with d=1, are far outside the stated perturbative regime. The text's statement that numerical simulations show insensitivity to feedback strengths is not supported by any simulation description in the section. In addition, the slow-switching limit is described as a,b≪d, yet Fig. 4(b) uses b=a+d, so as a→0 the rate b approaches d rather than being small; this discrepancy should be resolved. Please provide exact or fully documented numerical results over the claimed range, or substantially temper the wide-range conclusion.
  4. [§3.1, Eq. (16)] The exact Fano-factor formula as printed has 2F1(α1+1, α2+1; β; w(1−z0)) in the denominator of the second term. Direct differentiation of Eq. (4) gives 2F1(α1+1, α2+1; β+1; w(1−z0)) there, because the derivative of 2F1(α1,α2;β;x) raises the third parameter from β to β+1. Please correct this formula or explain the alternative identity used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (14)] In the no-burst model, the right-hand side uses p^n, but p is not defined after the limit q→1; the factor should presumably be w^n as in Eq. (11).
  2. [§5.5] The text twice writes "Wittaker function"; the standard spelling is "Whittaker function".
  3. [§6] The reaction scheme contains "inative gene + protein"; this should read "inactive gene + protein".
  4. [§5.6] The heading and text alternate between "microscopic limits" and "macroscopic limits" (e.g., "the two microscopic limits" in §5.6). Please use consistent terminology.
  5. [References] Reference [62] is listed only as "See Supplemental Material" and is not a standard citation; please provide a full reference or a note on how the supplementary file can be accessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central analytic results follow from the CME without fitted parameters; self-citations are lineage, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Equation (3) is obtained by solving the generating-function ODE system derived directly from the reduced CME (1), with the explicit hypergeometric solution supported by the paper's own Supplemental Material. The small-feedback approximations in Eqs. (17) and (18) are asymptotic expansions of that exact steady-state distribution for mu,nu << d; they are not assumed as inputs, and no parameter is fitted to data. The triphasic bifurcation thresholds delta1 and delta2 in Eq. (22) are ratios of coefficients appearing in those expansions, so the phase structure is a mathematical consequence of the expansion rather than an imposed result. The claim that coupled feedback amplifies the mean while reducing noise is then checked against numerical simulations of the reduced and full models, and the analytic distributions are compared with known limiting cases. The self-citations to [40] and [42] provide the rigorous two-time-scale reduction and the nomenclature of Kurtz and Levy limits, but the limits are re-derived here by taking K to infinity in the generating function, so those citations are lineage rather than load-bearing circularity. The only caveat is that the 'wide range' of feedback strengths is partly justified by extrapolating the mu,nu << d expansion; Fig. 4(d)-(e) displays the linear feedback contributions, not an independent exact simulation at large feedback, and Section 6 concedes that a rigorous theory for large feedback strengths is lacking. This is a validity and extrapolation concern, not circularity, because no prediction is defined in terms of its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No data fitting parameters are introduced; all rate constants are physical inputs. The auxiliary quantities K, mu', nu', alpha1, alpha2, beta, w, and z0 are reparametrizations rather than fitted constants. The load-bearing assumptions are the fast-mRNA reduction, linear feedback rates, no-count-change protein binding, and small feedback strengths for the noise decomposition.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption mRNA decays much faster than protein (v/d >> 1), justifying reduction to the geometric burst model in CME (1).
    The analytic steady-state solution is derived for the reduced burst model, not the full three-stage CME. Section 2 states this and Fig. 2 shows the reduction fails for small lambda=v/d.
  • domain assumption Promoter switching rates depend linearly on protein copy number: an=a+mu n and bn=b+nu n.
    This linear dependence is the central wiring of the coupled circuit and is assumed in Section 2. The hypergeometric solution depends on this choice of rates.
  • domain assumption A protein copy that binds to the promoter to mediate feedback does not change the protein copy number.
    Explicitly acknowledged in Section 6 as a small approximation. The CME state tracks only protein abundance, so the binding event does not decrement n.
  • domain assumption The noise decomposition is valid for mu,nu << d.
    Equation (18) is derived in this regime. The paper extends to larger feedback strengths only by numerical simulation, as stated in Section 4.
  • standard math Standard Gauss, Kummer, and Whittaker function identities from DLMF are used without proof.
    Used to simplify limiting cases and to take inverse Laplace transforms in Eqs. (2), (11), (25), (26), (31), and (32).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-cell stochastic gene expression kinetics with coupled positive-plus-negative feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VYIFMMYT

@misc{pith2026190900042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-cell stochastic gene expression kinetics with coupled positive-plus-negative feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VYIFMMYT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00042}
}
read the original abstract

Here we investigate single-cell stochastic gene expression kinetics in a minimal coupled gene circuit with positive-plus-negative feedback. A triphasic stochastic bifurcation upon the increasing ratio of the positive and negative feedback strengths is observed, which reveals a strong synergistic interaction between positive and negative feedback loops. We discover that coupled positive-plus-negative feedback amplifies gene expression mean but reduces gene expression noise over a wide range of feedback strengths when promoter switching is relatively slow, stabilizing gene expression around a relatively high level. In addition, we study two types of macroscopic limits of the discrete chemical master equation model: the Kurtz limit applies to proteins with large burst frequencies and the L\'{e}vy limit applies to proteins with large burst sizes. We derive the analytic steady-state distributions of the protein abundance in a coupled gene circuit for both the discrete model and its two macroscopic limits, generalizing the results obtained in [Chaos 26:043108, 2016]. We also obtain the analytic time-dependent protein distribution for the classical Friedman-Cai-Xie random bursting model proposed in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 97:168302, 2006]. Our analytic results are further applied to study the structure of gene expression noise in a coupled gene circuit and a complete decomposition of noise in terms of five different biophysical origins is provided.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00042 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the full and reduced Markovian models. (a) Simulations of the steady-state protein distributions for the reduced model (red) and the full model when λ = 1 (green) and λ = 10 (blue). The protein distributions are monomodal. (b) Simulations of the steady-state protein distributions for the reduced model (red) and the full model when λ = 2 (green) and λ = 20 (blue). The protein distributions are bimodal. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A minimal coupled gene circuit without translational bursting. (a) The two-stage representation of stochastic gene expression consisting of only promoter switching and translation, with the transcription step being ignored. (b) The transition diagram of the Markovian model describing the dynamics of the two-stage representation. Then the steady-state protein distribution can be recovered from F as [63, Equation 13.3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Stochastic bifurcation in coupled gene circuits. (a)-(b) The ratios of the positive and negative feedback contributions to the protein mean and protein noise, hnipositive/hninegative (blue) and ηpositive/ηnegative (red), as functions of µ/ν. (a) The regime of fast prom…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Stochastic gene expression kinetics described by the Kurtz limit. (a) The simulated trajectory of the switching ODE model. Given a particular promoter state, the system evolves as an ODE with no fluctuations. The model parameters are chosen as s 0 = 1, d = 1, p = 0.5, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stochastic gene expression kinetics described by the Levy limit. ´ (a) The simulated trajectory of the switching SDE model. When the gene is active, the system evolves as an SDE with large fluctuations. The model parameters are chosen as s = 2, d = 1, k = 2, p = 0.5, a…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Time-dependent solution of the FCX equation. (a)-(c) Simulations of the steady-state and time-dependent solutions of the FCX equation under four different choices of time points, where the red curve corresponds to the steady-state solution. In (a)-(c), the means of all…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    & Ochab-Marcinek, A

    Jedrak, J. & Ochab-Marcinek, A. Time-dependent solutions for a stochastic model of gene expression with molecule production in the form of a compound Poisson process. Phys. Rev. E 94, 032401 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [62]

    See Supplemental Material for the detailed derivation of some nontrivial formulas

    work page

  3. [1]

    C., Blake, W

    Kærn, M., Elston, T. C., Blake, W. J. & Collins, J. J. Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 451–464 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [2]

    Models of stochastic gene expression

    Paulsson, J. Models of stochastic gene expression. Phys. Life Rev. 2, 157–175 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [3]

    An introduction to probability theory and its applications: volume I (John Wiley & Sons, New Y ork, 1968), 3rd edn

    Feller, W. An introduction to probability theory and its applications: volume I (John Wiley & Sons, New Y ork, 1968), 3rd edn

    work page 1968

  6. [4]

    & Huber, W

    Anders, S. & Huber, W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol. 11, 1 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [5]

    D., McCarthy, D

    Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J. & Smyth, G. K. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 26, 139–140 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [6]

    & Ehrenberg, M

    Paulsson, J. & Ehrenberg, M. Random signal fluctuations can reduce random fluctuations in regulated components of chemical regulatory networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5447 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 73 references
  1. [7]

    & Swain, P

    Shahrezaei, V . & Swain, P . S. Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17256–17261 (2008)

    2008

  2. [8]

    & Ycart, B

    Peccoud, J. & Ycart, B. Markovian modeling of gene-product synthesis. Theor . Popul. Biol.48, 222–234 (1995)

    1995

  3. [9]

    Kepler, T. B. & Elston, T. C. Stochasticity in transcriptional regulation: origins, consequences, and mathemat- ical representations. Biophys. J. 81, 3116–3136 (2001)

    2001

  4. [10]

    & Wolynes, P

    Sasai, M. & Wolynes, P . G. Stochastic gene expression as a many-body problem. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 2374–2379 (2003)

    2003

  5. [11]

    Hornos, J. et al. Self-regulating gene: an exact solution. Phys. Rev. E 72, 051907 (2005)

    2005

  6. [12]

    & Xie, X

    Friedman, N., Cai, L. & Xie, X. S. Linking stochastic dynamics to population distribution: an analytical framework of gene expression. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 168302 (2006). 24

    2006

  7. [13]

    S., Tranchina, D., V argas, D

    Raj, A., Peskin, C. S., Tranchina, D., V argas, D. Y . & Tyagi, S. Stochastic mRNA synthesis in mammalian cells. PLoS Biol. 4, e309 (2006)

    2006

  8. [14]

    Ramos, A. F. & Hornos, J. E. Symmetry and stochastic gene regulation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 108103 (2007)

    2007

  9. [15]

    M., Mugler, A

    Walczak, A. M., Mugler, A. & Wiggins, C. H. A stochastic spectral analysis of transcriptional regulatory cascades. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 6529–6534 (2009)

    2009

  10. [16]

    Mugler, A., Walczak, A. M. & Wiggins, C. H. Spectral solutions to stochastic models of gene expression with bursts and regulation. Phys. Rev. E 80, 041921 (2009)

    2009

  11. [17]

    & Jayaprakash, C

    Iyer-Biswas, S., Hayot, F. & Jayaprakash, C. Stochasticity of gene products from transcriptional pulsing. Phys. Rev. E 79, 031911 (2009)

    2009

  12. [18]

    & Wang, J

    Feng, H., Han, B. & Wang, J. Adiabatic and non-adiabatic non-equilibrium stochastic dynamics of single regulating genes. J. Phys. Chem. B 115, 1254–1261 (2010)

    2010

  13. [19]

    F., Innocentini, G

    Ramos, A. F., Innocentini, G. & Hornos, J. E. M. Exact time-dependent solutions for a self-regulating gene. Phys. Rev. E 83, 062902 (2011)

    2011

  14. [20]

    & Newman, T

    Grima, R., Schmidt, D. & Newman, T. Steady-state fluctuations of a genetic feedback loop: An exact solution. J. Chem. Phys. 137, 035104 (2012)

    2012

  15. [21]

    Radulescu, O., Innocentini, G. C. & Hornos, J. E. M. Relating network rigidity, time scale hierarchies, and expression noise in gene networks. Phys. Rev. E 85, 041919 (2012)

    2012

  16. [22]

    & Wang, J

    Feng, H., Hensel, Z., Xiao, J. & Wang, J. Analytical calculation of protein production distributions in models of clustered protein expression. Phys. Rev. E 85, 031904 (2012)

    2012

  17. [23]

    C., Tyran-Kaminska, M

    Mackey, M. C., Tyran-Kaminska, M. & Yvinec, R. Dynamic behavior of stochastic gene expression models in the presence of bursting. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 73, 1830–1852 (2013)

    2013

  18. [24]

    Innocentini, G. d. C. P ., Forger, M., Ramos, A. F., Radulescu, O. & Hornos, J. E. M. Multimodality and flexibility of stochastic gene expression. Bull. Math. Biol. 75, 2600–2630 (2013)

    2013

  19. [25]

    & Kulkarni, R

    Pendar, H., Platini, T. & Kulkarni, R. V . Exact protein distributions for stochastic models of gene expression using partitioning of Poisson processes. Phys. Rev. E 87, 042720 (2013)

    2013

  20. [26]

    & Jiang, D

    Jia, C., Qian, M., Kang, Y . & Jiang, D. Modeling stochastic phenotype switching and bet-hedging in bacteria: stochastic nonlinear dynamics and critical state identification. Quant. Biol. 2, 110–125 (2014)

    2014

  21. [27]

    & Kulkarni, R

    Kumar, N., Platini, T. & Kulkarni, R. V . Exact distributions for stochastic gene expression models with bursting and feedback. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 268105 (2014)

    2014

  22. [28]

    & Mackey, M

    Yvinec, R., Zhuge, C., Lei, J. & Mackey, M. C. Adiabatic reduction of a model of stochastic gene expression with jump Markov process. J. Math. Biol. 68, 1051–1070 (2014)

    2014

  23. [29]

    & Kulkarni, R

    Kumar, N., Singh, A. & Kulkarni, R. V . Transcriptional bursting in gene expression: analytical results for general stochastic models. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004292 (2015)

    2015

  24. [30]

    P´ajaro, M., Alonso, A. A. & V ´azquez, C. Shaping protein distributions in stochastic self-regulated gene expression networks. Phys. Rev. E 92, 032712 (2015)

    2015

  25. [31]

    Potoyan, D. A. & Wolynes, P . G. Dichotomous noise models of gene switches. J. Chem. Phys. 143, 11B612 1 (2015)

    2015

  26. [32]

    Bistable switching asymptotics for the self-regulating gene

    Newby, J. Bistable switching asymptotics for the self-regulating gene. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 48, 185001 (2015)

    2015

  27. [33]

    & Xie, X

    Ge, H., Qian, H. & Xie, X. S. Stochastic phenotype transition of a single cell in an intermediate region of gene state switching. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 078101 (2015)

    2015

  28. [34]

    & Zhou, T

    Liu, P ., Y uan, Z., Wang, H. & Zhou, T. Decomposition and tunability of expression noise in the presence of coupled feedbacks. Chaos 26, 043108 (2016)

    2016

  29. [36]

    & Swain, P

    Popovi´c, N., Marr, C. & Swain, P . S. A geometric analysis of fast-slow models for stochastic gene expression. J. Math. Biol. 72, 87–122 (2016)

    2016

  30. [37]

    Lin, Y . T. & Doering, C. R. Gene expression dynamics with stochastic bursts: Construction and exact results 25 for a coarse-grained model. Phys. Rev. E 93, 022409 (2016)

    2016

  31. [38]

    Lin, Y . T. & Galla, T. Bursting noise in gene expression dynamics: linking microscopic and mesoscopic models. J. R. Soc. Interface 13, 20150772 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    & Popovi´c, N

    V eerman, F., Marr, C. & Popovi´c, N. Time-dependent propagators for stochastic models of gene expression: an analytical method. J. Math. Biol. 1–52 (2017)

    2017

  33. [40]

    Simplification of Markov chains with infinite state space and the mathematical theory of random gene expression bursts

    Jia, C. Simplification of Markov chains with infinite state space and the mathematical theory of random gene expression bursts. Phys. Rev. E 96, 032402 (2017)

    2017

  34. [41]

    & Zhang, M

    Jia, C., Xie, P ., Chen, M. & Zhang, M. Q. Stochastic fluctuations can reveal the feedback signs of gene regulatory networks at the single-molecule level. Sci. Rep. 7, 16037 (2017)

    2017

  35. [42]

    Jia, C., Zhang, M. Q. & Hong, Q. Emergent L ´evy behavior in single-cell stochastic gene expression. Phys. Rev. E 96, 040402(R) (2017)

    2017

  36. [43]

    Bressloff, P . C. Stochastic switching in biology: from genotype to phenotype. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 50, 133001 (2017)

    2017

  37. [44]

    & Zhang, M

    Jia, C., Qian, H., Chen, M. & Zhang, M. Q. Relaxation rates of gene expression kinetics reveal the feedback signs of autoregulatory gene networks. J. Chem. Phys. 148, 095102 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    Lin, Y . T. & Buchler, N. E. Efficient analysis of stochastic gene dynamics in the non-adiabatic regime using piecewise deterministic Markov processes. J. R. Soc. Interface 15, 20170804 (2018)

    2018

  39. [46]

    Jia, C., Zhang, M. Q. & Qian, H. Analytic theory of stochastic oscillations in single-cell gene expression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09769 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  40. [47]

    & Jia, C

    Chen, X. & Jia, C. Limit theorems for generalized density-dependent Markov chains and bursty stochastic gene regulatory networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.00038 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Statistical fluctuations in autocatalytic reactions

    Delbr ¨uck, M. Statistical fluctuations in autocatalytic reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 8, 120–124 (1940)

    1940

  42. [49]

    & Grima, R

    Schnoerr, D., Sanguinetti, G. & Grima, R. Approximation and inference methods for stochastic biochemical kinetics — a tutorial review. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor . 50, 093001 (2017)

    2017

  43. [50]

    Berg, O. G. A model for the statistical fluctuations of protein numbers in a microbial population. J. Theor . Biol. 71, 587–603 (1978)

    1978

  44. [51]

    & Grima, R

    Thomas, P ., Popovi´c, N. & Grima, R. Phenotypic switching in gene regulatory networks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6994–6999 (2014)

    2014

  45. [52]

    & Grima, R

    Cao, Z. & Grima, R. Linear mapping approximation of gene regulatory networks with stochastic dynamics. Nat. Commun. 9, 3305 (2018)

    2018

  46. [53]

    & Xie, X

    Cai, L., Friedman, N. & Xie, X. S. Stochastic protein expression in individual cells at the single molecule level. Nature 440, 358–362 (2006)

    2006

  47. [54]

    Suter, D. M. et al. Mammalian genes are transcribed with widely different bursting kinetics. Science 332, 472–474 (2011)

    2011

  48. [55]

    V eening, J.-W., Smits, W. K. & Kuipers, O. P . Bistability, epigenetics, and bet-hedging in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 62, 193–210 (2008)

    2008

  49. [56]

    Y .-C.et al

    Tsai, T. Y .-C.et al. Robust, tunable biological oscillations from interlinked positive and negative feedback loops. Science 321, 126–129 (2008)

    2008

  50. [57]

    Lim, Y . R. et al. Quantitative understanding of probabilistic behavior of living cells operated by vibrant intracellular networks. Physical Review X 5, 031014 (2015)

    2015

  51. [58]

    Park, S. J. et al. The Chemical Fluctuation Theorem governing gene expression. Nat. Commun. 9, 297 (2018)

    2018

  52. [59]

    A., Khodursky, A

    Bernstein, J. A., Khodursky, A. B., Lin, P .-H., Lin-Chao, S. & Cohen, S. N. Global analysis of mRNA decay and abundance in Escherichia coli at single-gene resolution using two-color fluorescent DNA microarrays. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 9697–9702 (2002)

    2002

  53. [60]

    & Xie, S

    Ge, H., Wu, P ., Qian, H. & Xie, S. X. Relatively slow stochastic gene-state switching in the presence of positive feedback significantly broadens the region of bimodality through stabilizing the uninduced phenotypic state. PLoS Comput. Biol. 14, e1006051 (2018)

    2018

  54. [61]

    & Jayaprakash, C

    Iyer-Biswas, S. & Jayaprakash, C. Mixed Poisson distributions in exact solutions of stochastic autoregulation 26 models. Phys. Rev. E 90, 052712 (2014)

    2014

  55. [63]

    Olver, F. W. J. et al. NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions. http://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.0.17 of 2017-12-22 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    & Luthey-Schulten, Z

    Assaf, M., Roberts, E. & Luthey-Schulten, Z. Determining the stability of genetic switches: explicitly accounting for mRNA noise. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 248102 (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    & Serrano, L

    Becskei, A., S ´eraphin, B. & Serrano, L. Positive feedback in eukaryotic gene networks: cell differentiation by graded to binary response conversion. The EMBO Journal 20, 2528–2535 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    & Serrano, L

    Becskei, A. & Serrano, L. Engineering stability in gene networks by autoregulation. Nature 405, 590–593 (2000)

    2000

  59. [67]

    Quantifying E

    Taniguchi, Y .et al. Quantifying E. coli proteome and transcriptome with single-molecule sensitivity in single cells. Science 329, 533–538 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Lv, C., Li, X., Li, F. & Li, T. Constructing the energy landscape for genetic switching system driven by intrinsic noise. PLoS one 9, e88167 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    Davis, M. H. Piecewise-deterministic Markov processes: A general class of non-diffusion stochastic models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 353–388 (1984)

    1984

  62. [70]

    Kurtz, T. G. The relationship between stochastic and deterministic models for chemical reactions. J. Chem. Phys. 57, 2976–2978 (1972)

    1972

  63. [71]

    & Marichev, O

    Prudnikov, A., Brychkov, Y . & Marichev, O. Integrals and Series. V olume 5: Inverse Laplace Transforms (Gordan and Breach Science Publishers, 1992)

    1992

  64. [72]

    Summing up the noise in gene networks

    Paulsson, J. Summing up the noise in gene networks. Nature 427, 415–418 (2004)

    2004

  65. [73]

    Pedraza, J. M. & Paulsson, J. Effects of molecular memory and bursting on fluctuations in gene expression. Science 319, 339–343 (2008). 27

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.