Identifying the sources of noise synergy and redundancy in the gene expression of feed-forward loop motif

Mintu Nandi; Sudip Chattopadhyay; Suman K Banik

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Identifying the sources of noise synergy and redundancy in the gene expression of feed-forward loop motif

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The central claim is that cross-interaction noise in feed-forward loops follows the product of the three regulatory sensitivities, so its sign—and therefore synergy versus redundancy—is fixed by whether the loop is coherent or incoherent.

desk verdict A clean LNA result that overclaims its generality: the synergy/redundancy sign dichotomy holds for monotone regulators but can flip on non-monotone edges. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18620 v2 pith:AOZEBECV submitted 2025-06-23 q-bio.MN physics.bio-ph

Mintu Nandi , Sudip Chattopadhyay , Suman K Banik This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-bio.MNphysics.bio-ph

keywords feed-forwardloopgeneexpressionnoisecross-interactionsynergyredundancyinter-genecorrelationslinearapproximationcoherentandincoherentFFL

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

Feed-forward loops route signals from a source gene $X$ to a target gene $Z$ along two parallel paths, and this paper asks what their joint action contributes to output noise. The authors identify the cross-interaction noise as the signature of that joint action and derive a compact rule: the cross term is proportional to $f'_{yx} f'_{zx} f'_{zy}$, the product of the three regulatory sensitivities. Because each edge in a feed-forward loop has a fixed sign, this product is positive in coherent loops and negative in incoherent loops, making coherent loops noise-synergistic and incoherent loops noise-redundant. The paper argues this steady-state signature is independent of AND/OR integration logic and maps onto known dynamical roles of specific Escherichia coli feed-forward loops.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a covariance decomposition: the linear-noise-approximation equations give closed-form expressions for the covariances between $X$, $Y$, and $Z$, each split into partial terms tagged by regulatory paths. The load-bearing identity is $\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{cross}} \propto f'_{yx} f'_{zx} f'_{zy}$, where each $f'_{ij}$ is the regulatory sensitivity of gene $i$ with respect to gene $j$—the derivative of the target's synthesis rate with respect to the regulator at steady state. This identity turns the sign of the cross-interaction noise into the product of three single-edge signs, and the relative synergy noise $\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{syn}}/\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{path}}$ normalizes that term for comparison across architectures.

What would settle it

In a synthetic incoherent feed-forward loop, make the $Y \to Z$ regulation bell-shaped (activation at low $Y$, repression at high $Y$) while $X \to Y$ and $X \to Z$ stay monotone activators, and measure steady-state $\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{cross}}$ across a range of $Y$ concentrations. The product $f'_{yx} f'_{zx} f'_{zy}$ is predicted to flip sign as $Y$ crosses the peak of the bell curve; a cross term whose sign does not follow that flip would falsify the claimed sign rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the cross-interaction noise in a feed-forward loop—the extra fluctuation contribution created by the joint action of the direct path $X \to Z$ and the indirect path $X \to Y \to Z$—is not a formal leftover term but has a definite mechanistic origin. Using a linear-noise-approximation solution of the chemical master equation, the authors decompose inter-gene covariances into partial correlation terms and show that $\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{cross}}$ is proportional to the product of the three regulatory sensitivities $f'_{yx} f'_{zx} f'_{zy}$. Since each sensitivity carries the sign of the corresponding regulatory edge, a coherent loop (whose edge signs multiply to $+1$) yields positive cross-interaction noise (synergy), while an incoherent loop (product $-1$) yields negative cross-interaction noise (redundancy). The paper further argues that this sign pattern is independent of AND versus OR logic at the $Z$ promoter, that removing any edge kills the cross term, and that the resulting relative synergy noise is a normalized fingerprint that distinguishes FFL architectures and correlates with known dynamical functions such as sign-sensitive delay or response acceleration.

Load-bearing premise

Each regulatory edge changes its target's production rate in one direction only over the concentration range considered, so the product of the three sensitivities keeps a constant sign; if an edge had a bell-shaped dose response, or if fluctuations were too large for the linear-noise approximation, the coherent-synergy versus incoherent-redundancy correspondence could break.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In coherent feed-forward loops the total output noise exceeds the sum of intrinsic, direct, and indirect contributions, so the two paths act synergistically; in incoherent loops it falls below that sum, so the paths act redundantly.
A vanishing cross-interaction noise is a direct indicator of a broken or inactive parallel pathway, because $\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{cross}}=0$ whenever any of the three regulatory edges is removed.
Steady-state noise and inter-gene correlation measurements can classify a motif as coherent or incoherent without time-resolved perturbation, using the sign of the relative synergy noise.
The framework accounts for previously observed differences in noise amplification and suppression between coherent and incoherent FFLs as consequences of the same three-edge product.
Relative synergy noise provides a normalized, architecture-independent metric for comparing the strength of pathway coupling across different FFL instances and regulatory logics.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the same product rule should generalize to any motif with two parallel paths sharing a source and a target, such as diamond or multi-output motifs, where the cross term would become a sum of products of sensitivities along each pair of paths.
Beyond the paper: because only the signs of the three sensitivities matter, the classification is parameter-free at the topological level; kinetic details change the magnitude of the cross term but not its sign, so noise measurements could identify unknown loop wiring.
Beyond the paper: the authors connect synergy and redundancy to E. coli examples qualitatively; a quantitative test would fit the model to single-cell reporter data for the araBAD, flagellar, and gal systems and check that the predicted sign of $\eta^2_{z,\mathrm{cross}}$ appears in the measured covariances.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: Eq. (6) is real, the algebra is right, and the synergy/redundancy framing is a genuinely fresh way to talk about cross-pathway noise in FFLs. But the headline dichotomy — coherent gives synergy, incoherent gives redundancy — is not guaranteed by topology alone. It depends on every regulatory response f' keeping one sign over the working concentration range. The paper never states that assumption clearly, and one of its own references (Kaplan et al. 2008) shows that IFFLs can generate non-monotonic input functions. A bell-shaped response on any edge flips the sign of the product f'_yx f'_zx f'_zy and reverses the label without changing the motif. That is a real limitation, not a nitpick.

What the paper does well: the partial-correlation decomposition in Eqs. (2-4) is a useful way to trace where correlations actually come from, and Eq. (6) itself — the cross-interaction noise as the product of three regulatory sensitivities — is new. The observation that removing any edge kills the cross term is a satisfying structural result. The stochastic simulations match the theoretical curves for the parameter sets shown, which gives some confidence that the LNA calculation is doing what they say.

The soft spots are mostly fixable. Calling the LNA moments "exact" is wrong; they are approximate in a well-controlled way, but the word should go. There are notation slips in the SI — η²_yz,ind1 appears twice in the main text where the second should be ind2, and σ²_yz,ind2 appears in Eq. (5) where the normalized version is used elsewhere. These are cosmetic but will confuse a careful reader.

The bigger issue is the scope of the claim. The paper says the framework is general and applies to all FFL architectures, but the sign dichotomy is only demonstrated for monotone Hill regulators. If non-monotone edges are allowed — and biology has them — the framework still works as a decomposition, but the clean mapping to coherent/incoherent breaks. The authors should either restrict the claim or analyze a non-monotone case explicitly.

Who is this for? People working on stochastic gene regulation and anyone who uses LNA decompositions to interpret circuit behavior. It deserves peer review — the core algebra is worth putting on record, and the synergy/redundancy vocabulary might stick. The referee should push on the monotonicity assumption and the overgeneralized abstract, but this is not a desk-reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes noise propagation in feed-forward loop (FFL) gene regulatory motifs, focusing on the cross-interaction noise term that arises from the joint action of the direct (X→Z) and indirect (X→Y→Z) pathways. Using the linear noise approximation (LNA), the authors derive expressions for pairwise gene-expression covariances and decompose the output noise into intrinsic, direct-pathway, indirect-pathway, and cross-interaction components. They show that the cross-interaction noise is proportional to the product of three regulatory sensitivities, f'_yx f'_zx f'_zy (Eq. 6), and interpret its sign as noise synergy (positive, coherent FFLs) or redundancy (negative, incoherent FFLs). The theoretical results are compared with stochastic simulations for C1- and I1-FFLs under AND and OR logic, and the framework is used to interpret the dynamical functions of several E. coli FFLs. The central claim is that steady-state noise measurements alone can distinguish coherent from incoherent FFL architectures.

Significance. If the sign rule holds, the paper offers a compact, potentially experimentally testable steady-state fingerprint for classifying FFL types. It provides a concrete algebraic derivation of the cross-interaction noise term, explicitly connects it to inter-gene correlations, and validates the LNA predictions against stochastic simulation for the presented parameter sets. The work also suggests a functional interpretation of noise synergy/redundancy in terms of known dynamical behaviors. However, the universality of the claimed coherent–synergy / incoherent–redundancy dichotomy is limited by two assumptions that are not stated as such: monotonic regulatory functions and the validity of the LNA. The manuscript's strength lies in the clarity of the algebraic decomposition; its main weakness is the overstatement of generality beyond the monotone Hill-function class used in the calculations.

major comments (3)

[Results, Eq. (6) and Table S1] The central conclusion that the sign of η²_z,cross is determined by topology (positive for coherent, negative for incoherent FFLs) relies on the assumption that each regulatory sensitivity f'_yx, f'_zx, and f'_zy has a fixed sign over the operating concentration range. Table S1 contains only monotone Hill-type activators and repressors, so the claim is verified for that class only. The manuscript itself cites Ref. [12], which shows that incoherent FFLs can generate non-monotonic input functions; with a non-monotone edge, the product f'_yx f'_zx f'_zy can change sign as the mean input level varies, so a single fixed topology could move between the synergy and redundancy domains. Please state the monotonicity assumption explicitly, restrict the 'coherent=synergy, incoherent=redundancy' statements accordingly, and discuss the non-monotone case, for example as a regime in which the sign label is concentration-dependent.
[Results (second paragraph) and Methods, Eq. (12)] The Results state that the authors derive 'the exact steady-state moments' of the discrete stochastic dynamics, but the moments are obtained from the linear noise approximation via the Lyapunov equation in Methods Eq. (12) (van Kampen system-size expansion). Equations (S1)–(S6) are LNA covariance expressions, not exact moments of the master equation (11). The wording should be corrected (e.g., replace 'exact' with 'LNA-based'), unless exactness for this model class can be proved. The stochastic simulation comparison in Figs. 3c, S1–S4 validates the LNA for the specific parameter set of Table S2; it does not establish exactness or general validity across parameter space.
[Discussion and Fig. 4] The paper claims that steady-state noise synergy/redundancy 'acts as an indicator of' or 'reflects' dynamical properties such as sign-sensitive delay, off-delay, and response acceleration. The evidence consists of three qualitative examples from E. coli (Fig. 4), and no formal relationship between the steady-state noise sign and these dynamical features is derived. This connection should be presented as an interpretive hypothesis or supported by an explicit analysis; otherwise the claim extends beyond what the presented results demonstrate.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (4) and surrounding text] In Eq. (4) and the text following it, 'η²_yz,ind1' is named twice; the second occurrence should be 'η²_yz,ind2' when referring to the indirect-path contribution with f'^2_yx f'_zy.
[Eq. (5) and Eq. (S10)] In the expression for η²_z,ind, the term 'σ²_yz,ind2' should presumably be 'η²_yz,ind2' to match the normalized covariance notation used in Eq. (4) and throughout the decomposition.
[Results, cross-reference] The text refers to 'as presented in Eq. (S13)', but the Supporting Information contains Eq. (S10) for this decomposition; the cross-reference appears to be incorrect. There is also an empty reference ('see ') in the Results section that should be filled.
[Results, sentence on Γs] The statement that 'Γs are functions of the separation of time scales of gene products' is vague; the Γ symbols are explicit functions of the degradation rate constants βx, βy, βz, as shown in the Supporting Information after Eq. (S9).
[Fig. 3c and Fig. S4] The x-axis is labeled 'Noise of X', defined as η²_x = 1/⟨x⟩, but the corresponding values of the mean input ⟨x⟩ are not shown; adding a secondary axis with ⟨x⟩ would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor definitional circularity only: 'synergy noise' is the cross-interaction term by construction, but its sign is derived independently from the LNA and checked by simulation.

self definitional [Results, 'Cross pathway interaction: Synergy and redundancy', Eqs. (7)-(8); cf. Eq. (6).]
"we redefine the cross-interaction noise η2 z,cross as synergy noise and express it as the difference between the total noise and the summed individual pathway contributions (Eq. (7)), that is, η2 z,syn = η2 z − η2 z,path"

Equation (7) sets η2 z = η2 z,path + η2 z,cross, so Eq. (8) makes η2 z,syn identical to η2 z,cross by construction; 'synergy' is not an independent observable but a relabeling of the cross term. Combining this with Eq. (6), η2 z,cross ∝ f′ yx f′ zx f′ zy, the claim that coherent C1-FFLs are synergistic and I1-FFLs redundant follows from the standard definition of coherent/incoherent topology, whose sign is exactly the product of the three regulatory signs. This makes the coherent-to-synergy mapping a bookkeeping identity, though the sign of η2 z,cross itself is still obtained from the Lyapunov covariance equations and verified by stochastic simulation, so the core calculation is not circular.

full rationale

The derivation chain is otherwise self-contained. The covariance expressions (S1)-(S6) follow from the linear noise approximation (Lyapunov equation, Eq. (12)) with no fitted parameters; Eq. (6) is obtained by substituting those expressions into the decomposition, and Figures 3c/S2-S4 compare the theoretical lines with independent Gillespie simulations. The noise decomposition of Eq. (1) is cited from prior work by the same authors (Refs. [25,26,28]), but the paper re-derives all the component moments from the master equation, so those self-citations are not load-bearing. The only real circularity is terminological: 'synergy noise' is defined as the difference between total noise and pathway noise, which equals the cross-interaction noise by Eq. (7), and the coherent/incoherent vs synergy/redundancy correspondence then restates Eq. (6) in the standard sign-product language. The non-monotonic regulatory response caveat (one f′ changing sign could flip the predicted label within a fixed topology) is a validity limitation of the assumed monotone Hill forms in Table S1, not a circularity of the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; synergy and redundancy are labels for an existing noise term. The two free parameter groups are hand-picked for the illustrative plots, and the three axioms are standard domain assumptions for this modeling approach.

free parameters (2)

degradation rates βx, βy, βz and Michaelis constants Kxy, Kxz, Kyz = 0.1, 1.0, 10.0 min^-1; 100 molecules/V
Hand-chosen values in Table S2 used to generate all figures; the qualitative sign result does not depend on them, but the quantitative magnitude of relative synergy noise does.
mean input level ⟨x⟩ (tuned via η²_x = 1/⟨x⟩) = varied over a range (see Fig. 3c)
Used as the control parameter to scan noise levels; not fitted to data.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Linear noise approximation (van Kampen Ω-expansion) gives accurate steady-state covariances
Used to derive Eqs. (S1-S6); valid for large copy numbers, validated only by simulation for selected parameters.
domain assumption Regulatory functions are monotone Hill-type functions with fixed sign of f'_ij
Table S1 specifies monotone activatory or inhibitory regulation; the sign of η²_z,cross = sign(f'_yx f'_zx f'_zy) follows only if each sensitivity has a constant sign.
domain assumption No feedback from Z to X or Y; first-order degradation
The FFL definition and production functions in Table S1 exclude feedback; the Lyapunov equation solution depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying the sources of noise synergy and redundancy in the gene expression of feed-forward loop motif." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOZEBECV

@misc{pith2026250618620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying the sources of noise synergy and redundancy in the gene expression of feed-forward loop motif},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOZEBECV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18620}
}

read the original abstract

The propagation of noise through parallel regulatory pathways is a characteristic feature of feed-forward loops in genetic networks. Although the contributions of the direct and indirect regulatory pathways of feed-forward loops to output variability have been well characterized, the impact of their joint action arising from their shared input and output remains poorly understood. Here, we identify an additional component of noise that emerges specifically from this convergent nature of the pathways. Using inter-gene correlations, we reveal the regulatory basis of the cross-interaction noise and interpret it as synergy or redundancy in noise propagation, depending on whether the combined pathways amplify or suppress fluctuations. Synergy typically arises in coherent feed-forward loops, whereas redundancy is common in incoherent ones. This framework not only accounts for previously observed differences in noise behavior across coherent and incoherent structures but also provides a generalizable strategy to connect network structure with stochastic gene regulation. Furthermore, by relating these synergy and redundancy to dynamical properties such as sign-sensitive delay or response acceleration, the framework offers a statistical lens to interpret the functional roles in cellular decision-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.18620 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[12]

Kaplan, A

S. Kaplan, A. Bren, E. Dekel, and U. Alon, The incoher- ent feed-forward loop can generate non-monotonic input functions for genes, Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 203 (2008)

work page 2008
[1]

P. S. Swain, Efficient attenuation of stochasticity in gene expression through post-transcriptional control, J. Mol. Biol. 344, 965 (2004)

work page 2004
[2]

Dublanche, K

Y. Dublanche, K. Michalodimitrakis, N. K¨ ummerer, M. Foglierini, and L. Serrano, Noise in transcription neg- ative feedback loops: simulation and experimental anal- ysis, Molecular Systems Biology 2, 41 (2006)

work page 2006
[3]

J. M. Pedraza and J. Paulsson, Effects of molecular mem- ory and bursting on fluctuations in gene expression, Sci- ence 319, 339 (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Bleris, Z

L. Bleris, Z. Xie, D. Glass, A. Adadey, E. Sontag, and Y. Benenson, Synthetic incoherent feedforward circuits show adaptation to the amount of their genetic template, Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 519 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, FL, 2006)

U. Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, FL, 2006)

work page 2006
[6]

Alon, Network motifs: theory and experimental ap- proaches, Nat

U. Alon, Network motifs: theory and experimental ap- proaches, Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 450 (2007)

work page 2007
[7]

S. S. Shen-Orr, R. Milo, S. Mangan, and U. Alon, Net- work motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli, Nat. Genet. 31, 64 (2002)

work page 2002

Show all 38 references

[8]

Mangan and U

S. Mangan and U. Alon, Structure and function of the feed-forward loop network motif, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100, 11980 (2003)

2003
[9]

H. W. Ma, B. Kumar, U. Ditges, F. Gunzer, J. Buer, and A. P. Zeng, An extended transcriptional regulatory network of Escherichia coli and analysis of its hierarchi- cal structure and network motifs, Nucleic Acids Res. 32, 6643 (2004)

2004
[10]

Mangan, S

S. Mangan, S. Itzkovitz, A. Zaslaver, and U. Alon, The incoherent feed-forward loop accelerates the response- time of the gal system of Escherichia coli, J. Mol. Biol. 356, 1073 (2006)

2006
[11]

Kalir and U

S. Kalir and U. Alon, Using a quantitative blueprint to reprogram the dynamics of the flagella gene network, Cell 117, 713 (2004)

2004
[13]

S.-H. Chen, K. Masuno, S. B. Cooper, and K. R. Ya- mamoto, Incoherent feed-forward regulatory logic under- pinning glucocorticoid receptor action, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 1964—1969 (2013)

2013
[14]

M. J. Dunlop, R. S. Cox, J. H. Levine, R. M. Murray, and M. B. Elowitz, Regulatory activity revealed by dy- namic correlations in gene expression noise, Nat. Genet. 40, 1493 (2008)

2008
[15]

Kittisopikul and G

M. Kittisopikul and G. M. Suel, Biological role of noise encoded in a genetic network motif, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 13300 (2010)

2010
[16]

A. K. Maity, P. Chaudhury, and S. K. Banik, Role of relaxation time scale in noisy signal transduction, PLoS ONE 10, e0123242 (2015)

2015
[17]

X. Li, J. J. Cassidy, C. A. Reinke, S. Fischboeck, and R. W. Carthew, A microRNA imparts robustness against environmental fluctuation during development, Cell 137, 273 (2009)

2009
[18]

Osella, C

M. Osella, C. Bosia, D. Cora, and M. Caselle, The role of incoherent microRNA-mediated feedforward loops in noise buffering, PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1001101 (2011)

2011
[19]

Grigolon, F

S. Grigolon, F. Di Patti, A. De Martino, and E. Mari- nari, Noise processing by microRNA-mediated circuits: The Incoherent Feed-Forward Loop, revisited, Heliyon 2, e00095 (2016)

2016
[20]

Carignano, S

A. Carignano, S. Mukherjee, A. Singh, and G. Seelig, Extrinsic noise suppression in micro rna mediated inco- herent feedforward loops, bioRxiv (2018)

2018
[21]

P. A. Pieters, B. L. Nathalia, A. J. van der Linden, P. Yin, J. Kim, W. T. S. Huck, and T. F. A. de Greef, Cell-free characterization of coherent feed-forward loop- based synthetic genetic circuits, ACS Synthetic Biology 10, 1406 (2021)

2021
[22]

Chalancon, C

G. Chalancon, C. N. J. Ravarani, S. Balaji, A. Martinez- Arias, L. Aravind, R. Jothi, and M. Madan Babu, Inter- play between gene expression noise and regulatory net- work architecture, Trends in Genet. 28, 221 (2012)

2012
[23]

Nandi, Emergence of temporal noise hierarchy in co- regulated genes of multi-output feed-forward loop, Phys

M. Nandi, Emergence of temporal noise hierarchy in co- regulated genes of multi-output feed-forward loop, Phys. Biol. 22, 016006 (2024)

2024
[24]

Chakravarty and A

S. Chakravarty and A. Csik´ asz-Nagy, Systematic analysis of noise reduction properties of coupled and isolated feed- forward loops, PLOS Comp. Bio. 17, 1 (2021)

2021
[25]

Nandi, Role of integrated noise in pathway-specific signal propagation in feed-forward loops, Theory Biosci

M. Nandi, Role of integrated noise in pathway-specific signal propagation in feed-forward loops, Theory Biosci. 140, 139 (2021)

2021
[26]

T. S. Roy, M. Nandi, A. Biswas, P. Chaudhury, and S. K. Banik, Interplay of degeneracy and non-degeneracy in fluctuation propagation in coherent feed-forward loop motif, J. Stat. Mech.: Theo. and Expt. 2023, 093502 (2023)

2023
[27]

F. J. Bruggeman, N. Bl¨ uthgen, and H. V. Westerhoff, Noise management by molecular networks, PLoS Com- put. Biol. 5, e1000506 (2009)

2009
[28]

M. S. A. Momin, A. Biswas, and S. K. Banik, Coherent feed-forward loop acts as an efficient information trans- mitting motif, Phys. Rev. E 101, 022407 (2020)

2020
[29]

D. T. Gillespie, Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions, J. Phys. Chem. 81, 2340 (1977)

1977
[30]

Schneidman, W

E. Schneidman, W. Bialek, and M. J. Berry II, Synergy, redundancy, and independence in population codes, J. Neurosci. 23, 11539 (2003)

2003
[31]

Kalir, S

S. Kalir, S. Mangan, and U. Alon, A coherent feed- forward loop with a sum input function prolongs flag- ella expression in Escherichia coli, Mol. Syst. Biol. 1, 2005.0006 (2005)

2005
[32]

Elf and M

J. Elf and M. Ehrenberg, Fast evaluation of fluctuations in biochemical networks with the linear noise approxima- tion, Genome Res. 13, 2475 (2003)

2003
[33]

Hayot and C

F. Hayot and C. Jayaprakash, The linear noise approxi- 9 mation for molecular fluctuations within cells, Phys. Biol. 1, 205 (2004)

2004
[34]

N. G. van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, 3rd ed. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2007)

2007
[35]

Nandi, S

M. Nandi, S. Chattopadhyay, S. Bandyopadhyay, and S. K. Banik, Channel assisted noise propagation in a two-step cascade, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 34, 083128 (2024)

2024
[36]

Paulsson, Summing up the noise in gene networks, Nature 427, 415 (2004)

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

2004
[37]

T˘ anase-Nicola, P

S. T˘ anase-Nicola, P. B. Warren, and P. R. ten Wolde, Sig- nal detection, modularity, and the correlation between extrinsic and intrinsic noise in biochemical networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 068102 (2006)

2006
[38]

W. H. de Ronde, F. Tostevin, and P. R. ten Wolde, Effect of feedback on the fidelity of information transmission of time-varying signals, Phys. Rev. E 82, 031914 (2010). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Solving the Lyapunov equation (12) for the covariance matrix, we obtain the followin...

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [12]

Kaplan, A

S. Kaplan, A. Bren, E. Dekel, and U. Alon, The incoher- ent feed-forward loop can generate non-monotonic input functions for genes, Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 203 (2008)

work page 2008

[2] [1]

P. S. Swain, Efficient attenuation of stochasticity in gene expression through post-transcriptional control, J. Mol. Biol. 344, 965 (2004)

work page 2004

[3] [2]

Dublanche, K

Y. Dublanche, K. Michalodimitrakis, N. K¨ ummerer, M. Foglierini, and L. Serrano, Noise in transcription neg- ative feedback loops: simulation and experimental anal- ysis, Molecular Systems Biology 2, 41 (2006)

work page 2006

[4] [3]

J. M. Pedraza and J. Paulsson, Effects of molecular mem- ory and bursting on fluctuations in gene expression, Sci- ence 319, 339 (2008)

work page 2008

[5] [4]

Bleris, Z

L. Bleris, Z. Xie, D. Glass, A. Adadey, E. Sontag, and Y. Benenson, Synthetic incoherent feedforward circuits show adaptation to the amount of their genetic template, Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 519 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [5]

Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, FL, 2006)

U. Alon, An Introduction to Systems Biology: Design Principles of Biological Circuits (CRC Press, Boca Ra- ton, FL, 2006)

work page 2006

[7] [6]

Alon, Network motifs: theory and experimental ap- proaches, Nat

U. Alon, Network motifs: theory and experimental ap- proaches, Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 450 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [7]

S. S. Shen-Orr, R. Milo, S. Mangan, and U. Alon, Net- work motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli, Nat. Genet. 31, 64 (2002)

work page 2002