Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 58 references

A persistent random-walk model of molecular transport in neuronal dendritic trees

T0 review · 3 major / 7 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 A 0.02 direction-bias difference decides how mRNA arrival times spread across synapses.

desk verdict A careful two-scale stochastic model with a genuinely new regime prediction, but the real-neuron claims hinge on an unquantified 0.02 persistence bias. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00995 v1 pith:YHF2EWAN submitted 2026-08-02 q-bio.SC math.PRphysics.bio-ph

Lasko Basnarkov This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.SCmath.PRphysics.bio-ph MSC 60K1560J2792C20
keywords mRNAtransportpersistenttelegraphprocesswithpausessemi-Markovmodelmeanfirst-passagetimedendritictreemicrotubulemotorstochasticinneurons
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

The paper builds a two-level stochastic model for mRNA cargo moving along microtubules from the soma to synapses. At the single-dendrite level, motion is a persistent telegraph process with pauses: runs at constant speed in either direction, exponential run and rest durations, and a tendency to keep the same direction after a pause. These single-dendrite results are embedded in a semi-Markov walk over the dendritic tree, whose nodes are the soma, branching points, and synapses. The central prediction is a regime switch: when retrograde persistence is stronger ($\beta>\alpha$), the conditional mean first-passage time to every synapse is nearly the same regardless of distance, while when anterograde persistence is stronger ($\alpha>\beta$), travel time grows nearly linearly with soma-synapse distance, as if the whole tree were one dendrite. Numerical case studies assign real neurons to the retrograde regime using the measured values $\alpha=0.51$, $\beta=0.53$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Persistent Telegraph Process with Pauses (PTPP), a continuous-time Markov process with four states: running and resting in the anterograde and retrograde directions. Runs end at rate $\lambda$, rests at rate $\mu$; after a rest, the cargo continues in the same direction with probability $\alpha$ (after an anterograde run) or $\beta$ (after a retrograde run), and reverses with the complementary probability. For a dendrite of length $l$, the paper solves the infinitesimal generator equations for the probability $p^l(0)$ of traversing from the soma-side origin to the far end and for the weighted MFPT $w^l(0)$, then uses the conditional MFPT $c^l(0)=w^l(0)/p^l(0)$. These single-dendrite quantities become the transition probabilities and sojourn times of a semi-Markov model whose states are the soma, branching nodes, and synapses and whose edges are dendrites, with a uniform $1/d_i$ choice probability at each branching node. The fundamental matrix of the embedded absorbing Markov chain then yields absorption probabilities and conditional MFPTs to each synapse, and asymptotic analysis for $l\gg v/\lambda$ produces the two-regime formulas.

What would settle it

Measure $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in the same neuron types with enough single-molecule trajectories to make the 0.02 difference statistically significant; if the confidence interval covers zero or the sign reverses, the retrograde-bias prediction for human Purkinje and mouse pyramidal cells fails. Alternatively, track individual mRNA cargoes in a reconstructed long-dendrite neuron: near-equal conditional mean first-passage times at near and far synapses under $\beta>\alpha$ versus linear growth with distance under $\alpha>\beta$ are mutually exclusive signatures.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for dendrites much longer than the typical run distance $v/\lambda$, transport in the whole dendritic tree is governed by the sign of the persistence bias. With $\beta>\alpha$, the probability of traversing a dendrite in the anterograde direction is exponentially small, the cargo spends a long quasi-stationary period wandering among transient nodes, and the conditional mean first-passage time (CMFPT) to each synapse converges to a common value independent of soma-synapse distance. With $\alpha>\beta$, the probability of reaching the far end of a dendrite in the anterograde direction saturates to a nonzero constant, return probabilities and loop times become nearly constant, and the soma-to-synapse CMFPT becomes a sum of per-dendrite traversal times, hence asymptotically linear in distance with slope $S_{\mathrm{ant}}=[(1+\rho)(2-\alpha-\beta)]/[v(\alpha-\beta)]$; in the $\beta>\alpha$ case the slope is $S_{\mathrm{ret}}=[(1+\rho)(2-\alpha-\beta)-\rho(\beta-\alpha)^2]/[v(\beta-\alpha)]$. The symmetric case $\alpha=\beta$ is qualitatively different, producing quadratic growth in dendrite length, the footprint of diffusive behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured retrograde persistence probability $\beta=0.53$ really exceeds the anterograde one $\alpha=0.51$; the values differ by only 0.02 with no quoted uncertainty, and the real-neuron regime flips if the true sign is reversed, with the asymptotic slopes diverging as $\beta-\alpha\to 0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\beta>\alpha$ and dendrites long relative to $v/\lambda$, the model predicts that mRNA molecules arriving at different synapses have nearly identical ages, so synapse-to-synapse differences in arrival time essentially disappear.
  • For $\alpha>\beta$, the soma-to-synapse CMFPT becomes a sum of traversal times along dendrites on the path, so it grows linearly with distance with slope $S_{\mathrm{ant}}=[(1+\rho)(2-\alpha-\beta)]/[v(\alpha-\beta)]$, as if transport happened on a single long dendrite.
  • In the symmetric case $\alpha=\beta$, the single-dendrite CMFPT grows quadratically in dendrite length, so the two biased regimes are distinguished from the diffusive limit by the scaling exponent of length (1 versus 2).
  • Under retrograde bias, the slope of the linear term can be smaller than under anterograde bias, and for some parameter regions the average travel time in the direction of smaller persistence is actually shorter, so stronger persistence need not mean faster transport.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: with only a 0.02 difference between $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the predicted regime for real neurons is fragile; re-estimating the two probabilities with confidence intervals narrower than 0.02 would either confirm or eliminate the retrograde-regime assignment.
  • Editorial extension: the model omits mRNA degradation; adding a finite half-life would make far synapses receive fewer, not just younger, mRNA molecules, turning the near-uniform arrival-time prediction into a distance-dependent survival correction.
  • Editorial extension: replacing the uniform branch-choice probability $1/d_i$ with widths or microtubule-number-dependent choices could shift the effective threshold between the two regimes, although the asymptotic structure of the two regimes should survive.
  • Editorial extension: the near-constant arrival time under $\beta>\alpha$ acts like an age filter on synaptic mRNA; if confirmed experimentally, it would imply that differences in mRNA age are not a mechanism for synapse-to-synapse plasticity differences in that 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

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper develops a two-level analytical framework for mRNA transport in neuronal dendritic trees. At the single-dendrite level, the motion is modeled as a persistent telegraph process with pauses (PTPP), and closed-form expressions are derived for the probability of traversing the dendrite and the conditional mean first-passage time (CMFPT), for both asymmetric and symmetric persistence probabilities. At the whole-neuron level, the dendrite-level quantities are used as transition probabilities and sojourn times in a semi-Markov chain on the dendritic tree, yielding the matrix equation Ω = ND for the weighted MFPTs from the soma to each synapse. Using experimentally estimated parameters from Song et al. [17] and morphologies from NeuroMorpho, the model predicts two regimes: when retrograde persistence is stronger (β > α), CMFPTs to different synapses become nearly equal; when anterograde persistence is stronger (α > β), the CMFPT grows approximately linearly with soma–synapse distance, resembling transport on a single dendrite. The single-dendrite analytical results are validated by Monte Carlo simulations, and the code is publicly available.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a valuable, analytically tractable bridge from single-filament run-and-pause kinetics to network-level first-passage statistics in neurons. The single-dendrite solutions are derived from first principles, are simulation-validated, and the semi-Markov reduction is standard and cleanly presented. The prediction of two qualitatively different regimes—nearly equal synaptic arrival times versus distance-linear arrival times—is striking and in principle falsifiable. The availability of code and the use of experimentally derived parameters are clear strengths. However, the significance is tempered by two concerns: the regime classification for real neurons depends on a very small and unquantified persistence difference (β−α = 0.02), and the retrograde-regime CMFPT values (≈6×10^7 s) far exceed typical mRNA half-lives, so the biological interpretation of the "equal MFPT" prediction requires further justification. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the mathematical core.

major comments (3)
  1. [Numerical examples and Eq. (9); Supplement Sec. A5] The paper repeatedly states that the asymptotic results are valid for dendrite lengths l >> v/λ, but the exponential rate controlling the asymptotic regime is k = (β−α)λ/v, not λ/v. The linear asymptotics in Eq. (9) therefore require l >> v/(λ|β−α|). With the parameters used in the paper (λ = 4.4 s⁻¹, v = 1 μm/s, β−α = 0.02), this crossover length is about 11.4 μm, not 0.23 μm as the criterion v/λ would suggest. If the true persistence difference were smaller, e.g., |β−α| = 0.001, the crossover would exceed 200 μm, which is larger than many dendrites; the predicted regimes would then not be attained. The stated condition is therefore not merely imprecise but can be wrong by two orders of magnitude, and the theoretical justification of the abstract's two-regime claim needs to be recast using the corrected criterion.
  2. [Numerical examples (α = 0.51, β = 0.53 paragraph)] The assignment of the human and mouse neurons to the retrograde-bias regime rests entirely on the point estimates α = 0.51 and β = 0.53 taken from [17]. The difference of 0.02 is reported with no uncertainty, no significance test, and no discussion of how sensitive the predicted regime is to this value. The sign of β−α is load-bearing: if the true bias is zero or has the opposite sign, the predicted nearly-equal-MFPT behavior disappears or flips to the linear-regime behavior. Furthermore, as β−α → 0 the asymptotic slopes in Eq. (9) diverge, so the two regimes are not continuously connected and even a modest uncertainty in the persistence probabilities can change the qualitative prediction. I request a sensitivity analysis—for example, recomputing the CMFPT-distance curves for β−α within plausible error bounds, or plotting the regime boundary as a function of β−α—so that the biological claims are robust to the uncertainty in the experimental input.
  3. [Numerical examples (human neuron, bias ~6.3×10^7 s); Conclusions] The retrograde-regime CMFPT for the human neuron is reported as roughly 6.3×10^7 s (about two years), which is several orders of magnitude longer than typical mRNA half-lives. Because the model conditions on eventual absorption at a synapse, it describes the age of mRNA molecules that actually arrive; but if degradation is taken into account, most mRNA would be degraded long before arrival, and the "nearly equal MFPT" regime would concern only a tiny surviving fraction. The paper acknowledges degradation as future work, but the current presentation does not quantify the impact of this model choice on the biological interpretation of the main prediction. I suggest adding a simple degradation cut-off (e.g., conditioning on arrival before a finite time T, or introducing an exponential survival probability) to indicate whether the predicted equal-arrival-time effect would be observable in practice.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Main text, Eq. (8)] The symbol f_ms in Eq. (8) is undefined; from the supplement Eq. (B24) the intended quantity is clearly π_ms, the probability of absorption at synapse s starting from node m.
  2. [Main text, Eq. (3) and following paragraph] The generator equations are displayed as Eq. (3) but the text immediately afterward refers to "the system (4)"; the numbering should be consistent.
  3. [Main text, paragraph after Eq. (3)] Typo: "CMPFTs" should be "CMFPTs" (conditional mean first-passage times).
  4. [Abstract and main text (repeated)] The validity condition for the asymptotic results is consistently stated as "l >> v/λ"; as noted in major comment 1, the correct criterion is l >> v/(λ|β−α|), and this should be corrected in the abstract and throughout the numerical examples.
  5. [Figure 3(b)] The y-axis label "S" is ambiguous without units; please specify that S denotes the slope of the CMFPT versus length in units of s/μm.
  6. [Supplement, Eq. (A56)] The constant in Eq. (A56) is written as "Q2L"; this appears to be a typo, and the prefactor should be consistent with the symmetric-case constants C5 = C6 in Eq. (A54).
  7. [Supplement, final paragraph] Typo: "stro0nger" should be "stronger".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is a forward analytic calculation with independent experimental parameters, and the regime predictions are derived consequences rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The single-dendrite PTPP model is defined from the microscopic transition rates lambda, mu, v and persistence probabilities alpha, beta; the generator equations (3)-(4) and their exact solutions (A16)-(A17), the WMFPT solutions, and the CMFPT formulas (A57)-(A58) are solved analytically without using any target quantity as an input. The semi-Markov network model, Eqs. (4)-(8) and (B8)-(B26), is a standard absorbing/semi-Markov calculation whose transition probabilities and sojourn times are built from those dendrite-level quantities. The two regime predictions (nearly equal CMFPT for beta > alpha, and nearly linear distance dependence for alpha > beta) are conditional mathematical consequences of the asymptotic formulas (9)/(A57)-(A58); the sign of beta-alpha is an input assumption, not a fitted output. All kinetic parameters are taken from the independent experimental study [17], and no parameter is fitted to the predicted CMFPTs; the Monte Carlo comparison in Fig. 3 checks internal consistency rather than tuning the model. The only author self-reference is the GitHub code repository [44], which is not load-bearing. Limitation statements, such as the Conclusions remark that the model disregards mRNA degradation, and the empirical-robustness concern about the small 0.02 difference between alpha and beta, affect biological applicability but do not make any derivational step circular. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built entirely from empirically measured single-molecule transport parameters and from standard mathematics of continuous-time Markov processes and absorbing semi-Markov chains. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden falls on the assumption of uniform branch choice, the Markovian restart at nodes, and the reliability of the small persistence difference beta - alpha, which controls the qualitative regime.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (anterograde persistence probability) = 0.51 (base case), 0.53 (switched)
    Taken from parameter estimates in [17]; the two regimes depend on the sign of beta - alpha, so the value is load-bearing.
  • beta (retrograde persistence probability) = 0.53 (base case), 0.51 (switched)
    Same as above; the difference beta - alpha = +/- 0.02 sets which asymptotic regime applies.
  • lambda (run-to-pause rate) = 4.4 s^-1
    Taken from [17]; sets the typical run distance v/lambda about 0.23 um, the length scale for the asymptotics.
  • mu (pause-to-run rate) = 12.5 s^-1
    Taken from [17]; enters through rho = lambda/mu in the asymptotic slopes.
  • v (motor velocity) = 1.0 um/s
    Taken from [17] and other studies; sets the speed during runs.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Run and pause durations of mRNA cargo are exponentially distributed with rates lambda and mu; running speed is constant.
    Taken as empirical facts from Song et al. [17]; used to set up the continuous-time Markov generator in Eq. (3) and (A7)-(A8).
  • domain assumption After a pause, the cargo continues in the same direction with probability alpha (after anterograde run) or beta (after retrograde run), and reverses with the complementary probability.
    From [17]; this defines the persistence structure of the PTPP in the generator transitions shown in Fig. 1(b).
  • ad hoc to paper At a branching point, the cargo chooses each outgoing dendrite with equal probability 1/d_i.
    Stated in the main text as an assumption made 'for simplicity', and explicitly called 'likely an oversimplifying assumption' because it ignores dendrite widths and microtubule content.
  • domain assumption A traversal attempt along a dendrite starts in a running state, with fresh exponential clocks, independent of the history of previous attempts.
    The semi-Markov reduction treats each node-to-node trip as a new PTPP realization; this memoryless restart is implicit in the definition of transition probabilities p_ij and sojourn times c_ij.
  • domain assumption Dendrite lengths are much larger than the typical run distance v/lambda for the asymptotic two-regime analysis.
    The paper states the regimes are 'theoretically justified when the lengths of dendrites are considerably longer than the distance traversed during a typical run'; real reconstructed dendrites (50-500 um) satisfy this.
  • domain assumption mRNA cargo is not degraded during transport and is absorbed at synapses with no other loss.
    Explicitly stated as a limitation in the Conclusions; degradation would introduce a finite time horizon and could invalidate the very long MFPTs predicted under retrograde bias.
  • domain assumption Neuronal morphology is represented solely by dendrite lengths; spatial orientation, diameters, and curvature are ignored.
    Supplemental Material C: 'the simplest representation was implemented, so only dendritic lengths were considered and not the spatial orientation.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A persistent random-walk model of molecular transport in neuronal dendritic trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHF2EWAN

@misc{pith2026260800995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A persistent random-walk model of molecular transport in neuronal dendritic trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHF2EWAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00995}
}
read the original abstract

A two-level analytical framework is presented for modeling random walk transport of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) molecules along neuronal microtubules from soma to synapses. Motivated by empirical observations of mRNA cargo motion, the transport within a dendrite is modeled by a persistent telegraph process with pauses. Theoretical expressions for the probability of traversing the dendrite and the mean time for such travel are derived for different and equal probabilities of persistence. These results are used for the construction of a semi-Markov model of motion of mRNA cargo within the whole neuron. The semi-Markov model provides the probabilities of absorption at a given synapse and corresponding mean first-passage times (MFPTs) from the soma, where mRNA is transcribed. The theoretical expressions, together with experimentally obtained parameter values, are used to calculate MFPTs for neurons with empirically reconstructed morphology. The model predicts that when retrograde persistence is stronger, the MFPT to each synapse is effectively the same. Otherwise, when the persistence is more pronounced in the anterograde direction, the transport in the neuron resembles the motion along a single dendrite -- nearly linear dependence of MFPT on the distance between soma and synapse. These findings are theoretically justified when the lengths of dendrites are considerably longer than the distance traversed during a typical run.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00995 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Visual representation of transport of mRNA molecule along a microtubule with kinesin and dynein molecular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of the contributions of the transition [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Comparison of the exact theoretical CMFPT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) CMFPT for mRNA cargo transport from soma to synapse as function of the distance between them for human [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Part of the semi-Markov model for favored anterograde motion. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Conditional mean first-passage time (CMFPT) as a function of the soma-to-synapse path [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    A. R. Buxbaum, Y. J. Yoon, R. H. Singer, and H. Y. Park, Trends in cell biology25, 468 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    S. L. Bullock, A. Nicol, S. P. Gross, and D. Zicha, Current Biology16, 1447 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    Doyle and M

    M. Doyle and M. A. Kiebler, The EMBO journal30, 3540 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [3]

    The CMFPT to return to the entry pointc 0 ij(0) =w 0 ij(0)/p0 ij(0)

    The CMFPT for traversal in anterograde direction cl ij(0) =w l ij(0)/pl ij(0); and 4. The CMFPT to return to the entry pointc 0 ij(0) =w 0 ij(0)/p0 ij(0). It should be noted that the starting state of the cargo (entrance in dendrite) is state of run in positive direction in the coordinate sys- tem used for the telegraph process. The respective quan- titie...

    work page

  5. [4]

    S. Das, M. Vera, V. Gandin, R. H. Singer, and E. Tutucci, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology22, 483 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Steward, C

    O. Steward, C. S. Wallace, G. L. Lyford, and P. F. Wor- ley, Neuron21, 741 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    K. C. Martin and A. Ephrussi, Cell136, 719 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    I. J. Cajigas, G. Tushev, T. J. Will, S. tom Dieck, N. Fuerst, and E. M. Schuman, Neuron74, 453 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    C. E. Holt and E. M. Schuman, Neuron80, 648 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    A. R. Buxbaum, B. Wu, and R. H. Singer, Science343, 419 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    P. G. Donlin-Asp, C. Polisseni, R. Klimek, A. Heckel, and E. M. Schuman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2017578118 (2021), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2017578118

    2021 doi

  4. [11]

    C. E. Holt and S. L. Bullock, Science326, 1212 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    A. R. Buxbaum, G. Haimovich, and R. H. Singer, Nature reviews Molecular cell biology16, 95 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    R. B. Knowles, J. H. Sabry, M. E. Martone, T. J. Deer- inck, M. H. Ellisman, G. J. Bassell, and K. S. Kosik, Journal of Neuroscience16, 7812 (1996)

    1996

  7. [14]

    Kohrmann, M

    M. Kohrmann, M. Luo, C. Kaether, L. DesGroseillers, C. G. Dotti, and M. A. Kiebler, Molecular biology of the cell10, 2945 (1999)

    1999

  8. [15]

    Fusco, N

    D. Fusco, N. Accornero, B. Lavoie, S. M. Shenoy, J.- M. Blanchard, R. H. Singer, and E. Bertrand, Current Biology13, 161 (2003)

    2003

  9. [16]

    J. L. Dynes and O. Steward, Journal of Comparative Neurology500, 433 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    M. S. Song, H. C. Moon, J.-H. Jeon, and H. Y. Park, Nature communications9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Masoliver, K

    J. Masoliver, K. Lindenberg, and G. H. Weiss, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications157, 891 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    M. J. M¨ uller, S. Klumpp, and R. Lipowsky, Journal of Statistical Physics133, 1059 (2008)

    2008

  13. [21]

    P. C. Bressloff and J. M. Newby, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 135 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Masoliver and K

    J. Masoliver and K. Lindenberg, The European Physical Journal B90, 107 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    E. W. Montroll and G. H. Weiss, Journal of Mathematical Physics6, 167 (1965)

    1965

  16. [24]

    F¨ urth, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik2, 244 (1920)

    R. F¨ urth, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik2, 244 (1920)

    1920

  17. [25]

    G. I. Taylor, Proceedings of the london mathematical so- ciety2, 196 (1922)

    1922

  18. [26]

    Lennard-Jones, Transactions of the Faraday Society 28, 333 (1932)

    J. Lennard-Jones, Transactions of the Faraday Society 28, 333 (1932)

    1932

  19. [27]

    Goldstein, The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics4, 129 (1951)

    S. Goldstein, The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied Mathematics4, 129 (1951)

    1951

  20. [28]

    G. H. Weiss, Journal of Statistical Physics15, 157 (1976)

    1976

  21. [29]

    G. H. Weiss, (No Title) (1994)

    1994

  22. [30]

    W. L. Smith, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A232, 6 (1955)

    1955

  23. [31]

    L´ evy, inProc

    P. L´ evy, inProc. Int. Congr. Math.(1954) pp. 416–426

    1954

  24. [32]

    G. A. Ascoli, D. E. Donohue, and M. Halavi, Journal of Neuroscience27, 9247 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz,Markov processes: charac- terization and convergence(John Wiley & Sons, 2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for detailed derivations, additional figures, nu- merical results, and descriptions of the analyzed dendritic morphologies

  27. [35]

    G. H. Weiss, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications311, 381 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    C. M. Grinstead and J. L. Snell,Introduction to proba- bility(American Mathematical Society, 2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    M. A. Kiebler and G. J. Bassell, Neuron51, 685 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Amrute-Nayak and S

    M. Amrute-Nayak and S. L. Bullock, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology19, 416 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Masoli, D

    S. Masoli, D. Sanchez-Ponce, N. Vrieler, K. Abu-Haya, V. Lerner, T. Shahar, H. Nedelescu, M. F. Rizza, R. Benavides-Piccione, J. DeFelipe,et al., Communica- tions Biology7, 5 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Benavides-Piccione, M

    R. Benavides-Piccione, M. Regalado-Reyes, I. Fernaud- Espinosa, A. Kastanauskaite, S. Tapia-Gonz´ alez, G. Le´ on-Espinosa, C. Rojo, R. Insausti, I. Segev, and J. DeFelipe, Cerebral cortex30, 730 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    J. N. Darroch and E. Seneta, Journal of Applied Proba- bility2, 88 (1965)

    1965

  34. [42]

    Schwanh¨ ausser, D

    B. Schwanh¨ ausser, D. Busse, N. Li, G. Dittmar, J. Schuchhardt, J. Wolf, W. Chen, and M. Selbach, Na- ture473, 337 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    O. G. Berg, R. B. Winter, and P. H. Von Hippel, Bio- chemistry20, 6929 (1981)

    1981

  36. [44]

    W. R. Bauer and W. Nadler, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103, 11446 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    a persistent random-walk model of molecular transport in neuronal dendritic trees

    L. Basnarkov, Code for “a persistent random-walk model of molecular transport in neuronal dendritic trees” (2026), gitHub repository,https://github.com/ Basnarkov/mRNA_transport. Supplemental Material for “A persistent random-walk model of molecular transport in neuronal dendr...

    2026

  38. [46]

    Denote withα, andβpersistence probabilities for anterograde and retrograde directions, respectively

    Setup and absorption probabilities Consider persistent telegraph process with pauses describing random motion of a molec- ular cargo on the line segment [0,l]. Denote withα, andβpersistence probabilities for anterograde and retrograde directions, respectively. Assume that at c...

  39. [47]

    Weighted and conditional mean first-passage times Denote withw(x) the Mean Time to Absorption (MTA) to any endpoint, for a walk that starts at positionxand in an arbitrary state of motion. As the mean value of the durations of all such paths, it can be defined as w(x) =E x Z T...

  40. [48]

    Solution of the generator equations for the WMFPT Consider the case of right endpointl, and use the absorption probabilities for the sum and difference A21. The specific form for the differential equation of the difference of WMFPTs is dwl D(x) dx =kw l D(x)−F 1ekx +F 2,(A37) ...

  41. [49]

    Symmetric persistence Consider the scenario whenα=β, which further impliesA=B. Using these in the matrix equation A11 and then in the relationships between absorption probabilities A9 one obtains pl r+(x) = 1 +Ax 1 +Al ;p l r−(x) = Ax 1 +Al ; pl r+(x) = α+Ax 1 +Al ;p l r−(x) =...

  42. [50]

    Then, forα̸=βone has either ekl→0, ore kl→∞

    Long-segment asymptotics Consider very long dendritel≫v/λ, wherev/λis the typical running distance as a product of the velocity and mean duration of running. Then, forα̸=βone has either ekl→0, ore kl→∞. The table III summarizes the asymptotic behavior atl→∞for both cases. TABL...

  43. [51]

    ∞X n=1 a(n) is # r=0 = ∂ ∂r

    General formulation Consider semi-Markov chain withNstatesi= 1,2,...,N. According to one of the alter- native definitions, a semi-Markov chain is completely determined by transition probabilities pij between the states and the distribution densities of the conditional waiting ...

  44. [52]

    Further, for rather long dendrites whenβ > α, the probability of mRNA to reach the opposite end in anterograde direction is very small

    Strong-retrograde-bias limit Notice first that in neurons, each synapsesis accessible from only one branching point b, so only onep ks, orc ks is nonzero. Further, for rather long dendrites whenβ > α, the probability of mRNA to reach the opposite end in anterograde direction i...

  45. [53]

    Scaling under anterograde bias When anterograde motion is more favoredα > β, for long dendritesl≫v/λ, one has probability to reach the other end of dendrite in anterograde directionp l r+(0)≈1−B/A= (α−β)/(1−β). For the same case the probability to reach the ”repelling” end of ...

    2012

  46. [54]

    C. M. Grinstead and J. L. Snell,Introduction to probability(American Mathematical Society, 2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    J. C. Dalrymple-Alford, B. Harland, E. A. Loukavenko, B. Perry, S. Mercer, D. A. Collings, K. Ulrich, W. C. Abraham, N. McNaughton, and M. Wolff, Anterior thalamic nuclei lesions and recovery of function: relevance to cognitive thalamus, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 54...

    2015

  48. [56]

    B. L. Murphy, R. Y. Pun, H. Yin, C. R. Faulkner, A. W. Loepke, and S. C. Danzer, Hetero- geneous integration of adult-generated granule cells into the epileptic brain, Journal of Neuro- science31, 105 (2011). 23

    2011

  49. [57]

    Anwar, C

    H. Anwar, C. J. Roome, H. Nedelescu, W. Chen, B. Kuhn, and E. De Schutter, Dendritic diameters affect the spatial variability of intracellular calcium dynamics in computer models, Frontiers in cellular neuroscience8, 168 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Mukhopadhyay, A

    S. Mukhopadhyay, A. Chatterjee, P. Tiwari, U. Ghai, and V. A. Vaidya, Postnatal fluoxetine treatment alters perineuronal net formation and maintenance in the hippocampus, ENeuro8 (2021). 24 (a) 100 200 300 400 500 Distance L (µ m) 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 Condition...

    2021

Pith tools

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