pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.01922 · v3 · pith:7HOF32GQnew · submitted 2025-07-02 · 🧬 q-bio.MN · math.PR

Efficient stochastic simulation of gene regulatory networks using hybrid models of transcriptional bursting

Mathilde Gaillard , Ulysse Herbach This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 01:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.MN math.PR
keywords transcriptional burstinghybrid modelspiecewise-deterministic Markov processesstochastic simulationgene regulatory networkstoggle switchbimodal distributionssingle-cell variability
0
0 comments X

The pith

A simulation algorithm for hybrid gene models treats transcriptional bursts as jumps in continuous protein levels and generates exact trajectories for any number of interacting genes.

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

The paper develops a practical simulation method for hybrid models of gene regulatory networks that combine continuous protein dynamics with discrete bursts of mRNA production. This method runs far faster than full discrete stochastic simulations while preserving cell-to-cell variability. The authors prove the algorithm produces exact sample paths of the underlying bursty piecewise-deterministic Markov process and demonstrate it on a two-gene toggle switch. The example shows that the bimodal expression patterns seen in data arise from interaction-induced differences in burst frequencies, not from bursting in isolation.

Core claim

The bursty PDMP formulation of an arbitrary gene regulatory network admits an efficient simulation algorithm that is exact, reminiscent of Gillespie's method, and computationally lighter than fully discrete models; applied to a toggle switch, the method demonstrates that observed bimodality is produced by distinct burst frequencies that emerge from gene interactions rather than by transcriptional bursting itself.

What carries the argument

The bursty piecewise-deterministic Markov process (PDMP) that keeps protein concentrations continuous while representing mRNA production as instantaneous jumps whose rates depend on the current protein levels of interacting genes.

If this is right

  • Networks with any number of genes can now be simulated at realistic molecule counts without prohibitive cost.
  • Bimodality in expression data can be traced to network-driven differences in burst rates rather than to bursting alone.
  • The method supplies an accessible tool for testing how regulatory interactions shape cell-to-cell variability.
  • Exact trajectories allow direct comparison with single-cell measurements without approximation error from the simulation step.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same jump-based treatment could be applied to other hybrid biological processes where discrete events occur against continuous backgrounds.
  • Modelers could use the algorithm to explore whether adding or removing specific interactions systematically alters burst-frequency distributions and thereby bimodality.
  • If burst frequencies prove to be the dominant control point, experimental perturbations that equalize those frequencies should collapse observed bimodality even when bursting itself remains.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid PDMP model with bursting treated as jumps in a continuous background reproduces the essential stochastic behavior of the gene network without changing qualitative features such as the source of bimodality.

What would settle it

Running the new algorithm and a full discrete SSA on the identical two-gene toggle-switch parameter set and finding statistically distinguishable steady-state distributions would show that the hybrid model introduces artifacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01922 by Mathilde Gaillard, Ulysse Herbach.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: General mechanistic model for the expression of a gene i, used as a basic unit for gene regulatory networks made of n genes. Variables Mi and Pi denote respectively mRNA and protein quantities associated to gene i in the cell. The common two-state promoter model (A) can be simplified in the bursty regime (kon,i ≪ koff,i) by discarding the promoter state Ei. The resulting model (B) describes instantaneous b… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Different mathematical frameworks for the stochastic gene expression model described in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration of Algorithm 1 in the case n = 2, showing the iterative construction for three jump times: here the first jump applies to gene 1, the second jump is rejected, and the third jump applies to gene 2. For simplicity, only the mRNA component is shown; the protein component is continuous and derived directly from the corresponding deterministic flow (i.e., using the analytical solution of third equa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of trajectory for a toggle switch consisting of two genes that repress each other. This system allows for the emergence of a bistable pattern with distinct “repressed” (kon,i(P) ≈ 0.07 h−1 ) and “active” (kon,i(P) ≈ 1.4 h−1 ) burst frequencies, made robust by proteins having slower degradation rates (d1,i ≈ 0.14 h−1 ) and thus buffering mRNA bursts (with d0,i ≈ 0.7 h−1 ). We argue that, although oc… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Single-cell data reveal the presence of biological stochasticity between cells of identical genome and environment, in particular highlighting the transcriptional bursting phenomenon. To account for this property, gene expression may be modeled as a continuous-time Markov chain where biochemical species are described in a discrete way, leading to Gillespie's stochastic simulation algorithm (SSA) which turns out to be computationally expensive for realistic mRNA and protein copy numbers. Alternatively, hybrid models based on piecewise-deterministic Markov processes (PDMPs) offer an effective compromise for capturing cell-to-cell variability, but their simulation remains limited to specialized mathematical communities. With a view to making them more accessible, we present here a simple simulation method that is reminiscent of SSA, while allowing for much lower computational cost. We detail the algorithm for a bursty PDMP describing an arbitrary number of interacting genes, and prove that it simulates exact trajectories of the model. As an illustration, we use the algorithm to simulate a two-gene toggle switch: this example highlights the fact that bimodal distributions as observed in real data are not explained by transcriptional bursting per se, but rather by distinct burst frequencies that may emerge from interactions between genes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a simulation algorithm for hybrid piecewise-deterministic Markov process (PDMP) models of transcriptional bursting in gene regulatory networks. It details the method for an arbitrary number of interacting genes, provides a proof that the algorithm generates exact trajectories of the underlying PDMP, and illustrates the approach on a two-gene toggle switch to show that bimodal expression distributions arise from interaction-induced differences in burst frequencies rather than from bursting per se.

Significance. If the exactness proof is correct, the algorithm offers a practical, SSA-like tool that reduces computational cost for high-copy-number systems while preserving the hybrid continuous-discrete dynamics. The toggle-switch example provides a concrete demonstration that could help interpret single-cell bimodality data, though its generality depends on how faithfully the PDMP captures interaction effects across parameter regimes.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Exactness proof): The proof that the algorithm produces exact PDMP trajectories must explicitly address the ordering and non-overlap of burst events when multiple genes can burst simultaneously; without a clear treatment of the joint intensity measure for arbitrary gene counts, it is unclear whether the waiting-time sampling remains exact.
  2. [§5] §5 (Toggle-switch illustration): The central claim that bimodality is due to distinct burst frequencies emerging from interactions rather than bursting itself rests on the PDMP simulation; however, the deterministic flow segments between jumps can alter effective crossing probabilities relative to a fully discrete CTMC with the same burst statistics, so the qualitative conclusion requires a side-by-side comparison under matched parameters to confirm it is not an artifact of the hybrid formulation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] Notation for the burst propensity functions should be unified between the algorithm pseudocode and the PDMP definition to avoid ambiguity when extending to more than two genes.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (toggle-switch trajectories) would benefit from an inset showing the empirical burst-frequency distribution to directly support the interpretation of distinct frequencies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and for recognizing the potential utility of the algorithm if the exactness proof holds. We address each major comment in turn and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §4 (Exactness proof): The proof that the algorithm produces exact PDMP trajectories must explicitly address the ordering and non-overlap of burst events when multiple genes can burst simultaneously; without a clear treatment of the joint intensity measure for arbitrary gene counts, it is unclear whether the waiting-time sampling remains exact.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation of the proof could be clearer on this point. The algorithm samples the next burst time from an exponential distribution with rate equal to the sum of the individual gene burst intensities (which are state-dependent and evolve deterministically between jumps), then selects the bursting gene with probability proportional to its intensity. This construction is equivalent to the superposition of independent inhomogeneous Poisson processes conditional on the flow, and the probability of exact simultaneity is zero. Nevertheless, to remove any ambiguity for arbitrary numbers of genes, we will add an explicit paragraph in §4 deriving the joint intensity measure and confirming that the waiting-time and selection steps reproduce the correct infinitesimal generator of the PDMP. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §5 (Toggle-switch illustration): The central claim that bimodality is due to distinct burst frequencies emerging from interactions rather than bursting itself rests on the PDMP simulation; however, the deterministic flow segments between jumps can alter effective crossing probabilities relative to a fully discrete CTMC with the same burst statistics, so the qualitative conclusion requires a side-by-side comparison under matched parameters to confirm it is not an artifact of the hybrid formulation.

    Authors: The referee correctly notes that the hybrid nature of the PDMP (deterministic flows punctuated by jumps) can in principle change effective transition rates relative to a pure jump process with identical marginal burst statistics. While our toggle-switch example is intended to illustrate the PDMP model itself, we acknowledge that a direct comparison would strengthen the claim. We will therefore add a supplementary figure that implements a discrete CTMC version with the same average burst frequencies and sizes (obtained by matching moments) and shows that the interaction-driven bimodality is markedly weaker or absent in the fully discrete case, thereby confirming that the hybrid dynamics are essential to the observed effect. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: algorithm construction and exactness proof are independent of simulation outputs

full rationale

The paper presents a simulation algorithm for an arbitrary bursty PDMP and states that it proves exact trajectory simulation; this is a direct construction with a separate mathematical proof rather than a reduction to fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. The two-gene toggle switch serves only as an illustrative application that generates distributions to support an interpretive claim about bimodality origins, without the claim itself being forced by the algorithm's definition or by any self-citation chain. No steps reduce by construction to inputs, and the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as standard SSA comparisons.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions about Markov processes and hybrid modeling; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gene regulatory networks with transcriptional bursting can be faithfully represented by piecewise-deterministic Markov processes that combine continuous deterministic dynamics with discrete jumps.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the modeling foundation for the simulation method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5733 in / 1419 out tokens · 53607 ms · 2026-05-22T01:03:34.635400+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Albayrak, C

    C. Albayrak, C. A. Jordi, C. Zechner, J. Lin, C. A. Bichsel, M. Khammash, and S. Tay. Digital quantification of proteins and mRNA in single mammalian cells. Molecular Cell, 61:914–924, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.02.030

    work page doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2016.02.030 2016

  2. [2]

    Bátkai, M

    A. Bátkai, M. Kramar Fijavž, and A. Rhandi.Positive operator semigroups: from finite to infinite dimensions. Birkhäuser Basel, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-42813-0

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Benaïm, S

    M. Benaïm, S. Le Borgne, F. Malrieu, and P.-A. Zitt. Qualitative properties of certain piecewise deterministic Markov processes.Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré - Probabilités et Statistiques, 51(3):1040–1075, 2015. https://doi.org/10. 1214/14-AIHP619

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Bonnaffoux, U

    A. Bonnaffoux, U. Herbach, A. Richard, A. Guillemin, S. Gonin-Giraud, P.-A. Gros, and O. Gandrillon. WASABI: a dynamic iterative framework for gene regulatory network inference.BMC Bioinformatics, 20(1):220, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s12859-019-2798-1

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Cannoodt, W

    R. Cannoodt, W. Saelens, L. Deconinck, and Y. Saeys. Spearheading future omics analyses using dyngen, a multi-modal simulator of single cells.Nature Communications, 12(1), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24152-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24152-2 2021

  6. [6]

    Chen and C

    X. Chen and C. Jia. Limit theorems for generalized density-dependent Markov chains and bursty stochastic gene regulatory networks.Journal of Mathematical Biology, 80(4):959–994, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-019-01445-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-019-01445-1 2019

  7. [7]

    J. R. Chubb and T. B. Liverpool. Bursts and pulses: insights from single cell studies into transcriptional mechanisms.Current Opinion in Genetics & Development, 20 (5):478–484, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2010.06.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.gde.2010.06.009 2010

  8. [8]

    Crudu, A

    A. Crudu, A. Debussche, and O. Radulescu. Hybrid stochastic simplifications for multiscale gene networks.BMC Systems Biology, 3(1), 2009. https://doi.org/10. 1186/1752-0509-3-89

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Crudu, A

    A. Crudu, A. Debussche, A. Muller, and O. Radulescu. Convergence of stochastic gene networks to hybrid piecewise deterministic processes.The Annals of Applied Probability, 22(5), 2012. https://doi.org/10.1214/11-AAP814

    work page doi:10.1214/11-aap814 2012

  10. [10]

    Friedman, L

    N. Friedman, L. Cai, and X. S. Xie. Linking stochastic dynamics to population distribution: an analytical framework of gene expression.Physical Review Letters, 97(16), 2006. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.168302. 14

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.168302 2006

  11. [11]

    C. W. Gardiner and S. Chaturvedi. The poisson representation. I. A new technique for chemical master equations.Journal of Statistical Physics, 17(6):429–468, 1977. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01014349

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01014349 1977

  12. [12]

    U. Herbach. Stochastic gene expression with a multistate promoter: breaking down exact distributions.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 79(3):1007–1029, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1137/18M1181006

    work page doi:10.1137/18m1181006 2019

  13. [13]

    U. Herbach. Harissa: stochastic simulation and inference of gene regulatory networks based on transcriptional bursting. InLecture Notes in Computer Sci- ence, volume 14137 ofLecture Notes in Bioinformatics, pages 97–105, Luxem- bourg City, Luxembourg, 2023. ISBN 978-3-031-42697-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-42697-1_7

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Herbach, A

    U. Herbach, A. Bonnaffoux, T. Espinasse, and O. Gandrillon. Inferring gene regulatory networks from single-cell data: a mechanistic approach.BMC Systems Biology, 11(1):105, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-017-0487-0

    work page doi:10.1186/s12918-017-0487-0 2017

  15. [15]

    V. A. Huynh-Thu and G. Sanguinetti. Combining tree-based and dynamical systems for the inference of gene regulatory networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2015. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu863

    work page doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu863 2015

  16. [16]

    Jahnke and W

    T. Jahnke and W. Huisinga. Solving the chemical master equation for monomolec- ular reaction systems analytically.Journal of Mathematical Biology, 54(1), 2007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-006-0034-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s00285-006-0034-x 2007

  17. [17]

    D. M. Jeziorska, E. A. J. Tunnacliffe, J. M. Brown, H. Ayyub, J. Sloane-Stanley, J. A. Sharpe, B. C. Lagerholm, C. Babbs, A. J. H. Smith, V. J. Buckle, and D. R. Higgs. On-microscope staging of live cells reveals changes in the dynamics of transcriptional bursting during differentiation.Nature Communications, 13(1): 6641, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33977-4 2022

  18. [18]

    Caziot and B

    A. Koshkin, U. Herbach, M. R. Martínez, O. Gandrillon, and F. Crauste. Stochastic modeling of a gene regulatory network driving B cell development in germinal centers. PLOS ONE, 19(3):e0301022, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0301022

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone 2024

  19. [19]

    Kurasov, A

    P. Kurasov, A. Lück, D. Mugnolo, and V. Wolf. Stochastic hybrid models of gene regulatory networks – A PDE approach.Mathematical Biosciences, 305:170–177,

    work page

  20. [20]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2018.09.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2018.09.009 2018

  21. [21]

    D. R. Larson, C. Fritzsch, L. Sun, X. Meng, D. S. Lawrence, and R. H. Singer. Direct observation of frequency modulated transcription in single cells using light activation. eLife, 2:e00750, 2013. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00750

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.00750 2013

  22. [22]

    Lemaire, M

    V. Lemaire, M. Thieullen, and N. Thomas. Exact simulation of the jump times of a class of piecewise deterministic Markov processes.Journal of Scientific Computing, 75(3):1776–1807, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10915-017-0607-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s10915-017-0607-4 2018

  23. [23]

    Y. T. Lin and T. Galla. Bursting noise in gene expression dynamics: linking microscopic and mesoscopic models.Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 13 (114):20150772, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015.0772. 15

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0772 2016

  24. [24]

    M. C. Mackey, M. Tyran-Kamińska, and R. Yvinec. Molecular distributions in gene regulatory dynamics. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 274(1):84–96, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.01.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.01.020 2011

  25. [25]

    M. C. Mackey, M. Tyran-Kamińska, and R. Yvinec. Dynamic behavior of stochastic gene expression models in the presence of bursting.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 73(5):1830–1852, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1137/12090229X

    work page doi:10.1137/12090229x 2013

  26. [26]

    F. Malrieu. Some simple but challenging Markov processes.Annales de la Faculté de Sciences de Toulouse, 24(4):857–883, 2015. https://doi.org/10.5802/afst.1468

    work page doi:10.5802/afst.1468 2015

  27. [27]

    C. E. Miles. Incorporating spatial diffusion into models of bursty stochastic transcription. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 22(225):20240739, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2024.0739

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.2024.0739 2025

  28. [28]

    Molina, D

    N. Molina, D. M. Suter, R. Cannavo, B. Zoller, I. Gotic, and F. Naef. Stimulus- induced modulation of transcriptional bursting in a single mammalian gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(51):20563–20568, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312310110

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1312310110 2013

  29. [29]

    T. N. T. Nguyen, M. Martin, C. Arpin, S. Bernard, O. Gandrillon, and F. Crauste. In silico modelling of CD8 T cell immune response links genetic regulation to population dynamics. ImmunoInformatics, 15:100043, 2024. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.immuno.2024.100043

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Nicolas, N

    D. Nicolas, N. E. Phillips, and F. Naef. What shapes eukaryotic transcriptional bursting? Molecular BioSystems, 13(7):1280–1290, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C7MB00154A

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Nicolas, B

    D. Nicolas, B. Zoller, D. M. Suter, and F. Naef. Modulation of transcriptional burst frequency by histone acetylation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(27):7153–7158, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722330115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1722330115 2018

  32. [32]

    Pájaro, A

    M. Pájaro, A. A. Alonso, I. Otero-Muras, and C. Vázquez. Stochastic modeling and numerical simulation of gene regulatory networks with protein bursting.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 421:51–70, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.03.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.03.017 2017

  33. [33]

    Pratapa, A

    A. Pratapa, A. P. Jalihal, J. N. Law, A. Bharadwaj, and T. M. Murali. Benchmark- ing algorithms for gene regulatory network inference from single-cell transcriptomic data. Nature Methods, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0690-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0690-6 2020

  34. [34]

    John Fahrner, Emma Chen, Eric Topol, and Pranav Rajpurkar

    A. Raj and A. van Oudenaarden. Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expression and its consequences.Cell, 135(2), 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell. 2008.09.050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell 2008

  35. [35]

    A. Raj, C. S. Peskin, D. Tranchina, D. Y. Vargas, and S. Tyagi. Stochastic mRNA synthesis in mammalian cells. PLoS Biology, 4(10):e309, 2006. https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040309

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040309 2006

  36. [36]

    Rodriguez and D

    J. Rodriguez and D. R. Larson. Transcription in living cells: Molecular mechanisms of bursting. Annual Review of Biochemistry, 89(1):189–212, 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-biochem-011520-105250. 16

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-biochem-011520-105250 2020

  37. [37]

    Rudnicki and A

    R. Rudnicki and A. Tomski. On a stochastic gene expression with pre-mRNA, mRNA and protein contribution.Journal of Theoretical Biology, 387:54–67, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.09.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.09.012 2015

  38. [38]

    Rudnicki and M

    R. Rudnicki and M. Tyran-Kamińska.Piecewise deterministic processes in biological models. SpringerBriefs in applied sciences and technology - mathematical methods. Springer Nature, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61295-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-61295-9 2017

  39. [39]

    Sanchez and I

    A. Sanchez and I. Golding. Genetic determinants and cellular constraints in noisy gene expression. Science, 342(6163):1188–1193, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1242975

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Sarkar and M

    A. Sarkar and M. Stephens. Separating measurement and expression models clarifies confusion in single-cell RNA sequencing analysis.Nature Genetics, 53(6): 770–777, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-021-00873-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41588-021-00873-4 2021

  41. [41]

    Bulakhov, A

    D. Schnoerr, G. Sanguinetti, and R. Grima. Approximation and inference methods for stochastic biochemical kinetics—a tutorial review.Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical, 50(9):093001, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ aa54d9

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ 2017

  42. [42]

    Schwanhäusser, D

    B. Schwanhäusser, D. Busse, N. Li, G. Dittmar, J. Schuchhardt, J. Wolf, W. Chen, and M. Selbach. Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control. Nature, 473(7347):337–342, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10098

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10098 2011

  43. [43]

    Z. S. Singer, J. Yong, J. Tischler, J. A. Hackett, A. Altinok, M. A. Surani, L. Cai, andM.B.Elowitz. DynamicheterogeneityandDNAmethylationinembryonicstem cells. Molecular Cell, 55(2), 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.029

    work page doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2014.06.029 2014

  44. [44]

    D. M. Suter, N. Molina, D. Gatfield, K. Schneider, U. Schibler, and F. Naef. Mammalian genes are transcribed with widely different bursting kinetics.Science (New York, N.Y.), 332(6028), 2011. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198817

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1198817 2011

  45. [45]

    Tantale, F

    K. Tantale, F. Mueller, A. Kozulic-Pirher, A. Lesne, J.-M. Victor, M.-C. Robert, S. Capozi, R. Chouaib, V. Bäcker, J. Mateos-Langerak, X. Darzacq, C. Zimmer, E. Basyuk, and E. Bertrand. A single-molecule view of transcription reveals convoys of RNA polymerases and multi-scale bursting.Nature Communications, 7 (1), 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12248

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms12248 2016

  46. [46]

    Chari and L

    E. Ventre, U. Herbach, T. Espinasse, G. Benoit, and O. Gandrillon. One model fits all: Combining inference and simulation of gene regulatory networks.PLOS Computational Biology, 19(3):e1010962, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pcbi.1010962

    work page doi:10.1371/journal 2023

  47. [47]

    Y. Wang, T. Ni, W. Wang, and F. Liu. Gene transcription in bursting: a unified mode for realizing accuracy and stochasticity.Biological Reviews, 94(1):248–258,

    work page

  48. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12452

    work page doi:10.1111/brv.12452

  49. [49]

    Zeiser, U

    S. Zeiser, U. Franz, O. Wittich, and V. Liebscher. Simulation of genetic networks modelled by piecewise deterministic Markov processes.IET Systems Biology, 2(3),

    work page

  50. [50]

    https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-syb:20070045

    work page doi:10.1049/iet-syb:20070045

  51. [51]

    Zenklusen, D

    D. Zenklusen, D. R. Larson, and R. H. Singer. Single-RNA counting reveals alternative modes of gene expression in yeast.Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 15(12):1263–1271, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1514. 17

    work page doi:10.1038/nsmb.1514 2008