Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Competitive binding of Activator-Repressor in Stochastic Gene Expression

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives the full kinetics of a gene whose activator and repressor compete for one promoter site, reproduces the observed steep dox dose-response (power 3.4 vs 3.2), and predicts the noise cost of competitive regulation.

desk verdict Useful fitted parameter set and Fano-factor formulas for a competitive activator-repressor promoter, but the central noise formulas are not checkable as printed due to undefined symbols, so the paper needs a corrected revision before it can be fully evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13630 v2 pith:7W7E54OZ submitted 2024-11-20 q-bio.MN physics.bio-ph

Amit Kumar Das , Debabrata Biswas This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.MNphysics.bio-ph PACS 87.10.Mn
keywords stochasticgeneexpressioncompetitivetranscriptionfactorbindingactivator-repressorsystemFanotranscriptionalreinitiationdose-responsecurveHillcoefficientparameterestimation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish a complete analytical theory of a gene whose activator and repressor bind the promoter competitively — a circuit measured experimentally in [36] but never given a full kinetic parameter set. It claims the effective promoter ON and OFF rates factor into products and sums of inducer-dependent single-molecule rates, so the inducer's power-law exponents add, yielding a theoretical dox power of $3.4$ that matches the observed Hill coefficient $3.2$ [36]. Using the derived rates, it computes exact Fano factors (variance-to-mean ratios) for mRNA and protein and claims the competitive architecture is noisier than the non-competitive one in the super-Poissonian regime, while transcriptional reinitiation lowers mRNA-level noise and raises protein-level noise. If correct, the paper supplies the missing parameter set, explains the steep all-or-none response as an emergent property of competitive binding, and makes noise predictions that synthetic designs of such switches could test.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the three-state gene model $G_r \to G_n \to G_a$, in which repressor-related transition rates $k_1$, $k_2$ compete with activator-related rates $k_a$, $k_d$, extended by an initiation-complex state $G_c$ for transcriptional reinitiation ($k_3$, $k_4$). The argument is carried by the algebraic reduction $k_{\rm ON}=k_1 k_a$, $k_{\rm OFF}=k_d(k_1+k_2)$, which maps the three-state scheme onto an equivalent two-state promoter and makes inducer powers additive, and by a moment-generating-function calculation that yields the exact Fano-factor formulas (Eqs. 27-31).

What would settle it

A direct test is a single-cell measurement of the mRNA Fano factor in the dox-controlled competitive circuit of [36] alongside a matched non-competitive circuit: the noise-ordering claim fails if the competitive circuit is not noisier in the super-Poissonian regime. A second test is the dose-response exponent itself: if the competitive dose-response saturates with a dox power clearly different from $3.4$, the rate-factorization mechanism $k_{\rm ON}=k_1 k_a$ is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a three-state promoter in which activator and repressor bind mutually exclusively can be collapsed to an effective two-state circuit whose ON and OFF rates factor as $k_{\rm ON}=k_1 k_a$ and $k_{\rm OFF}=k_d(k_1+k_2)$. Since each component rate is a power law in the inducer dox, the effective exponents add: the activator branch carries $S^{1.6}$, the repressor branch $S^{1.8}$, so the competitive dose-response should scale as $S^{3.4}$, close to the experimentally observed Hill coefficient of $3.2$ [36]. From the same framework the paper derives closed-form Fano factors (variance-to-mean ratios) for mRNA and protein, with and without transcriptional reinitiation. It then claims the competitive circuit is noisier than the non-competitive one in the super-Poissonian regime ($F>1$), that reinitiation lowers mRNA-level noise while raising protein-level noise, and that tightening RNAP-II retention ($k_4$) pushes noise below the Poissonian level more strongly in the competitive circuit than in the non-competitive one.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that kinetic rate constants and functional forms measured in one system — the yeast GAL/aTc rates of [3] — transfer faithfully to a different circuit, the dox-driven competitive promoter of [36]; if the true competitive rates follow different chemistry or concentration dependence, the predicted noise ordering between competitive and non-competitive circuits could be a parameter artifact rather than a property of the architecture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The fitted rate set ($k_1$, $k_2$, $k_a$, $k_d$, $J_m$, $Z_{\rm th}$) gives experimenters and simulators the first concrete parameters for the dox-controlled competitive circuit, replacing an earlier absence of kinetic rates.
  • Because mean expression levels coincide under identical rate constants, the higher super-Poissonian noise of the competitive circuit is an architectural property and not an artifact of different expression levels.
  • Reinitiation's opposed effects on mRNA and protein Fano factors mean the two noise levels cannot be tuned independently through reinitiation alone.
  • Reducing $k_4$, interpreted as tighter RNAP-II binding to the promoter, is predicted to drive mRNA noise below the Poissonian level in both circuits, with the competitive circuit reaching lower sub-Poissonian values.
  • The theoretical dox power $3.4$ matching the measured $3.2$ means the steep switch response does not require a Hill-function assumption: it emerges from multiplicative rate composition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the factorization rule $k_{\rm ON}=k_1 k_a$ is generic, so any pair of inducers with power-law binding rates should show a summed effective exponent in a competitive circuit; this is testable with inducer pairs other than dox.
  • Editorial extension: the predicted competitive-versus-non-competitive noise ordering could be checked against existing single-molecule mRNA data from comparable synthetic TetR/GAL circuits, without building new experiments.
  • Editorial extension: the inducer values where with-reinitiation and without-reinitiation curves cross in mean and Fano factor are a measurable signature of reinitiation strength and could calibrate $k_3$ and $k_4$ in live cells.
  • Editorial extension: the finding that competitive circuits reach lower sub-Poissonian noise suggests a design heuristic — mutually exclusive TF binding plus tight RNAP-II retention — for noise-suppressed synthetic gene circuits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops an analytical stochastic model of a three-state competitive activator-repressor promoter, with and without transcriptional reinitiation. The authors derive mean mRNA/protein levels and Fano factors via a generating-function approach, estimate dox-dependent rate parameters by fitting the dose-response data of Rossi et al. [36], compare the competitive circuit with a non-competitive architecture, and report noise-ordering results: higher mRNA Fano factor in the super-Poissonian regime for the competitive circuit, lower mRNA but higher protein Fano factor with reinitiation than without, and the possibility of reducing noise below the Poissonian level by lowering k4.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper would provide a useful analytical framework and a parameter set for a circuit that has previously been studied mainly through Hill-function fits or simulations. The generating-function formalism is standard, and the authors supplement the analysis with Gillespie simulations and a sensitivity/chi-square check, which are appropriate tools. The main significance, however, rests on the noise-ordering statements in Secs. 5.2 and 6; as printed, those statements cannot be verified because key analytical expressions contain undefined symbols and because the noise predictions are computed with rate constants transferred from a different experimental system. The claimed theoretical derivation of the dox power 3.4 is also circular as presented, since the exponents 1.6 and 1.8 are read from the very data being explained.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.2, Eq. (27)] The with-reinitiation mRNA Fano factor is not a closed expression: h2, h6, and h8 appear in both numerator and denominator but are never defined in the main text, Appendix A, the glossary, or the parameter list. Since the paper's central noise-ordering claims are computed from this equation, the reader cannot independently evaluate or verify them. Please define these quantities or provide an alternative derivation, a symbolic algorithm, or machine-readable code that generates the expression.
  2. [§5.2, Eqs. (28)–(31)] The protein Fano factor expressions are also not independently checkable as printed. Eq. (31) defines X through a chain of r-variables in which r7 is assigned twice, and the derivation of the chain is not shown anywhere. Even if the duplicated assignment is a harmless typo, the lack of a derivation means the without-reinitiation protein Fano factor, which underpins the reinitiation noise-ordering claims in Figs. 10–11, cannot be verified from the manuscript.
  3. [§5.1] The statement that the dox power 3.4 is 'theoretically obtained' is not supported. The exponents 1.6 and 1.8 are explicitly chosen in Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4 'following the Hill coefficient values found in [36]', so the product S^1.6 S^1.8 = S^3.4 is a product of two experimentally fitted exponents, not an independent prediction. The agreement with the observed Hill coefficient 3.2 should be reframed as a consistency check of the proposed multiplicative composition rule, and ideally tested against independent data or against a model in which the dox powers are free parameters.
  4. [§6.1 and Figs. 10–11] The noise-ordering conclusions are numerical results obtained with rate constants transferred from Blake et al.'s yeast GAL/aTc system, while the dox-dependent parameters and Zth are taken from fits to Rossi et al.'s dox data. The manuscript provides no evidence that these two parameter sets describe the same promoter chemistry. The claimed ordering of competitive versus non-competitive Fano factors and the reinitiation anomalies may therefore be artifacts of the chosen parameter values rather than architectural properties. Please test robustness by varying the transferred rates over a plausible range, or by using the Rossi-derived rates in the stochastic analysis.
  5. [§5.1] The statement that a 'most probable set of parameter values' is found is stronger than the evidence supports. The manuscript says Zth can be set to any value between 70% and 99% to obtain a best fit, so the parameter set is not unique. The sensitivity and MSE analysis in Appendix B is welcome, but the paper should clearly state the resulting confidence intervals for the fitted parameters and explicitly acknowledge the degeneracy implied by the free threshold.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Glossary] The glossary defines the Fano factor as 'variance of protein / mean mRNA', which is dimensionally and conceptually inconsistent with the rest of the paper, where the mRNA Fano factor is variance of mRNA divided by mean mRNA. Please correct the definition and remove the duplicated wording.
  2. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'there exits some anomalous characteristic features' should be 'there exist some anomalous characteristic features'.
  3. [Eq. (8)] The hypergeometric expression for the activator-only promoter activity is very hard to parse because of the compressed notation, including 'J kd 1' in the denominator. Please restructure the equation with clear definitions of all arguments.
  4. [§5.2, Eq. (25)] In the master equation, the mRNA degradation term reads 'P (n1, n2, n3n4 + 1, n5, t)', which appears to be missing a comma before n4. Please fix this typo.
  5. [References] Reference [12] appears to be a geophysics paper on post-glacial rebound and seems unrelated to stochastic gene expression. Please verify and correct the citation.
  6. [Declarations] The declaration heading contains a typo: 'Competiting Interests' should be 'Competing Interests'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The advertised theoretical Hill exponent 3.4 is arithmetic on fitted 1.6 and 1.8 exponents; the noise-ordering results are an independent master-equation calculation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 5.1 (Eqs. 23-24)]
    "In order to explain the result found in the experiment performed by Rossi et al. [36], we keep the power of dox as 1.6 for the activator-only model and 1.8 for the repressor-only model. ... We see that algebric composition of the component-parameters like k1, ka, kd, k2, etc. to form kON and kOF F actually leads to an addition of powers of dox molecule. Theoretically, we obtain the power of dox (S) for the activator-repressor competitive system as 3.4 which has a close agreement with the experimentally observed value 3.2"

    The exponents 1.6 and 1.8 are not derived from first principles; they are explicitly adopted to match the experimental Hill coefficient values found in [36]. Eq. (23) then defines kON = k1ka, so the competitive dox exponent 3.4 is obtained by adding the fitted powers 1.8 and 1.6 that were already read from the same dose-response data. The advertised agreement with the experimental competitive Hill coefficient 3.2 is therefore a consistency check on the power-law parametrization, not a theoretical prediction; the number is built into the fitted inputs by construction.

full rationale

The central quantitative contribution is the stochastic analysis of the competitive activator-repressor promoter: Eq. (25) states the master equation and Appendix A sketches the moment-generating-function reduction leading to the mean levels and Fano factors of Eqs. (26)-(31). These noise results are not fitted to noise data; they are computed from the reaction schemes of Fig. 5 using rate constants taken from Blake et al. [3] and are compared against a different, separately published model [41]. That self-citation is not circular, because the non-competitive architecture is a distinct calculation and not a restatement of this paper's target result. The one clear circular step is the 'theoretical' dox power 3.4: the paper fixes the dox exponents at 1.6 and 1.8 'following the Hill coefficient values found in [36]', then Eq. (23) combines them via kON = k1ka to obtain 3.4, so the match to the experimental 3.2 is arithmetic on fitted inputs rather than independent derivation. Separately, the printed derivation has verifiability defects: Eq. (27) uses undefined h2, h6, h8 and Eq. (31) assigns r7 twice. These prevent independent checking of the noise-ordering curves but are not circularity. Because the main noise-ordering claim retains independent content while one advertised prediction reduces by construction, the score is 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

All noise-ordering claims rest on fitted functional forms and transferred rate parameters. The first three free parameters are fitted to the same Rossi dose-response curves used for validation; the remaining parameters are borrowed from a yeast GAL/aTc system. No independent noise measurements are used to constrain the Fano-factor predictions.

free parameters (6)
  • Activator-only rate parameters ka, kd and dox exponent 1.6 = ka = 1.2 S^1.6 + 0.2; kd = 0.01 S^1.6 + 0.001 + 0.0279/S^1.6
    Chosen in Sec. 3.2 to fit the activator-only dose-response curve of Rossi et al.; the exponent 1.6 matches the experimentally reported Hill coefficient.
  • Repressor-only rate parameters k1, k2 and dox exponent 1.8 = k1 = 0.02 + 1.8 S^1.8; k2 = 0.001 + 0.14 S^1.8 + 0.097/S^1.8
    Fitted in Sec. 4 to the repressor-only curve; exponent 1.8 matches the reported Hill coefficient 1.8.
  • Promoter-activity threshold Zth = 0.987 (activator), 0.70 (repressor), adjustable 0.70-0.99 for competitive
    Secs. 3.2, 4, 5.1: Zth maps the mRNA distribution to promoter activity; authors state any value between 70 percent and 99 percent can give a best fit, so it is a free knob affecting slope.
  • Competitive effective rates kON, kOFF and exponents 3.4, 0.2 = kON = 1.08 S^3.4; kOFF = 0.0032 S^3.4 + 0.0027/S^3.4 + 0.0089 S^0.2 + 0.00097/S^0.2
    Sec. 5.1: coefficients chosen to fit the competitive dose-response curve; 3.4 is the sum of the fitted 1.6 and 1.8 exponents.
  • Simulation rates k3, k4 for Fig. 6a = k3 = 350, k4 = 70
    Sec. 5.1: used in the Gillespie simulation to match the experimental and theoretical dose-response curve; no biological measurement cited.
  • Blake et al. rate set for noise predictions = ka=0.02+0.2GAL, kd=0.01+0.1GAL+0.077/GAL, k3=50, k4=10, k1=10, k2=200 tetR^2/(1+(Ci aTc)^4)^2, tetR=100, Ci=0.1…
    Sec. 5.2 and Figs. 10-12: adopted from Blake et al. [3] for a yeast GAL/aTc promoter; all noise-ordering claims are computed with these values, not with values measured in the competitive dox system.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Activator and repressor bind the promoter mutually exclusively, giving three gene states Gr, Gn, Ga.
    Sec. 5, Fig. 5a: the model assumes competition prevents simultaneous binding; if simultaneous occupancy occurs, the effective two-state reduction and all derived noise formulas change.
  • ad hoc to paper The intermediate gene-dox conjugate state GS and the inverse-power relation RR = alpha/[S]^m describe the inducer dependence.
    Sec. 3.2: introduced to derive dox-dependent forms of ka and kd; the inverse-power assumption is not experimentally justified.
  • domain assumption Basal leakage rate J0 is much smaller than Jm and can be set to zero in the stochastic analysis.
    Sec. 5.1 and Sec. 5.2: used to simplify the competitive model; authors cite ref. [16] for a check but do not show it.
  • domain assumption mRNA dynamics can stand in for protein dynamics in fitting, because protein follows mRNA up to a scale factor.
    Sec. 2: used to fit the Rossi GFP protein data with mRNA equations; relies on refs. [32,33].
  • standard math The chemical master equation and generating-function moment equations give exact statistics for the specified reaction scheme.
    Appendix A: standard CME formalism; no simulation or formal proof of the moment equations is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Rate constants from Blake et al.'s yeast GAL/aTc system transfer to the dox-controlled competitive promoter and to the non-competitive comparison.
    Sec. 5.2 and Sec. 6: this transferability is assumed, not tested; it is the main route by which parameter uncertainty enters the headline noise comparison.
  • domain assumption The Fano factor is the appropriate measure of gene-expression noise.
    Glossary and Sec. 5.2; standard but not universal, and the glossary's printed definition is internally inconsistent.
invented entities (1)
  • Gene-dox conjugate state (GS)
    purpose: Intermediate promoter state used in Sec. 3.2 to derive the dox-dependent functional forms of activation and deactivation rates.
    No direct experimental evidence is presented for this specific intermediate state; it is an auxiliary modeling construct that determines the fitted parameter forms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Competitive binding of Activator-Repressor in Stochastic Gene Expression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7W7E54OZ

@misc{pith2026241113630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Competitive binding of Activator-Repressor in Stochastic Gene Expression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7W7E54OZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13630}
}
read the original abstract

Regulation of gene expression is the consequence of interactions between the promoter of the gene and the transcription factors (TFs). In this paper, we explore the features of a genetic network where the TFs (activators and repressors) bind the promoter in a competitive way. We develop an analytical theory that offers detailed reaction kinetics of the competitive activator-repressor system which could be the powerful tools for extensive study and analysis of the genetic circuit in future research. Moreover, the theoretical approach helps us to find a most probable set of parameter values which was unavailable in experiments. We study the noisy behaviour of the circuit and compare the profile with the network where the activator and repressor bind the promoter non-competitively. We further notice that, due to the effect of transcriptional reinitiation in the presence of the activator and repressor molecules, there exits some anomalous characteristic features in the mean expressions and noise profiles. We find that, in presence of the reinitiation the noise in transcriptional level remains low while it is higher in translational level than the noise when the reinitiation is absent. In addition, it is possible to reduce the noise further below the Poissonian level in competitive circuit than the non-competitive one with the help of some noise reducing parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Competition between activator and repressor molecules to bind to a common binding site of the promoter of gene [yellow (red) region indicates activator (repressor) binding site] (b) Rossi et al. [36] experimental plot: promoter activity fitted with the Hill function. 2 Activator-Repressor System: a brief overview The transcription factors such as activator and repressor molecules can attach to the promoter of th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Two-state system where only activator is operating (b) Dose-response curve (solid curve) fitted with experimental data (solid circles) in the presence of activator only (repressor absent) in the promoter of gene. 3.1 Model analysis: determination of promoter activity The time evolution of mRNA concentration can be expressed deterministically as a function f(z, G) of genetic states (G) as dz dt = Ji zmax G − kmz … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Intermediate state assumption (b) equivalent transition (c) parameter prediction: curves for Dox power = 1.0 (cyan, Blake et al. form [3]), 1.0 (magenta, modified form), 1.6 (green, modified form), 1.8 (orange, modified form) and 3.2 (blue, modified form). In this section we aim to find the best-fitted parameters for the reaction scheme 2a. In order to do so, we put aside the concept of the Hill function and try… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Two-state model where repressor acts solely and inhibits the transcription (b) Dose-response curve (solid curve) fitted with experimental data (solid circles) when only repressor is present (activator absent) in the promoter of gene. 5 Competitive regulatory archit…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Competitive binding of activator and repressor model (a) without reinitiation, (b) with reinitiation. 5.1 Parameter estimation for Activator-Repressor system In this section, we attempt to find the possible set of parameters that fits the experimental data of Ref. [36]…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Dose-response curve (solid curve) fitted with experimental data (solid circles) when both activator and repressor compete to sit on the promoter of the gene. Pink squares (Black stars) are obtained by simulation based on the Gillespie algorithm [34] corresponding t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Variation of mean protein: (a) with GAL when aTc is fixed (b) with aTc when GAL is fixed. Solid (dashed) lines are drawn from analytical calculation corresponding to the reaction scheme 5a and 5b respectively. All rate constants are chosen from [3]. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAG…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Variation of the noise strength with transcriptional efficiency: (a) green (cyan) line is drawn analytically with 2% GAL concentration (with aTc = 500 ng/ml) from the reaction scheme 5a (b) orange (violet) solid line is drawn analytically with 2% GAL concentration (wit…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Non-competitive binding of activator and repressor (a) without reinitiation (b) with reinitiation and with a reverse transition via k11. A reverse transition is incorporated via k11 from the initiation complex (Gc, arises due to reiniti￾ation) to the normal state (Gn) …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Variation of mean and Fano factor for mRNA and protein level against GAL with different aTc. The solid (dashed) curves correspond to the system without (with) reinitiation for reaction scheme 5a and 9a (5b and 9b). The rate constants are chosen from [3] with Jm = 15 a…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Variation of mean and Fano factor for mRNA and protein level against aTc with different GAL. The solid (dashed) curves correspond to the system without (with) reinitiation for reaction scheme 5a and 9a (5b and 9b). The rate constants are chosen from [3] with Jm = 15 a…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Role of k4 in reducing noise strength: Variation of the Fano factor at mRNA level with k3 and Jm (a) competitive circuit with k4 = 10, (b) non-competitive circuit with k4 = 10, (c) competitive circuit with k4 = 1 and (d) non-competitive circuit with k4 = 1. Other para…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Sensitivity of parameters, (b) Minimized error of fitting and parameter estimation with uncertainties. We also notice that sensitivity is independent of J1, J0, ka and kd as well. The Zth is the most sensitive parameter and it was kept constant for each case. We f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Transcriptional control: rheostat converted to on/off switch

    Fabio MV Rossi, Andrew M Kringstein, Albert Spicher, Oivin M Guicherit, and Helen M Blau. Transcriptional control: rheostat converted to on/off switch. Molecular cell, 6(3):723728, 2000

    work page 2000

  2. [1]

    Stochastic gene expression in a single cell

    Michael B Elowitz, Arnold J Levine, Eric D Siggia, and Peter S Swain. Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science, 297(5584):11831186, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Regulation of noise in the expression of a single gene

    Ertugrul M Ozbudak, Mukund Thattai, Iren Kurtser, Alan D Grossman, and AlexanderVan Oudenaarden. Regulation of noise in the expression of a single gene. Nature genetics,31(1):6973, 2002

    work page 2002

  4. [3]

    Noise in eukaryotic gene expression

    William J Blake, Mads Kærn, Charles R Cantor, and James J Collins. Noise in eukaryotic gene expression. Nature, 422(6932):633637, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [4]

    Noise in gene expression: origins, consequences, and control

    Jonathan M Raser and Erin K O’shea. Noise in gene expression: origins, consequences, and control. Science, 309(5743):20102013, 2005

    work page 2005

  6. [5]

    Real-time kinetics of gene activity in individual bacteria

    Ido Golding, Johan Paulsson, Scott M Zawilski, and Edward C Cox. Real-time kinetics of gene activity in individual bacteria. Cell, 123(6):10251036, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    Phenotypic consequences of promoter-mediated transcriptional noise

    William J Blake, Gábor Balázsi, Michael A Kohanski, Farren J Isaacs, Kevin F Murphy, Yina Kuang, Charles R Cantor, David R Walt, and James J Collins. Phenotypic consequences of promoter-mediated transcriptional noise. Molecular cell, 24(6):853865, 2006

    work page 2006

  8. [7]

    Stochastic mrna synthesis in mammalian cells

    Arjun Raj, Charles S Peskin, Daniel Tranchina, Diana Y Vargas, and Sanjay Tyagi. Stochastic mrna synthesis in mammalian cells. PLoS biology, 4(10):e309, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Mammalian genes are transcribed with widely different bursting kinetics

    David M Suter, Nacho Molina, David Gateld, Kim Schneider, Ueli Schibler, and Felix Naef. Mammalian genes are transcribed with widely different bursting kinetics. science, 332(6028):472- 474, 2011

    2011

  2. [9]

    Transcriptional burst initiation and polymerase pause release are key control points of transcriptional regulation

    Caroline R Bartman, Nicole Hamagami, Cheryl A Keller, Belinda Giardine, Ross C Hardison, Gerd A Blobel, and Arjun Raj. Transcriptional burst initiation and polymerase pause release are key control points of transcriptional regulation. Molecular cell, 73(3):519532, 2019

    2019

  3. [10]

    Stochastic gene expression in fluctuating environments

    Mukund Thattai and Alexander Van Oudenaarden. Stochastic gene expression in fluctuating environments. Genetics, 167(1):523530, 2004

    2004

  4. [11]

    Cell signaling can direct either binary or graded transcriptional responses

    Stephen R Biggar and Gerald R Crabtree. Cell signaling can direct either binary or graded transcriptional responses. The EMBO journal, 20(12):31673176, 2001

    2001

  5. [12]

    Modelling post-glacial rebound with lateral vis- cosity variations

    Archie Paulson, Shijie Zhong, and John Wahr. Modelling post-glacial rebound with lateral vis- cosity variations. Geophysical Journal International, 163(1):357371, 2005

    2005

  6. [13]

    ÁlvaroSánchezandJanéKondev.Transcriptionalcontrolofnoiseingeneexpression.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(13):5081-5086, 2008

    2008

  7. [14]

    Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression

    Vahid Shahrezaei and Peter S Swain. Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(45):17256 -17261, 2008

    2008

  8. [15]

    Graded and binary responses in stochastic gene expression

    Rajesh Karmakar and Indrani Bose. Graded and binary responses in stochastic gene expression. Physical biology, 1(4):197, 2004

    2004

  9. [16]

    Conversion of graded to binary response in an activator-repressor system

    Rajesh Karmakar. Conversion of graded to binary response in an activator-repressor system. Physical Review EâStatistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 81(2):021905, 2010. 25

    2010

  10. [17]

    Exact distributions for stochastic gene expression models with bursting and feedback

    Niraj Kumar, Thierry Platini, and Rahul V Kulkarni. Exact distributions for stochastic gene expression models with bursting and feedback. Physical review letters, 113(26):268105, 2014

    2014

  11. [18]

    Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: models

    Lacramioara Bintu, Nicolas E Buchler, Hernan G Garcia, Ulrich Gerland, Terence Hwa, Jané Kondev, and Rob Phillips. Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: models. Current opinion in genetics & development, 15(2):116124, 2005

    2005

  12. [19]

    Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: appli- cations

    Lacramioara Bintu, Nicolas E Buchler, Hernan G Garcia, Ulrich Gerland, Terence Hwa, Jane Kondev, Thomas Kuhlman, and Rob Phillips. Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: appli- cations. Current opinion in genetics & development, 15(2):125135, 2005

    2005

  13. [20]

    Combinatorial tran- scriptional control of the lactose operon of escherichia coli

    Thomas Kuhlman, Zhongge Zhang, Milton H Saier Jr, and Terence Hwa. Combinatorial tran- scriptional control of the lactose operon of escherichia coli. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 104(14):60436048, 2007

    2007

  14. [21]

    DNA looping and physical constraints on transcription regulation

    Jose MG Vilar and Stanislas Leibler. DNA looping and physical constraints on transcription regulation. Journal of molecular biology, 331(5):981989, 2003

    2003

  15. [22]

    DNA looping in gene regulation: from the assembly of macro- molecular complexes to the control of transcriptional noise

    Jose MG Vilar and Leonor Saiz. DNA looping in gene regulation: from the assembly of macro- molecular complexes to the control of transcriptional noise. Current opinion in genetics & devel- opment, 15(2):136144, 2005

    2005

  16. [23]

    Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes

    Mads Kaern, Timothy C Elston, William J Blake, and James J Collins. Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6(6):451464, 2005

    2005

  17. [24]

    Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expres- sion and its consequences

    Arjun Raj and Alexander Van Oudenaarden. Nature, nurture, or chance: stochastic gene expres- sion and its consequences. Cell, 135(2):216226, 2008

    2008

  18. [25]

    Helper t cells and lymphocyte activation

    Bruce Alberts, Alexander Johnson, Julian Lewis, Martin Ra, Keith Roberts, and Peter Walter. Helper t cells and lymphocyte activation. In Molecular biology of the cell. 4th edition. Garland Science, 2002

    2002

  19. [26]

    Regulation of transcription: from lambda to eukaryotes

    Mark Ptashne. Regulation of transcription: from lambda to eukaryotes. Trends in biochemical sciences, 30(6):275279, 2005

    2005

  20. [27]

    Fundamentally different logic of gene regulation in eukaryotes and prokaryotes

    Kevin Struhl. Fundamentally different logic of gene regulation in eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Cell, 98:14, 1999

    1999

  21. [28]

    Reinitiation enhances reliable transcriptional responses in eukaryotes

    Bo Liu, Zhanjiang Yuan, Kazuyuki Aihara, and Luonan Chen. Reinitiation enhances reliable transcriptional responses in eukaryotes. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 11(97):20140326, 2014

    2014

  22. [29]

    Paused RNA polymerase ii inhibits new transcriptional initiation

    Wanqing Shao and Julia Zeitlinger. Paused RNA polymerase ii inhibits new transcriptional initiation. Nature genetics, 49(7):10451051, 2017

    2017

  23. [30]

    A transcription reinitiation intermediate that is stabilized by activator

    Natalya Yudkovsky, Jerey A Ranish, and Steven Hahn. A transcription reinitiation intermediate that is stabilized by activator. Nature, 408(6809):225229, 2000

    2000

  24. [31]

    A stochastic model of gene expression with polymerase recruitment and pause release

    Zhixing Cao, Tatiana Filatova, Diego A Oyarzún, and Ramon Grima. A stochastic model of gene expression with polymerase recruitment and pause release. Biophysical Journal, 119(5):1002 1014, 2020

    2020

  25. [32]

    Control of noise in gene expression by transcriptional reinitiation

    Rajesh Karmakar. Control of noise in gene expression by transcriptional reinitiation. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2020(6):063402, 2020. 26

    2020

  26. [33]

    Effect of transcription reinitiation in stochastic gene expression

    Rajesh Karmakar and Amit Kumar Das. Effect of transcription reinitiation in stochastic gene expression. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2021(3):033502, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions

    Daniel T Gillespie. Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. The journal of physical chemistry, 81(25):23402361, 1977

    1977

  28. [35]

    Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry, and the natural sciences springer

    CW Gardiner. Handbook of stochastic methods for physics, chemistry, and the natural sciences springer. Berlin (4th Ed), 2009

    2009

  29. [37]

    Stochastic modeling for the expression of a gene regulated by competing transcription factors

    Hsih-Te Yang and Minoru SH Ko. Stochastic modeling for the expression of a gene regulated by competing transcription factors. PloS one, 7(3):e32376, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Eect of transcription factor resource sharing on gene expression noise

    Dipjyoti Das, Supravat Dey, Robert C Brewster, and Sandeep Choubey. Eect of transcription factor resource sharing on gene expression noise. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(4):e1005491, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Influence of decoys on the noise and dynamics of gene expression

    Anat Burger, Aleksandra M Walczak, and Peter G Wolynes. Influence of decoys on the noise and dynamics of gene expression. Physical Review EâStatistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 86(4):041920, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Nonspecific transcription factor binding can reduce noise in the expression of downstream proteins

    M Soltani, P Bokes, Z Fox, and A Singh. Nonspecific transcription factor binding can reduce noise in the expression of downstream proteins. Physical biology, 12(5):055002, 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Stochastic gene transcription with non-competitive transcription regulatory architecture

    Amit Kumar Das. Stochastic gene transcription with non-competitive transcription regulatory architecture. The European Physical Journal E, 45(7):61, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Haploinsuciency at the nkx3

    Jerey A Magee, Sarki A Abdulkadir, and Jerey Milbrandt. Haploinsuciency at the nkx3. 1 locus: a paradigm for stochastic, dosage-sensitive gene regulation during tumor initiation. Cancer cell, 3(3):273283, 2003

    2003

  35. [43]

    Stochastic gene expression in a lentiviral positive-feedback loop: Hiv-1 tat fluctuations drive phenotypic diversity

    Leor S Weinberger, John C Burnett, Jared E Toettcher, Adam P Arkin, and David V Schaffer. Stochastic gene expression in a lentiviral positive-feedback loop: Hiv-1 tat fluctuations drive phenotypic diversity. Cell, 122(2):169182, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    Screening for noise in gene expression identifies drug synergies

    Roy D Dar, Nina N Hosmane, Michelle R Arkin, Robert F Siliciano, and Leor S Weinberger. Screening for noise in gene expression identifies drug synergies. Science, 344(6190):13921396, 2014

    2014

  37. [45]

    Distinguishing between models of mammalian gene expression: telegraph-like models versus mechanistic models

    Svitlana Braichenko, James Holehouse, and Ramon Grima. Distinguishing between models of mammalian gene expression: telegraph-like models versus mechanistic models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 18(183):20210510, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    Regulation of gene activation by competitive cross talking path- ways

    Feng Jiao and Chunjuan Zhu. Regulation of gene activation by competitive cross talking path- ways. Biophysical journal, 119(6):12041214, 2020

    2020

  39. [47]

    Numerical modeling and uncer- tainties in rate coecients for methane utilization and tce cometabolism by a methane-oxidizing mixed culture

    Laurence H Smith, Peter K Kitanidis, and Perry L McCarty. Numerical modeling and uncer- tainties in rate coecients for methane utilization and tce cometabolism by a methane-oxidizing mixed culture. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 53(3):320331, 1997. 27

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.