Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 110 references

Particle-based simulation of non-elementary bimolecular kinetics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces a phantom-mediated reaction probability that lets particle-based simulations directly reproduce Michaelis-Menten and circadian non-elementary kinetics without resolving the fast elementary binding steps behind them.

desk verdict A genuinely useful phantom-reactant trick for simulating non-elementary bimolecular kinetics, but the central well-mixed assumption is undertested and the cost claim is unmeasured. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10909 v1 pith:B2MIITPU submitted 2025-07-31 physics.bio-ph

Taylor Kearney , Mark B. Flegg This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords particle-basedsimulationnon-elementarykineticsMichaelis-Mentenphantomreactantreactionboundarycircadianoscillationsstochasticreaction-diffusionevent-driven
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 introduces a particle-based simulation method that directly reproduces non-elementary bimolecular reaction kinetics, such as saturating enzyme kinetics described by the Michaelis-Menten law, without simulating the fast elementary binding steps that produce them. The trick is to mimic a third 'phantom' reactant: reactive events are scheduled according to an effective collision rate, and each event is accepted with a distance-dependent probability derived from the target reaction rate. The authors apply the method to a minimal model of circadian oscillations in the fruit fly, obtaining stochastic dynamics comparable to the chemical-master-equation reference when spatial boundaries are periodic. If correct, the method broadens what spatially resolved particle simulations can handle and offers an efficiency gain whenever quasi-steady-state reductions are appropriate.

What carries the argument

The central device is the phantom molecule: a fictitious third reactant that is never tracked but whose behavior is fully sampled. Its arrival times follow the diffusion-limited collision rate $K_R=4\pi\hat D_1\sigma/V$, and its distance of closest approach is drawn from the uniform cumulative distribution $\Phi_{\infty}(r_1^{\rm min})=r_1^{\rm min}/\sigma$. This turns any reaction boundary of the form $r_1=f(r_2)$ into a direct acceptance probability $F(r_2)=f(r_2)/\sigma$, evaluated using the distance $r_2$ from the reactive molecule to the nearest molecule of the second species. The machinery carries the argument because it gives bimolecular systems the missing second spatial coordinate that the authors' earlier trimolecular condition required, without tracking an actual third particle.

What would settle it

Run the Michaelis-Menten validation system with substrate molecules placed in tight clusters rather than uniformly, keeping the same global concentration, and measure the steady-state enzyme consumption rate; the paper's Assumption 1 predicts that once the $99$th percentile of nearest-neighbor distance ($s^{-1/3}$) approaches the domain scale or the reaction radius, the measured rate should systematically depart from $K(s)=4\pi\hat D_1\sigma s/(V(\Gamma+s))$ and should converge back to it as the substrate is re-randomized.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that non-elementary bimolecular kinetics can be reproduced at the particle level by replacing the explicit third molecule of a trimolecular reaction with a purely conceptual 'phantom' reactant. The phantom is never tracked; instead its arrival times are sampled from the classical diffusion-limited collision rate, and its distance of closest approach to the reactive molecule is sampled uniformly on $[0,\sigma]$. This restores a second spatial degree of freedom, allowing a reaction boundary of the form $r_1=f(r_2)$ to be converted into a simple acceptance probability $F(r_2)=f(r_2)/\sigma$. For Michaelis-Menten kinetics the resulting probability is $F_{\rm MM}(r_2)=\exp(-4\pi\Gamma r_2^3/3)$, and for Hill-type inhibition with $n=2$ it is $F_{H2}(r_2)=\sin^2(4\pi K_I r_2^3/6)$. The paper validates the method against the Michaelis-Menten rate law and against a circadian oscillation model, reporting that the simulated kinetics match the target non-elementary rates without simulating the implied fast elementary reactions.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the substrate molecules defining $r_2$ are well mixed on length scales comparable to the typical distance to the nearest substrate (about $s^{-1/3}$); if they are clustered or present at very low copy number, the nearest-neighbor probability density used in the derivation is no longer accurate and the simulated rate will drift from the target kinetics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Michaelis-Menten and Hill-type ($n=2$) bimolecular rates can be simulated directly in an event-driven particle code, with no need to resolve enzyme-substrate binding events.
  • The method can be combined with existing unimolecular event handling and membrane transmission rules, so a five-species circadian oscillator (mRNA, cytoplasmic PER forms, nuclear PER) can be simulated at single-molecule resolution.
  • In the fast-diffusion limit the scheme recovers chemical-master-equation behavior, whereas the reaction-diffusion master equation is not reliable for non-elementary propensities in that limit.
  • Because molecular positions are known exactly at each reactive event, the event-driven implementation avoids the missed-reaction error that finite time steps introduce in the earlier trimolecular scheme.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One extension left implicit in the paper is that the same phantom-arrival construction could generate acceptance probabilities for any non-elementary rate whose Laplace transform exists, not just Michaelis-Menten and Hill forms.
  • A testable biological prediction of the paper's spatial circadian simulation is that physical confinement alone can lengthen the oscillation period and raise mean protein levels, because reflective boundaries reduce reaction rates near the membrane.
  • If enzymes are spatially clustered rather than well mixed, the paper's own Assumption 1 implies that reduced enzyme kinetics should be recomputed with a position-dependent effective rate; the paper does not explore this case.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents an event-driven particle-based simulation framework for directly simulating non-elementary bimolecular kinetics. The key idea is to introduce a conceptual 'phantom' reactant that mimics the third spatial degree of freedom in previous trimolecular reaction conditions (Kearney and Flegg, J. Chem. Phys. 161, 194111 (2024)). The reaction probability F(r2) is obtained by inverting Eq. (7), which relates the target rate K(s) to a proximity-based reaction boundary. The framework is validated on a Michaelis-Menten system (Section 5.1) and demonstrated on a modified Goldbeter circadian model (Section 5.2), with a calibration simulation matching SSA and a spatial simulation showing expected boundary-induced deviations. The authors state three explicit assumptions, the most important being Assumption 1: the second reactant S must be well-mixed on the scale s^{-1/3} so that the nearest-neighbor density in Eq. (28) is accurate.

Significance. If the framework is correct, it broadens particle-based reaction-diffusion simulation to reduced non-elementary kinetics without resolving fast underlying elementary reactions, which could bring practical efficiency gains for enzymatic and signaling systems. The paper is clearly written and provides a concrete algorithm, explicit assumptions, and a non-trivial demonstration. It also correctly identifies the RDME's failure for non-elementary propensities, citing Smith and Grima. However, the central accuracy claim is only established in the well-mixed regime, and the Goldbeter demonstration uses adjusted parameters (n=2, revised vs, vd, KI, kN, kC) rather than the original model. The MM validation is partly a consistency check because F(r2) is derived from the target rate by construction. These caveats limit the strength of the conclusions as currently stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Discussion Assumption 1] The central claim that the method 'accurately reproduces the target non-elementary kinetics' (abstract, Section 7) is only tested in the well-mixed regime of Assumption 1. The MM validation uses NS≥48 with uniform random initial placement and with S never consumed, so it never exercises the clustered or low-copy-number cases where Eq. (28) fails. The Goldbeter spatial simulation (Section 5.2) breaks translational invariance via reflecting boundaries and the membrane, and the observed deviation from the calibration simulation is attributed to 'spatial effects' without confirming that Eq. (28) remains valid near those boundaries. Since the method is proposed for spatial particle-based simulation, the behavior when Assumption 1 is violated is load-bearing. Please add a sensitivity analysis for clustered S or low NS, or explicitly restrict the abstract and conclusion claims to the well-mixed condition.
  2. [Section 5.2, Table 1, Abstract] The text refers to the 'classical Goldbeter model' in the abstract and Section 5.2, but the simulations use n=2 instead of the original n=4 and altered values for vs, vd, KI, kN, and kC (as acknowledged in the text). This is a modified Goldbeter-type model, not the original. Please label it as a modified model throughout. More importantly, the spatial simulation is not validated against any ground truth, such as a particle simulation with explicit enzymes or a spatially resolved stochastic simulation; therefore the observed discrepancy cannot be cleanly separated into genuine spatial effects and possible artifacts of applying F(r2) outside its validity regime. Adding such a comparison would substantially strengthen the demonstration.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (7), Section 5.1] The reaction probability F(r2) is derived by inverting Eq. (7) from the target MM rate, so the MM validation in Section 5.1 is essentially a consistency check: it confirms that the algorithm implements the intended rate under well-mixed conditions, but it does not independently validate the spatial accuracy of the boundary. The independent grounding comes from the Goldbeter calibration simulation agreeing with SSA, which is stronger. Still, the paper should state this circularity explicitly and, if feasible, test the boundary for a target rate with a different functional form (e.g., a single Hill-type reaction with n=2) to show the inversion works beyond the case it was derived from.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) contains the factor 'V sexp(...)' which is ambiguous. It should be written with explicit parentheses, e.g., '4π D1 f(r2) V s exp(...) 4π r2^2 dr2' or with the intended grouping clarified, to avoid confusion about whether V and s multiply the exponential.
  2. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'we have been careful to ensure that the domain contains enough molecules of S for the probability density assumed by Eq. (7) to be accurate' is vague. Please specify the criterion (e.g., the minimum NS used and why that is sufficient) and cite the relevant analysis from Kearney et al. [78].
  3. [Section 4, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 computes r2 as the distance from the reactive molecule to the closest S (line 13), but the text says r2 is the distance from the centre of diffusion of the reactive molecule and the phantom to the closest S. The algorithm as written implicitly assumes D1→∞ so that x̄1≈x0. Please state this explicitly in the algorithm description, or present the general form with the phantom position sampling.
  4. [Section 5.2] The description of the spatial simulation domain is unclear: the text says 'we do not explicitly separate the nucleus from the cytoplasm' but then uses volumes VC and VN in Eq. (27). Please clarify the geometry of the cube, the location of the membrane, and how the effective volumes are handled.
  5. [Abstract] In the abstract, 'to biomolecular reactions' should likely be 'to bimolecular reactions' to match the title and the rest of the text; 'biomolecular' refers to biological molecules and is not the intended meaning here.
  6. [Section 6, Discussion] The discussion of the spatial simulation's discrepancy attributes the effect to reduced reaction probability near boundaries, but it does not mention that the F(r2) formula itself was derived assuming a spatially homogeneous S density. Please add a sentence noting that this is an additional possible source of deviation and that quantifying it would require a boundary-specific analysis.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Michaelis-Menten 'reproduction' is a self-consistency check because the reaction probability is constructed from the target rate, but the phantom algorithm and Goldbeter network test provide independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 Eq (7) -> Section 3 Eqs (14)-(15) -> Section 5.2 Eq (24), compared with Section 5.1 Eq (21)]
    "Equation (7) is useful because it provides an analytic expression that can be solved, via an inverse Laplace transform, for the function f that defines the reaction boundary for a given reaction rate K1(s). ... To simulate the reactions that obey Michaelis-Menten kinetics, we use the reaction condition from Equation (8), which corresponds to the reaction probability FMM(r2) = exp(−4πΓr2^3/3), where Γ is replaced with the appropriate Michaelis constant for each reaction."

    The Michaelis-Menten boundary is not fitted to data, but it is constructed by inverting Eq (7) with K1(s) set to the target rate k2 s/(KM+s). The validation in Section 5.1 then compares the simulated rate to exactly that same target (Eq 21). Under the paper's own Assumption 1, integrating FMM over the Poisson nearest-neighbor density reproduces the MM rate by construction, so the agreement is a mathematical consistency check of the event-driven implementation rather than an independent prediction of the rate law. The discrete phantom sampling and finite-copy-number algorithm add non-trivial implementation content, but the claimed 'reproduction' of MM kinetics is largely built into the chosen reaction probability.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained once the prior trimolecular framework [73, 77, 78] is accepted. The central construction is Algorithm 1 with F(r2) obtained by inverting Eq (7), and the Michaelis-Menten check uses Eq (24) built from Eq (8), whose continuum rate K1(s) was chosen to equal the MM target. Hence the Section 5.1 agreement with Eq (21) is a consistency test of the implementation, not an independent prediction: the target rate enters the definition of the reaction probability. This is a partial self-definitional step, but not a fitted-parameter disguise, and the event-driven phantom sampling still requires numerical verification. The Goldbeter case supplies independent grounding: it combines MM boundaries, a Hill-type boundary derived from Eq (7) (Eq 25), membrane transmission from [102], and compares against SSA and ODE of the same reduced model, so the agreement exercises integration of multiple non-elementary boundaries and spatial effects even though those targets are also inputs. The paper explicitly lists Assumption 1 (well-mixed S, Eq 28) as a validity condition; failure there is a correctness limitation, not circularity. Self-citations to [73] and [78] are load-bearing but transparent and are not used as a uniqueness theorem; the phantom-adaptation contribution is not equivalent to those cited results. Overall score 3 reflects one constructed validation while the central method retains independent algorithmic and network-level content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the well-mixedness of the second reactant at small scales (Assumption 1), the existence and invertibility of the rate transform with positivity of the boundary (Assumption 3), the rapid-exploration assumption for the phantom, and the well-mixed CME treatment of phantom encounter times. The phantom is an invented but explicitly conceptual entity with no independent physical evidence. The reaction radius sigma and phantom diffusion constant are chosen by hand and not reported, which is a reproducibility gap.

free parameters (4)
  • sigma (maximum interaction radius) = not reported
    Sets the encounter rate KS = 4πD̂1σ/V in Eq (9); the paper does not report the value used in either simulation, though accuracy of Eq (7) depends on sigma being small.
  • phantom diffusion coefficient D1 = taken very large (but finite)
    Chosen so that the centre of diffusion x̄1 ≈ x0, simplifying r2 computation; makes KR large, so in practice sigma would be scaled to keep the product D̂1σ fixed; exact choices not reported.
  • Goldbeter model parameters (vs, vd, KI, kN, kC) = 1.4, 3, 2, 0.67, 0.3
    Altered from Leloup and Goldbeter [99] because the authors set n=2 and neglected TIM; chosen to yield qualitatively similar behaviour.
  • Hill coefficient n = 2
    Set to 2 instead of 4 because n=4 yields a reaction boundary that is negative for some r2 (Eq 29); this changes the Goldbeter model being simulated.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The second reactant S is well-mixed on length scales comparable to the typical intramolecular separation, so the closest-molecule density P(r2) (Eq 28) is accurate near any reactive molecule.
    Assumption 1 in the Discussion; underpins Eq (7) used to derive the reaction boundary.
  • domain assumption The non-elementary rate K(s) must admit an inverse Laplace transform and yield a non-negative boundary f(r2).
    Assumption 3 in the Discussion; excludes kinetics such as Hill n=4 (Eq 29) which has negative regions.
  • domain assumption The phantom explores the reactive volume rapidly, so S positions are effectively static during each reactive event.
    Stated in Section 3; used to justify checking the boundary at closest approach.
  • domain assumption The SSA is used to sample reactive-event times, assuming the phantom and target molecules are well-mixed on the scale of the domain.
    Section 4: 'If we assume the action of the phantom is such that the reactants can always be considered well-mixed in the local vicinity of the target molecule, then this reaction can be modelled using the CME.'
  • ad hoc to paper The Goldbeter demonstration uses n=2 and adjusted parameters rather than the original n=4 values, chosen because n=4 gives an invalid boundary.
    Section 5.2: 'we set n = 2 rather than n = 4 since the latter does not yield a valid reaction boundary.'
invented entities (1)
  • phantom reactant X
    purpose: Provides an artificial second spatial degree of freedom (r1) so that trimolecular reaction conditions can be applied to bimolecular systems.
    The phantom is explicitly described as purely conceptual: 'it is entirely fabricated and is not tracked within the simulation'; its behavior is sampled via Eq (10) and Eq (14) to mimic a real third molecule.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle-based simulation of non-elementary bimolecular kinetics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B2MIITPU

@misc{pith2026250810909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle-based simulation of non-elementary bimolecular kinetics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B2MIITPU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10909}
}
read the original abstract

Particle-based simulations are an essential tool for the study of biochemical systems for scales between molecular/Brownian dynamics and the reaction-diffusion master equation. These simulations utilise proximity-based reaction conditions and are typically limited to elementary (mass-action) kinetics. We present a novel framework for directly simulating non-elementary bimolecular kinetics in a particle-based framework. By mimicking the behaviour of a third implicit reactant, we adapt non-elementary reaction conditions, previously restricted to trimolecular chemical interactions, to biomolecular reactions for the first time. We implement our approach in an event-driven simulation, which we validate by reproducing Michaelis-Menten kinetics. We then demonstrate its utility by simulating the classical Goldbeter model of circadian oscillations completely at the level of individual molecules. This model features multiple non-elementary reactions and requires the incorporation of several existing simulation techniques. Our method accurately reproduces the target non-elementary kinetics, without simulating the implied underlying fast elementary reactions, thereby significantly reducing the computational cost. This work expands the class of reaction networks accessible to particle-based simulations and provides a practical alternative to explicitly simulating all elementary steps in systems where quasi-steady-state approximations are applicable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The diffusive Jacobi coordinates that quantify the relative proximity for a triplet of molecules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The absorbing reaction boundary ∂Ω in Equation (6) can be viewed as defining a spherical surface, shown by the red circle, that is centred on the molecule of E, represented by the yellow point. This boundary attains a maximum radius of σ, and any time the radial distance r1 between the molecule of E and the molecule of X (the red point) is such that r1 ≤ σ, the pair is considered reactive. However, a reaction only o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. To determine the smallest radial distance between two diffusing molecules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The random sampling that mediates non-elementary bimolecular reactions can be attributed to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dimensionless reaction rate for Reaction (18) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The solution to the ODE model in Equation (23). The concentration for each reactant as well [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulation domain for the spatial particle-based simulation. The domain is a cube of volume [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A phase aligned reconstruction of the average reactant concentrations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A phase aligned reconstruction of the average reactant concentrations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A phase aligned reconstruction of the average reactant concentrations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reaching biological timescales with all-atom molecu- lar dynamics simulations

    Matthew C Zwier and Lillian T Chong. “Reaching biological timescales with all-atom molecu- lar dynamics simulations”. In:Current Opinion in Pharmacology10.6 (2010), pp. 745–752.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2010.09.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.coph.2010.09.008 2010

  2. [2]

    Whole-cell simulation: a grand challenge of the 21st century

    Masaru Tomita. “Whole-cell simulation: a grand challenge of the 21st century”. In: Trends in Biotechnology 19.6 (2001), pp. 205–210.doi: 10.1016/s0167-7799(01)01636-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0167-7799(01)01636-5 2001

  3. [3]

    A Grand Challenge for Computing: Towards Full Reactive Modeling of A Multi- Cellular Animal

    David Harel. “A Grand Challenge for Computing: Towards Full Reactive Modeling of A Multi- Cellular Animal.” In:Bulletin of the EATCS81 (2003), pp. 226–235

    2003

  4. [4]

    A Turing-like test for biological modeling

    David Harel. “A Turing-like test for biological modeling”. In:Nature Biotechnology23.4 (2005), pp. 495–496

    2005

  5. [6]

    A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype

    Jonathan R Karr et al. “A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype”. In: Cell 150.2 (2012), pp. 389–401.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.044

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.044 2012

  6. [7]

    The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma genitalium

    Claire M. Fraser et al. “The Minimal Gene Complement of Mycoplasma genitalium”. eng. In: Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)270.5235 (1995), pp. 397–403

    1995

  7. [8]

    Simultaneous cross-evaluation of heterogeneous E. coli datasets via mechanistic simulation

    Derek N. Macklin et al. “Simultaneous cross-evaluation of heterogeneous E. coli datasets via mechanistic simulation”. In:Science 369.6502 (2020), eaav3751.doi: 10.1126/science.aav3751

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aav3751 2020

  8. [9]

    The E. coli Whole-Cell Modeling Project

    Gwanggyu Sun, Travis A. Ahn-Horst, and Markus W. Covert. “The E. coli Whole-Cell Modeling Project”. In: EcoSal Plus 9.2 (2021), eESP-0001–2020. doi: 10.1128/ecosalplus.ESP- 0001- 2020

    work page doi:10.1128/ecosalplus.esp- 2021

Show all 110 references
  1. [10]

    An expanded whole-cell model of E. coli links cellular physiology with mechanisms of growth rate control

    Travis A Ahn-Horst, Luis Santiago Mille, Gwanggyu Sun, Jerry H Morrison, and Markus W Covert. “An expanded whole-cell model of E. coli links cellular physiology with mechanisms of growth rate control”. In:NPJ Systems Biology and Applications8.1 (2022), p. 30

    2022

  2. [11]

    Comprehensive understanding of Saccharomyces cerevisiae phenotypes with whole- cell model WM_S288C

    Chao Ye et al. “Comprehensive understanding of Saccharomyces cerevisiae phenotypes with whole- cell model WM_S288C”. In:Biotechnology and Bioengineering117.5 (2020), pp. 1562–1574.doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.27298

    2020 doi

  3. [12]

    Understanding complex signaling networks through models and metaphors

    Upinder S Bhalla. “Understanding complex signaling networks through models and metaphors”. In: Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology81.1 (2003), pp. 45–65.doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0079-6107(02)00046-9

    2003 doi

  4. [13]

    Understanding molecular signaling cascades in neural disease using multi-resolution models

    Nisha Ann Viswan and Upinder Singh Bhalla. “Understanding molecular signaling cascades in neural disease using multi-resolution models”. In: Current Opinion in Neurobiology 83 (2023), p. 102808. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2023.102808

    2023

  5. [14]

    Rates and Durations

    Ron Milo and Rob Phillips. “Rates and Durations”. In: Cell Biology by the Numbers. United Kingdom: CRC Press LLC, 2016, pp. 209–281

    2016

  6. [15]

    Multi-scalecomputationalmodellinginbiologyandphysiology

    JamesSouthernetal.“Multi-scalecomputationalmodellinginbiologyandphysiology”.In: Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology96.1 (2008), pp. 60–89.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pbiomolbio.2007.07.019

    2008 doi

  7. [16]

    Multi-scale modelling and simulation in systems biology

    Joseph O. Dada and Pedro Mendes. “Multi-scale modelling and simulation in systems biology”. In: Integrative Biology3.2 (2011), pp. 86–96.doi: 10.1039/c0ib00075b

    2011 doi

  8. [17]

    Multiscale Computational Models of Complex Biological Systems

    Joseph Walpole, Jason A. Papin, and Shayn M. Peirce. “Multiscale Computational Models of Complex Biological Systems”. In:Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering15.Volume 15, 2013 (2013), pp. 137–154.doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071811-150104

    2013 doi

  9. [18]

    What is flux balance analysis?

    Jeffrey D Orth, Ines Thiele, and Bernhard Ø Palsson. “What is flux balance analysis?” In:Nature biotechnology 28.3 (2010), pp. 245–248

    2010

  10. [19]

    Classic and contemporary approaches to modeling biochemical reactions

    William W Chen, Mario Niepel, and Peter K Sorger. “Classic and contemporary approaches to modeling biochemical reactions”. In:Genes & development24.17 (2010), pp. 1861–1875

    2010

  11. [20]

    ChapterXIV:FLUCTUATIONSINCONTINUOUSSYSTEMS

    N.G.van.Kampen.“ChapterXIV:FLUCTUATIONSINCONTINUOUSSYSTEMS”.In: Stochas- tic processes in physics and chemistry. 3rd ed. Elsevier, 2007, pp. 326–341. 23

    2007

  12. [21]

    Molecular discreteness in reaction-diffusion systems yields steady states not seen in the continuum limit

    Yuichi Togashi and Kunihiko Kaneko. “Molecular discreteness in reaction-diffusion systems yields steady states not seen in the continuum limit”. In:Phys. Rev. E 70 (2 2004), p. 020901. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.020901

    2004 doi

  13. [22]

    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”. In:Cell 135.2 (2008), pp. 216–226

    2008

  14. [23]

    A Stochastic Single-Molecule Event Triggers Phenotype Switching of a Bacterial Cell

    Paul J. Choi, Long Cai, Kirsten Frieda, and X. Sunney Xie. “A Stochastic Single-Molecule Event Triggers Phenotype Switching of a Bacterial Cell”. In:Science 322.5900 (2008), pp. 442–446.doi: 10.1126/science.1161427

    2008 doi

  15. [24]

    Noise Contributions in an Inducible Genetic Switch: A Whole-Cell Simulation Study

    Elijah Roberts, Andrew Magis, Julio O. Ortiz, Wolfgang Baumeister, and Zaida Luthey-Schulten. “Noise Contributions in an Inducible Genetic Switch: A Whole-Cell Simulation Study”. In:PLOS Computational Biology7.3 (2011), pp. 1–21.doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002010

    2011 doi

  16. [25]

    Stochasticity and Cell Fate

    Richard Losick and Claude Desplan. “Stochasticity and Cell Fate”. In:Science 320.5872 (2008), pp. 65–68. doi: 10.1126/science.1147888

    2008 doi

  17. [26]

    Stochastic processes in cell biology

    Paul C Bressloff. Stochastic processes in cell biology. Vol. 41. Springer, 2014

    2014

  18. [27]

    What is the total number of protein molecules per cell volume? A call to rethink some published values

    Ron Milo. “What is the total number of protein molecules per cell volume? A call to rethink some published values”. In:BioEssays 35.12 (2013), pp. 1050–1055.doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ bies.201300066

    2013

  19. [28]

    Protein abundance profiling of the Escherichia coli cytosol

    Yasushi Ishihama et al. “Protein abundance profiling of the Escherichia coli cytosol”. In:BMC Genomics 9.1 (2008), p. 102.doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-102

    2008 doi

  20. [29]

    Stochastic modelling of reaction–diffusion processes: algorithms for bimolecular reactions

    Radek Erban and S Jonathan Chapman. “Stochastic modelling of reaction–diffusion processes: algorithms for bimolecular reactions”. In:Physical Biology6.4 (2009), p. 046001

    2009

  21. [30]

    The stochastic nature of biochemical networks

    Vahid Shahrezaei and Peter S Swain. “The stochastic nature of biochemical networks”. In:Current Opinion in Biotechnology19.4 (2008), pp. 369–374.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio. 2008.06.011

    2008 doi

  22. [31]

    Molecular dynamics simulations: advances and applications

    Adam Hospital, Josep Ramon Goñi, Modesto Orozco, and Josep L Gelpí. “Molecular dynamics simulations: advances and applications”. In: Advances and Applications in Bioinformatics and Chemistry 8 (2015), pp. 37–47.doi: 10.2147/aabc.s70333

    2015 doi

  23. [32]

    Accelerators for Classical Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Biomolecules

    Derek Jones et al. “Accelerators for Classical Molecular Dynamics Simulations of Biomolecules”. In: Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation18.7 (2022), pp. 4047–4069.doi: 10.1021/acs. jctc.1c01214

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    Extending the limit of molecular dynamics with ab initio accuracy to 10 billion atoms

    Zhuoqiang Guo et al. “Extending the limit of molecular dynamics with ab initio accuracy to 10 billion atoms”. In:Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGPLAN Symposium on Principles and Practice of Parallel Programming. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Association for Computing Machinery, 202...

    2022

  25. [34]

    #COVIDisAirborne: AI-enabled multiscale computational microscopy of delta SARS-CoV-2 in a respiratory aerosol

    Abigail Dommer et al. “#COVIDisAirborne: AI-enabled multiscale computational microscopy of delta SARS-CoV-2 in a respiratory aerosol”. In:The International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications37.1 (2023), pp. 28–44.doi: 10.1177/10943420221128233

    2023 doi

  26. [35]

    Molecular dynamics simulation for all

    Scott A Hollingsworth and Ron O Dror. “Molecular dynamics simulation for all”. In:Neuron 99.6 (2018), pp. 1129–1143

    2018

  27. [36]

    Molecular dynamics simulation of an entire cell

    Jan A. Stevens et al. “Molecular dynamics simulation of an entire cell”. In:Frontiers in Chemistry Volume 11 - 2023 (2023).doi: 10.3389/fchem.2023.1106495

    2023

  28. [37]

    Coarse-grained Representation of Protein Flexibility. Foundations, Suc- cesses, and Shortcomings

    Modesto Orozco et al. “Coarse-grained Representation of Protein Flexibility. Foundations, Suc- cesses, and Shortcomings”. In: Computational chemistry methods in structural biology. Ed. by Christo Christov. Vol. 85. Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology. Academic...

    2011 doi

  29. [38]

    Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome

    Clyde A. Hutchison et al. “Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome”. In: Science 351.6280 (2016), aad6253.doi: 10.1126/science.aad6253

    2016 doi

  30. [39]

    Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges

    Konstantia Georgouli, Jae-Seung Yeom, Robert C. Blake, and Ali Navid. “Multi-scale models of whole cells: progress and challenges”. In:Frontiers in Cell and Developmental BiologyVolume 11 - 2023 (2023).doi: 10.3389/fcell.2023.1260507

    2023

  31. [40]

    A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions

    Daniel T Gillespie. “A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions”. In:Journal of Computational Physics22.4 (1976), pp. 403–434.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9991(76)90041-3. 24

    1976 doi

  32. [41]

    Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions

    Daniel T. Gillespie. “Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions”. In:The Journal of Physical Chemistry81.25 (1977), pp. 2340–2361.doi: 10.1021/j100540a008

    1977 doi

  33. [42]

    Simulating mesoscopic reaction-diffusion systems using the Gillespie algorithm

    David Bernstein. “Simulating mesoscopic reaction-diffusion systems using the Gillespie algorithm”. In: Phys. Rev. E71 (4 2005), p. 041103.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.71.041103

    2005 doi

  34. [43]

    The multinomial simulation algo- rithm for discrete stochastic simulation of reaction-diffusion systems

    Sotiria Lampoudi, Dan T. Gillespie, and Linda R. Petzold. “The multinomial simulation algo- rithm for discrete stochastic simulation of reaction-diffusion systems”. In:The Journal of Chemical Physics 130.9 (2009), p. 094104.doi: 10.1063/1.3074302

    2009 doi

  35. [44]

    The Reaction-Diffusion Master Equation as an Asymptotic Approximation of Diffusion to a Small Target

    Samuel A. Isaacson. “The Reaction-Diffusion Master Equation as an Asymptotic Approximation of Diffusion to a Small Target”. In:SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics70.1 (2009), pp. 77–

    2009

  36. [45]

    Reaction-diffusion master equation in the microscopic limit

    Stefan Hellander, Andreas Hellander, and Linda Petzold. “Reaction-diffusion master equation in the microscopic limit”. In:Phys. Rev. E 85 (4 2012), p. 042901.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.85. 042901

    2012 doi

  37. [46]

    Spatial Stochastic Intracellular Kinetics: A Review of Mod- elling Approaches

    Stephen Smith and Ramon Grima. “Spatial Stochastic Intracellular Kinetics: A Review of Mod- elling Approaches”. In: Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 81.8 (2019), pp. 2960–3009. doi: 10 . 1007/s11538-018-0443-1

    2019

  38. [47]

    Versuch einer mathematischen Theorie der Koagulationskinetik kolloider Lösungen

    M V Smoluchowski. “Versuch einer mathematischen Theorie der Koagulationskinetik kolloider Lösungen”. In:Zeitschrift Für Physikalische Chemie92.1 (1917), pp. 129–168

    1917

  39. [48]

    Steven James Plimpton and Alexander Slepoy.ChemCell : a particle-based model of protein chem- istry and diffusion in microbial cells.Tech. rep. Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), Albuquerque, NM, and Livermore, CA (United States), 2003.doi: 10.2172/918231

    2003 doi

  40. [49]

    Miniature end-plate current rise times 100 microseconds from improved dual recordings can be modelled with passive acetylcholine diffusion form a synaptic vesicle

    JR Ëtiles, D Van Helden, TM Bartol, EE Ëalpeter, and MM Ëalpeter. “Miniature end-plate current rise times 100 microseconds from improved dual recordings can be modelled with passive acetylcholine diffusion form a synaptic vesicle”. In:Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA93 (1996), pp. 5...

    1996

  41. [50]

    Monte Carlo methods for simulating realistic synaptic microphysiology using MCell

    Joel R Stiles, Thomas M Bartol, et al. “Monte Carlo methods for simulating realistic synaptic microphysiology using MCell”. In: Computational Neuroscience: Realistic Modeling for Experi- mentalists (2001), pp. 87–127

    2001

  42. [51]

    Simulating Biochemical Networks at the Particle Level and in Time and Space: Green’s Function Reaction Dynamics

    Jeroen S. van Zon and Pieter Rein ten Wolde. “Simulating Biochemical Networks at the Particle Level and in Time and Space: Green’s Function Reaction Dynamics”. In:Physical Review Letters 94 (12 2005), p. 128103.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.128103

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    Green’s-function reaction dynamics: A particle- based approach for simulating biochemical networks in time and space

    Jeroen S van Zon and Pieter Rein ten Wolde. “Green’s-function reaction dynamics: A particle- based approach for simulating biochemical networks in time and space”. In:The Journal of Chem- ical Physics123.23 (2005), p. 234910

    2005

  44. [53]

    Spatio-temporal correlations can drastically change the response of a MAPK pathway

    Koichi Takahashi, Sorin Tănase-Nicola, and Pieter Rein ten Wolde. “Spatio-temporal correlations can drastically change the response of a MAPK pathway”. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107.6 (2010), pp. 2473–2478.doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906885107

    2010 doi

  45. [54]

    eGFRD in all dimensions

    Thomas R. Sokolowski et al. “eGFRD in all dimensions”. In:The Journal of Chemical Physics 150.5 (2019), p. 054108.doi: 10.1063/1.5064867

    2019 doi

  46. [55]

    Stochastic simulation of chemical reactions with spatial resolution and single molecule detail

    Steven S Andrews and Dennis Bray. “Stochastic simulation of chemical reactions with spatial resolution and single molecule detail”. In: Physical Biology 1.3 (2004), pp. 137–151. doi: 10 . 1088/1478-3967/1/3/001

    2004

  47. [56]

    Simulation tools for particle-based reaction-diffusion dynamics in continuous space

    Johannes Schöneberg, Alexander Ullrich, and Frank Noé. “Simulation tools for particle-based reaction-diffusion dynamics in continuous space”. In:BMC biophysics7 (2014), pp. 1–10

    2014

  48. [57]

    Diffusion-controlled reaction rates

    Frank C Collins and George E Kimball. “Diffusion-controlled reaction rates”. In:Journal of Colloid Science 4.4 (1949), pp. 425–437

    1949

  49. [58]

    Stochastic theory of diffusion-controlled reaction

    M Doi. “Stochastic theory of diffusion-controlled reaction”. In:Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General9.9 (1976), pp. 1479–1495.doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/9/9/009

    1976 doi

  50. [59]

    Molecular biology of the cell

    Bruce Alberts et al. “Molecular biology of the cell”. In:Molecular biology of the cell. Sixth edition. New York, NY: Garland Science, Taylor and Francis Group, 2015. Chap. Cell Chemistry and Bioenergetics, pp. 43–108. 25

    2015

  51. [60]

    Methods of model reduc- tion for large-scale biological systems: a survey of current methods and trends

    Thomas J Snowden, Piet H van der Graaf, and Marcus J Tindall. “Methods of model reduc- tion for large-scale biological systems: a survey of current methods and trends”. In:Bulletin of mathematical biology79 (2017), pp. 1449–1486

    2017

  52. [61]

    Minimal model of spiky oscillations in NF-κB signaling

    Sandeep Krishna, Mogens H. Jensen, and Kim Sneppen. “Minimal model of spiky oscillations in NF-κB signaling”. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103.29 (2006), pp. 10840– 10845. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0604085103

    2006 doi

  53. [62]

    Modeling oscillatory control in NF- κB, p53 and Wnt signaling

    Benedicte Mengel et al. “Modeling oscillatory control in NF- κB, p53 and Wnt signaling”. In: Current Opinion in Genetics & Development20.6 (2010), pp. 656–664.doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.gde.2010.08.008

    2010 doi

  54. [63]

    Minimal oscillating subnetwork in the Huang-Ferrell model of the MAPK cascade

    Otto Hadač, František Muzika, Vladislav Nevoral, Michal Přibyl, and Igor Schreiber. “Minimal oscillating subnetwork in the Huang-Ferrell model of the MAPK cascade”. In:Plos One 12.6 (2017), pp. 1–25.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178457

    2017 doi

  55. [64]

    A Minimal Model of Metabolism-Based Chemotaxis

    Matthew D. Egbert, Xabier E. Barandiaran, and Ezequiel A. Di Paolo. “A Minimal Model of Metabolism-Based Chemotaxis”. In: PLOS Computational Biology 6.12 (2010), pp. 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001004

    2010 doi

  56. [65]

    The Moderately Efficient Enzyme: Evolutionary and Physicochemical Trends Shaping Enzyme Parameters

    Arren Bar-Even et al. “The Moderately Efficient Enzyme: Evolutionary and Physicochemical Trends Shaping Enzyme Parameters”. In:Biochemistry 50.21 (2011), pp. 4402–4410. doi: 10 . 1021/bi2002289

    2011

  57. [66]

    Machine learning applied to enzyme turnover numbers reveals protein structural correlates and improves metabolic models

    David Heckmann et al. “Machine learning applied to enzyme turnover numbers reveals protein structural correlates and improves metabolic models”. In: Nature communications 9.1 (2018), p. 5252

    2018

  58. [67]

    Die kinetik der invertinwirkung

    Leonor Michaelis, Maud L Menten, et al. “Die kinetik der invertinwirkung”. In:Biochem. z49.333- 369 (1913), p. 352

    1913

  59. [68]

    Lois générales de l’action des diastases

    Victor Henri. Lois générales de l’action des diastases. Librairie Scientifique A. Hermann, 1903

    1903

  60. [69]

    Chapter 1 - Basic principles of chemical kinetics

    Athel Cornish-Bowden. “Chapter 1 - Basic principles of chemical kinetics”. In:Fundamentals of Enzyme Kinetics. Ed. by Athel Cornish-Bowden. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1979, pp. 1–15.doi: 10.1016/b978-0-408-10617-7.50006-7

    1979 doi

  61. [70]

    A Note on the Kinetics of Enzyme Action

    George Edward Briggs and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane. “A Note on the Kinetics of Enzyme Action”. In:Biochemical Journal19.2 (1925), pp. 338–339.doi: 10.1042/bj0190338

    1925 doi

  62. [71]

    The Quasi-Steady-State Assumption: A Case Study in Per- turbation

    Lee A. Segel and Marshall Slemrod. “The Quasi-Steady-State Assumption: A Case Study in Per- turbation”. In:SIAM Review31.3 (1989), pp. 446–477

    1989

  63. [72]

    On the mathematical status of the pseudo-steady state hypothesis of biochemical kinetics

    F.G. Heineken, H.M. Tsuchiya, and R. Aris. “On the mathematical status of the pseudo-steady state hypothesis of biochemical kinetics”. In:Mathematical Biosciences 1.1 (1967), pp. 95–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(67)90029-6

    1967 doi

  64. [73]

    Enzyme kinetics simulation at the scale of individual parti- cles

    Taylor Kearney and Mark B. Flegg. “Enzyme kinetics simulation at the scale of individual parti- cles”. In:The Journal of Chemical Physics161.19 (2024), p. 194111.doi: 10.1063/5.0216285

    2024 doi

  65. [74]

    Breakdown of the reaction-diffusion master equation with nonelementary rates

    Stephen Smith and Ramon Grima. “Breakdown of the reaction-diffusion master equation with nonelementary rates”. In: Phys. Rev. E 93 (5 2016), p. 052135. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevE . 93 . 052135. url: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.052135

    2016 doi

  66. [75]

    Accuracy of the Michaelis–Menten ap- proximation when analysing effects of molecular noise

    Michael J. Lawson, Linda Petzold, and Andreas Hellander. “Accuracy of the Michaelis–Menten ap- proximation when analysing effects of molecular noise”. In:Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12.106 (2015), p. 20150054.doi: 10.1098/rsif.2015.0054

    2015

  67. [76]

    A model for circadian oscillations in theDrosophila period protein (PER)

    Albert Goldbeter. “A model for circadian oscillations in theDrosophila period protein (PER)”. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences261.1362 (1995), pp. 319–324. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0153

    1995

  68. [77]

    Smoluchowski reaction kinetics for reactions of any order

    Mark B Flegg. “Smoluchowski reaction kinetics for reactions of any order”. In:SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics76.4 (2016), pp. 1403–1432

    2016

  69. [78]

    Flegg.Accurate stochastic simulation of non- linear reactions between closest particles

    Taylor Kearney, Ricardo Ruiz-Baier, and Mark B. Flegg.Accurate stochastic simulation of non- linear reactions between closest particles. 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.03215

    2025 doi arXiv

  70. [79]

    Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics

    Daniel T Gillespie. “Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics”. In:Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.58 (2007), pp. 35–55. 26

    2007

  71. [80]

    General Principles in Random Variate Generation

    Luc Devroye. “General Principles in Random Variate Generation”. In: Non-Uniform Random Variate Generation. New York, NY: Springer New York, 1986, pp. 27–82.doi: 10.1007/978-1- 4613-8643-8\_2

    1986 doi

  72. [81]

    Deterministic Versus Stochastic Models for Circadian Rhythms

    D. Gonze, J. Halloy, and A. Goldbeter. “Deterministic Versus Stochastic Models for Circadian Rhythms”.In: Journal of Biological Physics28.4(2002),pp.637–653. doi: 10.1023/a:1021286607354

    2002 doi

  73. [82]

    Radek Erban, Jonathan Chapman, and Philip Maini.A practical guide to stochastic simulations of reaction-diffusion processes. 2007. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.0704.1908

    2007 doi arXiv

  74. [83]

    Circadian rhythms of locomotor activity in Drosophila

    André Klarsfeld, Jean-Christophe Leloup, and François Rouyer. “Circadian rhythms of locomotor activity in Drosophila”. In:Behavioural Processes64.2 (2003), pp. 161–175.doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00133-5

    2003 doi

  75. [84]

    CircadianOrganizationofBehaviorandPhysiologyinDrosophila

    RaviAlladaandBrianY.Chung.“CircadianOrganizationofBehaviorandPhysiologyinDrosophila”. In: Annual Review of Physiology72.Volume 72, 2010 (2010), pp. 605–624.doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021909-135815

    2010 doi

  76. [85]

    Setting the clock – by nature: Circadian rhythm in the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster

    Nicolai Peschel and Charlotte Helfrich-Förster. “Setting the clock – by nature: Circadian rhythm in the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster”. In:FEBS Letters 585.10 (2011), pp. 1435–1442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2011.02.028

    2011 doi

  77. [86]

    Neuronal wiring diagram of an adult brain

    Sven Dorkenwald et al. “Neuronal wiring diagram of an adult brain”. In:Nature 634.8032 (2024), pp. 124–138. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07558-y

    2024 doi

  78. [87]

    Whole-brain annotation and multi-connectome cell typing of Drosophila

    Philipp Schlegel et al. “Whole-brain annotation and multi-connectome cell typing of Drosophila”. In: Nature 634.8032 (2024), pp. 139–152.doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07686-5

    2024 doi

  79. [88]

    RNA-seq analysis of Drosophila clock and non-clock neurons reveals neuron-specific cycling and novel candidate neuropeptides

    Katharine C. Abruzzi et al. “RNA-seq analysis of Drosophila clock and non-clock neurons reveals neuron-specific cycling and novel candidate neuropeptides”. In:PLOS Genetics13.2 (2017), pp. 1–

    2017

  80. [89]

    The discovery of circadian clock genes and the use of similar strategies to discover unknown genes underlying complex behaviors and brain disorders

    Fred W Turek and Daniel E Kolker. “The discovery of circadian clock genes and the use of similar strategies to discover unknown genes underlying complex behaviors and brain disorders”. In: European Neuropsychopharmacology11.6 (2001), pp. 475–482. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/...

    2001

  81. [90]

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006613

    doi

  82. [91]

    Light-Dependent Interactions between the Drosophila Circadian Clock Factors Cryptochrome, Jetlag, and Timeless

    Nicolai Peschel, Ko Fan Chen, Gisela Szabo, and Ralf Stanewsky. “Light-Dependent Interactions between the Drosophila Circadian Clock Factors Cryptochrome, Jetlag, and Timeless”. In:Current Biology 19.3 (2009), pp. 241–247.doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.12.042

    2009 doi

  83. [92]

    Regulation of the Drosophila Protein Timeless Suggests a Mechanism for Resetting the Circadian Clock by Light

    Melissa Hunter-Ensor, Andrea Ousley, and Amita Sehgal. “Regulation of the Drosophila Protein Timeless Suggests a Mechanism for Resetting the Circadian Clock by Light”. In:Cell 84.5 (1996), pp. 677–685. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81046-6

    1996 doi

  84. [93]

    TheDrosophila Clock Genedouble-time Encodes a Protein Closely Related to Human Casein Kinase Iϵ

    Brian Kloss et al. “TheDrosophila Clock Genedouble-time Encodes a Protein Closely Related to Human Casein Kinase Iϵ”. In:Cell 94.1 (1998), pp. 97–107.doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81225- 8

    1998 doi

  85. [94]

    double-time Is a Novel Drosophila Clock Gene that Regulates PERIOD Protein Accumulation

    Jeffrey L Price et al. “double-time Is a Novel Drosophila Clock Gene that Regulates PERIOD Protein Accumulation”. In:Cell 94.1 (1998), pp. 83–95.doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81224-6

    1998 doi

  86. [95]

    A role for casein kinase 2α in the Drosophila circadian clock

    Jui-Ming Lin et al. “A role for casein kinase 2α in the Drosophila circadian clock”. In:Nature 420.6917 (2002), pp. 816–820.doi: 10.1038/nature01235

    2002 doi

  87. [96]

    Posttranslational Regulation of Drosophila PERIOD Protein by Protein Phosphatase 2A

    Sriram Sathyanarayanan, Xiangzhong Zheng, Rui Xiao, and Amita Sehgal. “Posttranslational Regulation of Drosophila PERIOD Protein by Protein Phosphatase 2A”. In:Cell 116.4 (2004), pp. 603–615. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00128-x

    2004 doi

  88. [97]

    In Vivo Circadian Function of Casein Ki- nase 2 Phosphorylation Sites in Drosophila PERIOD

    Jui-Ming Lin, Analyne Schroeder, and Ravi Allada. “In Vivo Circadian Function of Casein Ki- nase 2 Phosphorylation Sites in Drosophila PERIOD”. In:Journal of Neuroscience25.48 (2005), pp. 11175–11183. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.2159-05.2005

    2005 doi

  89. [98]

    A role for CK2 in the Drosophila circadian oscillator

    Bikem Akten et al. “A role for CK2 in the Drosophila circadian oscillator”. In:Nature Neuroscience 6.3 (2003), pp. 251–257.doi: 10.1038/nn1007

    2003 doi

  90. [99]

    A Model for Circadian Rhythms in Drosophila Incorporating the Formation of a Complex between the PER and TIM Proteins

    Jean-Christophe Leloup and Albert Goldbeter. “A Model for Circadian Rhythms in Drosophila Incorporating the Formation of a Complex between the PER and TIM Proteins”. In:Journal of Biological Rhythms13.1 (1998), pp. 70–87.doi: 10.1177/074873098128999934

    1998 doi

  91. [100]

    A Hierarchical Phosphorylation Cascade That Regulates the Timing of PERIOD Nuclear Entry Reveals Novel Roles for Proline-Directed Kinases and GSK-3β/SGG in Circadian Clocks

    Hyuk Wan Ko et al. “A Hierarchical Phosphorylation Cascade That Regulates the Timing of PERIOD Nuclear Entry Reveals Novel Roles for Proline-Directed Kinases and GSK-3β/SGG in Circadian Clocks”. In: Journal of Neuroscience30.38 (2010), pp. 12664–12675. doi: 10 .1523 / jneurosc...

    2010

  92. [101]

    Minimal model for signal-induced Ca2+ oscillations and for their frequency encoding through protein phosphorylation

    A Goldbeter, G Dupont, and M J Berridge. “Minimal model for signal-induced Ca2+ oscillations and for their frequency encoding through protein phosphorylation.” In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences87.4 (1990), pp. 1461–1465.doi: 10.1073/pnas.87.4.1461

    1990 doi

  93. [102]

    Toward a detailed computational model for the mammalian circadian clock

    Jean-Christophe Leloup and Albert Goldbeter. “Toward a detailed computational model for the mammalian circadian clock”. In:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences100.12 (2003), pp. 7051–7056. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1132112100

    2003 doi

  94. [103]

    Stability and Nuclear Dynamics of the Bicoid Morphogen Gradient

    Thomas Gregor, Eric F. Wieschaus, Alistair P. McGregor, William Bialek, and David W. Tank. “Stability and Nuclear Dynamics of the Bicoid Morphogen Gradient”. In: Cell 130.1 (2007), pp. 141–152. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.026

    2007 doi

  95. [104]

    Accurate particle-based simulation of adsorption, desorption and partial trans- mission

    Steven S Andrews. “Accurate particle-based simulation of adsorption, desorption and partial trans- mission”. In:Physical Biology6.4 (2009), p. 046015.doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/6/4/046015

    2009 doi

  96. [105]

    Understanding mechanisms of enzyme co-operativity: The importance of not being at equilibrium

    María Luz Cárdenas. “Understanding mechanisms of enzyme co-operativity: The importance of not being at equilibrium”. In:Perspectives in Science4 (2015), pp. 10–16. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pisc.2014.12.003

    2015 doi

  97. [106]

    mRNA diffusion explains protein gradients in Drosophila early development

    Rui Dilão and Daniele Muraro. “mRNA diffusion explains protein gradients in Drosophila early development”. In:Journal of Theoretical Biology264.3 (2010), pp. 847–853.doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.03.012

    2010 doi

  98. [107]

    Reaction schemes, escape times and geminate recombinations in particle-based spatial simulations of biochemical reactions

    Michael Klann and Heinz Koeppl. “Reaction schemes, escape times and geminate recombinations in particle-based spatial simulations of biochemical reactions”. In:Physical biology 10.4 (2013), p. 046005

    2013

  99. [108]

    Understanding allosteric and cooperative interactions in enzymes

    Athel Cornish-Bowden. “Understanding allosteric and cooperative interactions in enzymes”. In: The FEBS journal281.2 (2014), pp. 621–632

    2014

  100. [109]

    The slow-scale linear noise approxima- tion: an accurate, reduced stochastic description of biochemical networks under timescale separa- tion conditions

    Philipp Thomas, Arthur V. Straube, and Ramon Grima. “The slow-scale linear noise approxima- tion: an accurate, reduced stochastic description of biochemical networks under timescale separa- tion conditions”. In:BMC Systems Biology6.1 (2012), p. 39.doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-6-39. 28

    2012 doi

  101. [110]

    Legitimacy of the stochastic Michaelis–Menten approximation

    K.R. Sanft, D.T. Gillespie, and L.R. Petzold. “Legitimacy of the stochastic Michaelis–Menten approximation”. In:IET Systems Biology5 (1 2011), pp. 58–69.doi: 10.1049/iet-syb.2009. 0057

    2011 doi

  102. [111]

    doi: 10.1137/070705039

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.