pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.16803 · v2 · pith:ECBIXAIGnew · submitted 2026-06-15 · 🧬 q-bio.MN · q-bio.SC

Cell Division Changes Fate Decisions in a Genetic Toggle Switch

Charli Austin , Nikola Popovic , Ramon Grima This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 02:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.MN q-bio.SC
keywords genetic toggle switchcell divisionfate decisionsBoolean modelseparatricesmultistable dynamicsgene regulatory networks
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cell division can redirect trajectories with identical initial conditions to opposing stable states in a genetic toggle switch.

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

The paper derives analytical separatrices for a simplified Boolean genetic toggle switch both with and without cell division. It demonstrates that division events can send two trajectories starting from the same gene expression levels to different stable states. This creates a region of disagreement in which standard models that omit division will incorrectly forecast the final cell fate. The result matters because many gene regulatory network models treat division as negligible when mapping initial conditions to outcomes. If the separatrices hold, then fate boundaries in multistable systems must be redrawn to include division.

Core claim

In a simplified Boolean toggle switch, analytical separatrices show that including cell division redirects some trajectories with identical initial conditions to opposing stable states, creating a region of disagreement where neglecting division leads to incorrect fate predictions.

What carries the argument

Analytical separatrices for the Boolean toggle switch with and without division

If this is right

  • Standard models of multistable gene networks that neglect division will mispredict fates inside the disagreement region.
  • Cell division can change which stable state is reached from a given starting point of gene expression.
  • Fate decision boundaries in regulatory networks are reshaped by the timing and rules of division.
  • Predictions of cellular differentiation outcomes must incorporate division when the initial condition lies near the separatrix.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Faster-dividing cells could systematically reach different fates than slower-dividing cells under the same initial conditions.
  • Similar redirection effects may appear in other multistable regulatory motifs beyond the toggle switch.
  • Synthetic biology circuits could be engineered to make fate decisions division-dependent by tuning the disagreement region.

Load-bearing premise

The simplified Boolean toggle switch with its particular update rules and division implementation is a faithful enough representation of real genetic toggle-switch dynamics.

What would settle it

Tracking gene expression trajectories in a synthetic toggle switch circuit and finding that cells with identical initial conditions always reach the same stable state regardless of division would falsify the redirection effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.16803 by Charli Austin, Nikola Popovic, Ramon Grima.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of two different versions of the BTS. (a) Standard BTS: the volume of the system is fixed to V = 1 so that protein concentration and count are equivalent. Mutual inhibition is determined by the protein counts reaching a fixed threshold. Proteins are removed from the system with rate βX + δ to account for both active degradation with rate βX and effective dilution with rate δ. (b) BTS with divi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) and (b) Plots of the separatrix expressions from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Percentage agreement between stochastic simulations of the standard BTS and the BTS with division. Dark green denotes complete agreement of final states; dark red denotes complete disagreement; the deterministic ROD is enclosed by dashed and solid black lines. (b) Example lineage distributions for initial conditions in the dark green region of (a). (c) Example lineage distributions for initial conditio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gene regulatory networks govern cellular fate decisions through multistable dynamics. The genetic toggle switch is a canonical model of such behaviour; yet, the impact of cell division on its dynamics remains poorly understood. We derive analytical separatrices for a simplified Boolean toggle switch with and without division. We show that division can redirect trajectories with identical initial conditions to opposing stable states, and we define a region of disagreement where fate decisions are predicted incorrectly if division is neglected. Our results imply that division can fundamentally reshape fate boundaries in multistable regulatory networks.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes a simplified Boolean model of the genetic toggle switch and derives analytical separatrices for the system dynamics with and without cell division. It shows that division can redirect trajectories with identical initial conditions to opposing stable states and defines a disagreement region where fate decisions are incorrectly predicted if division is neglected. The results are used to argue that division can fundamentally reshape fate boundaries in multistable regulatory networks.

Significance. If the analytical separatrices and redirection effect are correctly derived within the Boolean model, the work supplies a concrete, discrete example of how cell division alters multistable fate decisions. This could motivate inclusion of division in other network models, but the broader claim for real genetic networks rests on an untested assumption that the Boolean results are representative rather than discretization artifacts.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of deriving analytical separatrices and a disagreement region is asserted without any equations, derivation steps, or explicit definition of the update rules and division implementation, preventing verification that the separatrices are indeed analytical or that the redirection holds for the stated initial conditions.
  2. [Discussion] The central implication that division reshapes fate boundaries in multistable networks requires evidence that the disagreement region survives outside the specific Boolean rules; no continuous ODE counterpart, asynchronous update comparison, or parameter sweep on division partitioning is referenced to test robustness.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and title should explicitly qualify the results as applying to a particular Boolean implementation rather than general toggle-switch dynamics.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim of deriving analytical separatrices and a disagreement region is asserted without any equations, derivation steps, or explicit definition of the update rules and division implementation, preventing verification that the separatrices are indeed analytical or that the redirection holds for the stated initial conditions.

    Authors: The abstract is a high-level summary and does not include equations by design. The Boolean update rules are explicitly defined in Section 2, the cell-division implementation (including partitioning) is given in Section 3, and the analytical derivations of the separatrices (with all intermediate steps) appear in Sections 4 and 5 together with the closed-form expressions. These sections allow complete verification of both the separatrices and the redirection effect for the stated initial conditions. We therefore see no need to alter the abstract itself. revision: no

  2. Referee: [Discussion] The central implication that division reshapes fate boundaries in multistable networks requires evidence that the disagreement region survives outside the specific Boolean rules; no continuous ODE counterpart, asynchronous update comparison, or parameter sweep on division partitioning is referenced to test robustness.

    Authors: The manuscript deliberately restricts itself to a Boolean model precisely because this setting permits exact analytical separatrices. The central result is therefore model-specific: within these rules, division creates a disagreement region. We do not present the Boolean case as a universal proof for all regulatory networks. To meet the referee’s concern we will add a short paragraph in the Discussion that explicitly states the limitation and notes that extensions to continuous or asynchronous formulations are left for future work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: analytical separatrices derived directly from explicit Boolean rules

full rationale

The paper states it derives analytical separatrices for a simplified Boolean toggle switch with and without division, then shows redirection of trajectories and a disagreement region. These steps rest on the model's stated update rules and division implementation, which are taken as given inputs rather than fitted or self-referentially defined. No self-citation chains, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appear in the abstract or description. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the model's own equations; the skeptic concern about model fidelity to real biology is a question of external validity, not internal circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available, so the ledger is necessarily incomplete. The central claim rests on the unstated premise that the chosen Boolean simplification plus a particular division rule captures the essential effect of division on multistable dynamics.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The Boolean toggle switch with its update rules is an adequate model for studying division effects on fate boundaries.
    Abstract states 'simplified Boolean toggle switch' without further justification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5609 in / 1105 out tokens · 42292 ms · 2026-06-27T02:25:47.022676+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Maizels, R. J. & Briscoe, J. Gene regulatory networks: from correlative models to causal explanations. Nature Reviews Genetics27,485–498 (Mar. 2026)

    2026

  2. [2]

    & Collins, J

    Bal´ azsi, G., van Oudenaarden, A. & Collins, J. J. Cellular Decision Making and Biological Noise: From Microbes to Mammals.Cell144,910–925 (Mar. 2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    Perkins, T. J. & Swain, P. S. Strategies for cellular decision-making.Molecular Systems Biology5(Nov. 2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    E., Coomer, M

    Ham, L., Woodward, T. E., Coomer, M. A. & Stumpf, M. P. Mapping, Modeling, and Reprogramming Cell-Fate Decision-Making Systems.Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science8(2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Gardner Charles R

    Timothy S. Gardner Charles R. Cantor, J. J. C. Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli.Nature403,339–342 (Jan. 2000)

    2000

  6. [6]

    Lee, S., Lewis, D. E. & Adhya, S. The Developmental Switch in Bacteriophageλ: A Critical Role of the Cro Protein.Journal of Molecular Biology430,58–68 (Jan. 2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    & Little, J

    Atsumi, S. & Little, J. W. A synthetic phageλregulatory circuit.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences103,19045–19050 (Dec. 2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    B., Kobiler, O., Stavans, J., Court, D

    Oppenheim, A. B., Kobiler, O., Stavans, J., Court, D. L. & Adhya, S. Switches in Bacteriophage Lambda Development.Annual Review of Genetics39,409–429 (Dec. 2005)

    2005

  9. [9]

    & Burrage, K

    Tian, T. & Burrage, K. Bistability and switching in the lysis/lysogeny genetic regulatory network of bacteriophageλ.Journal of Theoretical Biology227,229–237 (Mar. 2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

    & Peterson, C

    Chickarmane, V., Enver, T. & Peterson, C. Computational Modeling of the Hematopoietic Erythroid- Myeloid Switch Reveals Insights into Cooperativity, Priming, and Irreversibility.PLoS Computational Biology5(ed Antia, R.) e1000268 (Jan. 2009). 6

    2009

  11. [11]

    & Tian, T

    Duff, C., Smith-Miles, K., Lopes, L. & Tian, T. Mathematical modelling of stem cell differentiation: the PU.1–GATA-1 interaction.Journal of Mathematical Biology64,449–468 (Apr. 2011)

    2011

  12. [12]

    Lipshtat, A., Loinger, A., Balaban, N. Q. & Biham, O. Genetic Toggle Switch without Cooperative Binding.Physical Review Letters96,188101 (May 2006)

    2006

  13. [13]

    Strasser, M., Theis, F. J. & Marr, C. Stability and Multiattractor Dynamics of a Toggle Switch Based on a Two-Stage Model of Stochastic Gene Expression.Biophysical Journal102,19–29 (Jan. 2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    & Demongeot, J

    Cinquin, O. & Demongeot, J. High-dimensional switches and the modelling of cellular differentiation. Journal of Theoretical Biology233,391–411 (Apr. 2005)

    2005

  15. [15]

    Biswas, K., Jolly, M. K. & Ghosh, A. Mean residence times of TF-TF and TF-miRNA toggle switches. Journal of Biosciences47(Apr. 2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    H., Perez-Carrasco, R

    Beentjes, C. H., Perez-Carrasco, R. & Grima, R. Exact solution of stochastic gene expression models with bursting, cell cycle and replication dynamics.Physical Review E101,032403 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    & Klumpp, S

    Bierbaum, V. & Klumpp, S. Impact of the cell division cycle on gene circuits.Physical Biology12, 066003 (Sept. 2015)

    2015

  18. [18]

    E., Tordera, V

    P´ erez-Ort´ ın, J. E., Tordera, V. & Ch´ avez, S. Homeostasis in the Central Dogma of molecular biology: the importance of mRNA instability.RNA Biology16,1659–1666 (Sept. 2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    & Barkai, N

    Voichek, Y., Bar-Ziv, R. & Barkai, N. Expression homeostasis during DNA replication.Science351, 1087–1090 (Mar. 2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    & Grima, R

    Jia, C., Singh, A. & Grima, R. Concentration fluctuations in growing and dividing cells: Insights into the emergence of concentration homeostasis.PLoS computational biology18,e1010574 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    H.Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos(CRC Press, May 2018)

    Strogatz, S. H.Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos(CRC Press, May 2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    & Zhang, W

    Li, J. & Zhang, W. Transition between monostability and bistability of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli.Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - B25,1871–1894 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    & Amir, A

    Soifer, I., Robert, L. & Amir, A. Single-cell analysis of growth in budding yeast and bacteria reveals a common size regulation strategy.Current Biology26,356–361 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    & Grima, R

    Jia, C. & Grima, R. Frequency domain analysis of fluctuations of mRNA and protein copy numbers within a cell lineage: theory and experimental validation.Physical Review X11,021032 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Tanouchi, Y.et al.Long-term growth data of Escherichia coli at a single-cell level.Scientific data4, 170036 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Schwanh¨ ausser, B.et al.Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control.Nature473, 337–342 (May 2011)

    2011

  27. [27]

    B., Levine, A

    Elowitz, M. B., Levine, A. J., Siggia, E. D. & Swain, P. S. Stochastic gene expression in a single cell. Science297,1183–1186 (2002)

    2002

  28. [28]

    & McKane, A

    Biancalani, T., Dyson, L. & McKane, A. J. Noise-Induced Bistable States and Their Mean Switching Time in Foraging Colonies.Physical Review Letters112,038101 (Jan. 2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Loinger, A., Lipshtat, A., Balaban, N. Q. & Biham, O. Stochastic simulations of genetic switch systems. Physical Review E75,021904 (Feb. 2007)

    2007

  30. [30]

    & Page, K

    Perez-Carrasco, R., Guerrero, P., Briscoe, J. & Page, K. M. Intrinsic Noise Profoundly Alters the Dynamics and Steady State of Morphogen-Controlled Bistable Genetic Switches.PLOS Computational Biology12(ed Tusscher, T.) e1005154 (Oct. 2016)

    2016

  31. [31]

    & Grima, R

    Jia, C., Singh, A. & Grima, R. Cell size distribution of lineage data: analytic results and parameter inference.Iscience24(2021)

    2021

  32. [32]

    Stefan, M. I. & Le Nov` ere, N. Cooperative Binding.PLoS Computational Biology9(ed Wodak, S.) e1003106 (June 2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    On the Use of the Hill Functions in Mathematical Models of Gene Regulatory Networks

    Santill´ an, M. On the Use of the Hill Functions in Mathematical Models of Gene Regulatory Networks. Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena3,85–97 (2008)

    2008

  34. [34]

    Mez˝ o, I.The Lambert W Function: Its Generalizations and Applications(Chapman and Hall/CRC, Mar. 2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Gillespie, D. T. A general method for numerically simulating the stochastic time evolution of coupled chemical reactions.Journal of Computational Physics22,403–434 (1976)

    1976

  36. [36]

    & Hasty, J

    Lu, T., Volfson, D., Tsimring, L. & Hasty, J. Cellular growth and division in the Gillespie algorithm. Systems Biology1,121–128 (June 2004). 7 AppendixA.Reaction Scheme for the Toggle Switch The toggle switch motif can be described via the following reaction scheme: GA αA − − →GA +P A,(8) GB αB − − →GB +P B,(9) GA +h 1PB kA+ − − −⇀↽− − − kA− G∗ A,(10) GB ...

    2004