Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20735856›Full record

ArticleBMC systems biology2010

Ultrasensitive responses and specificity in cell signaling.

Seth Haney, Lee Bardwell, Qing Nie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC systems biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Seth HaneyDepartment of Mathematics, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
Lee Bardwell
Qing Nie

Funding

Uncover Strategies Used By Biological SystemsP50GM076516 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LANDER, ARTHUR D · 2007 to 2016
$25.1M
MAP KINASE CASCADE SIGNAL TRANSMISSION AND SPECIFICITYR01GM060366 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI BARDWELL, LEE S · 2000 to 2008
$2.2M
An Integrative Analysis of MAPK Signaling in Budding YeastR01GM084332 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LEVCHENKO, ANDRE · 2008 to 2011
$1.2M
Stochastic dynamics for multiscale biologyR01GM086883 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI MJOLSNESS, ERIC D · 2008 to 2011
$1.2M
Specificity and Spatial Dynamics of Cell Signaling: The*R01GM075309 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI NIE, QING · 2005 to 2008
$1.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM60366NIGMS NIH HHS GM75309NIGMS NIH HHS GM76516NIGMS NIH HHS GM84332NIGMS NIH HHS GM86883NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM076516NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM060366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterconnected cell signaling pathways are able to efficiently and accurately transmit a multitude of different signals, despite an inherent potential for undesirable levels of cross-talk. To ensure that an appropriate response is produced, biological systems have evolved network-level mechanisms that insulate pathways from crosstalk and prevent 'leaking' or 'spillover' between pathways. Many signaling pathways have been shown to respond in an ultrasensitive (switch-like) fashion to graded input, and this behavior may influence specificity. The relationship of ultrasensitivity to signaling specificity has not been extensively explored.

resultsWe studied the behavior of simple mathematical models of signaling networks composed of two interconnected pathways that share an intermediate component, asking if the two pathways in the network could exhibit both output specificity (preferentially activate their own output) and input fidelity (preferentially respond to their own input). Previous results with weakly-activated pathways indicated that neither mutual specificity nor mutual fidelity were obtainable in the absence of an insulating mechanism, such as cross-pathway inhibition, combinatorial signaling or scaffolding/compartmentalization. Here we found that mutual specificity is obtainable for hyperbolic or ultrasensitive pathways, even in the absence of an insulating mechanism. However, mutual fidelity is impossible at steady-state, even if pathways are hyperbolic or ultrasensitive. Nevertheless, ultrasensitivity does provide advantages in attaining specificity and fidelity to networks that contain an insulating mechanism. For networks featuring cross-pathway inhibition or combinatorial signaling, ultrasensitive activation can increase specificity in a limited way, and can only be utilized by one of the two pathways. In contrast, for networks featuring scaffolding/compartmentalization, ultrasensitive activation of both pathways can dramatically improve network specificity.

conclusionsThere are constraints to obtaining performance objectives associated with signaling specificity; such constraints may have influenced the evolution of signal transduction networks. Notably, input fidelity (preferential response to an authentic input) is a more difficult objective to achieve than output specificity (preferential targeting to an authentic output). Indeed, mutual fidelity is impossible in the absence of an insulating mechanism, even if pathways are ultrasensitive. Ultrasensitivity does, however, significantly enhance the performance of several insulating mechanisms. In particular, the ultrasensitive activation of both pathways can provide substantial improvement to networks containing scaffolding/compartmentalization.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID20735856
PMCPMC2940771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.