ArticleBMC systems biology2010
Ultrasensitive responses and specificity in cell signaling.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Bayesian parameter estimation for dynamical models in systems biology.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a System-Level Infectious Disease With Distinct Sex Disparities.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Misuse of the Michaelis-Menten rate law for protein interaction networks and its remedy.PLoS computational biology · 2020Review
- Robustness, Accuracy, and Cell State Heterogeneity in Biological Systems.Current opinion in systems biology · 2018Article
- A postsynaptic PI3K-cII dependent signaling controller for presynaptic homeostatic plasticity.eLife · 2018Article
- Identification of critical paralog groups with indispensable roles in the regulation of signaling flow.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Article
- Tunable signal processing through a kinase control cycle: the IKK signaling node.Biophysical journal · 2013Article
- Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: a novel paradigm of drug discovery: a comprehensive review.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2013Review
- SignaLink 2 - a signaling pathway resource with multi-layered regulatory networks.BMC systems biology · 2013Article
- Endosomal crosstalk: meeting points for signaling pathways.Trends in cell biology · 2012Article
- The coupling of pathways and processes through shared components.BMC systems biology · 2011Article
- Design principles and specificity in biological networks with cross activation.Physical biology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.