ArticlePhysical review letters2011
Effects of input noise on a simple biochemical switch.
Article in Physical review letters, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volumetric compression develops noise-driven single-cell heterogeneity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Transient changes in intercellular protein variability identify sources of noise in gene expression.Biophysical journal · 2014Article
- How input noise limits biochemical sensing in ultrasensitive systems.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2014Article
- Noise and information transmission in promoters with multiple internal States.Biophysical journal · 2014Article
- Coordinated switching of bacterial flagellar motors: evidence for direct motor-motor coupling?Physical review letters · 2013Article
- The fidelity of dynamic signaling by noisy biomolecular networks.PLoS computational biology · 2013Article
- How input fluctuations reshape the dynamics of a biological switching system.Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics · 2012Article
- Know the Single-Receptor Sensing Limit? Think Again.Journal of statistical physicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Many biological processes are controlled by biomolecular switches which themselves are regulated by various upstream chemical molecules (the input). Understanding how input noise affects the output stochastic switching process is of significant interest in various biophysical systems like gene regulation, chemosensing, and cell motility. Here, we propose an exactly solvable model where the noisy input signal arises from a simple birth-death process and directly regulates the transition rates of a downstream switch. We solve the joint master equations to analyze the statistical properties of the output switching process. Our results suggest that the conventional wisdom of an additive input-output noise rule fails to describe signaling systems containing a single molecular switch, and, instead, the most important effect of input noise is to effectively reduce the on rate of the switch.
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.