Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26491963›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2015

Intracellular Information Processing through Encoding and Decoding of Dynamic Signaling Features.

Hirenkumar K Makadia, James S Schwaber, Rajanikanth Vadigepalli

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Why cellular computations challenge our design principles.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Quantifying information of intracellular signaling: progress with machine learning.Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society (Great Britain) · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hirenkumar K MakadiaDaniel Baugh Institute for Functional Genomics and Computational Biology, Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
James S SchwaberDaniel Baugh Institute for Functional Genomics and Computational Biology, Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Rajanikanth VadigepalliDaniel Baugh Institute for Functional Genomics and Computational Biology, Department of Pathology, Anatomy and Cell Biology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Thomas Jefferson University · US

Funding

Modeling Central Autonomic Regulatory Network Adaptation to HypertensionR01HL111621 · NHLBI · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWABER, JAMES, VADIGEPALLI, RAJANIKANTH · 2012 to 2015
$2.4M
Integrated Modeling of Adaptive Neuronal RegulationR01GM083108 · NIGMS · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWABER, JAMES, VADIGEPALLI, RAJANIKANTH · 2009 to 2012
$1.5M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL111621NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell signaling dynamics and transcriptional regulatory activities are variable within specific cell types responding to an identical stimulus. In addition to studying the network interactions, there is much interest in utilizing single cell scale data to elucidate the non-random aspects of the variability involved in cellular decision making. Previous studies have considered the information transfer between the signaling and transcriptional domains based on an instantaneous relationship between the molecular activities. These studies predict a limited binary on/off encoding mechanism which underestimates the complexity of biological information processing, and hence the utility of single cell resolution data. Here we pursue a novel strategy that reformulates the information transfer problem as involving dynamic features of signaling rather than molecular abundances. We pursue a computational approach to test if and how the transcriptional regulatory activity patterns can be informative of the temporal history of signaling. Our analysis reveals (1) the dynamic features of signaling that significantly alter transcriptional regulatory patterns (encoding), and (2) the temporal history of signaling that can be inferred from single cell scale snapshots of transcriptional activity (decoding). Immediate early gene expression patterns were informative of signaling peak retention kinetics, whereas transcription factor activity patterns were informative of activation and deactivation kinetics of signaling. Moreover, the information processing aspects varied across the network, with each component encoding a selective subset of the dynamic signaling features. We developed novel sensitivity and information transfer maps to unravel the dynamic multiplexing of signaling features at each of these network components. Unsupervised clustering of the maps revealed two groups that aligned with network motifs distinguished by transcriptional feedforward vs feedback interactions. Our new computational methodology impacts the single cell scale experiments by identifying downstream snapshot measures required for inferring specific dynamical features of upstream signals involved in the regulation of cellular responses.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalComputer SimulationGene Expression RegulationSignal TransductionTranscription FactorsTranscription, GeneticTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID26491963
PMCPMC4619640
OpenAlexW2162488640

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.