Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29432467›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

A drift-diffusion checkpoint model predicts a highly variable and growth-factor-sensitive portion of the cell cycle G1 phase.

Zack W Jones, Rachel Leander, Vito Quaranta, Leonard A Harris, Darren R Tyson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zack W JonesDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6149-5551
Rachel LeanderDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN 37132, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1392-9754
Vito QuarantaDepartment of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, United States of America.
Leonard A HarrisDepartment of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2112-6940
Darren R TysonDepartment of Biochemistry, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN 37232, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-3272-4308
Vanderbilt University · USMiddle Tennessee State University · US

Funding

TrainingU54CA113007 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO · 2004 to 2014
$19.2M
Quantitative Multiscale Imaging to Optimize Cancer Treatment StrategiesR01CA186193 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, RERICHA, ERIN C · 2014 to 2019
$3.1M
Phenotype Transitions in Small Cell Lung CancerU01CA215845 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LOPEZ, CARLOS FEDERICO, QUARANTA, VITO · 2017 to 2021
$2.8M
Image Driven Multi-Scale Modeling to Predict Treatment Response in Breast CancerU01CA174706 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI QUARANTA, VITO, YANKEELOV, THOMAS E · 2013 to 2018
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA186193NCI NIH HHS U01 CA174706NCI NIH HHS U01 CA215845NCI NIH HHS U54 CA113007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even among isogenic cells, the time to progress through the cell cycle, or the intermitotic time (IMT), is highly variable. This variability has been a topic of research for several decades and numerous mathematical models have been proposed to explain it. Previously, we developed a top-down, stochastic drift-diffusion+threshold (DDT) model of a cell cycle checkpoint and showed that it can accurately describe experimentally-derived IMT distributions [Leander R, Allen EJ, Garbett SP, Tyson DR, Quaranta V. Derivation and experimental comparison of cell-division probability densities. J. Theor. Biol. 2014;358:129-135]. Here, we use the DDT modeling approach for both descriptive and predictive data analysis. We develop a custom numerical method for the reliable maximum likelihood estimation of model parameters in the absence of a priori knowledge about the number of detectable checkpoints. We employ this method to fit different variants of the DDT model (with one, two, and three checkpoints) to IMT data from multiple cell lines under different growth conditions and drug treatments. We find that a two-checkpoint model best describes the data, consistent with the notion that the cell cycle can be broadly separated into two steps: the commitment to divide and the process of cell division. The model predicts one part of the cell cycle to be highly variable and growth factor sensitive while the other is less variable and relatively refractory to growth factor signaling. Using experimental data that separates IMT into G1 vs. S, G2, and M phases, we show that the model-predicted growth-factor-sensitive part of the cell cycle corresponds to a portion of G1, consistent with previous studies suggesting that the commitment step is the primary source of IMT variability. These results demonstrate that a simple stochastic model, with just a handful of parameters, can provide fundamental insights into the biological underpinnings of cell cycle progression.

Indexed as

G1 PhaseModels, BiologicalCell Line, TumorDiffusionHumansMicroscopy, FluorescenceStochastic Processes

Identifiers

PMID29432467
PMCPMC5809023
OpenAlexW2791208437

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.