ArticlePhysical biology2018
Identification of gene regulation models from single-cell data.
Article in Physical biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Monte Carlo samplers for efficient network inference.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Gene expression model inference from snapshot RNA data using Bayesian non-parametrics.Nature computational science · 2023Article
- Merits and Demerits of ODE Modeling of Physicochemical Systems for Numerical Simulations.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Solving the chemical master equation for monomolecular reaction systems and beyond: a Doi-Peliti path integral view.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
- BAYESIAN INFERENCE OF STOCHASTIC REACTION NETWORKS USING MULTIFIDELITY SEQUENTIAL TEMPERED MARKOV CHAIN MONTE CARLO.International journal for uncertainty quantification · 2020Article
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
In quantitative analyses of biological processes, one may use many different scales of models (e.g. spatial or non-spatial, deterministic or stochastic, time-varying or at steady-state) or many different approaches to match models to experimental data (e.g. model fitting or parameter uncertainty/sloppiness quantification with different experiment designs). These different analyses can lead to surprisingly different results, even when applied to the same data and the same model. We use a simplified gene regulation model to illustrate many of these concerns, especially for ODE analyses of deterministic processes, chemical master equation and finite state projection analyses of heterogeneous processes, and stochastic simulations. For each analysis, we employ Matlab and Python software to consider a time-dependent input signal (e.g. a kinase nuclear translocation) and several model hypotheses, along with simulated single-cell data. We illustrate different approaches (e.g. deterministic and stochastic) to identify the mechanisms and parameters of the same model from the same simulated data. For each approach, we explore how uncertainty in parameter space varies with respect to the chosen analysis approach or specific experiment design. We conclude with a discussion of how our simulated results relate to the integration of experimental and computational investigations to explore signal-activated gene expression models in yeast (Neuert et al 2013 Science 339 584-7) and human cells (Senecal et al 2014 Cell Rep. 8 75-83)
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.