Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38532627›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2024

Trade-offs in concentration sensing in dynamic environments.

Aparajita Kashyap, Wei Wang, Brian A Camley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aparajita KashyapDepartment of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Wei WangWilliam H. Miller III Department of Physics & Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Brian A CamleyDepartment of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; William H. Miller III Department of Physics & Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: bcamley1@jhu.edu.

Funding

Physical insights into cell migrationR35GM142847 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Brian A Camley · 2021 to 2026
$2.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM142847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When cells measure concentrations of chemical signals, they may average multiple measurements over time in order to reduce noise in their measurements. However, when cells are in an environment that changes over time, past measurements may not reflect current conditions-creating a new source of error that trades off against noise in chemical sensing. What statistics in the cell's environment control this trade-off? What properties of the environment make it variable enough that this trade-off is relevant? We model a single eukaryotic cell sensing a chemical secreted from bacteria (e.g., folic acid). In this case, the environment changes because the bacteria swim-leading to changes in the true concentration at the cell. We develop analytical calculations and stochastic simulations of sensing in this environment. We find that cells can have a huge variety of optimal sensing strategies ranging from not time averaging at all to averaging over an arbitrarily long time or having a finite optimal averaging time. The factors that primarily control the ideal averaging are the ratio of sensing noise to environmental variation and the ratio of timescales of sensing to the timescale of environmental variation. Sensing noise depends on the receptor-ligand kinetics, while environmental variation depends on the density of bacteria and the degradation and diffusion properties of the secreted chemoattractant. Our results suggest that fluctuating environmental concentrations may be a relevant source of noise even in a relatively static environment.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalStochastic ProcessesDiffusionFolic AcidKineticsFolic Acid

Identifiers

PMID38532627
PMCPMC11140415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.