ArticleScientific reports2024
Simplifications and approximations in a single-gene circuit modeling.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absence of detailed knowledge about regulatory interactions makes the use of phenomenological assumptions mandatory in cell biology modeling. Furthermore, the challenges associated with the analysis of these models compel the implementation of mathematical approximations. However, the constraints these methods introduce to biological interpretation are sometimes neglected. Consequently, understanding these restrictions is a very important task for systems biology modeling. In this article, we examine the impact of such simplifications, taking the case of a single-gene autoinhibitory circuit; however, our conclusions are not limited solely to this instance. We demonstrate that models grounded in the same biological assumptions but described at varying levels of detail can lead to different outcomes, that is, different and contradictory phenotypes or behaviors. Indeed, incorporating specific molecular processes like translation and elongation into the model can introduce instabilities and oscillations not seen when these processes are assumed to be instantaneous. Furthermore, incorporating a detailed description of promoter dynamics, usually described by a phenomenological regulatory function, can lead to instability, depending on the cooperative binding mechanism that is acting. Consequently, although the use of a regulating function facilitates model analysis, it may mask relevant aspects of the system's behavior. In particular, we observe that the two cooperative binding mechanisms, both compatible with the same sigmoidal function, can lead to different phenotypes, such as transcriptional oscillations with different oscillation frequencies.
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.