ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
How cells tame noise while maintaining ultrasensitive transcriptional responses.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. 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
Abstract
Ultrasensitive transcriptional switches are essential for converting gradual molecular inputs into decisive gene expression responses, enabling critical behaviors such as bistability and oscillations. While cooperative binding, relying on direct repressor-DNA binding, has been classically regarded as a key ultrasensitivity mechanism, recent theoretical works have demonstrated that combinations of indirect repression mechanisms-sequestration, blocking, and displacement-can also achieve ultrasensitive switches with greater robustness to transcriptional noise. However, these previous works have neglected key biological constraints such as DNA binding kinetics and the limited availability of transcriptional activators, raising the question of whether ultrasensitivity and noise robustness can be sustained under biologically realistic conditions. Here, we systematically assess the impact of these factors on ultrasensitivity and noise robustness under physiologically plausible conditions. We show that while various repression combinations can reduce noise, only the full combination of all three indirect mechanisms consistently maintains low noise and high ultrasensitivity. As a result, biological oscillators employing this triple repression architecture retain precise rhythmic switching even under high noise, and even when activators are shared across thousands of target genes. Our findings offer a mechanistic explanation for the frequent co-occurrence of these repression mechanisms in natural gene regulatory systems.
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.