Cited by 26Gene Regulatory Network Analysisstochastic dynamics and bifurcationSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics

What can we learn when fitting a simple telegraph model to a complex gene expression model?

Open access
Jiao, Feng, Li, Jing, Liu, Ting, Zhu, Yifeng, Che, Wenhao, Bleris, Leonidas, Jia, Chen·2024·PLOS Computational Biology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In experiments, the distributions of mRNA or protein numbers in single cells are often fitted to the random telegraph model which includes synthesis and decay of mRNA or protein, and switching of the gene between active and inactive states. While commonly used, this model does not describe how fluctuations are influenced by crucial biological mechanisms such as feedback regulation, non-exponential gene inactivation durations, and multiple gene activation pathways. Here we investigate the dynamical properties of four relatively complex gene expression models by fitting their steady-state mRNA or protein number distributions to the simple telegraph model. We show that despite the underlying complex biological mechanisms, the telegraph model with three effective parameters can accurately capture the steady-state gene product distributions, as well as the conditional distributions in the active gene state, of the complex models. Some effective parameters are reliable and can reflect realistic dynamic behaviors of the complex models, while others may deviate significantly from their real values in the complex models. The effective parameters can also be applied to characterize the capability for a complex model to exhibit multimodality. Using additional information such as single-cell data at multiple time points, we provide an effective method of distinguishing the complex models from the telegraph model. Furthermore, using measurements under varying experimental conditions, we show that fitting the mRNA or protein number distributions to the telegraph model may even reveal the underlying gene regulation mechanisms of the complex models. The effectiveness of these methods is confirmed by analysis of single-cell data for E. coli and mammalian cells. All these results are robust with respect to cooperative transcriptional regulation and extrinsic noise. In particular, we find that faster relaxation speed to the steady state results in more precise parameter inference under large extrinsic noise.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012118

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Jiao, F., Li, J., Liu, T., Zhu, Y., Che, W., Bleris, L., & Jia, C.
Affiliations
  • Guangzhou University (CN)
  • The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
  • Beijing Computational Science Research Center (CN)
Corresponding author
Jia, Chen
Venue
PLOS Computational Biology
Published
2024-05-14
Volume
20
Issue
5
Pages
e1012118
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W4396886318
Cited by
26
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 1
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (12271118, U2230402, 12271020)
  • U.S. National Science Foundation (grant 2029121)
  • Cecil H. and Ida Green Endowment
  • University of Texas at Dallas
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › stochastic dynamics and bifurcation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Single-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Keywords
stochastic gene expression, genetic control, feedback regulation, multimodality, conditional distributions, extrinsic noise, parameter identifiability, Escherichia coli, mammalian cells
MeSH terms
Single-Cell Gene Expression Analysis, Animals, Computer Simulation, Escherichia coli, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Models, Genetic, Proteins, RNA, Messenger, Gene Expression, Computational Biology, Mice, Gene Regulatory Networks, Single-Cell Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review