4.8 Article

Robustness of MEK-ERK Dynamics and Origins of Cell-to-Cell Variability in MAPK Signaling

Journal

CELL REPORTS
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages 2524-2535

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.05.024

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Human Frontiers Science Programme
  2. MRC Biocomputing fellowship
  3. JST/BBSRC partnering award
  4. Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C519670/1, BB/G530268/1, BB/K003909/1, BB/G007934/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [G1002092] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [14J12344, 16K19028] Funding Source: KAKEN
  8. BBSRC [BB/K003909/1, BB/G007934/1, BB/G530268/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. MRC [G1002092] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cellular signaling processes can exhibit pronounced cell-to-cell variability in genetically identical cells. This affects how individual cells respond differentially to the same environmental stimulus. However, the origins of cell-to-cell variability in cellular signaling systems remain poorly understood. Here, we measure the dynamics of phosphorylated MEK and ERK across cell populations and quantify the levels of population heterogeneity over time using highthroughput image cytometry. We use a statistical modeling framework to show that extrinsic noise, particularly that from upstream MEK, is the dominant factor causing cell-to-cell variability in ERK phosphorylation, rather than stochasticity in the phosphorylation/dephosphorylation of ERK. We furthermore show that without extrinsic noise in the core module, variable (including noisy) signals would be faithfully reproduced downstream, but the withinmodule extrinsic variability distorts these signals and leads to a drastic reduction in the mutual information between incoming signal and ERK activity.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available