4.5 Article

Translational Cross Talk in Gene Networks

期刊

BIOPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 104, 期 11, 页码 2564-2572

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2013.04.049

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-GM079333, R01-GM089976]
  2. National Institutes of Health (San Diego Center for Systems Biology) [P50GM085764]
  3. National Science Foundation [DMS 1206772]
  4. Division Of Mathematical Sciences
  5. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1206772] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been shown experimentally that competition for limited translational resources by upstream mRNAs can lead to an anticorrelation between protein counts. Here, we investigate a stochastic model for this phenomenon, in which gene transcripts of different types compete for a finite pool of ribosomes. Throughout, we utilize concepts from the theory of multiclass queues to describe a qualitative shift in protein count statistics as the system transitions from being underloaded (ribosomes exceed transcripts in number) to being overloaded (transcripts exceed ribosonnes in number). The exact analytical solution of a simplified stochastic model, in which the numbers of competing mRNAs and ribosomes are fixed, exhibits weak positive correlations between steady-state protein counts when total transcript count slightly exceeds ribosome count, whereas the solution can exhibit strong negative correlations when total transcript count significantly exceeds ribosome count. Extending this analysis, we find approximate but reasonably accurate solutions for a more realistic model, in which abundances of mRNAs and ribosonnes are allowed to fluctuate randomly. Here, ribosomal fluctuations contribute positively and mRNA fluctuations contribute negatively to correlations, and when mRNA fluctuations dominate ribosomal fluctuations, a strong anticorrelation extremum reliably occurs near the transition from the underloaded to the overloaded regime.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据