Extracting Biochemical Parameters for Cellular Modeling: A Mean-Field Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent developments in molecular biology have made it feasible to carry out experimental verification of mathematical models for biochemical processes, offering the eventual prospect of creating a detailed, validated picture of gene expression. A persistent difficulty with this long-term goal is the incompleteness of the kinetic information available in the literature: Many rate constants cannot or have not yet been measured. Here, we present a method of filling in missing parameters using an approach conceptually analogous to mean-field approaches in statistical mechanics: When studying a particular gene, we extract key parameters by considering the averaged effect of all other genes in the system, analogously to considering the averaged magnetic field in a physical spin model. This methodology has been applied to account for the effect of the presence of the Escherichia coli genome on the availability of key enzymes involved in gene expression (RNA polymerases and ribosomes), yielding the number of free enzymes as a function of cellular growth rate. These conclusions have been obtained by deriving genome-wide averages and matching them to bulk literature values of E. coli K-12 and B/r. Average rate constants have been found for RNA polymerases and ribosomes binding to promoter and ribosome-binding sites, respectively; these results suggest that cells vary not only their production rates of RNA polymerase and ribosomes under different growth-rate conditions but also change their global level of transcriptional/translational activation and repression, thus altering the average binding rate constants for these enzymes. To test the mean-field method, the results from the genome-wide averages have been applied to the induced lac operon, where our derived on-rate for binding of RNA polymerase to the promoter is in good agreement with previous experimental results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".