A General Modeling Strategy for Gene Regulatory Networks with Stochastic Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A stochastic genetic toggle switch model that consists of two identical, mutually repressive genes is built using the Gillespie algorithm with time delays as an example of a simple stochastic gene regulatory network. The stochastic kinetics of this model is investigated, and it is found that the delays for the protein productions can highly weaken the global fluctuations for the expressions of the two genes, making the two mutually repressive genes coexist for a long time. Starting from this model, we propose a practical modeling strategy for more complex gene regulatory networks. Unlike previous applications of the Gillespie algorithm to simulate specific genetic networks dynamics, this modeling strategy is proposed for an ensemble approach to study the dynamical properties of these networks. The model allows any combination of gene expression products, forming complex multimers, and each one of the multimers is assigned to a randomly chosen gene promoter site as an activator or inhibitor. In addition, each gene, although it has only one promoter site, can have multiple regulatory sites and distinct rates of translation and transcription. Also, different genes have different time delays for transcription and translation and all reaction constant rates are initially randomly chosen from a range of values. Therefore, the general strategy here proposed may be used to simulate real genetic networks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".