Effects of coupling strength and space on the dynamics of coupled toggle switches in stochastic gene networks with multiple-delayed reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic toggle switches (TSs) are one of the best studied small gene regulatory networks (GRNs), due to their simplicity and relevant role. They have been interpreted as decision circuits in cell differentiation, a process long hypothesized to be bistable, or as cellular memory units. In these contexts, they must be reliable. Once a "decision" is made, the system must remain stable. One way to gain stability is by duplicating the genes of a TS and coupling the two TSs. Using a recent modeling strategy of GRNs, driven by a delayed stochastic simulation algorithm (delayed SSA) that allows modeling transcription and translation as multidelayed reactions, we analyze the stability of systems of coupled TSs. For this, we introduce the coupling strength (C), a parameter to characterize the GRN structure, against which we compare the GRN stability (S). We first show that time delays in transcription, associated to the promoter region release, ensure bistability of a TS, given no cooperative binding or self-activation reactions. Next, we couple two TSs and measure their toggling frequencies as C varies. Three dynamical regimes are observed: (i) for weak coupling, high frequency synchronized oscillations, (ii) for average coupling, low frequency synchronized oscillations, and (iii) for strong coupling the system becomes stable after a transient, in one of two steady states. The system stability, S, goes through a first order phase transition as C increases, in the average coupling regime. After, we study the effects of spatial separation in two compartments on the dynamics of two coupled TSs, where spatial separation is modeled as normally distributed random time delayed reactions. The phase transition of S, as C increases, occurs for lower values of C than when the two TSs are in the same compartment. Finally, we couple weakly and homogeneously several TSs within a single compartment and observe that as the number of coupled TSs increases, the system goes through the phase transition in S, from oscillatory to stable and for C values lower than in the two previous cases.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".