How spatial heterogeneity shapes multiscale biochemical reaction network dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial heterogeneity in cells can be modelled using distinct compartments connected by molecular movement between them. In addition to movement, changes in the amount of molecules are due to biochemical reactions within compartments, often such that some molecular types fluctuate on a slower timescale than others. It is natural to ask the following questions: how sensitive is the dynamics of molecular types to their own spatial distribution, and how sensitive are they to the distribution of others? What conditions lead to effective homogeneity in biochemical dynamics despite heterogeneity in molecular distribution? What kind of spatial distribution is optimal from the point of view of some downstream product? Within a spatially heterogeneous multiscale model, we consider two notions of dynamical homogeneity (full homogeneity and homogeneity for the fast subsystem), and consider their implications under different timescales for the motility of molecules between compartments. We derive rigorous results for their dynamics and long-term behaviour, and illustrate them with examples of a shared pathway, Michaelis-Menten enzymatic kinetics and autoregulating feedbacks. Using stochastic averaging of fast fluctuations to their quasi-steady-state distribution, we obtain simple analytic results that significantly reduce the complexity and expedite simulation of stochastic compartment models of chemical reactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".