Analytical distributions for stochastic gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene expression is significantly stochastic making modeling of genetic networks challenging. We present an approximation that allows the calculation of not only the mean and variance, but also the distribution of protein numbers. We assume that proteins decay substantially more slowly than their mRNA and confirm that many genes satisfy this relation by using high-throughput data from budding yeast. For a two-stage model of gene expression, with transcription and translation as first-order reactions, we calculate the protein distribution for all times greater than several mRNA lifetimes and thus qualitatively predict the distribution of times for protein levels to first cross an arbitrary threshold. If in addition the fluctuates between inactive and active states, we can find the steady-state protein distribution, which can be bimodal if fluctuations of the promoter are slow. We show that our assumptions imply that protein synthesis occurs in geometrically distributed bursts and allows mRNA to be eliminated from a master equation description. In general, we find that protein distributions are asymmetric and may be poorly characterized by their mean and variance. Through maximum likelihood methods, our expressions should therefore allow more quantitative comparisons with experimental data. More generally, we introduce a technique to derive a simpler, effective dynamics for a stochastic system by eliminating a fast variable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".