Explaining oscillations and variability in the p53-Mdm2 system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In individual living cells p53 has been found to be expressed in a series of discrete pulses after DNA damage. Its negative regulator Mdm2 also demonstrates oscillatory behaviour. Attempts have been made recently to explain this behaviour by mathematical models but these have not addressed explicit molecular mechanisms. We describe two stochastic mechanistic models of the p53/Mdm2 circuit and show that sustained oscillations result directly from the key biological features, without assuming complicated mathematical functions or requiring more than one feedback loop. Each model examines a different mechanism for providing a negative feedback loop which results in p53 activation after DNA damage. The first model (ARF model) looks at the mechanism of p14ARF which sequesters Mdm2 and leads to stabilisation of p53. The second model (ATM model) examines the mechanism of ATM activation which leads to phosphorylation of both p53 and Mdm2 and increased degradation of Mdm2, which again results in p53 stabilisation. The models can readily be modified as further information becomes available, and linked to other models of cellular ageing. RESULTS: The ARF model is robust to changes in its parameters and predicts undamped oscillations after DNA damage so long as the signal persists. It also predicts that if there is a gradual accumulation of DNA damage, such as may occur in ageing, oscillations break out once a threshold level of damage is acquired. The ATM model requires an additional step for p53 synthesis for sustained oscillations to develop. The ATM model shows much more variability in the oscillatory behaviour and this variability is observed over a wide range of parameter values. This may account for the large variability seen in the experimental data which so far has examined ARF negative cells. CONCLUSION: The models predict more regular oscillations if ARF is present and suggest the need for further experiments in ARF positive cells to test these predictions. Our work illustrates the importance of systems biology approaches to understanding the complex role of p53 in both ageing and cancer.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".