MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402390708 · doi:10.1103/physreve.92.022713

Effect and evolution of gene expression noise on the fitness landscape

2015· article· en· W2402390708 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel A. Charlebois

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLaufer Center for Physical and Quantitative Biology, Stony Brook UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFitness landscapeExpression (computer science)Genetic FitnessFitness functionGene expressionNoise (video)PopulationBiologyGeneRegulation of gene expressionFitness approximationComputer scienceGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGenetic algorithmMachine learningMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gene expression is a stochastic process that affects cellular and population fitness. Noise in gene expression can enhance fitness by increasing cell to cell variability as well as the time cells spend in favorable expression states. Using a stochastic model of gene expression together with a fitness function that incorporates the costs and benefits of gene expression in a stressful environment, we show that the fitness landscape is shaped by gene expression noise in more complex ways than previously anticipated. We find that mutations modulating the properties of expression noise enable cell populations to optimize their position on the fitness landscape. Additionally, we find that low levels of expression noise evolve under conditions where the fitness benefits of expression exceed the fitness costs, and that high levels of expression noise evolve when the expression costs exceed the fitness benefits. The results presented in this study expand our understanding of the interplay between stochastic gene expression and fitness in selective environments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207