A Model for the Proliferation–Quiescence Transition in Human Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of revitalising quiescent cells in order for them to proliferate plays a pivotal role in the repair of worn-out tissues as well as for tissue homeostasis. This process is also crucial in the growth, development and well-being of higher multi-cellular organisms such as mammals. Deregulation of proliferation-quiescence transition is related to many diseases, such as cancer. Recent studies have revealed that this proliferation–quiescence process is regulated tightly by the Rb−E2F bistable switch mechanism. Based on experimental observations, in this study, we formulate a mathematical model to examine the effect of the growth factor concentration on the proliferation–quiescence transition in human cells. Working with a non-dimensionalised model, we prove the positivity, boundedness and uniqueness of solutions. To understand model solution behaviour close to bifurcation points, we carry out bifurcation analysis, which is further illustrated by the use of numerical bifurcation analysis, sensitivity analysis and numerical simulations. Indeed, bifurcation and numerical analysis of the model predicted a transition between bistable and stable states, which are dependent on the growth factor concentration parameter (GF). The derived predictions confirm experimental observations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".