Reviewer #1 (Public Review): Exploiting fluctuations in gene expression to detect causal interactions between genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterizing and manipulating cellular behaviour requires a mechanistic understanding of the causal interactions between cellular components. We present an approach that can detect causal interactions between genes without the need to perturb the physiological state of cells. This approach exploits naturally occurring cell-to-cell variability which is experimentally accessible from static population snapshots of genetically identical cells without the need to follow cells over time. Our main contribution is a simple mathematical relation that constrains the propagation of gene expression noise through biochemical reaction networks. This relation allows us to rigorously interpret fluctuation data even when only a small part of a complex gene regulatory process can be observed. This relation can be exploited to detect causal interactions by synthetically engineering a passive reporter of gene expression, akin to the established “dual reporter assay”. While the focus of our contribution is theoretical, we also present an experimental proof-of-principle to illustrate the approach. Our data from synthetic gene regulatory networks in E. coli are not unequivocal but suggest that the method could prove useful in practice to identify causal interactions between genes from non-genetic cell-to-cell variability.
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 | 0.045 | 0.262 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.043 |
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".