MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410205270 · doi:10.1007/s13538-025-01785-y

Two-State Stochastic Model of In Vivo Observations of Transcriptional Bursts

2025· article· en· W4410205270 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Luiz Guilherme S. da Silva, Romain Yvinec, Guilherme Nery Prata, V. K. Dhar, John Reinitz, Alexandre F. Ramos

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGene Regulatory Network Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorMcGill University
KeywordsPhysicsStatistical physicsBurstingDrosophila melanogasterStochastic modellingStochastic processMaster equationGene expressionExpression (computer science)GeneComputational biologyGeneticsBiologyQuantum mechanicsStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In vivo measurements of gene expression in single cells show behavior that has been interpreted as stochastic bursts of transcription. In one case, these data have been interpreted as random ON–OFF transitions of the gene, but there is no experimental measurements or theoretical treatment of the number of transcripts produced at each burst event. In another case, such data have been interpreted to indicate multiple underlying transcriptional states. Here, we place both of these experiments in a common theoretical framework. In it, we couple two stochastic processes, one for synthesis of transcripts and one for their removal. Analysis of the resulting model is greatly aided by the existence of exact solutions of the master equation. We find the bursting limit of the exact solutions for our two-state gene expression model and show the occurrence of bursts of multiple sizes and durations by exact stochastic simulations. We also demonstrate that data from Drosophila melanogaster interpreted in terms of multiple underlying transcription states is fully compatible with underlying two-state ON or OFF transcriptional behavior. We discuss what experimental data is required to unambiguously determine the number of underlying promoter states.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of PhysicsSame topicGene Regulatory Network AnalysisFrench-language works237,207