Isogenic cells in a common environment present a large degree of heterogeneity in gene expression. Part of this variability is attributed to transcriptional bursting: the stochastic activation and inactivation of promoters that leads to the discontinuous production of mRNA. The diversity in bursting patterns displayed by different genes suggests the existence of a connection between bursting and gene regulation. Experimental strategies such as single-molecule RNA FISH, MS2-GFP or short-lived protein reporters allow the quantification of transcriptional bursting and the comparison of bursting kinetics between conditions, allowing therefore the identification of molecular mechanisms modulating transcriptional bursting. In this review we recapitulate the impact on transcriptional bursting of different molecular aspects of transcription such as the chromatin environment, nucleosome occupancy, histone modifications, the number and affinity of regulatory elements, DNA looping and transcription factor availability. More specifically, we examine their role in tuning the burst size or the burst frequency. While some molecular mechanisms involved in transcription such as histone marks can affect every aspect of bursting, others predominantly influence the burst size (e.g. the number and affinity of cis-regulatory elements) or frequency (e.g. transcription factor availability).

Recent studies suggest that cells make stochastic choices with respect to differentiation or division. However, the molecular mechanism underlying such stochasticity is unknown. We previously proposed that the timing of vertebrate neuronal differentiation is regulated by molecular oscillations of a transcriptional repressor, HES1, tuned by a post-transcriptional repressor, miR-9. Here, we computationally model the effects of intrinsic noise on the Hes1/miR-9 oscillator as a consequence of low molecular numbers of interacting species, determined experimentally. We report that increased stochasticity spreads the timing of differentiation in a population, such that initially equivalent cells differentiate over a period of time. Surprisingly, inherent stochasticity also increases the robustness of the progenitor state and lessens the impact of unequal, random distribution of molecules at cell division on the temporal spread of differentiation at the population level. This advantageous use of biological noise contrasts with the view that noise needs to be counteracted.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16118.001

Multiple biological processes are driven by oscillatory gene expression at different time scales. Pulsatile dynamics are thought to be widespread, and single-cell live imaging of gene expression has lead to a surge of dynamic, possibly oscillatory, data for different gene networks. However, the regulation of gene expression at the level of an individual cell involves reactions between finite numbers of molecules, and this can result in inherent randomness in expression dynamics, which blurs the boundaries between aperiodic fluctuations and noisy oscillators. This underlies a new challenge to the experimentalist because neither intuition nor pre-existing methods work well for identifying oscillatory activity in noisy biological time series. Thus, there is an acute need for an objective statistical method for classifying whether an experimentally derived noisy time series is periodic. Here, we present a new data analysis method that combines mechanistic stochastic modelling with the powerful methods of non-parametric regression with Gaussian processes. Our method can distinguish oscillatory gene expression from random fluctuations of non-oscillatory expression in single-cell time series, despite peak-to-peak variability in period and amplitude of single-cell oscillations. We show that our method outperforms the Lomb-Scargle periodogram in successfully classifying cells as oscillatory or non-oscillatory in data simulated from a simple genetic oscillator model and in experimental data. Analysis of bioluminescent live-cell imaging shows a significantly greater number of oscillatory cells when luciferase is driven by a Hes1 promoter (10/19), which has previously been reported to oscillate, than the constitutive MoMuLV 5’ LTR (MMLV) promoter (0/25). The method can be applied to data from any gene network to both quantify the proportion of oscillating cells within a population and to measure the period and quality of oscillations. It is publicly available as a MATLAB package.