2003
DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.2003.3164
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Role of Dimerization in Noise Reduction of Simple Genetic Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
76
1

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
4
76
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, our formulation in Eqs. 1-3 corresponds to the statistically averaged results of more complex models that do include these stochastic effects (18). The advantage of our approach is that it allows us to rapidly elucidate the average behavior of each circuit for all combinations of its parameters.…”
Section: Circuits and Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nevertheless, our formulation in Eqs. 1-3 corresponds to the statistically averaged results of more complex models that do include these stochastic effects (18). The advantage of our approach is that it allows us to rapidly elucidate the average behavior of each circuit for all combinations of its parameters.…”
Section: Circuits and Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As discussed in the appendix, the repressor gal80p, and the structural proteins gal7p and gal10p, all form dimers, which has been shown t o reduce noise in genetic networks [30]. In order to assess the degree of noise reduction, it is convenient to work in terms of the Fano factor, which is the ratio of variance to mean.…”
Section: Dimerization Reduces Intrinsic Noisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A few studies have also considered variations of this simple model by allowing inhibition or activation by protein dimers. 24,25 In this paper we obtain an exact solution of the master equation for arbitrary free and bound protein degradation rates in non-equilibrium steady-state conditions. For the case of equal bound and free protein degradation rates, our solution differs markedly from the exact solution claimed by Hornos et al; 19 we explicitly show that the difference between the two solutions stems from the fact that the master equations studied in the latter work have no consistent physical interpretation and hence constitute an incorrect description of the biochemical processes at play.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%