» Articles » PMID: 21390269

Effect of Promoter Architecture on the Cell-to-cell Variability in Gene Expression

Overview
Specialty Biology
Date 2011 Mar 11
PMID 21390269
Citations 73
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

According to recent experimental evidence, promoter architecture, defined by the number, strength and regulatory role of the operators that control transcription, plays a major role in determining the level of cell-to-cell variability in gene expression. These quantitative experiments call for a corresponding modeling effort that addresses the question of how changes in promoter architecture affect variability in gene expression in a systematic rather than case-by-case fashion. In this article we make such a systematic investigation, based on a microscopic model of gene regulation that incorporates stochastic effects. In particular, we show how operator strength and operator multiplicity affect this variability. We examine different modes of transcription factor binding to complex promoters (cooperative, independent, simultaneous) and how each of these affects the level of variability in transcriptional output from cell-to-cell. We propose that direct comparison between in vivo single-cell experiments and theoretical predictions for the moments of the probability distribution of mRNA number per cell can be used to test kinetic models of gene regulation. The emphasis of the discussion is on prokaryotic gene regulation, but our analysis can be extended to eukaryotic cells as well.

Citing Articles

From homogeneity to heterogeneity: Refining stochastic simulations of gene regulation.

Chae S, Shin S, Lee K, Lee S, Kim J Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025; 27:411-422.

PMID: 39906159 PMC: 11791169. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.01.004.


Anti-correlation of LacI association and dissociation rates observed in living cells.

Kandavalli V, Zikrin S, Elf J, Jones D Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):764.

PMID: 39824877 PMC: 11748676. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56053-z.


transcription factors regulate promoter activity by a universal, homeostatic mechanism.

Parisutham V, Guharajan S, Lian M, Rogers H, Joyce S, Guillen M bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39713321 PMC: 11661191. DOI: 10.1101/2024.12.09.627516.


Using deep learning to decipher the impact of telomerase promoter mutations on the dynamic metastatic morpholome.

Nevarez A, Mudla A, Diaz S, Hao N PLoS Comput Biol. 2024; 20(7):e1012271.

PMID: 39078811 PMC: 11288469. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012271.


Interpretable prediction of mRNA abundance from promoter sequence using contextual regression models.

Wang S, Wang W NAR Genom Bioinform. 2024; 6(2):lqae055.

PMID: 38807713 PMC: 11131020. DOI: 10.1093/nargab/lqae055.


References
1.
Kepler T, Elston T . Stochasticity in transcriptional regulation: origins, consequences, and mathematical representations. Biophys J. 2001; 81(6):3116-36. PMC: 1301773. DOI: 10.1016/S0006-3495(01)75949-8. View

2.
Kaern M, Elston T, Blake W, Collins J . Stochasticity in gene expression: from theories to phenotypes. Nat Rev Genet. 2005; 6(6):451-64. DOI: 10.1038/nrg1615. View

3.
Taniguchi Y, Choi P, Li G, Chen H, Babu M, Hearn J . Quantifying E. coli proteome and transcriptome with single-molecule sensitivity in single cells. Science. 2010; 329(5991):533-8. PMC: 2922915. DOI: 10.1126/science.1188308. View

4.
Kuhlman T, Zhang Z, Saier Jr M, Hwa T . Combinatorial transcriptional control of the lactose operon of Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007; 104(14):6043-8. PMC: 1851613. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0606717104. View

5.
Singh A, Weinberger L . Stochastic gene expression as a molecular switch for viral latency. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2009; 12(4):460-6. PMC: 2760832. DOI: 10.1016/j.mib.2009.06.016. View