Literature DB >> 21863500

Noise in biological systems: pros, cons, and mechanisms of control.

Yitzhak Pilpel1.   

Abstract

Genetic regulatory circuits are often regarded as precise machines that accurately determine the level of expression of each protein. Most experimental technologies used to measure gene expression levels are incapable of testing and challenging this notion, as they often measure levels averaged over entire populations of cells. Yet, when expression levels are measured at the single cell level of even genetically identical cells, substantial cell-to-cell variation (or "noise") may be observed. Sometimes different genes in a given genome may display different levels of noise; even the same gene, expressed under different environmental conditions, may display greater cell-to-cell variability in specific conditions and more tight control in other situations. While at first glance noise may seem to be an undesired property of biological networks, it might be beneficial in some cases. For instance, noise will increase functional heterogeneity in a population of microorganisms facing variable, often unpredictable, environmental changes, increasing the probability that some cells may survive the stress. In that respect, we can speculate that the population is implementing a risk distribution strategy, long before genetic heterogeneity could be acquired. Organisms may have evolved to regulate not only the averaged gene expression levels but also the extent of allowed deviations from such an average, setting it at the desired level for every gene under each specific condition. Here we review the evolving understanding of noise, its molecular underpinnings, and its effect on phenotype and fitness--when it can be detrimental, beneficial, or neutral and which regulatory tools eukaryotic cells may use to optimally control it.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21863500     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-61779-173-4_23

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  13 in total

1.  Organ aging and susceptibility to cancer may be related to the geometry of the stem cell niche.

Authors:  Krastan B Blagoev
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Insights into the regulation of protein abundance from proteomic and transcriptomic analyses.

Authors:  Christine Vogel; Edward M Marcotte
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2012-03-13       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Variation in Candida albicans EFG1 expression enables host-dependent changes in colonizing fungal populations.

Authors:  Jessica V Pierce; Carol A Kumamoto
Journal:  MBio       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 7.867

4.  Prioritizing protein complexes implicated in human diseases by network optimization.

Authors:  Yong Chen; Thibault Jacquemin; Shuyan Zhang; Rui Jiang
Journal:  BMC Syst Biol       Date:  2014-01-24

5.  From intracellular signaling to population oscillations: bridging size- and time-scales in collective behavior.

Authors:  Allyson E Sgro; David J Schwab; Javad Noorbakhsh; Troy Mestler; Pankaj Mehta; Thomas Gregor
Journal:  Mol Syst Biol       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 11.429

6.  Teasing apart translational and transcriptional components of stochastic variations in eukaryotic gene expression.

Authors:  Raheleh Salari; Damian Wojtowicz; Jie Zheng; David Levens; Yitzhak Pilpel; Teresa M Przytycka
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2012-08-30       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  Expression of VEGF receptors on endothelial cells in mouse skeletal muscle.

Authors:  Princess I Imoukhuede; Aleksander S Popel
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Is the Cell Nucleus a Necessary Component in Precise Temporal Patterning?

Authors:  Jaroslav Albert; Marianne Rooman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Tandem repeat variation in human and great ape populations and its impact on gene expression divergence.

Authors:  Tugce Bilgin Sonay; Tiago Carvalho; Mark D Robinson; Maja P Greminger; Michael Krützen; David Comas; Gareth Highnam; David Mittelman; Andrew Sharp; Tomàs Marques-Bonet; Andreas Wagner
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 9.043

10.  Natural Variation in Fish Transcriptomes: Comparative Analysis of the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) and Zebrafish (Danio rerio).

Authors:  Rong-Lin Wang; David C Bencic; Natàlia Garcia-Reyero; Edward J Perkins; Daniel L Villeneuve; Gerald T Ankley; Adam D Biales
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.