Nstant in Fig. 2A, 2B and 2C, the disparity between the number of transcripts synthesized in different bursts is not large. Licochalcone-A custom synthesis However, the variation of mRNA copy numbers in different expression cycles is large in Fig. 2E if the lengths of memory windows follow the exponential distributions. The large variation of the transcript numbers leads to large variation in MedChemExpress [DTrp6]-LH-RH protein copy numbers in Fig. 2F. We also used the Gaussian random variables to generate samples for the length of memory windows. Simulations in Figure 2G, 2H and 2I suggested that the variation of mRNA copy numbers in different expression cycles is larger than that using constant lengths of memory windows but smaller than that when the length of memory windows follows the exponential distribution. To find the factors determining the frequency of transcription cycles, simulation results were obtained by using different TF numbers but a fixed RNAP number (Figs. 3A and 3B). When the lengths of memory time periods follow the exponential distributions, the averaged bursting number in Fig. 3B is slightly larger than or equal to that in Fig. 3A where the lengths of memory time periods are constants. When the TF numbers are not large (100), both the averaged bursting number and standard deviation in Fig. 3A and 3B are very close to each other. However, if the TF number is large (?000), the standard deviation of the simulations using the exponential distributions is much larger than that obtained from simulations with constantlength of memory time periods. We further simulated the stochastic model using a fixed number of TFs, but different RNAP numbers together with different binding rate constants of RNAP molecules to the DNA-TF complex (Fig. 3C and 3D). Simulation results in Fig. 3 suggested that the probability to form the initiation complex is strongly correlated with the frequency of transcription. In the proposed model, TF and RNAP are two symbolic species to represent the transcriptional machinery and promoter factors. Thus these results are in good agreement with the experimental observations showing that the factors initiating gene transcription are the primary regulatory mechanisms to determine the frequency of transcriptional cycles [49]. One of the major results derived from a stochastic model of the single-gene network is that the noise in protein abundance is antiproportional to the averaged protein copy number [19]. Thus an important question is whether this theoretical finding derived from a simpler stochastic model still holds when more detailed dynamics of gene expression is considered in this work. To answer this question, we calculated noise in protein abundance based on stochastic simulations with different TF numbers. The simulated noise in protein abundance derived from 10,000 simulations for each TF number was plotted against the averaged protein numbers. When the lengths of memory windows are constant, Fig. 4 shows that the simulated noise is larger than but proportional to the theoretical prediction in [19]. Furthermore, the simulated noise is even larger if the lengths of memory windows follow the exponential distributions. Thus our simulation results are in good agreement with the theoretical finding. It is reasonable to expect that the noise in protein abundance is larger if more random resources are considered.Stochastic model of the p53-MDM2 core moduleThe success in realizing the bursting gene expression stimulated us to go one step further to examine the.Nstant in Fig. 2A, 2B and 2C, the disparity between the number of transcripts synthesized in different bursts is not large. However, the variation of mRNA copy numbers in different expression cycles is large in Fig. 2E if the lengths of memory windows follow the exponential distributions. The large variation of the transcript numbers leads to large variation in protein copy numbers in Fig. 2F. We also used the Gaussian random variables to generate samples for the length of memory windows. Simulations in Figure 2G, 2H and 2I suggested that the variation of mRNA copy numbers in different expression cycles is larger than that using constant lengths of memory windows but smaller than that when the length of memory windows follows the exponential distribution. To find the factors determining the frequency of transcription cycles, simulation results were obtained by using different TF numbers but a fixed RNAP number (Figs. 3A and 3B). When the lengths of memory time periods follow the exponential distributions, the averaged bursting number in Fig. 3B is slightly larger than or equal to that in Fig. 3A where the lengths of memory time periods are constants. When the TF numbers are not large (100), both the averaged bursting number and standard deviation in Fig. 3A and 3B are very close to each other. However, if the TF number is large (?000), the standard deviation of the simulations using the exponential distributions is much larger than that obtained from simulations with constantlength of memory time periods. We further simulated the stochastic model using a fixed number of TFs, but different RNAP numbers together with different binding rate constants of RNAP molecules to the DNA-TF complex (Fig. 3C and 3D). Simulation results in Fig. 3 suggested that the probability to form the initiation complex is strongly correlated with the frequency of transcription. In the proposed model, TF and RNAP are two symbolic species to represent the transcriptional machinery and promoter factors. Thus these results are in good agreement with the experimental observations showing that the factors initiating gene transcription are the primary regulatory mechanisms to determine the frequency of transcriptional cycles [49]. One of the major results derived from a stochastic model of the single-gene network is that the noise in protein abundance is antiproportional to the averaged protein copy number [19]. Thus an important question is whether this theoretical finding derived from a simpler stochastic model still holds when more detailed dynamics of gene expression is considered in this work. To answer this question, we calculated noise in protein abundance based on stochastic simulations with different TF numbers. The simulated noise in protein abundance derived from 10,000 simulations for each TF number was plotted against the averaged protein numbers. When the lengths of memory windows are constant, Fig. 4 shows that the simulated noise is larger than but proportional to the theoretical prediction in [19]. Furthermore, the simulated noise is even larger if the lengths of memory windows follow the exponential distributions. Thus our simulation results are in good agreement with the theoretical finding. It is reasonable to expect that the noise in protein abundance is larger if more random resources are considered.Stochastic model of the p53-MDM2 core moduleThe success in realizing the bursting gene expression stimulated us to go one step further to examine the.

## Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.