Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21532732›Full record

ArticlePLoS biology2011

Dynamic analysis of stochastic transcription cycles.

Claire V Harper, Bärbel Finkenstädt, Dan J Woodcock, Sönke Friedrichsen, Sabrina Semprini, Louise Ashall, David G Spiller, John J Mullins, David A Rand, Julian R E Davis and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
109citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

109 citing papers in PubMed, 241 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Eukaryotic gene regulation at equilibrium, or non?Current opinion in systems biology · 2022
    Article

49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Claire V HarperCentre for Cell Imaging, School of Biological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Bärbel Finkenstädt
Dan J Woodcock
Sönke Friedrichsen
Sabrina Semprini
Louise Ashall
David G Spiller
John J Mullins
David A Rand
Julian R E Davis
Michael R H White
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/E012965/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBE0129651Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F005814/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F005938/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 67252
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In individual mammalian cells the expression of some genes such as prolactin is highly variable over time and has been suggested to occur in stochastic pulses. To investigate the origins of this behavior and to understand its functional relevance, we quantitatively analyzed this variability using new mathematical tools that allowed us to reconstruct dynamic transcription rates of different reporter genes controlled by identical promoters in the same living cell. Quantitative microscopic analysis of two reporter genes, firefly luciferase and destabilized EGFP, was used to analyze the dynamics of prolactin promoter-directed gene expression in living individual clonal and primary pituitary cells over periods of up to 25 h. We quantified the time-dependence and cyclicity of the transcription pulses and estimated the length and variation of active and inactive transcription phases. We showed an average cycle period of approximately 11 h and demonstrated that while the measured time distribution of active phases agreed with commonly accepted models of transcription, the inactive phases were differently distributed and showed strong memory, with a refractory period of transcriptional inactivation close to 3 h. Cycles in transcription occurred at two distinct prolactin-promoter controlled reporter genes in the same individual clonal or primary cells. However, the timing of the cycles was independent and out-of-phase. For the first time, we have analyzed transcription dynamics from two equivalent loci in real-time in single cells. In unstimulated conditions, cells showed independent transcription dynamics at each locus. A key result from these analyses was the evidence for a minimum refractory period in the inactive-phase of transcription. The response to acute signals and the result of manipulation of histone acetylation was consistent with the hypothesis that this refractory period corresponded to a phase of chromatin remodeling which significantly increased the cyclicity. Stochastically timed bursts of transcription in an apparently random subset of cells in a tissue may thus produce an overall coordinated but heterogeneous phenotype capable of acute responses to stimuli.

Indexed as

Genes, ReporterAcetylationAnimalsCell CycleCell LineChromatinChromatin ImmunoprecipitationGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHistonesHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedLuciferases, FireflyLuminescent AgentsPituitary GlandProlactinRatsChromatinenhanced green fluorescent proteinGreen Fluorescent ProteinsHistonesluciferase, PhotinusLuciferases, FireflyLuminescent AgentsProlactinRNA, Messenger

Identifiers

PMID21532732
PMCPMC3075210
OpenAlexW2103018966

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.