Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37862377›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2023

Modelling how plant cell-cycle progression leads to cell size regulation.

Daniel Williamson, William Tasker-Brown, James A H Murray, Angharad R Jones, Leah R Band

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel WilliamsonCentre for Mathematical Medicine and Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
William Tasker-BrownCardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
James A H MurrayCardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Angharad R JonesCardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Sir Martin Evans Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Leah R BandCentre for Mathematical Medicine and Biology, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6979-1117
Cardiff University · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Populations of cells typically maintain a consistent size, despite cell division rarely being precisely symmetrical. Therefore, cells must possess a mechanism of "size control", whereby the cell volume at birth affects cell-cycle progression. While size control mechanisms have been elucidated in a number of other organisms, it is not yet clear how this mechanism functions in plants. Here, we present a mathematical model of the key interactions in the plant cell cycle. Model simulations reveal that the network of interactions exhibits limit-cycle solutions, with biological switches underpinning both the G1/S and G2/M cell-cycle transitions. Embedding this network model within growing cells, we test hypotheses as to how cell-cycle progression can depend on cell size. We investigate two different mechanisms at both the G1/S and G2/M transitions: (i) differential expression of cell-cycle activator and inhibitor proteins (with synthesis of inhibitor proteins being independent of cell size), and (ii) equal inheritance of inhibitor proteins after cell division. The model demonstrates that both these mechanisms can lead to larger daughter cells progressing through the cell cycle more rapidly, and can thus contribute to cell-size control. To test how these features enable size homeostasis over multiple generations, we then simulated these mechanisms in a cell-population model with multiple rounds of cell division. These simulations suggested that integration of size-control mechanisms at both G1/S and G2/M provides long-term cell-size homeostasis. We concluded that while both size independence and equal inheritance of inhibitor proteins can reduce variations in cell size across individual cell-cycle phases, combining size-control mechanisms at both G1/S and G2/M is essential to maintain size homeostasis over multiple generations. Thus, our study reveals how features of the cell-cycle network enable cell-cycle progression to depend on cell size, and provides a mechanistic understanding of how plant cell populations maintain consistent size over generations.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalPlant CellsCell CycleCell DivisionCell SizeHumansInfant, Newborn

Identifiers

PMID37862377
PMCPMC10653611
OpenAlexW4387806045

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.