Control of Stochasticity in Eukaryotic Gene Expression

By J. Raser, E. O’Shea. Science, 2004

1,505 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f37081158050bf233f6a6114a94e2dae35a3be38

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

In Molecular Biology

Citations in the corpus

Design and Analysis of Single-Cell Sequencing Experiments. (2015, background): “Current models of transcriptional dynamics describe promoter bursting (Figure 4A), where the promoter of a gene switches between an active and an inactive state and, once activated, initiates transcript production at a constant rate (Raj et al., 2006; Raser and O’Shea, 2004).”
Real-time kinetics of gene activity in individual bacteria. (2005, methodology): “Cell Bursts of Transcription To explain the observed heterogeneity, we return to previous models of random gene activation-inactivation (Kepler and Elston, 2001; Peccoud and Ycart, 1995; Raser and O’Shea, 2004; Sasai and Wolynes, 2003).”
Stochastic gene expression and its consequences (2008, background): “Almost immediately, several reports seemed to indicate that the sources of variability in gene expression in yeast are different from those in bacteria in a number of important ways (Becskei et al., 2005; Blake et al., 2006; Blake et al., 2003; Raser and O’Shea, 2004).”
Identification of cell types from single-cell transcriptomes using a novel clustering method (2015, background): “The recent advance of single-cell measurements has deepened our understanding of the cellular heterogeneity in homogenic populations and the underlying mechanisms (Kalisky and Quake, 2011; Pelkmans, 2012; Raser and O’Shea, 2004).”
H3K4me3 breadth is linked to cell identity and transcriptional consistency (2014, background): “Interestingly, deﬁciencies in histone acetyltransferases or chromatin remodelers lead to increased transcriptional noise in yeast (Hansen and O’Shea, 2013; Raser and O’Shea, 2004; Weinberger et al., 2012), supporting the idea that chromatin states are critical for transcriptional precision.”
Phenotypic consequences of promoter-mediated transcriptional noise. (2006, background): “, 2005), the remodeling of chromatin (Blake et al., 2003; Raser and O’Shea, 2004; Sato et al., 2004), the partitioning of proteins at cell division (Rosenfeld et al.”
Tuning gene expression to changing environments: from rapid responses to evolutionary adaptation (2008, background): “Several recent studies indicate that noise levels are tuned by evolution to balance fidelity and variation of gene expression; although too much noise with respect to the regulation of processes such as cell proliferation or development could be detrimental for fitness, variable regulation of enviro”
Distinct Modes of Regulation by Chromatin Encoded through Nucleosome Positioning Signals (2008, positive): “Taken together, our results point to a strong association between chromatin and transcriptional noise at the genome-wide level, as suggested on the basis of one gene [51], and further uncover two distinct types of chromatin architectures by which high or low noise may be implemented in yeast promote”
Stochastic mRNA Synthesis in Mammalian Cells (2006, background): “studies [1,5], the authors developed models of gene expres-”