↓ Skip to main content

Stochastic Noise and Synchronisation during Dictyostelium Aggregation Make cAMP Oscillations Robust

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, November 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stochastic Noise and Synchronisation during Dictyostelium Aggregation Make cAMP Oscillations Robust
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, November 2007
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030218
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jongrae Kim, Pat Heslop-Harrison, Ian Postlethwaite, Declan G Bates

Abstract

Stable and robust oscillations in the concentration of adenosine 3', 5'-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) are observed during the aggregation phase of starvation-induced development in Dictyostelium discoideum. In this paper we use mathematical modelling together with ideas from robust control theory to identify two factors which appear to make crucial contributions to ensuring the robustness of these oscillations. Firstly, we show that stochastic fluctuations in the molecular interactions play an important role in preserving stable oscillations in the face of variations in the kinetics of the intracellular network. Secondly, we show that synchronisation of the aggregating cells through the diffusion of extracellular cAMP is a key factor in ensuring robustness of the oscillatory waves of cAMP observed in Dictyostelium cell cultures to cell-to-cell variations. A striking and quite general implication of the results is that the robustness analysis of models of oscillating biomolecular networks (circadian clocks, Ca(2+) oscillations, etc.) can only be done reliably by using stochastic simulations, even in the case where molecular concentrations are very high.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 7%
Japan 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 49 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 15%
Student > Master 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 36%
Physics and Astronomy 8 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Engineering 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 7 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2008.
All research outputs
#17,302,400
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,481
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,743
of 90,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#32
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 90,628 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.