Figures and data in Quantifying how post-transcriptional noise and gene copy number variation bias transcriptional parameter inference from mRNA distributions

Version of Record: November 10, 2022
Accepted Manuscript: October 17, 2022

Download
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
- Article PDF
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
- Mendeley
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Xiaoming Fu

Heta P Patel

Stefano Coppola

Libin Xu

Zhixing Cao

Tineke L Lenstra

Ramon Grima

(2022)
Quantifying how post-transcriptional noise and gene copy number variation bias transcriptional parameter inference from mRNA distributions

eLife 11:e82493.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.82493
- Download BibTeX
- Download .RIS
Cite
Share
CommentOpen annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).

Figures
Tables
Additional files

15 figures, 16 tables and 1 additional file

Figures

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Overview of the inference of transcriptional parameters from synthetic data.

(a) A schematic illustration of the telegraph model. (b). A schematic of the delay telegraph model. The double horizontal line for nascent mRNA removal indicates this is a delayed reaction. (c) …

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Accuracy of the inferred kinetic parameters from synthetic mature and nascent mRNA data using the telegraph and delay telegraph model, respectively.

(a) 3D scatter plot showing the ratio of the mean relative error from nascent mRNA data (using delay telegraph model ${MRE}_{delay}$ ) and the mean relative error from mature mRNA data (using the telegraph model ${MRE}_{tele}$ ) for 789 independent parameter sets sampled on a grid. Red data points indicate parameter sets with lower relative errors for mature data compared to nascent data, blue datapoints indicate parameter sets with lower relative error for nascent data compared to mature data (b) Same data as (a) but shown as a function of the fraction of ON time, $f_{ON}$ . For $\approx 61 %$ of the parameters, the inference accuracy is higher when using nascent mRNA data. (c) Sampling from the same parameter space, we then add log-normal distributed noise (size 5%) to the initiation rate $ρ$ (see text for details) to mimic external noise due to post-transcriptional processing that is only present in mature mRNA. Log₁₀ of the ratio of the median relative error (MRE) using perturbed mature mRNA data against Log₁₀ MRE using nascent mRNA data is shown as a function of the true fraction of ON time, $f_{ON}$ . For $\approx 64 %$ of the parameters, the inference accuracy is higher when using nascent mRNA data. (d) The median relative error of each transcriptional parameter as a function of the fraction of ON time, using synthetic nascent mRNA, synthetic mature mRNA data and synthetic mature mRNA with external noise. Inference from nascent data is generally more accurate than using mature mRNA data.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

Inference results using four mature mRNA data sets with sample sizes of 2333, 6366, 4550 and 3163 cells, respectively.

(a) Representative smFISH image of a yeast cell with *PP7-GAL10* RNAs labeled with Cy3 and the nucleus labeled with DAPI. (b) The DAPI and Cy3 signals were used to determine the nuclear and cellular …

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

Inference from the normalized nascent mRNA distributions for merged and cell-cycle specific data.

(a) Normalized nascent mRNA distributions of merged cell-cycle data were obtained by normalizing the signal intensity of the transcription site (defined as the brightest spot in the cell) by the …

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

Inference results using the rejection method.

(a) Nascent RNA distributions for cell-cycle-specific and merged data. Black lines represent best fits with delay telegraph model using the rejection method. (only the distributions for dataset #1 $k = 4$ …

Figure 6

Download asset Open asset

Inference results using the fusion method.

(a) Estimated burst size, fraction of ON and Fano factor (mean values and standard deviation error bars of the four datasets) by combining the first $k$ bins with $k = 1, 2, 3, 4$ . (b) Corresponding fitted …

Appendix 1—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Comparing inference accuracy using synthetic nascent mRNA data and synthetic mature mRNA data with 10% external noise (log-normal distributed noise is added to the initiation rate $ρ$ to mimic external noise due to post-transcriptional processing that is only present in mature mRNA).

(a) Ratio of the mean relative errors in the two types of data as a function of the true fraction of ON time, $f_{ON}$ . For ≈91% (719/789) of the parameters, the inference accuracy is higher when using …

Appendix 1—figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Inference with the telegraph model and delay telegraph model for six parameter sets.

(a) Estimates using the inference algorithm with the telegraph model (with no external noise) for six parameter sets. For both the ground truth and the estimated parameters, we fix the degradation …

Appendix 2—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Distributions and mean errors of the transcriptional parameter inference.

(**a-d**) Comparison of the stochastic properties of the delay telegraph model and the telegraph model. a. Distributions of the nascent mRNA predicted by the delay telegraph model and the telegraph …

Appendix 3—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Merged and cell-cycle specific mature mRNA count distributions.

(a) Merged mature mRNA count distribution (purple) under segmentation method 1 and with/without counting the transcriptional site (TS) under segmentation method 2 with a best fit obtained from the …

Appendix 4—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Inference results using merged and cell-cycle specific nascent data.

Experimental distributions (purple) are fit using the delay telegraph model (magenta curves).

Appendix 4—figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Inference results using cell-cycle specific data curated with the rejection method (only the distributions for $k = 4$ are shown).

Corresponding fitted distributions (purple) for G1 (top row) and G2 (bottom row) using the delay telegraph model (magenta curves).

Appendix 5—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Autocorrelation functions of 10⁴ simulated *GAL10* intensity traces (solid blue lines).

The transcriptional parameters for G1 and G2 cells in the four sets of experimental data were obtained using the fusion method (see Figure 6d of the main manuscript). A linear fit (dashed black …

Appendix 6—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Left panel: Numerical instabilities due to the calculation of higher-order derivatives in the exact solution appear when the arithmetic precision is not very high (85).

Right panel: These instabilities disappear when the precision increases to 300. The exact solution with such high precision agrees well with the FSP method using double-precision floating-point …

Appendix 7—figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Blue curves (Method 1) show the fluorescent intensity distributions of the four experimental data sets after the classification of cells into G1 and G2 phases using the Fried/Baisch model.

Magenta curves (Method 2) show the same but using a bimodal Gaussian, as described in the main text.

Tables

Appendix 1—table 1

Mean and standard deviation of the parameters estimated from 10 independent synthetic datasets, generated for each parameter set in Appendix 1—figure 2.

Parameter	Mean					Standard deviation
Parameter	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
Set 1	31.85	2.69	15.68	0.53	0.10	19.07	0.22	7.68	0.07	0.05
Set 2	92.67	30.47	141.42	1.56	0.25	23.76	1.51	21.61	0.14	0.04
Set 3	9.94	8.01	63.35	6.39	0.45	0.72	0.19	1.94	0.25	0.01
Set 4	2.30	2.16	18.76	8.17	0.48	0.12	0.05	0.31	0.31	0.01
Set 5	2.26	5.80	12.57	5.59	0.72	0.19	0.30	0.11	0.41	0.01
Set 6	1.22	10.01	24.97	20.53	0.89	0.10	0.43	0.16	1.65	0.01

Appendix 1—table 2

95% confidence intervals of the 12 parameter sets (shown in Appendix 1—figure 2a-b).

Parameter	Telegraph CI			Delay CI
Parameter	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$
Set 1	(6.76, 300.00)	(3.53, 8.49)	(5.59, 107.67)	(13.80, 300.00)	(1.85, 2.69)	(9.94, 160.51)
Set 2	(17.22, 190.38)	(14.56, 23.92)	(61.14, 250.51)	(103.80, 268.35)	(30.00, 35.38)	(161.54, 300.00)
Set 3	(0.54, 0.59)	(0.41, 0.43)	(46.08, 47.15)	(6.83, 8.55)	(6.42, 7.04)	(58.28, 63.18)
Set 4	(0.31, 0.35)	(0.46, 0.49)	(15.50, 15.91)	(1.64,1.99)	(1.65,1.85)	(17.92,18.77)
Set 5	(0.49, 0.85)	(5.82, 7.62)	(49.62, 50.92)	(1.56,2.59)	(4.58,5.85)	(12.08,12.97)
Set 6	(0.08, 0.16)	(2.46, 3.54)	(26.10, 26.54)	(0.73,1.24)	(7.53,9.75)	(24.32,25.14)

Appendix 1—table 3

Table showing the relative error against profile likelihood error of 12 parameter sets (shown in Appendix 1—figure 2a and b).

See text for details.

	Telegraph						Delay
	Relative error			Profile likelihood error			Relative error			Profile likelihood error
	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$
Set 1	0.87	0.27	0.77	18.82	0.88	11.07	0.82	0.11	0.58	1.75	0.34	1.82
Set 2	0.04	0.04	1.44E-03	4.72	0.52	2.22	0.41	0.11	0.27	0.81	0.16	0.55
Set 3	0.08	0.01	0.01	0.09	0.06	0.02	0.20	0.15	0.03	0.22	0.09	0.08
Set 4	0.01	0.01	1.11E-03	0.14	0.07	0.03	0.22	0.18	0.02	0.20	0.11	0.05
Set 5	0.22	0.13	4.97E-03	0.55	0.27	0.03	0.30	0.23	0.03	0.64	0.28	0.07
Set 6	0.29	0.24	0.01	0.74	0.37	0.02	0.20	0.12	0.01	0.55	0.25	0.03

Appendix 1—table 4

Effects of random perturbations on inference of parameters from mature mRNA data (using the telegraph model).

Parameter	True					Unperturbed					–1/0/+1 stochastic perturbation
Parameter	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
Set 1	120.38	7.70	40.85	0.34	0.06	15.58	5.63	9.22	0.59	0.27	0.59	1.17	3.70	6.28	0.66
Set 2	35.48	17.39	85.05	2.40	0.33	36.73	18.03	85.17	2.32	0.33	24.13	15.79	70.89	2.94	0.40
Set 3	0.52	0.42	46.21	88.36	0.44	0.57	0.42	46.62	82.47	0.43	0.61	0.46	47.17	76.74	0.43
Set 4	0.32	0.47	15.71	48.65	0.59	0.33	0.47	15.70	48.01	0.59	0.39	0.54	16.09	41.17	0.58
Set 5	0.53	5.85	49.95	94.72	0.92	0.64	6.62	50.20	77.99	0.91	0.68	6.72	50.35	74.48	0.91
Set 6	0.16	3.89	26.45	169.81	0.96	0.11	2.94	26.30	238.76	0.96	0.13	3.06	26.42	203.20	0.96

Appendix 1—table 5

Inference using the delay telegraph model from synthetic nascent fluorescent data, with and without perturbation by log-normal noise.

Parameter	True					Delay					Perturbation
Parameter	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
Set 1	34.49	2.80	16.65	0.48	0.08	62.74	3.10	26.38	0.42	0.05	50.08	1.52	31.71	0.63	0.03
Set 2	135.68	32.98	179.74	1.32	0.20	80.42	29.44	131.35	1.63	0.27	233.96	30.74	300.00	1.28	0.12
Set 3	9.86	7.96	63.16	6.41	0.45	7.85	6.78	61.20	7.79	0.46	8.85	6.63	65.49	7.40	0.43
Set 4	2.26	2.14	18.64	8.26	0.49	1.77	1.76	18.28	10.36	0.50	1.90	1.64	18.65	9.83	0.46
Set 5	2.27	5.80	12.55	5.53	0.72	1.60	4.48	12.21	7.63	0.74	2.59	4.79	13.27	5.13	0.65
Set 6	1.18	9.94	24.92	21.15	0.89	0.94	8.74	24.74	26.37	0.90	1.84	10.15	26.10	14.18	0.85

Appendix 2—table 1

Estimates using the inference algorithm with delay telegraph and telegraph models for the six parameter sets in Appendix 2—figure 1f.

Parameter	True					Delay					Telegraph
Parameter	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
Set 1	1.05	8.20	57.99	55.09	0.89	0.94	7.19	57.92	61.87	0.88	0.60	4.10	59.51	99.42	0.87
Set 2	1.27	3.14	58.17	45.69	0.71	1.13	2.91	58.01	51.16	0.72	0.45	1.22	59.43	133.07	0.73
Set 3	2.27	5.80	12.55	5.53	0.72	1.60	4.48	12.21	7.63	0.74	0.59	1.71	12.09	20.61	0.74
Set 4	1.18	9.94	24.92	21.15	0.89	0.94	8.74	24.74	26.37	0.90	0.46	4.12	24.92	54.00	0.90
Set 5	2.26	2.14	18.64	8.26	0.49	1.77	1.76	18.28	10.36	0.50	0.54	0.58	17.60	32.59	0.52
Set 6	1.38	4.77	21.74	15.79	0.78	1.08	4.00	21.50	19.94	0.79	0.38	1.49	21.31	56.44	0.80

Appendix 3—table 1

Inferred transcriptional parameters using merged mature mRNA data from segmentation 1, segmentation 2 and segmentation 2 without transcriptional site (TS).

Parameter	segmentation 1					segmentation 2					segmentation 2 without TS
Parameter	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
Set 1	21.18	4.73	47.15	2.23	0.18	3.27	3.36	20.62	6.31	0.51	2.92	2.45	21.05	7.22	0.46
Set 2	19.53	5.44	40.11	2.05	0.22	3.22	3.87	19.17	5.95	0.55	2.46	2.68	18.35	7.46	0.52
Set 3	16.53	4.77	39.48	2.39	0.22	3.67	4.05	20.09	5.47	0.52	3.00	2.87	19.73	6.57	0.49
Set 4	28.72	5.16	50.00	1.74	0.15	5.79	4.58	23.04	3.98	0.44	5.27	3.27	24.33	4.61	0.38
Mean	21.49	5.02	44.19	2.10	0.19	3.99	3.97	20.73	5.43	0.50	3.41	2.82	20.87	6.46	0.46
Std	5.19	0.34	5.21	0.28	0.03	1.06	0.43	1.43	0.89	0.04	1.26	0.35	2.56	1.29	0.06

Appendix 3—table 2

95% confidence interval intervals for the estimates from experimental mature mRNA data using segmentation 2.

mature		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	CI for $σ_{off}, σ_{on}, ρ$
merged	Set 1	3.27	3.36	20.62	(2.08, 6.08)	(2.81, 4.16)	(18.03, 25.97)
	Set 2	3.22	3.87	19.17	(2.38, 4.69)	(3.41, 4.44)	(17.51, 21.62)
	Set 3	3.67	4.05	20.09	(2.54, 5.92)	(3.51, 4.79)	(18.03, 23.67)
	Set 4	5.79	4.58	23.04	(3.33, 13.33)	(3.79, 5.85)	(19.36, 33.51)
G1	Set 1	0.69	2.76	10.71	(0.27, 2.35)	(1.73, 4.96)	(9.77, 12.85)
	Set 2	0.60	2.80	10.27	(0.35, 1.24)	(2.13, 3.92)	(9.77, 11.15)
	Set 3	0.88	3.41	10.33	(0.38, 2.84)	(2.23, 5.77)	(9.58, 12.35)
	Set 4	2.46	5.21	11.12	(0.46, 300.00)	(2.68, 18.86)	(8.96, 216.67)
G2	Set 1	0.42	0.99	9.45	(0.22, 0.91)	(0.65, 1.48)	(8.64, 10.86)
	Set 2	0.14	1.01	7.92	(0.05, 0.36)	(0.56, 1.72)	(7.61, 8.46)
	Set 3	0.18	1.24	7.91	(0.05, 0.72)	(0.57, 2.59)	(7.49, 8.85)
	Set 4	0.42	1.68	8.19	(0.12, 2.07)	(0.76, 3.50)	(7.41, 10.28)

Appendix 3—table 3

Inferred transcriptional rate (normalized) per gene copy for the G2 cell cycle phase under the assumption that the two gene states are perfectly synchronized.

mature		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G2 sync	Set 1	0.62	2.17	8.45	13.69	0.78
	Set 2	0.37	3.26	7.72	21.05	0.90
	Set 3	0.67	4.42	7.92	11.85	0.87
	Set 4	0.55	3.45	7.55	13.62	0.86
	Mean	0.55	3.32	7.91	15.05	0.85
	Std	0.13	0.92	0.39	4.09	0.05

Appendix 4—table 1

Estimated parameters from the non-curated distribution of the normalized intensity of the brightest nuclear spot (nascent mRNA data) constructed by merging all data or else specific to the cell cycle phases G1 and G2.

The elongation time $τ$ is estimated to be 0.785 min, based on measurements of the elongation speed.

nascent		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
merged	Set 1	5.24	5.07	77.46	14.78	0.49
	Set 2	5.58	5.13	82.11	14.71	0.48
	Set 3	5.11	5.17	76.09	14.90	0.50
	Set 4	5.96	6.13	73.23	12.30	0.51
	Mean	5.47	5.37	77.22	14.17	0.50
	Std	0.38	0.50	3.70	1.25	0.01
G1	Set 1	1.11	3.76	37.83	34.10	0.77
	Set 2	1.53	3.94	41.33	27.06	0.72
	Set 3	0.95	3.23	36.79	38.56	0.77
	Set 4	1.28	3.76	36.04	28.09	0.75
	Mean	1.22	3.67	38.00	31.95	0.75
	Std	0.25	0.31	2.34	5.39	0.02
G2	Set 1	0.74	1.69	35.00	47.30	0.70
	Set 2	0.82	2.18	36.30	44.37	0.73
	Set 3	0.91	2.19	34.54	37.90	0.71
	Set 4	1.08	2.61	33.27	30.76	0.71
	Mean	0.89	2.17	34.78	40.08	0.71
	Std	0.15	0.38	1.25	7.35	0.01

Appendix 4—table 2

95% confidence intervals for non-curated data estimated using the profile likelihood method.

nascent		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	CI for $σ_{off}, σ_{on}, ρ$
merged	Set 1	5.24	5.07	77.46	14.78	0.49	(4.42, 6.23)	(4.68, 5.45)	(73.48, 82.92)
	Set 2	5.58	5.13	82.11	14.71	0.48	(5.05, 6.15)	(4.97, 5.37)	(79.38, 85.53)
	Set 3	5.11	5.17	76.09	14.90	0.50	(4.53, 5.71)	(4.98, 5.38)	(73.49, 79.64)
	Set 4	5.96	6.13	73.23	12.30	0.51	(5.19, 7.22)	(5.87, 6.57)	(69.34, 78.37)
G1	Set 1	1.11	3.76	37.83	34.10	0.77	(0.77, 1.66)	(3.04, 4.63)	(36.26, 39.96)
	Set 2	1.53	3.94	41.33	27.06	0.72	(1.29, 1.88)	(3.64, 4.40)	(40.18, 42.85)
	Set 3	0.95	3.23	36.79	38.56	0.77	(0.77, 1.17)	(2.86, 3.60)	(36.05, 37.69)
	Set 4	1.28	3.76	36.04	28.09	0.75	(0.99, 1.73)	(3.18, 4.34)	(34.68, 37.75)
G2	Set 1	0.74	1.69	35.00	47.30	0.70	(0.54, 1.02)	(1.36, 2.08)	(33.64, 36.72)
	Set 2	0.82	2.18	36.30	44.37	0.73	(0.66, 1.07)	(1.85, 2.52)	(35.35, 37.40)
	Set 3	0.91	2.19	34.54	37.90	0.71	(0.70, 1.23)	(1.85, 2.61)	(33.38, 36.05)
	Set 4	1.08	2.61	33.27	30.76	0.71	(0.75, 1.71)	(2.00, 3.41)	(31.91, 35.40)

Appendix 4—table 3

(Rejection method) Estimated parameters by discarding the first $k$ signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity (and renormalizing afterwards).

Inference is done for each of the four data sets. The elongation time is fixed to $τ \approx 0.785$ min.

k = 1		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$		burst size	$f_{O N}$
G1	Set 1	1.06	4.33	36.62	34.63	0.80
	Set 2	1.45	4.42	39.84	27.51	0.75
	Set 3	1.04	3.84	36.66	35.19	0.79
	Set 4	1.27	4.12	35.41	27.78	0.76
	Mean	1.21	4.18	37.13	31.28	0.78
	Std	0.19	0.26	1.90	4.20	0.02
G2	Set 1	0.84	2.10	34.54	41.20	0.71
	Set 2	0.97	2.94	35.49	36.73	0.75
	Set 3	0.94	2.53	33.68	35.99	0.73
	Set 4	1.20	3.07	32.81	27.28	0.72
	Mean	0.99	2.66	34.13	35.30	0.73
	Std	0.15	0.44	1.15	5.82	0.02
$k = 2$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	1.58	6.33	37.77	23.89	0.80
	Set 2	1.93	5.93	40.86	21.16	0.75
	Set 3	1.28	5.15	37.07	29.07	0.80
	Set 4	1.55	5.29	35.92	23.10	0.77
	Mean	1.59	5.67	37.91	24.30	0.78
	Std	0.27	0.55	2.11	3.38	0.02
G2	Set 1	1.43	3.42	35.83	25.11	0.71
	Set 2	1.69	4.39	37.42	22.10	0.72
	Set 3	1.33	3.38	34.64	26.08	0.72
	Set 4	1.56	3.68	33.70	21.61	0.70
	Mean	1.50	3.72	35.39	23.72	0.71
	Std	0.16	0.47	1.61	2.20	0.01
$k = 3$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	2.66	9.03	39.73	14.92	0.77
	Set 2	2.55	7.41	42.04	16.46	0.74
	Set 3	1.64	6.67	37.69	22.92	0.80
	Set 4	2.22	7.32	37.02	16.65	0.77
	Mean	2.27	7.61	39.12	17.73	0.77
	Std	0.46	1.00	2.26	3.54	0.02
G2	Set 1	2.01	4.35	37.23	18.50	0.68
	Set 2	2.16	5.10	38.56	17.85	0.70
	Set 3	1.70	4.05	35.55	20.85	0.70
	Set 4	1.88	4.16	34.48	18.30	0.69
	Mean	1.94	4.41	36.45	18.88	0.69
	Std	0.19	0.48	1.80	1.34	0.01
$k = 4$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	6.10	14.18	44.41	7.28	0.70
	Set 2	3.72	9.57	43.96	11.81	0.72
	Set 3	2.02	7.99	38.25	18.89	0.80
	Set 4	2.75	8.60	37.78	13.76	0.76
	Mean	3.65	10.09	41.10	12.94	0.74
	Std	1.77	2.80	3.57	4.81	0.04
G2	Set 1	2.12	4.50	37.48	17.68	0.68
	Set 2	2.59	5.68	39.55	15.25	0.69
	Set 3	2.47	5.14	37.27	15.08	0.68
	Set 4	2.18	4.55	35.17	16.13	0.68
	Mean	2.34	4.97	37.37	16.04	0.68
	Std	0.23	0.56	1.79	1.19	0.01

Appendix 4—table 4

(Fusion method) Estimated parameters by combining the first $k$ signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity.

Inference is done for each of the four data sets. The elongation time is fixed to $τ \approx 0.785$ min.

$k = 1$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	1.11	3.76	37.83	34.10	0.77
	Set 2	1.53	3.94	41.33	27.06	0.72
	Set 3	0.95	3.23	36.79	38.56	0.77
	Set 4	1.28	3.76	36.04	28.09	0.75
	Mean	1.22	3.67	38.00	31.95	0.75
	Std	0.25	0.31	2.34	5.39	0.02
G2	Set 1	0.74	1.69	35.00	47.30	0.70
	Set 2	0.82	2.18	36.30	44.37	0.73
	Set 3	0.91	2.19	34.54	37.90	0.71
	Set 4	1.08	2.61	33.27	30.76	0.71
	Mean	0.89	2.17	34.78	40.08	0.71
	Std	0.15	0.38	1.25	7.35	0.01
$k = 2$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	0.78	2.99	36.65	46.99	0.79
	Set 2	1.14	3.27	40.01	35.06	0.74
	Set 3	0.71	2.58	36.00	51.00	0.79
	Set 4	0.96	3.09	35.08	36.52	0.76
	Mean	0.90	2.98	36.94	42.39	0.77
	Std	0.19	0.30	2.15	7.82	0.02
G2	Set 1	0.54	1.30	34.37	63.20	0.70
	Set 2	0.67	1.87	35.74	53.70	0.74
	Set 3	0.74	1.88	33.96	45.75	0.72
	Set 4	0.94	2.36	32.84	34.89	0.72
	Mean	0.72	1.85	34.23	49.38	0.72
	Std	0.17	0.44	1.20	12.01	0.01
$k = 3$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	0.71	2.79	36.38	51.39	0.80
	Set 2	1.07	3.14	39.77	37.01	0.75
	Set 3	0.63	2.35	35.74	56.84	0.79
	Set 4	0.80	2.71	34.58	43.09	0.77
	Mean	0.80	2.75	36.62	47.08	0.78
	Std	0.19	0.32	2.23	8.78	0.02
G2	Set 1	0.52	1.25	34.30	65.86	0.71
	Set 2	0.65	1.84	35.70	54.75	0.74
	Set 3	0.71	1.81	33.85	47.67	0.72
	Set 4	0.91	2.31	32.76	35.91	0.72
	Mean	0.70	1.80	34.15	51.05	0.72
	Std	0.16	0.43	1.22	12.57	0.01
$k = 4$		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G1	Set 1	0.69	2.73	36.30	52.85	0.80
	Set 2	1.05	3.09	39.69	37.71	0.75
	Set 3	0.63	2.35	35.74	56.78	0.79
	Set 4	0.83	2.79	34.68	41.57	0.77
	Mean	0.80	2.74	36.60	47.23	0.78
	Std	0.19	0.31	2.17	9.04	0.02
G2	Set 1	0.56	1.34	34.45	61.05	0.70
	Set 2	0.66	1.86	35.73	54.11	0.74
	Set 3	0.67	1.72	33.70	50.56	0.72
	Set 4	0.92	2.33	32.79	35.48	0.72
	Mean	0.70	1.81	34.17	50.30	0.72
	Std	0.15	0.41	1.24	10.80	0.01

Appendix 4—table 5

Inference of the kinetic parameters $(σ_{off}, σ_{on}, ρ)$ using nascent data curated with the fusion method.

Inferred values and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals of G1 and G2 cell-cycle-specific data calculated using the profile likelihood method.

nascent		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$	CI for $σ_{off}, σ_{on}, ρ$
G1	Set 1	0.69	2.73	36.30	52.85	0.80	(0.46, 1.05)	(2.12, 3.52)	(35.06, 37.91)
	Set 2	1.05	3.09	39.69	37.71	0.75	(0.86, 1.29)	(2.73, 3.47)	(38.77, 40.92)
	Set 3	0.63	2.35	35.74	56.78	0.79	(0.49, 0.79)	(1.99, 2.71)	(35.06, 36.58)
	Set 4	0.83	2.79	34.68	41.57	0.77	(0.62, 1.16)	(2.27, 3.41)	(33.54, 36.01)
G2	Set 1	0.56	1.34	34.45	61.05	0.70	(0.40, 0.81)	(1.04, 1.73)	(33.35, 35.82)
	Set 2	0.66	1.86	35.73	54.11	0.74	(0.51, 0.85)	(1.57, 2.21)	(34.87, 36.77)
	Set 3	0.67	1.72	33.70	50.56	0.72	(0.50, 0.91)	(1.40, 2.11)	(32.78, 34.87)
	Set 4	0.92	2.33	32.79	35.48	0.72	(0.62, 1.45)	(1.74, 3.09)	(31.65, 34.68)

Appendix 4—table 6

Inferred transcriptional rate (normalized) per gene copy for the G2 cell cycle phase using nascent data curated with the fusion method under the assumption that the two gene states are perfectly synchronized.

nascent fusion		$σ_{off}$	$σ_{on}$	$ρ$	burst size	$f_{ON}$
G2 sync	Set 1	1.84	4.42	33.84	18.42	0.71
	Set 2	2.18	5.78	35.85	16.44	0.73
	Set 3	2.15	5.36	33.61	15.63	0.71
	Set 4	3.53	7.45	34.16	9.69	0.68
	Mean	2.42	5.75	34.36	15.05	0.71
	Std.	0.75	1.26	1.01	3.76	0.02

Appendix 6—table 1

Comparison of the performance of three methods to compute the probability distribution.

Parameters same as in Appendix 6—figure 1. The time was calculated using the Julia package BenchmarkTools.jl.

	Exact solution: precision = 85	Exact solution: precision = 300	FSP method
Minimum time:	6.422ms	9.277ms	8.317ms
Median time:	6.868ms	9.562ms	9.092ms
Mean time:	8.279ms	11.482ms	9.415ms
Maximum time:	16.791ms	16.919ms	14.203ms
# of Simulations:	604	436	531

Additional files

MDAR checklist: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/82493/elife-82493-mdarchecklist1-v2.docx
Download elife-82493-mdarchecklist1-v2.docx

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Figures

Overview of the inference of transcriptional parameters from synthetic data.

Accuracy of the inferred kinetic parameters from synthetic mature and nascent mRNA data using the telegraph and delay telegraph model, respectively.

Inference results using four mature mRNA data sets with sample sizes of 2333, 6366, 4550 and 3163 cells, respectively.

Inference from the normalized nascent mRNA distributions for merged and cell-cycle specific data.

Inference results using the rejection method.

Inference results using the fusion method.

Comparing inference accuracy using synthetic nascent mRNA data and synthetic mature mRNA data with 10% external noise (log-normal distributed noise is added to the initiation rate $ρ$ to mimic external noise due to post-transcriptional processing that is only present in mature mRNA).

Inference with the telegraph model and delay telegraph model for six parameter sets.

Distributions and mean errors of the transcriptional parameter inference.

Merged and cell-cycle specific mature mRNA count distributions.

Inference results using merged and cell-cycle specific nascent data.

Inference results using cell-cycle specific data curated with the rejection method (only the distributions for $k = 4$ are shown).

Autocorrelation functions of 10⁴ simulated GAL10 intensity traces (solid blue lines).

Left panel: Numerical instabilities due to the calculation of higher-order derivatives in the exact solution appear when the arithmetic precision is not very high (85).

Blue curves (Method 1) show the fluorescent intensity distributions of the four experimental data sets after the classification of cells into G1 and G2 phases using the Fried/Baisch model.

Tables

Mean and standard deviation of the parameters estimated from 10 independent synthetic datasets, generated for each parameter set in Appendix 1—figure 2.

95% confidence intervals of the 12 parameter sets (shown in Appendix 1—figure 2a-b).

Table showing the relative error against profile likelihood error of 12 parameter sets (shown in Appendix 1—figure 2a and b).

Effects of random perturbations on inference of parameters from mature mRNA data (using the telegraph model).

Inference using the delay telegraph model from synthetic nascent fluorescent data, with and without perturbation by log-normal noise.

Estimates using the inference algorithm with delay telegraph and telegraph models for the six parameter sets in Appendix 2—figure 1f.

Inferred transcriptional parameters using merged mature mRNA data from segmentation 1, segmentation 2 and segmentation 2 without transcriptional site (TS).

95% confidence interval intervals for the estimates from experimental mature mRNA data using segmentation 2.

Inferred transcriptional rate (normalized) per gene copy for the G2 cell cycle phase under the assumption that the two gene states are perfectly synchronized.

Estimated parameters from the non-curated distribution of the normalized intensity of the brightest nuclear spot (nascent mRNA data) constructed by merging all data or else specific to the cell cycle phases G1 and G2.

95% confidence intervals for non-curated data estimated using the profile likelihood method.

(Rejection method) Estimated parameters by discarding the first $k$ signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity (and renormalizing afterwards).

(Fusion method) Estimated parameters by combining the first $k$ signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity.

Inference of the kinetic parameters $(σ_{off}, σ_{on}, ρ)$ using nascent data curated with the fusion method.

Inferred transcriptional rate (normalized) per gene copy for the G2 cell cycle phase using nascent data curated with the fusion method under the assumption that the two gene states are perfectly synchronized.

Comparison of the performance of three methods to compute the probability distribution.

Additional files

MDAR checklist

Download links

Be the first to read new articles from eLife

Share this article

Cite this article

Overview of the inference of transcriptional parameters from synthetic data.

Accuracy of the inferred kinetic parameters from synthetic mature and nascent mRNA data using the telegraph and delay telegraph model, respectively.

Inference results using four mature mRNA data sets with sample sizes of 2333, 6366, 4550 and 3163 cells, respectively.

Inference from the normalized nascent mRNA distributions for merged and cell-cycle specific data.

Inference results using the rejection method.

Inference results using the fusion method.

Inference with the telegraph model and delay telegraph model for six parameter sets.

Distributions and mean errors of the transcriptional parameter inference.

Merged and cell-cycle specific mature mRNA count distributions.

Inference results using merged and cell-cycle specific nascent data.

Inference results using cell-cycle specific data curated with the rejection method (only the distributions for k=4<math id="inf359"><mrow><mi>k</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>4</mn></mrow></math> are shown).

Autocorrelation functions of 104 simulated GAL10 intensity traces (solid blue lines).

Left panel: Numerical instabilities due to the calculation of higher-order derivatives in the exact solution appear when the arithmetic precision is not very high (85).

Blue curves (Method 1) show the fluorescent intensity distributions of the four experimental data sets after the classification of cells into G1 and G2 phases using the Fried/Baisch model.

Mean and standard deviation of the parameters estimated from 10 independent synthetic datasets, generated for each parameter set in Appendix 1—figure 2.

95% confidence intervals of the 12 parameter sets (shown in Appendix 1—figure 2a-b).

Table showing the relative error against profile likelihood error of 12 parameter sets (shown in Appendix 1—figure 2a and b).

Effects of random perturbations on inference of parameters from mature mRNA data (using the telegraph model).

Inference using the delay telegraph model from synthetic nascent fluorescent data, with and without perturbation by log-normal noise.

Estimates using the inference algorithm with delay telegraph and telegraph models for the six parameter sets in Appendix 2—figure 1f.

Inferred transcriptional parameters using merged mature mRNA data from segmentation 1, segmentation 2 and segmentation 2 without transcriptional site (TS).

95% confidence interval intervals for the estimates from experimental mature mRNA data using segmentation 2.

Inferred transcriptional rate (normalized) per gene copy for the G2 cell cycle phase under the assumption that the two gene states are perfectly synchronized.

Estimated parameters from the non-curated distribution of the normalized intensity of the brightest nuclear spot (nascent mRNA data) constructed by merging all data or else specific to the cell cycle phases G1 and G2.

95% confidence intervals for non-curated data estimated using the profile likelihood method.

(Rejection method) Estimated parameters by discarding the first k<math id="inf360"><mi>k</mi></math> signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity (and renormalizing afterwards).

(Fusion method) Estimated parameters by combining the first k<math id="inf380"><mi>k</mi></math> signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity.

Inferred transcriptional rate (normalized) per gene copy for the G2 cell cycle phase using nascent data curated with the fusion method under the assumption that the two gene states are perfectly synchronized.

Comparison of the performance of three methods to compute the probability distribution.

MDAR checklist

Inference results using cell-cycle specific data curated with the rejection method (only the distributions for $k = 4$ are shown).

Autocorrelation functions of 10⁴ simulated GAL10 intensity traces (solid blue lines).

(Rejection method) Estimated parameters by discarding the first $k$ signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity (and renormalizing afterwards).

(Fusion method) Estimated parameters by combining the first $k$ signal bins of the experimental distribution of the signal intensity.