Appendix 5—table 2. A comparison of the pathway-reporter method and dual-reporter method for constitutive gene expression and fixed maturation time (Case (1)B).

For each of the parameters $K_P,{\delta }_P$ we selected a scaled ${\displaystyle \mathrm{B}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}(5,6)}$ distribution, with squared coefficient of variation ${\eta }^2=0.1$; the scaling is chosen in each case to achieve a mean value equal to the parameter value. The parameter $K_N$ is given the noise distribution ${\displaystyle \mathrm{B}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}(3,6)}$, which has a slightly higher coefficient of variation ${\eta }^2=0.2$. In order to benchmark against dual reporters, the maturation time was fixed in each case. The extrinsic noise contribution predicted by the pathway-reporters matches well with the dual reporter values.

Mean				Simulation
(r)1-4 $T_{\mathrm{mat}}$	$K_N$	$K_P$	${\delta }_P$	Pr(NM)	Pr (MP)	Pr (NP)	DR (Mat)
0.05	200	1	0.1	$0.20\pm 0.01$	$0.20\pm 0.02$	$0.20\pm 0.03$	$0.20\pm 0.01$
0.1	100	2	0.1	$0.20\pm 0.01$	$0.21\pm 0.03$	$0.21\pm 0.03$	$0.20\pm 0.01$