. 2021 Oct 12;10:e69324. doi: 10.7554/eLife.69324

Table 4. A comparison of the pathway-reporter method and dual-reporter method for bursty expression.

Here PR (NP) gives the results of the nascent and protein pathway reporters, PR (MP) gives the results of the mRNA and protein reporters, while DR (Mat) gives the results of the dual reporters calculated from the mature mRNA. We consider noise on all of the parameters except for $δ_{M}$ and $K_{M}$ ; see discussion in main text. The values given are the average of 100 simulations, each calculated from 500 copy number samples, and the errors are ± one standard deviation. Our theory predicts that pathway-reporters will identify the noise at both the promoter level ( $λ, μ$ ) and transcriptional level ( $K_{N}$ ); the total extrinsic noise in each case is given by $η_{ext}^{2}$ . As before, the noise distribution parameters are chosen to produce an average nascent mRNA copy number of 5 and an average mature mRNA copy number of 50, and an average number of 1000 proteins.

Table 4—source data 1. This is an Excel spreadsheet containing the data used to produce the final values in Table 4.

elife-69324-table4-data1.xlsx^{(124.4KB, xlsx)}

Mean					Simulation
(r)1-5 λ	μ	$K_{N}$	$K_{P}$	$δ_{P}$	Pr (MP)	Pr (NP)	DR (Mat)
0.5	1	150	2	0.1	$0.46 \pm 0.06$	$0.38 \pm 0.07$	$0.32 \pm 0.07$
1	2	150	2	0.1	$0.39 \pm 0.05$	$0.34 \pm 0.07$	$0.32 \pm 0.05$
1	20	1050	2	0.1	$0.66 \pm 0.15$	$0.52 \pm 0.22$	$0.50 \pm 0.15$
2	2	100	6	0.3	$0.35 \pm 0.04$	$0.29 \pm 0.05$	$0.27 \pm 0.03$
2	20	550	6	0.3	$0.61 \pm 0.09$	$0.47 \pm 0.15$	$0.47 \pm 0.09$
10	10	100	6	0.3	$0.29 \pm 0.03$	$0.27 \pm 0.04$	$0.27 \pm 0.02$