2015
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005206
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accounting for Experimental Noise Reveals That mRNA Levels, Amplified by Post-Transcriptional Processes, Largely Determine Steady-State Protein Levels in Yeast

Abstract: Cells respond to their environment by modulating protein levels through mRNA transcription and post-transcriptional control. Modest observed correlations between global steady-state mRNA and protein measurements have been interpreted as evidence that mRNA levels determine roughly 40% of the variation in protein levels, indicating dominant post-transcriptional effects. However, the techniques underlying these conclusions, such as correlation and regression, yield biased results when data are noisy, missing syst… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

28
175
3

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 172 publications
(206 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
28
175
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the range of IEs was marginally wider than that of TEs (1–99 percentile spanning 21 fold, Figure S6B), it was still substantially smaller than the range of TEs initially reported (Ingolia et al, 2009). The relatively narrow range of IEs in our data was also reflected by the high correlation between mRNA abundance and protein-synthesis rate ( R = 0.948; Figure 5B), supporting the conclusion that protein-synthesis rates are largely dictated by mRNA abundances (Csárdi et al 2015). Interestingly, the slope of the regression between mRNA and protein-synthesis rates was >1 on the log-scale, indicating that translation regulation mostly amplifies the effect of differential mRNA abundances rather than buffering it (Csardi et al, 2015).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Although the range of IEs was marginally wider than that of TEs (1–99 percentile spanning 21 fold, Figure S6B), it was still substantially smaller than the range of TEs initially reported (Ingolia et al, 2009). The relatively narrow range of IEs in our data was also reflected by the high correlation between mRNA abundance and protein-synthesis rate ( R = 0.948; Figure 5B), supporting the conclusion that protein-synthesis rates are largely dictated by mRNA abundances (Csárdi et al 2015). Interestingly, the slope of the regression between mRNA and protein-synthesis rates was >1 on the log-scale, indicating that translation regulation mostly amplifies the effect of differential mRNA abundances rather than buffering it (Csardi et al, 2015).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
“…The relatively narrow range of IEs in our data was also reflected by the high correlation between mRNA abundance and protein-synthesis rate ( R = 0.948; Figure 5B), supporting the conclusion that protein-synthesis rates are largely dictated by mRNA abundances (Csárdi et al 2015). Interestingly, the slope of the regression between mRNA and protein-synthesis rates was >1 on the log-scale, indicating that translation regulation mostly amplifies the effect of differential mRNA abundances rather than buffering it (Csardi et al, 2015). Further indicating that mRNA abundance (when accurately measured) is a strong predictor of total protein production, mass-spectrometry-based measurements of steady-state protein abundance (de Godoy et al, 2008) correlated as well with mRNA abundances as they did with protein-synthesis rates (Figure 5C).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We used Pab1 at 15μM. Pab1 is not induced during heat shock, and has a log-phase concentration of roughly 20μM, ~120,000 molecules per cell (Csárdi et al, 2015) almost entirely in the cytosol (Wallace et al, 2015) assuming a cytosolic volume of 10 fL.…”
Section: Star Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We can infer the Pearson correlation between the latent variables φ and ψ, given N measurements of φ, marked x 1 , …,  x N , and M measurements of ψ, marked y 1 , …,  y M . The following estimator for the Pearson correlation between φ and ψ is then used [12]: …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%