European Biophysics Journal

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 297–302 | Cite as

Slow relaxation during and after perturbation of bistable kinetics of gene expression

  • Vladimir P. ZhdanovEmail author
Biophysics Letter


After a short perturbation of a bistable genetic network, it returns to its initial steady state or transits to another steady state. The time scale characterizing such transient regimes can be appreciably longer compared to those of the degradation of the perturbed mRNAs and proteins. The author shows in detail the specifics of this slowdown of the transient kinetics using mean-field kinetic equations and Monte Carlo simulations. Attention is focused on nanocarrier-mediated delivery and release of short non-coding RNA (e.g., miRNA or siRNA) into cells with subsequent suppression of the populations of the targeted mRNA and corresponding protein.


Bistability Transient kinetics Gene expression Mean-field kinetic equations Monte Carlo simulations Drug delivery 



This work was supported by (1) Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (Project No IRC15-0065) and (2) Russian Academy of Sciences and Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations (project 0303-2016-0001).


  1. Bressloff PC (2017) Stochastic switching in biology: from genotype to phenotype. J Phys A Math Theor 50:133001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cherry JL, Adler FR (2000) How to make a biological switch. J Theor Biol 203:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dowdy SF (2017) Overcoming cellular barriers for RNA therapeutics. Nat Biotechn 35:222–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gardner TS, Cantor CR, Collins JJ (2000) Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature 403:339–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lee J, Lee J, Farquhar KJ, Yun J, Frankenberger CA, Bevilacqua E, Yeung K, Kim E-J, Balázsi G, Rosnera MR (2014) Network of mutually repressive metastasis regulators can promote cell heterogeneity and metastatic transitions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:E364–E373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Levine E, Jacob EB, Levine H (2007) Target-specific and global effectors in gene regulation by microRNA. Biophys J 93:L52–L54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Purcell O, Savery NJ, Grierson CS, di Bernardo M (2010) A comparative analysis of synthetic genetic oscillators. J Roy Soc Interf 7:1503–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rausenberger J, Fleck C, Timmer J, Kollmann M (2009) Signatures of gene expression noise in cellular systems. Progr Biophys Molec Biol 100:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Tibbitt MW, Dahlman JE, Langer R (2016) Emerging frontiers in drug delivery. J Am Chem Soc 138:704–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Veiga DFT, Dutta B, Balazsi G (2010) Network inference and network response identification: moving genome-scale data to the next level of biological discovery. Molec Biosyst 6:469–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zhdanov VP (2011) Kinetic models of gene expression including non-coding RNAs. Phys Rep 500:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhdanov V P (2017) Kinetics of lipid-nanoparticle-mediated intracellular mRNA delivery and function. Phys Rev E 96:042406Google Scholar
  13. Zhdanov VP (2018) mRNA function after intracellular delivery and release. BioSystems 165:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhdanov VP (2018) Intracellular miRNA or siRNA delivery and function. BioSystems 171:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Biophysical Societies' Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section of Biological Physics, Department of PhysicsChalmers University of TechnologyGöteborgSweden
  2. 2.Boreskov Institute of Catalysis, Russian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations