bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.05.895359; this version posted January 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Exactly solvable models of stochastic gene expression Lucy Ham,1, a) David Schnoerr,2, b) Rowan D. Brackston,2, c) and Michael P. H. Stumpf1, 2, d) 1)School of BioSciences and School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia 2)Dept. Life Sciences, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK (Dated: 6 January 2020) Stochastic models are key to understanding the intricate dynamics of gene expression. But the simplest models which only account for e.g. active and inactive states of a gene fail to capture common observations in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. Here we consider multistate models of gene expression which generalise the canonical Telegraph process, and are capable of capturing the joint effects of e.g. transcription factors, heterochromatin state and DNA accessibility (or, in prokaryotes, Sigma-factor activity) on transcript abundance. We propose two approaches for solving classes of these generalised systems. The first approach offers a fresh perspective on a general class of multistate models, and allows us to “decompose" more complicated systems into simpler processes, each of which can be solved analytically. This enables us to obtain a solution of any model from this class. We further show that these models cannot have a heavy-tailed distribution in the absence of extrinsic noise. Next, we develop an approximation method based on a power series expansion of the stationary distribution for an even broader class of multistate models of gene transcription. The combination of analytical and computational solutions for these realistic gene expression models also holds the potential to design synthetic systems, and control the behaviour of naturally evolved gene expression systems, e.g. in guiding cell-fate decisions.
I. INTRODUCTION ing feedback. Recent work has shown that, while the Tele- graph model is able to capture some degree of the variability The need for models in cellular biology is ever-increasing. in gene expression levels, it fails to explain the large vari- Technological and experimental advances have led not only to ability and over-dispersion in the tails seen in many experi- 11 progress in our understanding of fundamental processes, but mental datasets . Furthermore, it has become evident that also to the provision of a great wealth of data. This presents gene promoters can be in multiple states and may involve in- enormous opportunities, but also requires further development teractions between a number of regulatory factors, leading to of the mathematical and computational tools for the extraction a different mRNA synthesis rate for each state; such states and analysis of the underlying biological information. may be associated with the presence of multiple copies of a The development of mathematical models for the complex gene in a genome, or with the key steps involved in chromatin 12–15 16 17 dynamics of gene expression is of particular interest. The remodelling , DNA looping or supercoiling . Mathe- stochastic nature of the transcriptional process generates in- matical models—and accompanying analytic or approximate tracellular noise, and results in significant heterogeneity be- solutions—that capture the kind of data arising from these tween cells; a phenomenon that has been widely observed in more complex multistate dynamics are now essential. mRNA copy number distributions, even for otherwise identi- Despite its deficiencies, the Telegraph model remains a use- cal cells subject to homogeneous conditions1–6. Modelling is ful framework around which more complicated models can be key to understanding and predicting the dynamics of the pro- constructed and, as we will show here, provides a foundation cess, and subsequently, to quantifying this observed variabil- from which to develop further analytical results. A number ity. The Telegraph model, as introduced by Ko et al.7 in 1991, of extensions and modifications of the Telegraph model have is the canonical model for gene expression and explains some emerged, the simplest of which is perhaps the extension to al- of the variability observed in mRNA copy number distribu- low for a second basal rate of transcription—the “leaky" Tele- tions. This mathematical model treats gene promoter activity graph model11,18,19. A further extension incorporating the ad- as a two-state system and has the advantage of a tractable sta- ditional effects of extrinsic noise is given in Refs. 11, 20, and tionary mRNA distribution4,8,9, enabling insights into limiting 21. Several recent studies of gene expression have shown that cases of the system10 and the behaviour of the distribution in the waiting time distribution in the inactive state for the gene general. promoter is non-exponential22–24, leading to the proposal of a With the advancement of single-cell experiments, the de- number of “refractory” models25–28. A distinguishing feature ficiencies of the Telegraph model are increasingly apparent. of these models is that the gene promoter can transcribe only The model does not account for more complex control mech- in the active state and, after each active period, has to progress anisms, nor more complex gene regulatory networks involv- through a number of inactive states before returning to the active state. An exact solution for the stationary distribution of a general refractory model is derived in Ref. 26, building upon the existing work of Refs. 25 and 27. In addition to a)Electronic mail: [email protected] direct extensions of the Telegraph model, many variants of b)Electronic mail: [email protected] the model have been proposed, some of which have been ad- c)Electronic mail: [email protected] ditionally solved analytically. Examples include a two-state d)Electronic mail: [email protected] model incorporating a gene regulatory feedback loop29,30; a bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.05.895359; this version posted January 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 2 three-stage model accounting for the discrepancy in abun- by Peccoud and Ycart8 in 1995, and provides an alternative dances at the mRNA and protein level31; and more recently, a approximative approach to solving master equations. The multi-scale Telegraph model incorporating the details of poly- method is reminiscent of Taylor’s solution to differential equa- merase dynamics is solved in Ref. 32. Some approximation tions39, using the differential equations to construct a recur- methods have been developed to solve more general multi- rence relation for derivatives of the solution. We show how state models19,33. our approach can be used to recover the full solution to the Obtaining analytical solutions to models of gene transcrip- previously mentioned multistate model to arbitrary numerical tion is a challenging problem, and there currently exist only precision. However, the method is also applicable to more a few classes of systems and a handful of special cases for complex systems for which no analytic solutions exist in the which an analytic solution is known. A number of these have literature. When an analytical solution is known, we are able just been listed; see Ref. 34 for more information. to benchmark the computational speed of the two approaches. Existing methods for solving such models adopt a chemi- For some systems, the approximation method is in fact faster cal master equation approach and typically employ a gener- than the analytical solution, as the latter typically requires ating function method, in which the original master equation multiple numerical calculations of the confluent hypergeomet- is transformed into a finite system of differential equations35. ric function. When an exact solution to the differential equations defining This article is structured as follows. We begin in Section II the generating function can be found, the analytical solution by presenting a general class of multistate models that cover to the model can in principle be recovered by way of succes- many examples of gene transcription models used in the anal- sive derivatives. A major complication in finding analytical ysis of experimental data. We explain how these multistate solutions in this way is that typically even slight changes to processes can be decomposed into simple processes acting in- the original model lead to considerably more complicated sys- dependently, and how these can be solved analytically. We tems of differential equations. An additional challenge is that complete the section by giving some examples of previously- analytic solutions to models usually involve hypergeometric unsolved models. In Section III, we consider the effects of ex- functions, which can lead to numerical difficulties in further trinsic noise, and show that the main results of Ref. 11 can be computational and statistical analysis. Due to the lack of suc- extended to these models. Next, in Section IV, we outline the cess in the search for analytic solutions, a significant amount strategy for turning differential equations into recurrence rela- of effort has been on stochastic simulation36 and approxima- tions that can be computationally iterated to produce solutions tion methods34. However, some of these approaches can be of arbitrary accuracy. We then utilise the approach to solve computationally expensive, making them unviable for larger some examples of gene transcription models for which no an- systems, while most existing approximation methods are ad- alytic solutions are currently known. Finally, we assess the hoc approximations that do not allow to control the approxi- accuracy and computational efficiency of our approach. Com- mation error. To address these obstacles, we present two alter- parisons are made between our approximative approach, ana- native methods for solving certain classes of models of gene lytical solutions, and the stochastic simulation algorithm40. transcription. The first approach offers a novel conceptualisation of a class of multistate models for gene transcription and allows us to extend a number of known solutions for relatively basic II. DECOMPOSING MULTISTATE PROCESSES processes to more complicated systems. For a certain class of models, we are able to abstractly decompose the more com- The standard method of solving models of gene transcrip- plicated system as the independent sum of simpler processes, tion is to transform the chemical master equation into a sys- each of which is amenable to analytic solution. The distribu- tem of ordinary differential equations by way of generating tion of the overall system can then be captured by way of a functions. We will observe that there are certain situations convolution of the simpler distributions. in which the need to solve these differential equations can be The method applies to a wide range of models of stochas- avoided, by decomposing into sums of independent simpler tic gene expression. Examples include systems with multiple processes, each of which can be treated analytically. These copies of a single gene in a genome, or systems with multiple can then be recombined to solve the original system. promoters or enhancers for a single gene, each independent, We now briefly outline the content of this section. After first and contributing additively to the transcription rate. Here we defining the leaky Telegraph model, we present a generalisa- will provide analytical expressions for a multistate process tion of this model that allows for a finite number of discrete consisting of a finite, exponential number of activity states, activity states. As motivation, we will apply our decomposi- each with a particular mRNA transcription rate. Similar theo- tion method to the leaky Telegraph model, which has a known retical models have been employed to predictively model mul- exact solution for the steady-state mRNA copy number distri- tistate processes37,38, however, the analyses in these are done bution. We will demonstrate how efficiently and easily this so- numerically. Thus, our results enable exact solutions to some lution can be derived using the new approach. A more formal natural examples of multistate gene action, with an unlimited exposition of the method will then be given. Novel results are (though exponential) number of discrete states. presented in the remaining subsections, where we describe in The second method draws as inspiration from the origi- detail how this approach can be used to solve more complex, nal derivation of the solution to the Telegraph model, given previously unsolved systems. bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.05.895359; this version posted January 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 3
µ Trans. rate KI KI I A K + mRNA A ≡ K −K KA − KI A I λ KI KA δ time
∅ FIG. 2. Decomposing the leaky Telegraph process (left) into the in- dependent sum of a constitutive and Telegraph process (right). FIG. 1. A schematic of the leaky Telegraph model. The nodes rep- resent the state of the gene, labelled I and A for inactive and active, respectively. The mRNA are represented as blue wiggly lines. The control features of the other so that it transcribes constitu- parameters λ and µ are the rates at which the gene transitions be- tively at a constant rate of K0 := KI. The other copy of the tween the two states I and A; the parameters KI and KA are the tran- gene is governed by a Telegraph process with transcription scription rate parameters for I and A, respectively; the degradation rate K := K − K when active (and 0 when inactive). Note rate is denoted by δ. 1 A I that when the second gene is active, the combined transcrip- tion rate is K0 + K1 = KA, so this model is indistinguishable from the leaky Telegraph model; see Fig. 2 for a pictorial rep- A. The leaky Telegraph model resentation of this situation. The new interpretation is more easily modelled, as it is simply two independent systems, both The leaky Telegraph model has been considered in a num- of which are simpler than the original. ber of previous studies such as Refs. 11, 18, 19, and 25, and We are able to make this observation more precise by way incorporates the well known phenomenon of promotor leak- of analysis of the corresponding probability generating func- age and basal gene expression41–43. In this model, the gene ∞ n tions, defined as g(z) = ∑n=0 z p(n), where p(n) is the sta- is assumed to transition between two states, active (A) and in- tionary probability distribution. Let P be a random variable active (I), with rates λ and µ, respectively. Transcription of that counts the copy number of a constitutive process with mRNA is modelled as a Poisson process, occurring at a basal constant rate K0, which is well-known to be Pois(K0) dis- background rate of KI when inactive, and at a rate KA > KI tributed at stationarity45–47, and let T be an independent ran- when active. Degradation occurs as a first-order Poisson pro- dom variable distributed by a Telegraph distribution with rates cess with rate δ, and is assumed to be independent of the gene λ, µ,K1 = KA − KI. Then the total copy number X for the bi- promoter state. A schematic of the system is given in Fig. 1. nary system is simply the independent sum of P and T.A Observe that the standard Telegraph model corresponds to the standard result in probability theory says that the probabil- special case for KI = 0. ity generating function of a sum of two independent random We recall here that the mRNA copy number from the leaky variables is the product of the two component probability gen- Telegraph process, as shown in Ref. 11, has the following erating functions48 (Section 3.6(5)). The probability generat- steady-state distribution: ing function for the random variable P is eK0(z−1) while the probability generating function for the Telegraph distributed n (r) 8 1 n µ T is 1F1 (λ, µ + λ,K1(z − 1)) . So the probability generating p˜ (n) = Kn−re−KA (K − K )r L ∑ A I A (r) function for the overall system is: n! r=0 r (µ + λ) eK0(z−1) F ( , + ,K (z − 1)). (3) 1F1(µ + r, µ + λ + r,−(KI − KA)) , (1) 1 1 λ µ λ 1 This solution, (3), should match the probability generating wherep ˜L(n) is the probability of observing n mRNA function yielding (1). From Ref. 11, the probability gener- molecules in the system, 1F1 is the confluent hypergeomet- ating function for the leaky Telegraph model is given by: ric function44, and, for real number x and positive integer n, (n) KA(z−1) the notation x abbreviates the rising factorial of x. Note g(z) = e 1F1 (µ, µ + λ,(KI − KA)(z − 1)). (4) also that the rates are scaled so that δ = 1. When K0 = 0, we can recover the following well-known expression for the Multiplying (4) though by eKI −KI = 1, and applying Kum- Telegraph process in the steady-state: mer’s transformation for the confluent hypergeometric func- tion, we obtain (3), noting that K0 = KI and K1 = KA − KI. n (n) KAλ p˜T (n) = 1F1(λ + n, µ + λ + n,−KA). (2) n!(µ + λ)(n) B. The 2m-multistate model Throughout this work, we will refer to the probability mass functionsp ˜L(n) andp ˜T (n) as the “leaky Telegraph distribu- We now extend the leaky Telegraph process of the previ- tion” and “Telegraph distribution”, respectively. ous section to allow for a finite number of discrete activity Another way to arrive at the same overall behaviour as the states. For a non-negative integer m, consider a gene with leaky Telegraph process is to consider a system consisting of m distinct activating enhancers a0,...,am−1, where for each two independent copies of the same gene, one lacking the i ∈ {0,...,m − 1}, the enhancer ai, independently, is either bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.05.895359; this version posted January 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 4
m enhancers am−1 ... a1 a0
Each ai ∈ {0,1} 0 1 ... 0 1 0 1
m 2 states s2m−1 = (1,1,...,1) ... s1 = (0,0,...,1) s0 = (0,0,...,0)
Ki = KB + k · si K2m−1 K0 KB
δ ∅
m FIG. 3. A diagrammatic representation of the 2 -multistate model, for m ∈ N∪{0}. There are m enhancers, a0,...,am−1, where each enhancer m is either unbound (0) or bound (1): so ai ∈ {0,1}. This leads to 2 possible activity states (am−1,...,a0) for the gene; the state s0 = (0,0,...,0) corresponds to when all of the ai are unbound, the state s1 = (0,0,...,1) corresponds to when a0 is bound, and all other ai are unbound, while m the state s2m−1 = (1,1,...,1) corresponds to when all of the ai are bound. The gene transitions between these 2 states, where switching events between adjacent states si and s j occur at rate νi j (this is, however, not depicted in the above). Each state si has an associated synthesis rate, Ki, equal to KB + k · si, where k = (km−1,km−2,...,k0) is the vector of mRNA transcription rates for the enhancers. Degradation occurs at rate δ, independently of the activity state.
m bound or unbound to activators with rates λi and µi (resp.) and defining the 2 -multistate model can be summarised as: contributes, additively, with rate k to the overall transcription i rate of the gene. So each a is either bound or unbound, lead- νi j m i si −→ s j, for i, j ∈ {0,...,2 − 1} and di j = 1, m ing to 2 possible states for the activity of the gene, which we ki m Mm := si −→ si + M, for i ∈ {0,...,2 − 1}, denote by s0 = (0,0,...,0),s1 = (0,0,...,0,1),...,s2m−1 = δ (1,1,...,1), where for notational convenience si is the m- M −→ ∅, bit binary representation of the number i as a tuple. Tuples (5) differing in just one position (that is, of Hamming distance where di j is the Hamming distance between si and s j. Note d(si,s j) = 1) will be said to be adjacent. Changes in state re- also that νi j,ki ≥ 0, and δ > 0. The transition digraphs arising sult from a binding or unbinding of an enhancer, from which it from the reactions defined in (5) can be visualised as hyper- follows that state transitions will occur only between adjacent cubes (m-dimensional cubes); see Fig. 4. states. Observe that the leaky Telegraph model coincides with the 1 2 -multistate model, M1, by setting KB = KI and k0 = KA −KI. We allow for a basal (leaky) rate of transcription KB, which As a second example, the 22-multistate model, M , consists of is independent of the state of the enhancers. Then in each state 2 two distinct activating enhancers a0 and a1, each with associ- si, the mRNA are transcribed according to a Poisson process m ated transcription rates k0 and k1, respectively. This leads to with a constant rate Ki = KB + k · si, for i ∈ {0,...,2 − 1}, four possible activity states s0 = (0,0),s1 = (0,1),s2 = (1,0) where k = (km−1,km−2,...,k0) is the vector of mRNA tran- and s = (1,1). The state s = (0,0) corresponds to when scription rates for the enhancers and · is the usual dot product. 3 0 both a0 and a1 are unbound. The state s1 = (0,1) corre- Note that for i = 0 (all enhancers unbound) this gives K0 = KB, sponds to when a0 is bound and a1 is unbound. Similarly, while for j ∈ {0,...,m − 1}, we have K j = KB + k j. 2 the state s2 = (1,0) corresponds to when a0 is unbound and a = ( , ) The enhancers switch between bound and unbound with 1 is bound, and state s3 1 1 corresponds to when both a and a are bound. The enhancers contribute additively to rates λ and µ , respectively. This means that the system tran- 0 1 i i , , , sitions between adjacent states s and s only: states differ- the overall transcription rate, so the rates for s0 s1 s2 s3 are j1 j2 K = K K = K + k K = K + k K = K + k + k ing in at most one bit, i say. This means that transition from 0 B, 1 0 0, 2 0 1, 3 0 0 1, re- spectively. Refer to Fig. 5(a) for a representation of the model s j1 to s j2 occurs stochastically at rate ν j1 j2 equal to either λi th M2. (if j1 < j2, meaning the i bit of j1 is 0) or µi (if j2 < j1). Degradation of mRNA occurs as a first-order Poisson process with rate δ, and is assumed to be independent of the promoter C. Equivalent systems for M state. By a 2m-multistate model, we will mean a multistate m model with 2m states arising from the independent and ad- m ditive transcription activity of m enhancers. We denote this As with our motivating example, the 2 -multistate model m model by Mm. Figure 3 gives a depiction of the 2 -multistate has a courser-grained formulation obtained by disregarding process. the finer level information about the states of the activating enhancers. In this view, the 2m-multistate model can be equiv- If we let M represent the mRNA molecules, the reactions alently thought of as a model for the transcriptional activity of bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.05.895359; this version posted January 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 5
(a) T1 (b) T2 (c) T3 (d) T4
FIG. 4. Transition digraphs arising from the 2m-multistate process. For m = 1, the transition digraph is a line segment, for m = 2 the transition digraph is a square, for m = 3 the digraph is a cube, and m = 4 corresponds to when the graph is a tesseract, and so on. Note that here we use Tm to denote the underlying transition digraph of the model Mm.
a. multiple enhancers of a single gene, where each en- i ∈ {0,...,m − 1}, let Ti be a random variable distributed by hancer has a particular additive effect on the mRNA a Telegraph distribution,p ˜T (n), with rates λi, µi,ki. We have transcription rate; already seen that the leaky Telegraph system (which can be thought of as arising from a 21-multistate process) has the as- b. multiple independent copies of a single gene, where sociated random variable decomposition X = P + T, where each copy of the gene is governed by a (possibly leaky) T is Telegraph distributed with rate k0. It follows from the two-state system, and with possibly different transcrip- equivalence of (a) and (b) above that this can be generalised tion and switching rates; to:
c. a gene promoter with a finite, exponential number of Y = P + ∑ Ti (6) states, where each promoter has an associated mRNA 0≤i 2 D.Exact solution for the 2m-multistate model As an example of (8), the 2 -multistate model has probabil- ity mass function: Here we provide analytical solutions for any model of the 1 n rc class M = {Mm | m ∈ N0}. Let m ∈ N0 and let Y be a ran- p˜2(n) = ∑ K0 exp(−K0) m n! rc,r0,r1 dom variable that counts the mRNA copy number of the 2 - rc+r0+r1=n multistate system in the steady-state. Recall that in this sys- kr0 λ (r0) m a ,...,a 0 0 F ( + r , + + r ,−k ) tem the gene has distinct activating enhancers 0 m−1, (r ) 1 1 λ0 0 µ0 λ0 0 0 each switching between the states bound or unbound, inde- (λ0 + µ0) 0 pendently, with rates λ and µ , and contributing additively r1 (r1) i i k1 λ1 with rate k , for i ∈ {0,...,m − 1}, to the overall transcrip- 1F1(λ1 + r1, µ1 + λ1 + r1,−k1) . (9) i (λ + µ )(r1) tion rate of the gene. There is also a background rate of tran- 1 1 scription K0 = KB. As before, we let P be a random variable Figure 5(b) gives a comparison ofp ˜2(n) and the probability for a constitutive process with constant rate K0 and, for each mass function from simulated data. A second example of (8) bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.05.895359; this version posted January 6, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 6 0.04 Simulation Analytic 0.02 Probability, p ( n ) 0.00 0 25 50 75 100 Copy number, n FIG. 5. (a): A schematic of the 22-multistate model (b): A comparison of the analytical solution for the steady-state mRNA distribution for the 2 2 -multistate model and the probability mass function from simulated data. The parameter values for both curves are K0 = 5, k0 = 21, k1 = 33 2 and λi = µi = 0.01, for i ∈ {0,1}. The degradation rate δ is set to 1. (c): Decomposing the 2 -multistate model (left) into constitutive and Telegraph parts (right). is a solution to the 23-multistate model, depicted in Fig. 6. tain properties. In both cases we observe excellent agreement of our method Our argument relies on moment generating functions, which with stochastic simulations. 1 for a random variable X with distribution f , is defined as While the 2 -multistate model (corresponding to the leaky tx M f (t) := E(e ) for t ∈ R. We here take heavy-tailed to mean Telegraph model) has been solved before, to the best of our n that the moment generating function is undefined for positive knowledge this is not the case for 2 -multistate models with t. As in Ref. 11, the effects of extrinsic variability on the mul- n ≥ 2. tistate systems is captured via a compound distribution; see Eq. 9 there. Items (a), (b), (c) follow directly from the fol- lowing inequality for the moment generating function of the III. EFFECTS OF EXTRINSIC NOISE Telegraph distribution,p ˜T (n): (Ref. 11, Eq. 16) for all posi- tive t, In a similar way to Ref. 11, we now jointly consider the M (t) ≤ M (t) ≤ M (t), (10) effects of intrinsic and extrinsic noise on the probability dis- λ K p˜T Pois(KA) Pois µ+λ A tributions arising from the class of multistate models M = where M denotes the moment generating function for distri- {Mm | m ∈ N0}. The results given in Ref. 11 are in the con- g text of the leaky and standard Telegraph processes. We will bution g. We establish an analogous result for our multistate show that the decomposition established in (6) allows us to systems. First let m ∈ N0. Now since the moment generat- straightforwardly extend the main analysis and results derived ing function for Mm is simply the product of a Poisson mo- in Ref. 11 to M . More specifically, we show that ment generating function and m Telegraph moment generating functions it follows immediately from (10) that (a) intrinsic noise alone, as arising from the inherent stochas- m ticity of the 2 -multistate process, never results in a MPois(KB)(t) M λi (t) ≤ Mp˜m (t) ∏ Pois ki heavy-tailed mRNA copy number distribution; 0≤i