Evidence for the presence of stochastic fluctuations is provided by the small number of Bcd molecules in nuclei [ 21•, 22• and 77], which, in the absence of averaging mechanisms, cannot reliably specify the sharp borders observed in cycle 14. There are three main models for the reduction of initial variation. The first postulates an unknown posterior gradient, which is not (yet) supported by any experimental evidence (reviewed in [15••]). The second depends on pre-steady-state decoding of the Bcd gradient [31 and 34]. It is unlikely

to apply for reasons discussed above. The third model buy GDC-0941 predicts that reduction in variability occurs as a result of negative feedback loops within the gap gene network [49]. This mechanism was experimentally validated by measuring the variance of Hb boundary position in a mutant background lacking the relevant feedback regulation [49]. While this mechanism

Dabrafenib manufacturer can reduce the effect of variability in maternal gradients, it is doubtful that it can also provide robustness against internal molecular fluctuations. A number of recent modeling studies have provided new insights into the sources of fluctuations in Bcd levels and their effect on patterning precision. The first of these studies shows that positional precision provided by the Bcd gradient is largely limited by internal fluctuations, rather than embryo-to-embryo variability in the amplitude of the gradient [78•]. The signature of these fluctuations is passed on to target gene expression patterns indicating a significant and lasting

regulatory influence of Bcd on target gene expression during the blastoderm stage [79 and 80]. The effect Interleukin-2 receptor of these fluctuations on target gene expression can be reduced, however, by temporal and spatial integration of regulatory input [77] and hb auto-activation by maternal Hb in cycles 11–12 [ 21•]. Temporal and spatial averaging effects were confirmed and analyzed in detail by two studies based on stochastic models of hb regulation by Bcd [ 80 and 81]. Another modeling study reached similar conclusions [ 82]. However, it is based on immunostaining on fixed tissue rather than live imaging which tends to mask intrinsic noise [ 83]. Most models we have discussed so far coarse-grain the detailed structure of cis-regulatory elements, or the molecular mechanisms of transcriptional regulation. A number of models incorporating such details have been used to study the structure and function of regulatory sequences, and the mechanisms by which transcription factors act, or to predict expression patterns from sequence (Figure 2e; reviewed in [15••]). One recent study focused on the arrangement of activator versus repressor binding sites to investigate the mechanism of short-range repression, or quenching [84]. Another study also focused on the role of quenching, considering other transcriptional mechanisms such as co-operative and synergistic transcription factor binding as well [85].