Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Research Article

Large population solution of the stochastic Luria–Delbrück evolution model

David A. Kessler and Herbert Levine
PNAS July 16, 2013 110 (29) 11682-11687; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1309667110
David A. Kessler
aDepartment of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan IL52900, Israel; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kessler@dave.ph.biu.ac.il herbert.levine@rice.edu
Herbert Levine
bCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kessler@dave.ph.biu.ac.il herbert.levine@rice.edu
  1. Contributed by Herbert Levine, May 22, 2013 (sent for review April 30, 2013)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Luria and Delbrück introduced a very useful and subsequently widely adopted framework for quantitatively understanding the emergence of new cellular lineages. Here, we provide an analytical treatment of the fully stochastic version of the model, enabled by the fact that population sizes at the time of measurement are invariably very large and mutation rates are low. We show that the Lea–Coulson generating function describes the “inner solution,” where the number of mutants is much smaller than the total population. We find that the corresponding distribution function interpolates between a monotonic Graphic decrease at relatively small populations, (compared with the inverse of the mutation probability), whereas it goes over to a Lévy α-stable distribution in the very large population limit. The moments are completely determined by the outer solution, and so are devoid of practical significance. The key to our solution is focusing on the fixed population size ensemble, which we show is very different from the fixed time ensemble due to the extreme variability in the evolutionary process.

  • Landau distribution
  • mutant distribution

In 1943, Luria and Delbrück (LD) (1) used a simple model to argue that data regarding bacterial resistance were consistent with selection of preexisting mutations. The model postulated a constant probability at which dividing normal cells would have a single mutated, resistant daughter; these mutations were assumed not to affect the growth rate until the bacteria were challenged by an infectious virus and were assumed never to revert to the sensitive state. In recent years, the LD model has been used extensively to help understand the emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes (2, 3) as well as drug therapy-resistant cancer cells (4⇓⇓⇓–8). The basic approach is also used for understanding stem cell lineage data (9) and to help estimate mutation rates (10, 11). These applications require generalizations of the LD model to include differential fitness effects and cell death (12, 13), but the basic notion of the systematic accumulation of resistant clones remains unchanged.

Despite extensive analyses by the applied mathematics, statistical physics, and evolutionary biology communities (14), a tractable analytical expression for the distribution of the number of mutants in an overall population of size N for the general stochastic problem has remained elusive (15). In this work, we develop a unique approach that directly solves the master equation in the limit of (eventually) large population sizes and a small mutation rate. We will find an explicit expression for the mutant number probability distribution. Remarkably, in the further limit wherein the mutation rate Graphic is large, the distribution takes the form of a Landau distribution (16), the one-sided Lévy α-stable distribution (with Graphic) originally obtained (17) in the context of energy loss due to ionization. (The Landau distribution should not be confused with the Cauchy distribution, which is the Lévy Graphic two-sided stable distribution.) For pedagogical purposes, we will start with the original pseudodeterministic version of the model, wherein our results agree with those obtained by earlier researchers (2, 18).

Original LD Model

The initial LD approach assumes that all populations grow with a deterministic exponential growth rate β starting from an initial sensitive population of size Graphic. The only sources of stochasticity are the number and timing of the mutational events. At each moment in time, there is a fixed probability per individual of generating a new mutant, corresponding to an average fraction μ of birth events, leading to an overall rate of Graphic. The overall probability of having m mutants can be broken down into a sum over the number of mutational events and integrals over the possible times at which those events occurred, so thatEmbedded Imagewhere the factor Graphic comes from an integral over the times when no mutation occurred. Changing variables toEmbedded Imagewe obtainEmbedded ImageWe already see from here why Graphic contains features of the Landau distribution. The random variable m is the sum over a Poisson-distributed [with mean Graphic] number of random variables, each distributed as Graphic, and if this were a sum over a large definite number of z’s with no upper cutoff on the distribution, by the generalized central-limit theorem (19), m would be distributed as a one-sided Lévy α-stable distribution, with Graphic (i.e., the Landau distribution). Here, things are a bit more subtle; nevertheless, as N increases, the number of terms becomes large and relatively more definite, and the cutoff on the distribution goes off to infinity. Expanding the exponential Graphic, carrying out the integrals over the zi, and rescaling Graphic givesEmbedded ImageThis result is in accord with the Lea–Coulson scaling ansatz (2) that the N dependence of Graphic is captured by the variableEmbedded Imagewhere it is easy to show that Graphic is the mean of m to lowest order in μ.

For small μ, there is an inner region where Graphic and an outer region where Graphic. In the inner region, we rescale Graphic and note that we can approximate the sum by its large argument limit:Embedded Imagewhere Graphic is the Euler–Mascheroni constant and Si and Ci are the sine and cosine integrals, respectively:Embedded ImageUsing Graphic, Graphic as Graphic, we haveEmbedded ImageThus,Embedded ImageThis is nothing other than the Landau distribution:Embedded ImageThe asymptotic behavior of Graphic isEmbedded Imageas expected. Notice that this inner formula is independent of Graphic. This is because small clones originate near the end of the process, and so are independent of the initial conditions.

Finally, for Graphic, which means Graphic, we can expand Eq. 3 in μ and find the outer solution:Embedded Imagewhich cuts off the Graphic tail at Graphic.

To check the validity of this result, we have directly simulated the sum in Eq. 2. The results are shown in Fig. 1, demonstrating the direct relevance of the Landau distribution as well as the sharp cutoff at Graphic.

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

P (m) for the original LD model from a simulation of Graphic realizations of the stochastic process in Eq. 2, together with the analytical Landau formula, for Graphic; Graphic; and Graphic, 2, and 10.

Stochastic LD Model: Outer Solution

An obvious refinement of the original LD model is to allow for the fact that birth events, for both the sensitive and mutant subpopulations, are also stochastic (20). Again, we assume that development of resistance is irreversible and mutants grow with no fitness disadvantage compared with wild-type (WT). As we shall see, the question of conditioning becomes crucial here, an issue that obviously does not arise in the quasideterministic original model, or in the Lea–Coulson (2) variant, where the WT grows deterministically. We start by conditioning on the total population, N, which matches most closely the quasideterministic earlier formulations. We will later see that conditioning on time (20, 21) yields very different answers in general.

The system, conditioned on N, is fully described by the master equation governing the probability Graphic of having m mutants among the N total members of the population, [i.e., that has undergone Graphic birth events (22)]:Embedded Imagewhere Graphic and Graphic. As before, μ is the mutation rate. The probability that there are no mutants is clearlyEmbedded Image

As in the original model, things are tremendously simplified if Graphic, and we work to linear order in μ. Then, the master equation takes the formEmbedded ImageThe last two terms are just birth without mutation, and the first term reflects the uniform rate of mutant creation, which arises from using the fact that Graphic, whereas Graphic is Graphic for all Graphic. The solution of this recursion relation can be seen to beEmbedded ImageThis is particularly simple for Graphic, where Graphic for Graphic, so that the power-law tail is sharply cut off past Graphic. In general, for large N,Embedded Imageand we again have a monotonic Graphic distribution, now with a smooth cutoff of the Graphic power-law tail as m approaches N. It is important to note that the presence of the power-law tail implies that all moments of the distribution are dominated by rare early birth, large m events, and thus are extremely difficult to measure in practice and strongly dependent on the initial conditions. As in the original model, this first order in μ solution breaks down for large enough N, such that Graphic is not small. Nonetheless, it is always valid (for small μ) for Graphic, which does, in fact, arise from early birth events that are always rare and so are treatable to linear order in μ. The vanishing of Graphic for Graphic is an immediate consequence of the fixed N ensemble in which we are working. In the fixed time ensemble, the nature of the outer behavior is exponential, because there is no limit to the total population at any fixed time. We next turn to the problem of general Graphic for m ≪ N, i.e., in the inner region.

Stochastic Model: Inner Solution

To derive the inner solution valid for large N and small μ (but with no constraint on Graphic), we have to allow for terms in the distribution that are of arbitrary order in μ. However, to each order, we just need to keep the leading order in N. It is easy to see that terms of order Graphic have leading order dependence Graphic. If we denote the coefficient of this term in Graphic as Graphic, we find on substitution into the master equation (Eq. 12):Embedded ImageTo derive this result, we used the fact that the coefficient of the term highest order in N (i.e., the term proportional to Graphic) automatically vanishes, and the resultant equation emerges from the requirement that the coefficient of the order Graphic term vanishes as well. This equation is supplemented with Graphic for Graphic (because only the no-mutant sector is populated if Graphic) and with Graphic, which follows from Eq. 11.

To solve this equation, we use a transform method. We multiply Eq. 15 by Graphic and sum from Graphic, and we denote the resulting function as Graphic. The distribution we want will be found from F via setting Graphic and identifying Graphic as the coefficient of Graphic in F. Proceeding, we obtainEmbedded ImageWe can convert this to a homogeneous equation, writing Graphic, so thatEmbedded ImageThis homogeneous equation can be solved by the method of characteristics. We write Graphic and choose Graphic, whose solution isEmbedded Imagewhere α labels the characteristic. Then, the equation for Graphic is the ordinary differential equation:Embedded ImageSolving with the boundary condition Graphic yieldsEmbedded ImageFinally, we restore the original functional dependence on x and y using (from Eq. 18) Graphic to obtainEmbedded ImageThis result was originally derived by Lea–Coulson (2), but for the model where the WT population has deterministic growth dynamics. Note that the singular behavior at Graphic is ultimately responsible for the Graphic behavior at large m. Explicitly, for small Graphic:Embedded Imagewhich is, of course, the lowest order solution away from the cutoff region. It should be noted that our scaling solution cannot be used to determine the exact answers to higher than linear order in μ, however, because we have dropped higher order terms in μ, terms that do not scale as y.

As already mentioned, we can recover Graphic by extracting the coefficient of the Graphic term in an expansion about Graphic. This can be accomplished by contour integration in a small circle around the origin:Embedded ImageThe integrand has a branch cut along the positive x axis starting at Graphic, associated with the aforementioned singular behavior. We can thus transform the contour integral into an integral of the discontinuity along the branch cut:Embedded ImageA similar expression based on the Lea–Coulson result appears in a paper by Kepler and Oprea (10).

If we further specialize to the case of large y, large m (because the scale of m is set by y), the integral is dominated by the region near Graphic. We thus write Graphic and denote Graphic, givingEmbedded ImageThis is just the Landau distribution, and our final answer is Graphic. Amazingly, this is exactly the same result [aside from a small shift in m of Graphic] as we found for the original LD model. Note that this inner solution does not depend on Graphic, as we have come to expect. This lack of dependence of the inner solution on Graphic explains why the Lea–Coulson model, which ignores the stochasticity of the WT, produces the same large N distribution in the inner region as the fully stochastic model. Similarly, this is why the distribution agrees with that provided by Mandelbrot (18), who also used deterministic dynamics for the WT population. Because here there is no Graphic dependence, the effect of stochasticity can be made arbitrarily weak by taking Graphic large, and the models then coincide.

In Fig. 2, we compare this solution with an exact numerical calculation of the master equation with Graphic, with the latter not assuming anything regarding Graphic. The agreement is essentially perfect for the case Graphic but deviates for small μ from the exact answer when Graphic is reduced by an order of magnitude. The Lea–Coulson distribution, however, still works perfectly. Both approximations work all the way out to N, because the cutoff is sharp for Graphic. Finally, in Fig. 3, we multiply this inner solution by the appropriate outer solution to create a composite solution valid for all values of m. This restores the Graphic dependence and shows how the Landau distribution is modified for Graphic.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Comparison of exact integration of the master equation (solid lines) vs. the Landau approximation (dashed lines) and the distribution represented by the Lea–Coulson generating function in Eq. 21 (dots) for Graphic, Graphic and Graphic, and Graphic.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Comparison of exact integration of the master equation (dots) vs. the Landau approximation (solid lines) with the appropriate Graphic factor for Graphic; Graphic; and Graphic, 2, and 10. Also shown is the asymptotic Graphic behavior.

Discussion

We have seen that in the fixed N ensemble for large N, small μ, the distribution can be divided into two regions, one an Graphic-independent inner region, where the Lea–Coulson generating function obtains, and the other an outer region, where Graphic is important and determines how the distribution is cut off. The Lea–Coulson distribution interpolates between two simple limiting behaviors: the Graphic monotonic decrease for small Graphic and the Landau distribution with its sharp rise at small m to a peak followed by a slow Graphic decay for large Graphic. In the first case, the most likely value of m is, of course, Graphic, whereas in the second, the mode is at Graphic. This is to be compared with the first moment of m, namely, Graphic, which we see larger by approximately Graphic. For a not untypical set of parameters, say Graphic, Graphic, the mode is at approximately Graphic, whereas the mean is ∼184. This reiterates how uninformative the mean is as a characterization of the distribution. Similar statements hold for the variance, and using these to estimate parameters of the evolution process by comparison with data is essentially impossible. This is a direct consequence of the (cutoff) power-law nature of the distribution, which is the underlying mechanism of the LD fluctuation experiment. The convergence to the α-stable Landau distribution at large Graphic is another consequence of this. As already mentioned, only one previous work (18) appears to have noticed this fundamental property of this process and that aspect of this work seems to have been completely ignored.

In this paper, we have focused on the original model with deterministic growth as well as the stochastic variation, where birth events occur probabilistically. In extensions to be discussed elsewhere, we show that the results presented here can be generalized to include differential fitness effects as well as effects of death. For completeness, we note that in each of those cases, the distribution in the large Graphic limit is a one-sided Lévy α-stable distribution, whose asymptotic power-law is determined solely by the fitness difference of the two subpopulations. The extension of the Lea–Coulson generating function to the differential fitness case is known (18), and it is again the inner solution to the fixed N stochastic problem. No similar results exist, however, for the case in which death is included.

It should be pointed out that the stochastic LD model is exactly solvable, and a formal but not very tractable explicit expression for the probability distribution has appeared previously (22). This was shown to reproduce the Lea–Coulson generating function in the inner region. The outer region was not analyzed. More crucially, the connection to power-law tails and, in particular, the Landau distribution seems not to have been appreciated in this work. This exact solution also applies only for equal birth rates and in the absence of death; thus, our approximate technique is more informative in the general case. It also should be noted that the analytical exact solution is, as a numerical tool, less effective than a direct solution of the master equation, because the number of operations is comparable and the exact solution involves terms of both signs, so that round off becomes an issue.

For the general case, Antal and Krapivsky (AK) (21) have recently derived a rather complex set of formulae embodying the solution for the generating function of the probability distribution in the fixed time ensemble, generalizing the results of Bartlett (20) for the neutral pure birth stochastic model. Bartlett succeeded in recovering the Lea–Coulson distribution in the limit of large Graphic, because the WT dynamics become deterministic there and the two ensembles coincide. To appreciate the problem, we first discuss the results of the time ensemble, working from the AK solution for the neutral pure birth model. The generating function of AK for Graphic, which is called Graphic, where y stands for WT and x for mutants, satisfiesEmbedded Imagewhere B is the generating function for the pure mutant growth problem, starting from a single mutant, which is given byEmbedded Imageand Graphic, Graphic. The solution for A is given byEmbedded Imagewhich can be seen, using the definition of z, to satisfy Eq. 26. The constant C is determined by the condition that Graphic, so thatEmbedded ImageThe generating function for the mutants, independent of the number of WT cells, is given by Graphic. It is also convenient to work in terms of Graphic, the expected total population size, rather than t:Embedded ImageWe thus obtainEmbedded ImageWe see immediately that the singularity at Graphic has been shifted to Graphic, so that the asymptotic decay of Graphic is exponential, and there is again a crossover from the inner region when Graphic.

The limit we wish to consider is the large Graphic, small μ limit: Graphic. In the inner region, we can drop the Graphic term, and we haveEmbedded Imageso that, again, Graphic is the relevant control parameter. However, this is not the Lea–Coulson generating function. In particular, Graphic, so that it does not decay exponentially with Graphic as in the fixed N ensemble. The reason for this is the presence of anomalous members of the fixed time ensemble with small total population sizes. Plotting the distribution that arises from this solution for various values of Graphic (Fig. 4), we see that there is no peak, ostensibly for the same reason.

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Distribution for the fixed time ensemble resulting from Eq. 32 for Graphic, Graphic, and Graphic. Notice that in all cases, the distribution is monotonic decreasing and not at all like the Lea–Coulson result with its Landau limit at large Graphic.

Thus, going to the time ensemble makes a huge difference and, in fact, is not the relevant ensemble for application to cases where one measures N, for example, by determining the tumor size. We can recover relevant results if we additionally condition on N, that is, pick only those members of the statistical ensemble that have exactly Graphic individuals. This is gotten by looking at the coefficient of Graphic in A. We can do this analytically, because A is of the form Graphic, where Graphic:Embedded ImageThus, the normalized generating function for the subensemble is explicitlyEmbedded Imagewhere Graphic is the normalization factor, chosen so that Graphic. Now, in the limit Graphic,Embedded ImageThus,Embedded ImageGiven this, we now need to calculate the leading N behavior of Graphic. For fixed y, large N, Graphic, andEmbedded ImageandEmbedded ImageCollecting all the pieces, we arrive at the result that Graphic in this limit is equal toEmbedded ImageThis is just the Lea–Coulson result, including the Graphic term; thus, it also contains the small Graphic and Landau limits discussed above. Of course, the true fixed N ensemble contains contributions from different elapsed times, but this has no impact, because conditioning on N forces the time to be close to the nominal time (although conditioning on time does not force N to be close to its mean value). The small variation in these times clearly does not change the distribution, as can be shown explicitly.

Methods

Here, we present more information regarding the generation of the curves presented in the figures. The data for the original LD model was obtained for each realization by picking k from a Poisson distribution with mean Graphic and then summing k independent identically distributed random variables drawn from a Graphic distribution running from Graphic to Graphic. The individual sums were then logarithmically binned to generate the histogram.

The Landau distribution, Graphic, was computed for Graphic via the integral in Eq. 25. For Graphic, the form in Eq. 6 was used, where the region of integration was restricted to Graphic by symmetry, and the contour was then deformed to the steepest descent contour, extending from the critical point on the negative α axis off into the complex plane (23).

The data for the stochastic birth model were obtained via a direct solution of the master equation, Eq. 10. The data for the Lea–Coulson distribution came from a Taylor expansion of the generating function obtained from the symbolic algebra program Maple (Maplesoft). The data for the AK distribution came from a Maple-generated Taylor expansion of the corresponding generating function as well.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Center for Theoretical Biological Physics (Grant PHY-1308264)). H.L. was also supported by Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Scholar Program, and D.A.K. was also supported by the Israeli Science Foundation.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: kessler{at}dave.ph.biu.ac.il or herbert.levine{at}rice.edu.
  • Author contributions: D.A.K. and H.L. designed research, performed research, and wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Luria SE,
    2. Delbrück M
    (1943) Mutation of bacteria from virus sensitivity to virus resistance. Genetics 28(6):491–511.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Lea DE,
    2. Coulson CA
    (1949) The distribution of the numbers of mutants in bacterial populations. J Genet 49(3):264–285.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Lenski RE,
    2. Slatkin M,
    3. Ayala FJ
    (1989) Mutation and selection in bacterial populations: Alternatives to the hypothesis of directed mutation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86(8):2775–2778.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Coldman AJ,
    2. Goldie JH
    (1986) A stochastic model for the origin and treatment of tumors containing drug-resistant cells. Bull Math Biol 48(3-4):279–292.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Moolgavkar SH
    (1986) Carcinogenesis modeling: From molecular biology to epidemiology. Annu Rev Public Health 7(1):151–169.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Komarova N
    (2006) Stochastic modeling of drug resistance in cancer. J Theor Biol 239(3):351–366.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Tomasetti C,
    2. Levy D
    (2010) An elementary approach to modeling drug resistance in cancer. Math Biosci Eng 7(4):905–918.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Diaz LA Jr.,
    2. et al.
    (2012) The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature 486(7404):537–540.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Clayton E,
    2. et al.
    (2007) A single type of progenitor cell maintains normal epidermis. Nature 446(7132):185–189.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kepler TB,
    2. Oprea M
    (2001) Improved inference of mutation rates: I. An integral representation for the Luria-Delbrück distribution. Theor Popul Biol 59(1):41–48.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Gerrish P
    (2008) A simple formula for obtaining markedly improved mutation rate estimates. Genetics 180(3):1773–1778.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Dewanji A,
    2. Luebeck EG,
    3. Moolgavkar SH
    (2005) A generalized Luria-Delbrück model. Math Biosci 197(2):140–152.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Iwasa Y,
    2. Nowak MA,
    3. Michor F
    (2006) Evolution of resistance during clonal expansion. Genetics 172(4):2557–2566.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Zheng Q
    (1999) Progress of a half century in the study of the Luria-Delbrück distribution. Math Biosci 162(1-2):1–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Kashdan E,
    2. Pareschi L
    (2012) Mean field mutation dynamics and the continuous Luria-Delbrück distribution. Math Biosci 240(2):223–230.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Gentle JE
    (2003) Random-Number Generation and Monte Carlo Methods (Springer, NY), p 196.
  17. ↵
    1. Landau L
    (1944) On the energy loss of fast particles by ionization. J Phys (USSR) 8:201–205.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Mandelbrot B
    (1974) A population birth-and-mutation process!: Explicit distributions for the number of mutants in an old culture of bacteria. J Appl Probab 11(3):437–444.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Gnedenko BV,
    2. Kolmogorov AN
    (1954) Limit Distributions for Sums of Independent Random Variables (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA).
  20. ↵
    1. Bartlett MS
    (1955) An Introduction to Stochastic Processes (Cambridge Univ Press, UK).
  21. ↵
    1. Antal T,
    2. Krapivsky PL
    (2011) Exact solution of a two-type branching process: Models of tumor progression. J Stat Mech 2011(8):P08018.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    1. Angerer WP
    (2001) An explicit representation of the Luria-Delbrück distribution. J Math Biol 42(2):145–174.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Börsch-Supan W
    (1961) On the evaluation of the function Graphic for real values of λ. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards B: Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 65B(4):245–250.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Large population solution of the stochastic Luria–Delbrück evolution model
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Stochastic Luria–Delbrück model
David A. Kessler, Herbert Levine
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2013, 110 (29) 11682-11687; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1309667110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Stochastic Luria–Delbrück model
David A. Kessler, Herbert Levine
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jul 2013, 110 (29) 11682-11687; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1309667110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (50)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Physical Sciences
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Biological Sciences
  • Evolution

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Original LD Model
    • Stochastic LD Model: Outer Solution
    • Stochastic Model: Inner Solution
    • Discussion
    • Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

News Feature: Getting the world’s fastest cat to breed with speed
Cheetahs once rarely reproduced in captivity. Today, cubs are born every year in zoos. Breeding programs have turned their luck around—but they aren’t done yet.
Image credit: Mehgan Murphy/Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute.
Adaptations in heart structure and function likely enabled endurance and survival in preindustrial humans. Image courtesy of Pixabay/Skeeze.
Human heart evolved for endurance
Adaptations in heart structure and function likely enabled endurance and survival in preindustrial humans.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/Skeeze.
Viscoelastic carrier fluids enhance retention of fire retardants on wildfire-prone vegetation. Image courtesy of Jesse D. Acosta.
Viscoelastic fluids and wildfire prevention
Viscoelastic carrier fluids enhance retention of fire retardants on wildfire-prone vegetation.
Image courtesy of Jesse D. Acosta.
Water requirements may make desert bird declines more likely in a warming climate. Image courtesy of Sean Peterson (photographer).
Climate change and desert bird collapse
Water requirements may make desert bird declines more likely in a warming climate.
Image courtesy of Sean Peterson (photographer).
QnAs with NAS member and plant biologist Sheng Yang He. Image courtesy of Sheng Yang He.
Featured QnAs
QnAs with NAS member and plant biologist Sheng Yang He
Image courtesy of Sheng Yang He.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490