Team:Paris/Modeling

From 2008.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(IV - Parameters & Bibliography)
(Presentation of our work)
Line 31: Line 31:
If you want to have a look at our modeling notebook: [[Team:Paris/Modeling/Roadmap|Notebook]]
If you want to have a look at our modeling notebook: [[Team:Paris/Modeling/Roadmap|Notebook]]
-
=Presentation of our work=
+
= Our thought process =
-
The different phases of our modeling work...
+
One can find many different approaches to model a biological system. We then found interesting to propose at least two distinct exemples of coherent models. It seems important to understand that both models aim at different goals in the process of understanding our system.
-
The following presentation is not necessarly chronological, but presents the advantage of introducing our work from the simplest model to the most complicated.
+
== I - Linear Approach ==
== I - Linear Approach ==
-
 
+
* We wish to present at first a rough and simple approach. The goal here was to determine a possible behavior of our Bacteri'OClock, considering the overall system. We then wished to ground our model on studies, so as to find quickly parameters on which we could work, awaiting for the data we shall get from the wet lab.
-
An [[Team:Paris/Modeling/linear_approach|Oscillatory Biological Model]], with almost only linear relationships.
+
* We introduced this approach as being rough, since about every interaction is modelized by linear equations. Two elements motivated this approach :
 +
** Firstly, we argue that what with putting too many parameters, the model tends to loose relevance. We wanted to be able to control most of our parameters in the wet lab.
 +
** Secondly, we found in the literature that many author had already considered this kind of approach, and were able to obtain relevant results.
 +
* Let's see a detailed version of our [[Team:Paris/Modeling/linear_approach|Oscillatory Biological Model]] !
== II - "Hill" Approach ==
== II - "Hill" Approach ==
 +
* This second approach was motivated
That was our [[Team:Paris/Modeling/hill_approach|first approach]], which we would like to study as far as possible. The [[Team:Paris/Modeling#III_-_Estimation_of_Paramaters|estimation of parameters]] is mostly for this one.
That was our [[Team:Paris/Modeling/hill_approach|first approach]], which we would like to study as far as possible. The [[Team:Paris/Modeling#III_-_Estimation_of_Paramaters|estimation of parameters]] is mostly for this one.

Revision as of 15:10, 12 August 2008

Contents

Roadmap

  • Aims of the modeling part
  • First approach proposed
    • Hill functions
    • first model + score function
    • bibliography
    • findparam
    • experiments
  • Second approach
    • bibliography
    • equations
    • results
    • experiments
  • Continue the previous model
    • Synchronyzation
    • Estimation of the FIFO processes
    • Stochastic modeling (Gilespie)
  • Test of robustness
    • repressilator
    • comparison
  • Enhancing the system
    • Better FIFO behaviour
    • Other interactions to increase the robustness

If you want to have a look at our modeling notebook: Notebook

Our thought process

One can find many different approaches to model a biological system. We then found interesting to propose at least two distinct exemples of coherent models. It seems important to understand that both models aim at different goals in the process of understanding our system.

I - Linear Approach

  • We wish to present at first a rough and simple approach. The goal here was to determine a possible behavior of our Bacteri'OClock, considering the overall system. We then wished to ground our model on studies, so as to find quickly parameters on which we could work, awaiting for the data we shall get from the wet lab.
  • We introduced this approach as being rough, since about every interaction is modelized by linear equations. Two elements motivated this approach :
    • Firstly, we argue that what with putting too many parameters, the model tends to loose relevance. We wanted to be able to control most of our parameters in the wet lab.
    • Secondly, we found in the literature that many author had already considered this kind of approach, and were able to obtain relevant results.
  • Let's see a detailed version of our Oscillatory Biological Model !

II - "Hill" Approach

  • This second approach was motivated

That was our first approach, which we would like to study as far as possible. The estimation of parameters is mostly for this one.

We use mostly Hill functions to describe relationships between transcription factors and promoters, and do no take into acount the translations phase.

III - Estimation of Paramaters

Here we present our job on finding relevent parameters for our models. In particular, we are looking for parameters involved in our "Hill" functions.

We will need many parameters to fully describe the system according to the asumptions of the previous models. A natural way to have access to their value, after searching in the litterature, is to devise specific experiments. As a consequence of the characterization of the promoters activity, some Hill functions could be obtained.

IV - Parameters & Bibliography

V - Annexes