Team:Michigan/Project/Modeling/Model2.html
From 2008.igem.org
(One intermediate revision not shown) | |||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
<div align='center'> [[Image: Table2.png]]</div> | <div align='center'> [[Image: Table2.png]]</div> | ||
Overall, we see smaller indices than the ones we saw in Model 1. Nonetheless,we see that the clock has at least some chance of oscillating. | Overall, we see smaller indices than the ones we saw in Model 1. Nonetheless,we see that the clock has at least some chance of oscillating. | ||
- | <br> When we decrease the randomization range of kf to in between 0 and 10 for trial 2, we see an almost threefold decrease in the Ninfa index. | + | <br> When we decrease the randomization range of kf to in between 0 and 10 for trial 2, we see an almost threefold to fourfold decrease in the Ninfa index. Comparing trials 2 and 3 to Trial 1, we see that if we disturb the "equilibrium" of the system by producing lots of NifA (in trial 3) or too little Nifa (in trial 1), we can lose a lot of oscillatory potential. We seen increase in the Ninfa index when we "balance" the system by increasing range of the maximal transcription rate of NifL, as seen in Trial 4. |
- | + | ||
[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Michigan/Project/Modeling Back to Modeling] | [https://2008.igem.org/Team:Michigan/Project/Modeling Back to Modeling] | ||
|} | |} |
Latest revision as of 02:43, 30 October 2008
|
---|
Sequestillator Model 2: A More Complicated ModelWhile Model 1 gave us some important results (mainly: need a low Kd for oscillations to occur) , we decided to look at more complete model that accounted for some of the dimerizations the proteins undergo: Parameters
Functions
Variables
We ran some Ninfa Index simulations on the i=1 model (the other models were too complex to run the simulations on [my MacBook lacks computing power]): Overall, we see smaller indices than the ones we saw in Model 1. Nonetheless,we see that the clock has at least some chance of oscillating.
|
---|