Team:LCG-UNAM-Mexico/Notebook/2008-August
From 2008.igem.org
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"><p>< | + | <td class="bodyText"><p><b>MODELING:</b><br>Hill cooperativity 5th Reaction Reminder: </p> |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
<p>A + B <--> AB <br /> | <p>A + B <--> AB <br /> | ||
<strong>Ka=Keq=[AB]/[A][B]=1/Kd</strong> <br /> | <strong>Ka=Keq=[AB]/[A][B]=1/Kd</strong> <br /> | ||
- | θ=[AB]/([AB]+[A])=[B]/([B]+Kd) </p> | + | θ=[AB]/([AB]+[A])=[B]/([B]+Kd) </p><br> |
<p><strong><u>MWC Model</u></strong> (Cooperativity) <br /> | <p><strong><u>MWC Model</u></strong> (Cooperativity) <br /> | ||
A + nB <--> ABn <br /> | A + nB <--> ABn <br /> | ||
Line 133: | Line 131: | ||
θ=[B]n/([B]n+Kd) <br /> | θ=[B]n/([B]n+Kd) <br /> | ||
log(θ/(1- θ))=nlog(B)-log(kd) …Hill's equation</p> | log(θ/(1- θ))=nlog(B)-log(kd) …Hill's equation</p> | ||
- | <p> </p> | + | <p> </p><br> |
<p><strong>Suppression mediated by cI:</strong> <br /> | <p><strong>Suppression mediated by cI:</strong> <br /> | ||
ρ + nCI <--> ρ:CIn (k+, k-) <br /> | ρ + nCI <--> ρ:CIn (k+, k-) <br /> | ||
Line 140: | Line 138: | ||
… ρ0=[ρ]+Keq[ρ][CI]n <br /> | … ρ0=[ρ]+Keq[ρ][CI]n <br /> | ||
=> ρ= (ρ0/Keq)/((1/keq)+[CI]n) </p> | => ρ= (ρ0/Keq)/((1/keq)+[CI]n) </p> | ||
- | <p>Flow= k+[ρ][CI]n = K+((ρ0/Keq)/((1/Keq)+[CI]n))[CI]n </p> | + | <p>Flow= k+[ρ][CI]n = K+((ρ0/Keq)/((1/Keq)+[CI]n))[CI]n </p><br> |
<p><strong>Flow= k+</strong><strong>([ρ</strong><strong>0</strong><strong>]/K</strong><strong>eq</strong><strong>)</strong> <strong>[CI]n / ((1/Keq)+[CI]n)</strong></p> | <p><strong>Flow= k+</strong><strong>([ρ</strong><strong>0</strong><strong>]/K</strong><strong>eq</strong><strong>)</strong> <strong>[CI]n / ((1/Keq)+[CI]n)</strong></p> | ||
<p><strong>=> </strong><strong>Vm= k</strong><strong>+</strong>([ρ0]/Keq)<strong> & Kp=1/Keq=K</strong>d </p> | <p><strong>=> </strong><strong>Vm= k</strong><strong>+</strong>([ρ0]/Keq)<strong> & Kp=1/Keq=K</strong>d </p> | ||
- | <p><strong> | + | <p><strong>Therefore:</strong> <br /> |
Keq = exp( -ΔG / R T ) <br /> | Keq = exp( -ΔG / R T ) <br /> | ||
k+ = (KB/h) T exp( -ΔG / R T ) = (KB/h) T Keq </p> | k+ = (KB/h) T exp( -ΔG / R T ) = (KB/h) T Keq </p> | ||
- | <table bgcolor="#cc99ff" border=" | + | <table bgcolor="#cc99ff" border="0" bordercolor="#000000" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="423"> |
<tbody> | <tbody> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
Line 187: | Line 185: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"> <p>Hill | + | <td class="bodyText"> <p><b>MODELING:</b><br>Hill Cooperativity<br /> |
</p> | </p> | ||
- | <p>5th Reaction, conflict | + | <p>5th Reaction, conflict<br /> |
</p> | </p> | ||
<p>If we consider that: <br /> | <p>If we consider that: <br /> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
- | <p>Keq = exp (-ΔG / R T) <br /> | + | <p> - Keq = exp (-ΔG / R T) <br /> |
</p> | </p> | ||
- | <p>k + = (KB / h) T exp (-ΔG / R T) = (KB / h) T Keq</p> | + | <p> - k + = (KB / h) T exp (-ΔG / R T) = (KB / h) T Keq</p> |
<p> and given that the flow is (k + / Keq) [ρ0] [CI] n / ((1/Keq) + [CI] n), the value of the maximum speed of the flow loses its meaning. </p> | <p> and given that the flow is (k + / Keq) [ρ0] [CI] n / ((1/Keq) + [CI] n), the value of the maximum speed of the flow loses its meaning. </p> | ||
<p> The speed limit is being determined by (k + / Keq) [ρ0], but k + / Keq = (KB / h) * T, and we know that [ρ0] is arbitrary, i.e., Vmax is no longer based on the reaction as such, which does not make sense. </p> | <p> The speed limit is being determined by (k + / Keq) [ρ0], but k + / Keq = (KB / h) * T, and we know that [ρ0] is arbitrary, i.e., Vmax is no longer based on the reaction as such, which does not make sense. </p> | ||
<p> For example: Take the same reaction that we are considering, the maximum speed of the flow of the reaction would be the same with the promoter that has the operators of CI, that if you used one with a random sequence, so, whether we repeated the experiment, with the same temperature and the same concentration of DNA and an equal number of copies of the sequence, the maximum speed reached by the flow would be the same for the real promoter as for for any sequence, without taking any consideration with their affinity for their substrates... That does not makes sense! </p> | <p> For example: Take the same reaction that we are considering, the maximum speed of the flow of the reaction would be the same with the promoter that has the operators of CI, that if you used one with a random sequence, so, whether we repeated the experiment, with the same temperature and the same concentration of DNA and an equal number of copies of the sequence, the maximum speed reached by the flow would be the same for the real promoter as for for any sequence, without taking any consideration with their affinity for their substrates... That does not makes sense! </p> | ||
- | <p> The proposed explanation | + | <p> The proposed explanation is that the equation used to determine k + does not fit our model. We should explore other possibilities. </p> |
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
Line 207: | Line 205: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"><p>Hill | + | <td class="bodyText"><p><b>MODELING:</b><br>Hill Cooperativity: <br /> |
- | 5th Reaction, | + | 5th Reaction, solving the problem: <br /> |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | The error in the previous approach | + | The error in the previous approach was that we were considering ΔG to be the same for both equations (for Keq & k+).<br /> |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | + | <p>We know that the equilibrium depends solely on the difference in the free energy of Gibbs between the substrate and the product (ΔG 'th). The one with less energy will be favored in the balance, while the rate of reaction depends on the activation energy needed for the conversion (ΔG ‡). A reaction reaches equilibrium faster or slower depending on the rate of reaction (depending on the magnitude of its ΔG ‡), but the balance itself does not change. <br /> | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | <p>We know that the | + | |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
Thus: <br /> | Thus: <br /> | ||
Line 231: | Line 225: | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
<td class="bodyText"><p><strong>GROUP MEETING </strong><br /> | <td class="bodyText"><p><strong>GROUP MEETING </strong><br /> | ||
- | + | Wet Lab Statusk<br /> | |
<strong><br /> | <strong><br /> | ||
Objectives: </strong><br /> | Objectives: </strong><br /> | ||
Line 241: | Line 235: | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>To do: </strong><br /> | <strong>To do: </strong><br /> | ||
- | - Extract DNA | + | - Extract DNA from the wild type strain to obtain RcnA. <br /> |
- Get the bioparts catalog. <br /> | - Get the bioparts catalog. <br /> | ||
- | - | + | - Obtain a large amount of plasmid that we can use, and amplify the bioparts. <br /> |
- Transformation of the bacteria with bioparts. <br /> | - Transformation of the bacteria with bioparts. <br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
Line 251: | Line 245: | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<strong>Problems: </strong><br /> | <strong>Problems: </strong><br /> | ||
- | - | + | - The DNA that we needed was not in the registry. <br /> |
- | - The oligos were delayed 2 | + | - The oligos were delayed 2 weeks and a half. <br /> |
- Issues to extract the plasmid from the colonies. <br /> | - Issues to extract the plasmid from the colonies. <br /> | ||
- Make a PCR ligation with the three parts and amplify with the ends (it did not work). <br /> | - Make a PCR ligation with the three parts and amplify with the ends (it did not work). <br /> | ||
- | - With the enzyme used | + | - With the enzyme used the frequency of spontaneous mutation was increased to about an error every thousand base pairs. <br /> |
- | + | ||
- There is a problem with tetracycline. You get false positives. <br /> | - There is a problem with tetracycline. You get false positives. <br /> | ||
<strong><br /> | <strong><br /> | ||
- | + | What can be done: </strong><br /> | |
- | - | + | - The biopart with RcnA can already be linked to the plasmid. <br /> |
- | - | + | - For the other construction we will have to link two parts and digest them, then link them with the third part and digest once more, then insert into the final plasmid. <br /> |
- | - HindIII can be used with the | + | - HindIII can be used with the large biopart to verify the sequence. <br /> |
<strong><br /> | <strong><br /> | ||
Electrodes: </strong><br /> | Electrodes: </strong><br /> | ||
- | - | + | - Will they be specific for Nickel?</p> |
<p> </p> | <p> </p> | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
Line 273: | Line 266: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"><p> | + | <td class="bodyText"><p>We received an e-mail from the Mexico-UNAM-IPN with several questions in regards to our project, here is our reply:<br /> |
- | + | <br /> | |
Hello,<br /> | Hello,<br /> | ||
We apologize for the late reply, but we had to discuss carefully our answer.<br /> | We apologize for the late reply, but we had to discuss carefully our answer.<br /> | ||
Line 287: | Line 280: | ||
LCG-UNAM-Mexico Team<br /> | LCG-UNAM-Mexico Team<br /> | ||
Cuernavaca, Morelos</p> | Cuernavaca, Morelos</p> | ||
- | <p | + | <p> |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | + | <b>MODELING:</b><br> | |
- | <br /> | + | Reaction 3, AHL:LuxR<br /> |
Conflict: k3 (ON) <k3 (OFF)? <br /> | Conflict: k3 (ON) <k3 (OFF)? <br /> | ||
Reference: Goryachev et al. (2006) <br /> | Reference: Goryachev et al. (2006) <br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | The references they | + | The references they cite for obtaining their parameters were not specific for that kind of parameters, in fact, one mentions the rate of RNA polymerase in HUMAN! <br /> |
- | + | - Check whether the article mentions how they transformed the parameters.<br /> | |
- | - | + | |
- | <br /> | + | |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
- | <p>They | + | <p>They seem to explain why in their model, the k3(ON) is "so small" to start with: <br /> |
<<common to all models considered here, is that the stability of the state "off" defined by the constitutive Transcription levels of I and R comes at a price of high value for the critical self Extracellular concentration.>> <br /> | <<common to all models considered here, is that the stability of the state "off" defined by the constitutive Transcription levels of I and R comes at a price of high value for the critical self Extracellular concentration.>> <br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | + | This explains the criteria they used to determine their parameters: <br /> | |
- | + | ||
<<For each layout we attempted to identify a set of parameters that optimize the functional fitness of the network. The search in the parameter space is constrained by requesting that the kinetic parameters must remain in the biologically realistic range and the resulting network should demonstrate the behavior compatible with our present understanding of the phenomenon quorum sensing.>></p> | <<For each layout we attempted to identify a set of parameters that optimize the functional fitness of the network. The search in the parameter space is constrained by requesting that the kinetic parameters must remain in the biologically realistic range and the resulting network should demonstrate the behavior compatible with our present understanding of the phenomenon quorum sensing.>></p> | ||
- | |||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
Line 317: | Line 303: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"><p | + | <td class="bodyText"><p> |
- | <strong | + | <strong> |
- | + | MODELING:</strong><br /> | |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | + | Reaction 4: Natural degradation of cI*<br /> | |
- | + | <li> Half life of cI*:</li> | |
- | + | The half-life of a modified cI is of 4 minutes, according to Elowitz & Leibler (2000). They analyze the LAA tail, and JB Andersen et al (1998) conclude that the LAA and LVA tails confer about the same time of life to GFP. <br /> | |
- | + | ||
- | The half-life of modified cI is 4 minutes, according to Elowitz & Leibler (2000). They analyze the | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
+ | <li>Reaction rate:</li> | ||
Once we get the half-life time of the protein, how do we calculate the rate of reaction and the flow? <br /> | Once we get the half-life time of the protein, how do we calculate the rate of reaction and the flow? <br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | The half-life of a reaction (t1 / 2) is the time it takes for half of the reagents to become products. In a first order reaction, t1 / 2 is a constant and can be calculated from the rate constant, as follows: <br /> | + | The half-life of a reaction (t1/2) is the time it takes for half of the reagents to become products. In a first order reaction, t1/2 is a constant and can be calculated from the rate constant, as follows: <br /> |
- | + | <i> t1/2 =-ln(0.5)/k=0.693/k </i> <br /> | |
- | + | This reciprocal relationship between the half life time and the rate constant is very useful when making an estimate of the time a reaction will take to occur. Thus, for k = 0.01/s, the half life time would be about 70 s. For k = 10/s, the half life would be of about 0.07 s or 70 milliseconds. The average life of the reactions of first order is also independent of the initial concentration. If the first half of the molecules react in aprox 20 s, half of the remaining molecules will also take 20 s to react, and so on. The fact that the average lifetime in an unimolecular reaction is a constant means that, at any time of the reaction, a constant fraction of reactive molecules have enough energy to overcome the kinetic barrier and become molecules of product. This makes sense because the energy of a set of molecules is distributed randomly according to a Boltzmann distribution. <br /> | |
- | + | <span class="font-size: small">* With information from RT Sauer (1999).</span><br /> | |
- | This reciprocal relationship between the half life time and | + | |
- | < | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
NOTE: A first order reaction is the type A → B. | NOTE: A first order reaction is the type A → B. | ||
- | <br /> | + | <br /><br> |
</p> | </p> | ||
- | <p | + | <p> |
- | + | Today we sent an e-mail to Dr. Peter Chivers, an expert in RcnR, to ask him for information in regards to RcnA. <br /><br /> | |
<strong>Our mail to Dr. Peter Chivers:</strong><br /> | <strong>Our mail to Dr. Peter Chivers:</strong><br /> | ||
Dr. Peter Chivers,<br /> | Dr. Peter Chivers,<br /> | ||
Line 384: | Line 363: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"><p> < | + | <td class="bodyText"><p> |
- | + | <b>MODELING:</b><br> | |
- | + | Checking parameters:<br /> | |
<br /> | <br /> | ||
<em>Reaction 6 </em><br /> | <em>Reaction 6 </em><br /> | ||
+ | The value that had been found before for k6 (Pl) = 0.20mM / h is in reality the flow of the reaction (which is why the units are mM/h). That is, how many mRNA molecules are being produced per unit of time. The system in which they measured this parameter is a derivative of the plasmid pBR322, pTrc99A. It has the same origin of replication and the number of copies is estimated at 15-20 but under certain conditions where replication is limited it appears to be between 3-5 copies. <br /> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | + | Using the previous information we can calculate the value of k+ of the reaction in our system if we consider that each promoter acts independently and we multiply by the ratio between the number of copies of our plasmid and those of their plasmid. <br /> | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
<br /></p> | <br /></p> | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
Line 400: | Line 378: | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
- | <td class="bodyText"><p | + | <td class="bodyText"><p> |
- | + | <strong>MODELING: </strong><br /> | |
- | <strong> | + | <br> |
- | + | To-do List | |
- | 1. Parameters. <br /> | + | 1. Find Missing Parameters. <br /> |
- cI Dimerization. <br /> | - cI Dimerization. <br /> | ||
- | - Nickel | + | - Nickel efflux . (Estimate?). <br /> |
- RcnA degradation. <br /> | - RcnA degradation. <br /> | ||
- Nickel Internalization (Experimentally,?). <br /> | - Nickel Internalization (Experimentally,?). <br /> | ||
- | - Initial concentrations (aiiA, LuxR? (Define arbitrary medium), ? (by number of copies of the plasmid; change to molar), | + | - Initial concentrations (aiiA, LuxR? (Define arbitrary medium), ? (by number of copies of the plasmid; change to molar), Ni-ext (experimental)). <br /> |
- | + | 2. Review tools in SimBiology (sensitivity analysis, parameter estimation, moiety conservation). <br /> | |
- | 2. | + | 3. Stationary states of the system (whether there is multistationarity). <br /> |
- | + | ||
- | 3. Stationary states of the system ( | + | |
- | + | ||
4. Jacobian. <br /> | 4. Jacobian. <br /> | ||
- | + | 5. Analysis of the stechiometric matrix (also analyze the null space and its transpose). <br /> | |
- | 5. Analysis of the stechiometric matrix (also analyze the null space and its | + | 6. Electrochemical theory (the relationship between electric potential and the concentration of nickel). <br /> |
- | + | ||
- | 6. Electrochemical theory (the | + | |
- | + | ||
7. Electrodes. <br /> | 7. Electrodes. <br /> | ||
- | ->We need to check | + | ->We need to check for advances in the construction of the measurement device we will use.<br /> |
- | -> Take into account the possibility of asking for support to Dr. Peña. <br /> | + | ->Take into account the possibility of asking for support to Dr. Peña. <br /> |
- | + | </p> | |
- | + | ||
</td> | </td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> |
Revision as of 01:29, 28 October 2008
LCG-UNAM-Mexico | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iGEM 2008 TEAM | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||