Team:Paris/Modeling/f3

(Difference between revisions)

Revision as of 17:39, 12 October 2008

We have [OmpR^*] = {coef_omp}expr(pTet) = {coef_omp} ƒ1([aTc]_i)

and [FliA] = {coef}_FliAexpr(pBad) = {coef_FliA} ƒ2([arab]_i)

So, at steady-states,

param	signification	unit	value	comments
[expr(pFlhDC)]	expression rate of pFlhDC with RBS E0032	nM.min^-1		need for 20 mesures with well choosen values of [aTc]_i and for 20 mesures with well choosen values of [arab]_i and 5x5 measures for the relation below?
γ_GFP	dilution-degradation rate of GFP(mut3b)	min^-1	0.0198
[GFP]	GFP concentration at steady-state	nM		need for 20 + 20 measures and 5x5 measures for the relation below?
(fluorescence)	value of the observed fluorescence	au		need for 20 + 20 measures and 5x5 measures for the relation below?
conversion	conversion ratio between fluorescence and concentration	nM.au^-1	(1/79.429)

param	signification corresponding parameters in the equations	unit	value	comments
β₁₃	production rate of FliA-pFlhDC with RBS E0032 β₁₃	nM.min^-1
(K₁₂/{coef_fliA})	activation constant of FliA-pFlhDC K₁₂	nM
n₁₂	complexation order of FliA-pFlhDC n₁₂	no dimension
β₂	production rate of OmpR-pFlhDC with RBS E0032 β₂	nM.min^-1
(K₂₂/{coef_omp})	activation constant of OmpR-pFlhDC K₂₂	nM
n₂₂	complexation order of OmpR-pFlhDC n₂₂	no dimension

Then, if we have time, we want to verify the expected relation

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Image:f3omp.jpg|thumb]]
-We have [OmpR<sup>*</sup>] = {coef}<sub>OmpR</sub>''expr(pTet)'' = {coef}<sub>OmpR</sub> &#131;1([aTc]<sub>i</sub>)
+We have [OmpR<sup>*</sup>] = {coef<sub>omp</sub>}''expr(pTet)'' = {coef<sub>omp</sub>} &#131;1([aTc]<sub>i</sub>)
-and [FliA] = {coef}<sub>FliA</sub>''expr(pBad)'' = {coef}<sub>FliA</sub> &#131;2([arab]<sub>i</sub>)
+and [FliA] = {coef}<sub>FliA</sub>''expr(pBad)'' = {coef<sub>FliA</sub>} &#131;2([arab]<sub>i</sub>)
 So, at steady-states,
 [[Image:F3ompfinal.jpg|center]]