"
Minnesota/23 July 2009
From 2009.igem.org
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|'''[[Minnesota/22 July 2009|Go to Previous Day (July 22)]]'''|| width=158|'''[[Minnesota/24 July 2009|Go to Next Day (July 24)]]''' | |'''[[Minnesota/22 July 2009|Go to Previous Day (July 22)]]'''|| width=158|'''[[Minnesota/24 July 2009|Go to Next Day (July 24)]]''' | ||
|} | |} | ||
| - | <br> | + | '''Patrick'''<br> |
| + | Today I got back the results for test3, and also created tow programs to test whether making tetR2 less attracted to aTc would make a significant difference. I created two programs, '''smad_ttn_test4''' which looked at reducing tetR2:aTc production (the kinetic constant for reactions 11 and 13 were reduced from 1E+08 1/(Ms) to 1E+07 1/(Ms)), and '''smad_ttn_test5''' which further reduced the same constant to 1E+06 1/(Ms).<br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Test3 came back and it show below along with the base for comparison. Test3 checked to see what would occur if tetR2:aTc and tetR2:aTc2 were set to Split on Division:<br> | ||
| + | <center><gallery widths=300 heights=200> | ||
| + | Image:base.jpg|Figure 1 - Base TTN Model | ||
| + | Image:test3.jpg|Figure 2 - tetR2:aTc and tetR2:aTc2 Split on Division | ||
| + | </gallery></center> | ||
| + | |||
| + | As can be seen it has dramatic, but ultimately incorrect results. The results are a by-product of aTc dilution instead of tetR2 dilution as desired. I'll have to look at more ideas for how to model this correctly.<br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Ben'''<br> | ||
[[Image:Tnnnew24.jpg|480px]][[Image:Tnnexperiment.jpg|480px]]<br> | [[Image:Tnnnew24.jpg|480px]][[Image:Tnnexperiment.jpg|480px]]<br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
[[Image:Tnnnew26.jpg|480px]][[Image:Tnnexperiment.jpg|480px]]<br> | [[Image:Tnnnew26.jpg|480px]][[Image:Tnnexperiment.jpg|480px]]<br> | ||
Latest revision as of 20:11, 30 July 2009
| Back to Notebook Home | |
| Go to Previous Day (July 22) | Go to Next Day (July 24) |
Patrick
Today I got back the results for test3, and also created tow programs to test whether making tetR2 less attracted to aTc would make a significant difference. I created two programs, smad_ttn_test4 which looked at reducing tetR2:aTc production (the kinetic constant for reactions 11 and 13 were reduced from 1E+08 1/(Ms) to 1E+07 1/(Ms)), and smad_ttn_test5 which further reduced the same constant to 1E+06 1/(Ms).
Test3 came back and it show below along with the base for comparison. Test3 checked to see what would occur if tetR2:aTc and tetR2:aTc2 were set to Split on Division:
 Figure 1 - Base TTN Model |
 Figure 2 - tetR2:aTc and tetR2:aTc2 Split on Division |
As can be seen it has dramatic, but ultimately incorrect results. The results are a by-product of aTc dilution instead of tetR2 dilution as desired. I'll have to look at more ideas for how to model this correctly.
Ben
