"
Minnesota/9 July 2009
From 2009.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<center><gallery widths=400 heights=300> | <center><gallery widths=400 heights=300> | ||
| - | Image:gfp_d2|Figure 4: GFP Decomposition Set to Zero | + | Image:gfp_d2.jpg|Figure 4: GFP Decomposition Set to Zero |
</center></gallery><br> | </center></gallery><br> | ||
Revision as of 19:06, 30 July 2009
| Back to Notebook Home | |
| Go to Previous Day (July 8) | Go to Next Day (July 10) |
Patrick
Today I received and analyzed the three models created yesterday, smad_ttn_gfp_u, smad_ttn_gfp_d, smad_ttn_gfp_d2. Below are the first two models, where the kinetic constant for reaction 10 (gfp -->) was raised and lowered by an order of magnitude (from 3.21E-05 1/s). The base is shown for comparison:
 Figure 1: Base TTN Model |
 Figure 2: Increased GFP Decomposition Rate (3.21E-04) |
 Figure 3: Decreased GFP Decomposition Rate (3.21E-06) |
As can be seen, there is a small difference when the GFP was increased, but no noticeable difference when GFP decomposition was decreased. The last model set GFP decomposition to zero in order to check whether a decrease would ever significantly affect the graph:
 Figure 4: GFP Decomposition Set to Zero |
