Team:TUDelft/Modeling Cascade
From 2009.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(→Parameter Sweeps) |
(→Parameter Sweeps) |
||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
Image:2d leakage lamp.png| Delay Time vs Transcription Leakage of λp. | Image:2d leakage lamp.png| Delay Time vs Transcription Leakage of λp. | ||
- | Image:3d alpha2 vs alpha4.png|Translation Rate α1 vs Translation Rate α4. | + | Image:3d alpha2 vs alpha4.png|Translation Rate α1 (of TetR mRNA) vs Translation Rate α4 (of GFP mRNA). |
- | Image:3d Clamp vs alpha4.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of λp vs Translation Rate α4. | + | Image:3d Clamp vs alpha4.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of λp vs Translation Rate α4 (of GFP mRNA). |
Image:3d CpLac vs Clamp.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pLac vs Maximum Transcription Rate of λp. | Image:3d CpLac vs Clamp.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pLac vs Maximum Transcription Rate of λp. | ||
Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Image:3d CpLac vs CpTet.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pLac vs Maximum Transcription Rate of pTet. | Image:3d CpLac vs CpTet.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pLac vs Maximum Transcription Rate of pTet. | ||
- | Image:3d CpTet vs alpha2.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pTet vs Translation Rate α2. | + | Image:3d CpTet vs alpha2.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pTet vs Translation Rate α2 (of CI mRNA). |
Image:3d CpTet vs Clamp.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pTet vs Maximum Transcription Rate of λp. | Image:3d CpTet vs Clamp.png|Maximum Transcription Rate of pTet vs Maximum Transcription Rate of λp. |
Revision as of 14:06, 1 October 2009
Modeling the Transcriptional Cascade
A full description of the Transcriptional Cascade can be found here.
ODEs
The kinetic equations were written out in a Matlab script for both transcription and translation.
Symbol | Definition |
kIPTGin, kIPTGout | rate constants |
k50IPTG, k50LacI, k50TetR, k50CI | dissociation constants |
dmRNA | mRNA degradation rate |
dTetR, dCI, dRFP, dGFP | protein degradation rates |
apLac, apTet, aλp | transcription leakage (%) |
cpLac, cpTet, cλp | maximum transcription rates |
α1, α2, α3, α4 | translation rates |
nIPTG, nLacI, nTetR, nCI | Hill coefficients |
[X]mRNA | concentration of X mRNA |
Sensitivity
Parameter | Normalized Sensitivity |
kIPTGin, kIPTGout | |
k50IPTG, k50LacI, k50TetR, k50CI | |
dmRNA | |
dTetR, dCI, dRFP, dGFP | |
apLac, apTet, aλp | |
cpLac, cpTet, cλp | |
α1, α2, α3, α4 | |
nIPTG, nLacI, nTetR, nCI | |
[X]mRNA |
Parameter Sweeps
|
Stability
Jacobian
|
Design Recommendations
Based on the results of the simulations, a series of recommendations were given to the delay team to aid them in choosing parts which would maximize the delay time.
- Significant transcription leakages greatly shorten the delay time. Attempt to minimize leakages. Leakage of λp is a far bigger problem than pTet leakage.
- Use a weak promoter and a weak RBS on the last stage (λp) of the cascade.
- A weak pLac promoters is favorable.
- A strong pTet promoter is favorable.
- A strong RBS on CI gene is favorable.
- A weak RBS on TetR gene is favorable.
- A weak RBS on the endonuclease is favorable although a strong RBS can be used for the GFP gene.
- When choosing RBS and promoter strengths avoid the red areas on the stability plots.