Difference between revisions of "Team:Manchester/Model/ParameterRelationships"

m
Line 75: Line 75:
 
<p id = "ConclusionsTitle" style="border-bottom: 1px black solid ;font-size:25px;text-weight:bold;display:inline-block">Conclusions</p>
 
<p id = "ConclusionsTitle" style="border-bottom: 1px black solid ;font-size:25px;text-weight:bold;display:inline-block">Conclusions</p>
 
<p>
 
<p>
From the graphs it is quite clear that some parameters have no relationship, as shown by the random distribution of green and yellow points amongst the red points. For other parameter combinations there are clear relationships shown by a band of green, bounded by bands of yellow amongst the red points.
+
From the graphs it is quite clear that some parameters have no relationship, as shown by the random distribution of green and yellow points amongst the red points. For other parameter combinations there are clear relationships shown by a band of green, bounded by bands of yellow amongst the red points. This validates our decision to provide a constraint in the suitable parameter values selected from certain PDFs.
 +
This analysis was only undertaken using irreversible Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Further analysis should be performed using other rate laws and more complicated relationships, rather than the ratio explored here.
 
</p>
 
</p>
  

Revision as of 22:15, 17 October 2016

Manchester iGEM 2016

Parameter Relationshpis Analysis


Contents

Overview and Motivation
Methodology
Results
Conclusions

Overview and Motivation

During the early experimental phase of the model production, it was noticed that for some parameters the actual value did not matter too much, these 'sloppy' parameters could have a large range of values with minimal impact on the main model predictions. Instead it was notices that these parameters were often grouped and whilst individually they are 'sloppy' some relationship between them is in fact not. This analysis is to look at and highlight these realtionships.


Return to top of page

Methodology

The model was run many times, the concentration vs time data was then compared with experimental data.

The data was assessed using a mean squared error

$$MSE = n^{-1}{\sum_{i=1}^n(y_{i,experimental}-y_{i,model})^2}$$

the top 10% of model runs were recorded. The parameter sets which generated this data was then stored.
This process was repeated and the data which provided the 11% - 20% best results was also stored leaving the remaining data stored.

For each combination of the parameters, the data was plotted with the different groupings coloured: green, yellow and red respectively.


Return to top of page

Results

PLACEHOLDER FOR GRAPHS


Return to top of page

Conclusions

From the graphs it is quite clear that some parameters have no relationship, as shown by the random distribution of green and yellow points amongst the red points. For other parameter combinations there are clear relationships shown by a band of green, bounded by bands of yellow amongst the red points. This validates our decision to provide a constraint in the suitable parameter values selected from certain PDFs. This analysis was only undertaken using irreversible Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Further analysis should be performed using other rate laws and more complicated relationships, rather than the ratio explored here.



Return to top of page
Return to overview