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

 
(15 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Manchester/CSS}}
 
{{Manchester/CSS}}
 
<html>
 
<html>
 +
<style>
 +
.team{
 +
  margin-top: 60px;
 +
}
 +
 +
</style>
 +
 
<body>
 
<body>
  
 
<div class="team">
 
<div class="team">
  
 +
<p id="TopTitle" style="border-bottom: 1px black solid ;font-size:25px;text-weight:bold;display:inline-block">Human Practices and Lab Integration</p>
 
<p>
 
<p>
−
Initially we generated a mass action based model. This accurately modelled the system however we quickly realised that finding parameter values was going to prove particularly difficult.
+
Any good model should not be an end in itself, but should be motivated by real questions and solve real problems. In our project, the questions we addressed were directly derived from our Human Practices work and our models helped to direct the experimental work in several important ways. The questions brought to us guided the construction of the model and the analysis of the results. The major areas of integration between modelling and the rest of the project were:
−
</p>
+
 
−
<p>
+
−
We looked into the research and found BRENDA, the enzyme database. This had a great source of kinetic parameters for Michalis Menten for the rate equation. So our focus turned to this - we lost the accuracy in the early, transient, stage of the model and this introduced a limitation on the enzyme:substrate ratio to ensure the validity conditions we always met but since this region was of little interest to us and enzyme will be a major cost in the system so should be minimized when at all possible, this was a tradeoff we were willing to make for the more well reported parameters.
+
−
</p>
+
−
<p>
+
−
Off to the lab! Unfortunately the experimental results didn’t fit. Our model was reacting to completion given enough time which was causing problems.
+
−
</p>
+
−
<p>
+
−
With the model broken we had a chat with Aliyah, a postdoc in the MIB, who suggested we should look into the reversible form of Michalis Menten as this would help overcome the problem we had noticed - the inevitable same steady state concentration. This model was implemented and data was generated.
+
−
</p>
+
−
<p>
+
−
Then we took it to the lab, comparing what the model suggested with experimental results. Something else was wrong! The model wasn’t accounting for the amount of ABTS used at all. Only experiments where ABTS was in a large excess were being modelled accurately. The patch design relies on having variable limiting amount of ABTS so this was a problem.
+
−
</p>
+
−
<p>
+
−
Back to the drawing board again. Taking note that the problem was almost certainly in the rate equations we were using we hit the library. After another session cramming on Enzyme Kinetics we decided a Bi-Uni rate law would be able to account for the ABTS.
+
 
</p>
 
</p>
 +
</br>
 +
<table>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <th>Question raised</th>
 +
    <th>Modelling Contribution</th>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
<td>"What would be the best ratio of enzymes to obtain a robust response for the lowest possible cost?" (Raised in discussion with the <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Manchester/Human_Practices/Professional_Bodies#gmp">Police</a> and at the <a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Manchester/Human_Practices/Professional_Bodies#microbio">Microbiology Society Conference</a> </td>
 +
    <td><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Manchester/Model/Costing">Cost Analysis</a>, examining predicted costs for a range  of different system designs with variations in the amount of enzymes based on experimental data</td>
 +
   
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
  <td>"How important are the specific parameters on the system?" (asked by the experimentalists)</td>
 +
    <td><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Manchester/Model/ParameterRelationships">Parameter Relationship Analysis</a>, assessing the importance of specific parameters and combinations of parameters on the outcomes of the system</td>
 +
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
<td>"Is the system we have assembled really functioning in the way we think it does?" (asked by the experimentalists) </td>
 +
    <td><a href="https://2016.igem.org/Team:Manchester/Model/MechanismUncertainty">Network Mechanism Analysis</a>, comparing model predictions and experimental data for different potential circuit topologies</td>
 +
   
 +
 +
  </tr>
 +
</table>
  
  
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
 +
<span class="box1">
 +
</span>
 +
  
 
</body>
 
</body>
 
</html>
 
</html>
 
{{Manchester/CSS/footer}}
 
{{Manchester/CSS/footer}}

Latest revision as of 12:57, 19 October 2016

Manchester iGEM 2016

Human Practices and Lab Integration

Any good model should not be an end in itself, but should be motivated by real questions and solve real problems. In our project, the questions we addressed were directly derived from our Human Practices work and our models helped to direct the experimental work in several important ways. The questions brought to us guided the construction of the model and the analysis of the results. The major areas of integration between modelling and the rest of the project were:


Question raised Modelling Contribution
"What would be the best ratio of enzymes to obtain a robust response for the lowest possible cost?" (Raised in discussion with the Police and at the Microbiology Society Conference Cost Analysis, examining predicted costs for a range of different system designs with variations in the amount of enzymes based on experimental data
"How important are the specific parameters on the system?" (asked by the experimentalists) Parameter Relationship Analysis, assessing the importance of specific parameters and combinations of parameters on the outcomes of the system
"Is the system we have assembled really functioning in the way we think it does?" (asked by the experimentalists) Network Mechanism Analysis, comparing model predictions and experimental data for different potential circuit topologies

Sponsors

Follow us on