Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/67/T--ETH_Zurich--sensor2design.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/6/67/T--ETH_Zurich--sensor2design.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 1:</b>two alternative design for the sensor module</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
<div class="sec white two_columns"> | <div class="sec white two_columns"> | ||
+ | <div> | ||
+ | <h5>HEAT MAP</h5> | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
− | |||
<div> | <div> | ||
<div class="image_box full_size"> | <div class="image_box full_size"> | ||
Line 232: | Line 233: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/a6/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapKnorProdVSdeg2uM.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/a/a6/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapKnorProdVSdeg2uM.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 3:</b>This simulation was run with an input concentration of NO of 2 uM. As explained before we would like to match the range of |
+ | activation of the NO sensor module with the required dynamic range, in order to propagate through the genetic circuit all the information relative to the degree | ||
+ | of activation of the sensor. Here, in order to avoid false negative results during the learning phase we would like an activation between 20% and 60% at the limit | ||
+ | of detection. Which implies to keep a ratio between the degradation rate and the transcription rate (Kd) between 1.2 nM and 0.65 nM</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 245: | Line 249: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f1/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapKnorProdVSdeg200uM.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f1/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapKnorProdVSdeg200uM.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 4:</b>This simulation was run with an input concentration of NO of 200 uM, the ideal upper limit of the sensor dynamic range. At this |
+ | point we want a full activation of the sensor, which means at least a ratio of 0.8 activated promoter. Here it means a production rate superior to 2.5 nM min-1</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 251: | Line 256: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | |||
<div class="sec white"> | <div class="sec white"> | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
Line 269: | Line 276: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/22/T--ETH_Zurich--doseReponseNorR.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/2/22/T--ETH_Zurich--doseReponseNorR.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 5:</b>In order to more precisely tune our system, we wanted to look more into details into the dose reponse behaviour of the module. |
+ | Providing the model with a range of different production rates, and degradation rtaes respecting the previously defined ratio constrain, we plot | ||
+ | the dose response of the sensor.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 291: | Line 300: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/5c/T--ETH_Zurich--maxderivative.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/5c/T--ETH_Zurich--maxderivative.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 6:</b>Plotting the concentration corresponding to the maximum of the derivative of the previous dose response curve |
+ | we compute the limit of detection of the system as a function of the transcription rate, assuming a degradation rate respecting | ||
+ | the previous ratio constrain.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 304: | Line 315: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/ea/T--ETH_Zurich--levelOfNorRforThisPromoterStrength.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/ea/T--ETH_Zurich--levelOfNorRforThisPromoterStrength.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 7:</b>With regards to all te previous simulation it appears that a promoter strength of 3 nM for example is enough to see a 4 fold promoter activation under |
+ | 200 uM of NO system stimulation. We wanted to determine which concentration of the NO species this promoter strength would represent. It appears that the NOrR concnetration | ||
+ | remains quite low and similar to the concentration of native NorR in the E.Coli. In order to make the circuit as easy to implement as possible. It was suggested tu thus | ||
+ | only use the native NorR naturally present in the cell. This would simplify the circuit to reducing the amount of sequence to inject inside the plasmids.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 318: | Line 332: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f7/T--ETH_Zurich--AHLSystem.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/f/f7/T--ETH_Zurich--AHLSystem.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 8:</b> AHL Sensor overview</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 463: | Line 477: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/9b/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMaptranslaVStranscrip.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/9/9b/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMaptranslaVStranscrip.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 9:</b>The activation of the promoter was simulated under a constant AHL simulation of 100 nM with varying translation and transcription rates of Esar. |
+ | As we can see it seems that they have similar impact on the circuit behaviour</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 469: | Line 484: | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | As we can see on the | + | As we can see on the graph below, translation and transcription have similar effect on promoter activation. Thus we decided to play with promoter strength |
rather than rbs level inside each cells. | rather than rbs level inside each cells. | ||
+ | Later on we decided to only play with the promoter strength (transcription rate), as a entire collection of biobrick promoters is available, and thus spare to the lab to work on a rbs library | ||
+ | in order to modify the cell translation rate. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 478: | Line 495: | ||
<div class="sec light_grey two_columns"> | <div class="sec light_grey two_columns"> | ||
+ | <div> | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
Line 485: | Line 503: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/3e/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMaptranscriptVSdegraFor10nMofAHL.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/3/3e/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMaptranscriptVSdegraFor10nMofAHL.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 10:</b>We simulated the effect on the transcription and degradation rate on the AHL sensor promoter activity under 100 nM (ideal lower limit of detection) |
+ | As before we want to match the detection and dynamic range of the sensor to propagate the level of inflammation through the genetic circuit. Here it implies that the | ||
+ | ratio (Kd) must stay between 0.1 nM and 0.5 nM</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 498: | Line 518: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/0/04/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMaptranscriptVSdegraFor1uMofAHL.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/0/04/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMaptranscriptVSdegraFor1uMofAHL.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 11:</b>The same analysis performed on the AHL sensor system with the ideal upper detection limit 1 uM diplays the heatmap above. To guarantee |
+ | a activation superior to 90% at the input level, we need a Kd < 0.66 nM</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
+ | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 510: | Line 532: | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
However the output is a amount of freed promoter at a cell level. As our cells only contain around 15 plasmid so stochastic | However the output is a amount of freed promoter at a cell level. As our cells only contain around 15 plasmid so stochastic | ||
− | + | modelling may be interesting. | |
</p> | </p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 517: | Line 539: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/5a/T--ETH_Zurich--doseResponse.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/5/5a/T--ETH_Zurich--doseResponse.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 12:</b>The same dose response analysis was performed on the AHL sensor to finely tune our system in order to make it behave as ideally as possible. |
+ | a range of different Esar production rate were tested on the circuit while simulated the dose response, assuming the ration constrained respected.</p> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 528: | Line 551: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/bf/T--ETH_Zurich--LactSystem.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/b/bf/T--ETH_Zurich--LactSystem.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 13:</b> Lactate Sensor overview</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
Line 662: | Line 685: | ||
<div class="sec light_grey two_columns"> | <div class="sec light_grey two_columns"> | ||
+ | <div> | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
− | + | <h5>MODULAR MODEL</h5> | |
<div> | <div> | ||
<div class="image_box full_size"> | <div class="image_box full_size"> | ||
Line 669: | Line 693: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/ca/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapKnorR3nM.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/c/ca/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapKnorR3nM.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 14:</b>AND gate simulation using the modular model</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 676: | Line 700: | ||
<div> | <div> | ||
− | + | <h5>FULL STATE MODEL</h5> | |
<div> | <div> | ||
<div class="image_box full_size"> | <div class="image_box full_size"> | ||
Line 682: | Line 706: | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/ee/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapFullModelAndGate.svg"> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2016/e/ee/T--ETH_Zurich--heatMapFullModelAndGate.svg"> | ||
</a> | </a> | ||
− | <p><b>Figure | + | <p><b>Figure 15:</b>AND gate simulation using the full model</p> |
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
Line 688: | Line 712: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
− | + | </div> | |
<div class="sec light_grey two_columns"> | <div class="sec light_grey two_columns"> | ||
Line 715: | Line 739: | ||
<h2>DETERMINISTIC OVER STOCHASTIC MODEL</h2> | <h2>DETERMINISTIC OVER STOCHASTIC MODEL</h2> | ||
<p> | <p> | ||
− | + | At the beginning of the project, we wanted to a model as precise as possible that would allow us to tune finely our system in order to get | |
− | + | a response as close to the ideal one as possible. In addition, we also decided to go first for a full stochastic model. Thus FACS analysis and comparison | |
− | + | as well as fitting would assure us a good parameter estimation. Moreover, we wished that looking at the reporter distribution would help us | |
− | + | to get some additional information about the input of the circuit. As the system is thought as a detector, and its application (travelling through the gut | |
− | + | which is seen as a black box to get activated eventually by the presence of both NO and specific AHL) is to express a reporter, we wished that by simply | |
+ | looking at he distribution of mean and variance of the reporter could give us enough information in order to reconstitute the input. Thus in a medical | ||
+ | application, a simple FACS analysis of the remaining E.Coli harvesting from the faeces, would be enough to determine the acuteness of the inflammation and | ||
+ | a quantitative data on the microbiota disbalance. | ||
+ | However, it appeared after several staochastic simulation that the fluctuation of the ratio of activated promoter, for one trajectory, was to fast to have any | ||
+ | influence of the reporter protein expression, as binding and unbinding of protein and ligand to and from DNA strand are quick reaction compared to mRNA and protein | ||
+ | production and folding. As shown on the graph below. Thus we decided to go for simple deterministic simulation for the AND gate characterization. | ||
</p> | </p> | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revision as of 10:14, 11 October 2016
SENSOR MODULE
INTRODUCTION:
Our idea was to recognize bowel infection and its possible cause based on the intestine level of Nitric Oxyde (NO) which is infection specific, and of Acyl Homoserine-Lactone (AHL) which is microbiota specific. Thus, the simultaneous presence of those two chemicals in an abnormal amount can de detected, and later associated.
Lactate is also a molecule of interest in IBD research : non only is it playing an important role in metabolism, but recent studies tend to show that it is present in high amount in certain cases of severe IBD.
Thus it turns out that two type of sensors are interesting to devellop in order to investigate the causes of IBD. The first AND Gate will be able to detect the presence of both AHL and NO, while the second one will detect Lactate and NO.
SENSOR MODULE
GOALS
- Have an overall overview of the behavior and characteristic of our system
- Discuss the specification of our model and see how the design may influence the equations and this the output behavior
- Define the parameters that can be tuned and that can impact the output of our system so we can control our system range of working
- Compare the different design
- Infer the input state from the output signal analysis
Nitric Oxyde sensor
In the absence of NO, NorR is produced constitutively and binds repressively to the PnorV promoter, preventing gene transcription. When NO is present in the medium, it binds cooperatively to the hexameric form of NorR,and activate the promoter.
ASSUMPTION
We considered here that the binding of NO to NorR and PnorV_{i} does not affect the other species binding. Thus the reactions \begin{align*} NorR+NO&\rightleftharpoons NorR_{NO}\\ \end{align*} and \begin{align*} PnorV_{NorR}+NO&\rightleftharpoons NorR_{NO}\\ \end{align*} have the same reaction rate. Under those assumption, the system of equation can thus be simplified as follows:
REACTIONS
NOrR SYSTEM:
\begin{align*} &\rightarrow NorR\\ NO+NorR&\rightleftharpoons NorR_{NO}\\ 2NorR_{NO}&\rightleftharpoons DNorR_{NO2}\\ 2NorR &\rightleftharpoons DNorR\\ DNorR+NO&\rightleftharpoons DNorR_{NO1}\\ DNorR_{NO1}+NO&\rightleftharpoons DNorR_{NO2}\\ DNorR_{NO2}+PnorV0&\rightleftharpoons PnorV1\\ DNorR_{NO2}+PnorV1&\rightleftharpoons PnorV2\\ DNorR_{NO2}+PnorV2&\rightleftharpoons PnorV3\\ PnorV3&\rightarrow mRNA_{Bxb1}\\ NorR&\rightarrow\\ DNorR&\rightarrow \\ DNorR_{NO1}&\rightarrow\\ DNorR_{NO2}&\rightarrow\\ NorR_{NO}&\rightarrow\\ mRNA_{Bxb1}&\rightarrow\\ \end{align*}Species | Description |
---|---|
NO | Nitric Oxyde produced from DETA/NO reaction |
NorR | NorR constitutively produced insideE. coli cells |
NorR NO | NorR with No boundE. coli cells |
DNorR | Dimer of NorR , regulatory protein PnorV operon |
DNorR NO1 | Dimer with one NO bound to one of its site |
DNorR NO2 | Dimer two NO bound to it |
PnorV i | PnorV promoter with i sites occupied by DNoR NO2 |
PnorV 3 | PnorV3 is the active promoter |
RESULTS
The sensor module must be able to finely sense the different species, and in the rigth amount of concentrations. In this section we will explain how the model was used to provide useful insights for the biological system parameters.
REQUIREMENTS
NO sensor sensitivity range = [2 uM - 200 uM] Dynamic range : the system must be as fast as possible
KEY IDEA
We want to make the sensitivity range of the sensor and the activation range of the hybrid promoter match, so it propagates information relative to the inflammatory and candidate species to the switch and thus to the reporter. Under FACS and fluorescence distribution analysis the level of inflammation could then be inferred
PARAMETERS OF INTEREST
- transcription rate of NorR
- translation rate of NorR (RBS concentration)
- Degradatioin rate of NorR
those parameters will allow us to set with the kinetic and the steady-state concentration of NorR in the system.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
DOSE RESPONSE
HEAT MAP
Figure 3:This simulation was run with an input concentration of NO of 2 uM. As explained before we would like to match the range of activation of the NO sensor module with the required dynamic range, in order to propagate through the genetic circuit all the information relative to the degree of activation of the sensor. Here, in order to avoid false negative results during the learning phase we would like an activation between 20% and 60% at the limit of detection. Which implies to keep a ratio between the degradation rate and the transcription rate (Kd) between 1.2 nM and 0.65 nM
This is the optimal limit of detection of our system. However, as we can see it is hard to adjust this limit of detection, As the system seems extremely stiff. As we can see for those concentration of NO, we already reach the full activation independently of the transcription rate. The behaviour of the sensor at 2uM or 200uM is similar. At first view, it seems that we can only choose between full activation for both those concentration (all-or-nothing behaviour), or a weak activation. Thus it does not seem possible to play with the tunable parameters to adjust the behaviour of the system on the range of interest. However, in order to get a deeper insight on the model, it will be interesting to look at a more detailed dose response simulation.
Figure 5:In order to more precisely tune our system, we wanted to look more into details into the dose reponse behaviour of the module. Providing the model with a range of different production rates, and degradation rtaes respecting the previously defined ratio constrain, we plot the dose response of the sensor.
DOSE RESPONSE
However, the output of the NO module is the number of PnorV promoter activated by the NO. This number, at a cell level is between 1 and 15, so noise may play an important role in the system behavior, that is why a stochastic simulation may, in case of low NO level, be interested in order to get deeper insight on the system response to NO.
HEAT MAP
Figure 7:With regards to all te previous simulation it appears that a promoter strength of 3 nM for example is enough to see a 4 fold promoter activation under 200 uM of NO system stimulation. We wanted to determine which concentration of the NO species this promoter strength would represent. It appears that the NOrR concnetration remains quite low and similar to the concentration of native NorR in the E.Coli. In order to make the circuit as easy to implement as possible. It was suggested tu thus only use the native NorR naturally present in the cell. This would simplify the circuit to reducing the amount of sequence to inject inside the plasmids.
AHL SENSOR
In the absence of AHL, EsaR is constitutively produced, dimerizes and bind as a dimer to the esaBox situated downstream the promoter, preventing transcription as a roadblock. When a higher than normal amount of AHL is present in the gut, it binds to the EsaR dimer, and free the promoter, allowing transcription. Later on, several EsaBox can be added, in order to tune the sensor sensitivity.
ASSUMPTION
We assume a very fast dimerization of EsaR
REACTIONS
Species | Description |
---|---|
AHL | Acyl Homocerine Lactone introduced in the medium |
EsaR | EsaR constitutively produced insideE. coli cells |
DEsaR | Dimer of EsaR , regulatory protein binding to Esaboxes situated downstream the promoter |
DEsaR AHL1 | Dimer with one AHL bound to one of its site |
DEsaR AHL2 | Dimer with two AHL bound to one of its site |
DNorR NO2 | Dimer two NO bound to it |
Pesar i | Pesar1 correspond to the hybrid promoter. Pesar1 is the reporter promoter. They are independant |
Pfree Pout respectively | prmoter freed from the road block constituted by the EsaR bound to the downstream esaboxes |
RESULTS
The sensor module must be able to finely sense the different species, and in the rigth amount of concentrations. In this section we will explain how the model was used to provide useful insights for the biological system parameters.
REQUIREMENTS
AHL sensor sensitivity range = [10 nM - 1 uM] Dynamic range : the system must be as fast as possible
KEY IDEA
We want to make the sensitivity range of the sensor and the activation range of the hybrid promoter match, so it propagates information relative to the inflammatory and candidate species to the switch and thus to the reporter. Under FACS and fluorescence distribution analysis the level of inflammation could then be inferred
PARAMETERS OF INTEREST
- transcription rate of NorR
- translation rate of NorR (RBS concentration)
- Degradatioin rate of NorR
those parameters will allow us to set with the kinetic and the steady-state concentration of NorR in the system.
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
HEAT MAP
As we can see on the graph below, translation and transcription have similar effect on promoter activation. Thus we decided to play with promoter strength rather than rbs level inside each cells. Later on we decided to only play with the promoter strength (transcription rate), as a entire collection of biobrick promoters is available, and thus spare to the lab to work on a rbs library in order to modify the cell translation rate.
Figure 10:We simulated the effect on the transcription and degradation rate on the AHL sensor promoter activity under 100 nM (ideal lower limit of detection) As before we want to match the detection and dynamic range of the sensor to propagate the level of inflammation through the genetic circuit. Here it implies that the ratio (Kd) must stay between 0.1 nM and 0.5 nM
DOSE RESPONSE
However the output is a amount of freed promoter at a cell level. As our cells only contain around 15 plasmid so stochastic modelling may be interesting.
LACTATE SENSOR
The promoter if flanked of two LldR specific binding sites : O1 and O2. In the absence of of lactate, LldR and LldD are constitutively produced. LldR then binds to O1 and O2 as a dimer, forms a DNA loop and preventing transcription. When Lactate (Lac) is present, it binds to the LldR complex and free the promoter. LldD lowers the concentration of Lactate inside the cell by catalyzing its transformation into pyruvate. The idea is to set a tunable treshold to the Lactate sensor, as this species, just like AHL, is anyway always present in the gut, and we only want to sense abnormal concentration.
ASSUMPTIONS
LldR exists as a dimer in solution. 2 molecules of lactate bind to one LldR dimer (L2). Lldr dimer bind to the two operator sites when no LldR is present. Lactate releases the binding of LldR dimer to the operators.
Lactate system:
\begin{align*} &\rightarrow LldD\\ &\rightarrow LldR\\ LldD+Lac&\rightleftharpoons Pyr+LldD\\ 2LldR&\rightleftharpoons DLldR\\ DLldR+ G_on&\rightleftharpoons G_off\\ DLldR + Lac&\rightleftharpoons DLldR_{Lac1}\\ DLldR_{Lac1}+Lac&\rightleftharpoons DLldR_{Lac2}\\ G_off + Lac&\rightleftharpoons G_off_1\\ G_off_1 + Lac&\rightleftharpoons G_on + DLldR_{Lac2}\\ G_on&\rightleftharpoons mRNA_{GFP}\\ LldD&\rightarrow\\ LldR&\rightarrow\\ DLldR&\rightarrow\\ DLldR_{Lac1}&\rightarrow\\ DLldR_{Lac2}&\rightarrow\\ \end{align*}Species | Description |
---|---|
LldR | regulatory protein of the Lac system, acts as a repressor |
DLldR | Dimer of LldR |
Lac | Lactate introduced in the medium. Forms a complex with LldR, preventing it from repressing the Promoter. Acts thus as an activatorE. coli cells |
Pyr NO | Pyruvate, inactive form of lactateE. coli cells |
LldD | Regulatory protein, catalyse the oxydation of Lactate into Pyruvate |
G_on NO1 | Active promoter |
G_off NO2 | Promoter repressed by LldR binding |
G_off_1 NO2 | Repressed promoter with 1 lactate molecule bound |
DLldR_Lac1 i | DLldR with one Lactate molecule bound NO2 |
DLldR_Lac2 3 | DLldR with two Lactate molecule bound |
RESULTS
high input, nice behavior.
Stochastic simulation
always the output issue.
Full AND Gate
Now it is time to link the two previous modules together in order to create the full AND Gate. Ideally, we would like to keep the model as modular as possible. In a first part, our way to proceed in order to recreate the hybrid promoter behavior from the two simple PnorV+Esabox promoter will be described. Then we propose a second model which takes into account all the different states of the promoter under NO and AHL/lactate binding, that can be stochastically simulated.
Full state model
-- inset image and equation --
modular model
-- inset image and equation --
DETERMINISTIC OVER STOCHASTIC MODEL
At the beginning of the project, we wanted to a model as precise as possible that would allow us to tune finely our system in order to get a response as close to the ideal one as possible. In addition, we also decided to go first for a full stochastic model. Thus FACS analysis and comparison as well as fitting would assure us a good parameter estimation. Moreover, we wished that looking at the reporter distribution would help us to get some additional information about the input of the circuit. As the system is thought as a detector, and its application (travelling through the gut which is seen as a black box to get activated eventually by the presence of both NO and specific AHL) is to express a reporter, we wished that by simply looking at he distribution of mean and variance of the reporter could give us enough information in order to reconstitute the input. Thus in a medical application, a simple FACS analysis of the remaining E.Coli harvesting from the faeces, would be enough to determine the acuteness of the inflammation and a quantitative data on the microbiota disbalance. However, it appeared after several staochastic simulation that the fluctuation of the ratio of activated promoter, for one trajectory, was to fast to have any influence of the reporter protein expression, as binding and unbinding of protein and ligand to and from DNA strand are quick reaction compared to mRNA and protein production and folding. As shown on the graph below. Thus we decided to go for simple deterministic simulation for the AND gate characterization.