Team:UANL Mty-Mexico/Modeling
From 2013.igem.org
Ivanmorales (Talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
<div class="col-md-6"><p>Aside from the common objection that they are not suitable to describe systems that show a low number of particles, we believe that a deterministc model at a molecular level of these kind of systems and the degree of certainty with which they can be used for inter-system comparison or usage, do not outweigh the costs of the experimental determination of parameters.</p> | <div class="col-md-6"><p>Aside from the common objection that they are not suitable to describe systems that show a low number of particles, we believe that a deterministc model at a molecular level of these kind of systems and the degree of certainty with which they can be used for inter-system comparison or usage, do not outweigh the costs of the experimental determination of parameters.</p> | ||
- | <p>Here we propose a model for the description and comparison of the behavior of the effect of RNA thermometers or RNATs on the expression of a reporter protein. The model is tested with relative fluorescence units data, which are not hard to obtain, and the model and its parameters should allow for inter-system comparisons | + | <p>Here we propose a model for the description and comparison of the behavior of the effect of RNA thermometers or RNATs on the expression of a reporter protein. The model is tested with relative fluorescence units data, which are not hard to obtain, and the model and its parameters should allow for inter-system comparisons i.e., to compare the temperature-dependent gene regulation features of different RNATs.</p></div></div> |
<div id="title"> | <div id="title"> | ||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
<p>The relative fluorescence units (RFUs) were calculated in relation to the amount of fluorescence emitted by an <i>E. coli</i> K12 culture transformed with a constitutively expressed part BBa_E1010 (for RFP expression) or BBa_E0040 (for GFP expression) per unit of Optical Density at 600 nm light (OD600) after 17hr of growth at 37°C in LB medium.</p> | <p>The relative fluorescence units (RFUs) were calculated in relation to the amount of fluorescence emitted by an <i>E. coli</i> K12 culture transformed with a constitutively expressed part BBa_E1010 (for RFP expression) or BBa_E0040 (for GFP expression) per unit of Optical Density at 600 nm light (OD600) after 17hr of growth at 37°C in LB medium.</p> | ||
- | <p>All fluorescence measurements were | + | <p>All fluorescence measurements were normalised to the OD<sub>600</sub> nm of their corresponding culture.</p> |
<p>In this way the amount of fluorescence emitted by our culture was calculated as follows:</p> | <p>In this way the amount of fluorescence emitted by our culture was calculated as follows:</p> | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
\end{equation} | \end{equation} | ||
- | <p>where F<sub>sample</sub> is the OD<sub>600</sub>- | + | <p>where F<sub>sample</sub> is the OD<sub>600</sub>nm-normalised fluorescence emitted by a sample, while F<sub>standard</sub> is the OD<sub>600</sub>-normalised fluorescence measurement for the corresponding standard culture (again, BBa_E1010 for RFP and BBa_E0040 for GFP).</p> |
<p>In our experiments, we had the same unchanging global conditions (temperature, initial conditions, and medium used to grow cells).</p> | <p>In our experiments, we had the same unchanging global conditions (temperature, initial conditions, and medium used to grow cells).</p> | ||
- | <p>For each measurement at a given temperature, the system was left growing until a point in which the OD | + | <p>For each measurement at a given temperature, the system was left growing until a point in which the OD normalised relative fluorescence reached its saturation point. |
- | <p>After a few exploratory tests at different incubation times, it was found that the optimal incubation time to reach signal saturation was around 15 hours | + | <p>After a few exploratory tests at different incubation times, it was found that the optimal incubation time to reach signal saturation was around 15 hours to 20 hours. Taken this into account, all the measurements used for the model were done at 17 hours of incubation time. Thus, we can say these fluorescence measurements were Steady State measurements</p> |
<p>Our measurements were made in LB medium at 25, 30, 37 and 42°C, for each one of our constructions that are part of the whole circuit.</p></div> | <p>Our measurements were made in LB medium at 25, 30, 37 and 42°C, for each one of our constructions that are part of the whole circuit.</p></div> | ||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
\end{equation} | \end{equation} | ||
- | <p>Now, we assume that after | + | <p>Now, we assume that after growing for 8 hours at a given temperature, a culture would have reached the steady state OD<sub>600</sub>-normalised fluorescence expression. Taking this assumption into account, we can plot the value of \(F_{Rst}\) after growth at different temperatures and find a function that we will call \(f(T)\). Note that we use capital \(T\) to distinguish temperature from time, for which we use lower case \(t\).</p> |
<p>If we merge this assumption to equation 3, we have:</p> | <p>If we merge this assumption to equation 3, we have:</p> | ||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
<div class="justified"> | <div class="justified"> | ||
- | <p>Our dynamic model is reduced in complexity when \(F_{st}\) is known -which is the case when we let grow the cells until they reach a stable fluorescence measurement-. It can be used to construct a model in COPASI [<a href="http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/24/3067">Hoops, S., <i>et al</i>., (2006)</a>] and experimental data can be fitted to the equation and empiric estimations for \(\delta\) can be obtained. This estimations can be used to compare the | + | <p>Our dynamic model is reduced in complexity when \(F_{st}\) is known -which is the case when we let grow the cells until they reach a stable fluorescence measurement-. It can be used to construct a model in COPASI [<a href="http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/24/3067">Hoops, S., <i>et al</i>., (2006)</a>] and experimental data can be fitted to the equation and empiric estimations for \(\delta\) can be obtained. This estimations can be used to compare the behaviour of different RNATs, whenever they are tested under the same standard conditions that we have described through out the text (i.e., using the same standards to normalise OD<sub>600</sub> data and growing their culture in the same conditions).</p> |
- | <p>However, as explained above, we weren't able to take time series measurements of cultures growing at fixed temperatures. We simulated the | + | <p>However, as explained above, we weren't able to take time series measurements of cultures growing at fixed temperatures. We simulated the behaviour of our system using arbitrary values for the \(\delta\) parameter spanning three orders of magnitude and the parameters obtained for the \(f(T)\) function.</p> |
<p>We are also aware that as temperature increases, the overall degradation rate of proteins also does. In consequence, we expect to see a rise in the degradation rate in our dynamic model as temperature increases. If we plot the value of \(\delta\) obtained at different temperatures, we will end with a function \(\delta(T)\) that shows an unknown form:</p> | <p>We are also aware that as temperature increases, the overall degradation rate of proteins also does. In consequence, we expect to see a rise in the degradation rate in our dynamic model as temperature increases. If we plot the value of \(\delta\) obtained at different temperatures, we will end with a function \(\delta(T)\) that shows an unknown form:</p> | ||
Line 168: | Line 168: | ||
\end{equation} | \end{equation} | ||
- | <p>Nevertheless, this is a consideration that we'll leave for further analysis and for now, we'll assume that \(\delta)\ does not change significantly in the chosen temperature range (25 - 42°C).</p> | + | <p>Nevertheless, this is a consideration that we'll leave for further analysis and for now, we'll assume that \(\delta)\ does not change significantly in the chosen temperature range (25-42°C).</p> |
Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
<div class="justified"> | <div class="justified"> | ||
- | <p>In mathematics, a Gaussian Function | + | <p>In mathematics, a Gaussian Function is a function of the form:</p> |
\begin{equation} \ f(x) = a e^{\frac{-(x-b)^{2}}{2c^{2}}} \end{equation} | \begin{equation} \ f(x) = a e^{\frac{-(x-b)^{2}}{2c^{2}}} \end{equation} | ||
- | <p>for some real constants a > 0, b>0, c> 0, and Euler's number).</p> | + | <p>for some real constants a>0, b>0, c>0, and Euler's number).</p> |
<p>For which MATLAB uses the following custom equation when fitting data to a Gaussian Function:</p> | <p>For which MATLAB uses the following custom equation when fitting data to a Gaussian Function:</p> | ||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
\begin{equation} \ f(x)= a e^{\frac{-(x-b)^{2}}{c^{2}}} \end{equation} | \begin{equation} \ f(x)= a e^{\frac{-(x-b)^{2}}{c^{2}}} \end{equation} | ||
- | <p>Where 2c is considered as c for simplicity the | + | <p>Where 2c is considered as c for simplicity the normalisation of x, b is the mean (average) and c the standard deviation.</p> |
<p>For us, we are using this function as a model for the dependency of the Relative Fluorescence of each construction. Its equation would be the following:</p> | <p>For us, we are using this function as a model for the dependency of the Relative Fluorescence of each construction. Its equation would be the following:</p> | ||
Line 203: | Line 203: | ||
<p><a name="Biological Antecedents"><h4>Biological Antecedents </h4></a><hr></p></div> | <p><a name="Biological Antecedents"><h4>Biological Antecedents </h4></a><hr></p></div> | ||
<div class="justified"> | <div class="justified"> | ||
- | <p>Some important biological phenomena can be | + | <p>Some important biological phenomena can be modelling as a Gaussian function, including macroscopic (e.g., the length of a specific bird beak) and also molecular phenomena (e.g., enzyme activity).</p> |
According to the model, the majority of the observations will show a range of values that culminates in a mean value being generated. The central peak of the bell curve will show the modal average, and the highest frequency of results will be shown in this space.</p> | According to the model, the majority of the observations will show a range of values that culminates in a mean value being generated. The central peak of the bell curve will show the modal average, and the highest frequency of results will be shown in this space.</p> | ||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
<p>We are choosing the Gaussian function, because of the relevance that its parameters have for our model. Defining these parameters will provide us a way to quantify the strength (a), optimal value (b), and definition or clearness (c) of our RNAT activity.</p> | <p>We are choosing the Gaussian function, because of the relevance that its parameters have for our model. Defining these parameters will provide us a way to quantify the strength (a), optimal value (b), and definition or clearness (c) of our RNAT activity.</p> | ||
- | <p>However, we still lack enough experimental information to develop a theory that explains why the | + | <p>However, we still lack enough experimental information to develop a theory that explains why the behaviour of a RNAT can be fitted to a Gaussian function and to determine whether if this is an universal behaviour of all RNATs or if it is restricted to the RNATs we are working with.</p> |
<div id="title"> | <div id="title"> | ||
Line 268: | Line 268: | ||
- | <p>Both M1 and M2 have a similar behaviour. They show an optimal Relative Fluorescence around the same temperatures ( | + | <p>Both M1 and M2 have a similar behaviour. They show an optimal Relative Fluorescence around the same temperatures (37°C). M2 seems to have a better fit to the data than M1, while M1 (around 0.5 RFU) has greater amplitude than M2 (around 0.4 RFU).</p> |
- | <p>The results for M11 and M12 | + | <p>The results for M11 and M12 have a fit that doesn’t follow a biological interpretation, because they seem to have (according to a Gaussian Function Fit) an optimal temperature near to values higher than the viable temperature for the microorganism. This is because they show a slower (or shifted) increase of Relative Fluorescence in relation to the others.</p> |
Line 367: | Line 367: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
- | <p>For the parameter a, which represent the strength of the signal, M1 is the better one among the clones, excluding the result of M11 and M12 | + | <p>For the parameter a, which represent the strength of the signal, M1 is the better one among the clones, excluding the result of M11 and M12, because they show their respective peaks far away from the accepted range of temperatures approximately around 20°C and 50°C.</p> |
- | <p>For the parameter b, which represent the optimal temperature for the RNAT (the ON state), M1 and M2 behave more likely to what we expected. The same happens for the control RFP. All these are around 37°C. For M11 and M12 (for its both cases), optimal temperatures are away from what we expected, and what would work for between the | + | <p>For the parameter b, which represent the optimal temperature for the RNAT (the ON state), M1 and M2 behave more likely to what we expected. The same happens for the control RFP. All these are around 37°C. For M11 and M12 (for its both cases), optimal temperatures are away from what we expected, and what would work for between the viable temperatures.</p> |
<p>For the parameter c, which represents the width (clearness or definition) of the signal, the smallest (best) clone was M1. M12 is not considered because it has a very poor amplitude and a shifted optimal temperature. </p> | <p>For the parameter c, which represents the width (clearness or definition) of the signal, the smallest (best) clone was M1. M12 is not considered because it has a very poor amplitude and a shifted optimal temperature. </p> | ||
Line 436: | Line 436: | ||
<div class="justified"> | <div class="justified"> | ||
- | <p>M12 has a particular behaviour compared to the other clones, which is of great interest but need further and deeper analysis. For the previous analysis, M12 | + | <p>M12 has a particular behaviour compared to the other clones, which is of great interest but need further and deeper analysis. For the previous analysis, M12 represent a restricted range of our data set for which we are more confident of the results.</p> |
<p>For more insights around this special case, refer to Results, in the section Wetlab.</p> | <p>For more insights around this special case, refer to Results, in the section Wetlab.</p> | ||
Line 446: | Line 446: | ||
<i>PLoS ONE</i>,5(7):e11308.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011308. | <i>PLoS ONE</i>,5(7):e11308.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011308. | ||
- | <li>H. A. Von Fircks, T. Verwijst,(1993)Plant Viability as a Function of Temperature Stress(The Richards Function Applied to Data from Freezing Tests of Growing Shoots | + | <li>H. A. Von Fircks, T. Verwijst,(1993)Plant Viability as a Function of Temperature Stress (The Richards Function Applied to Data from Freezing Tests of Growing Shoots) |
<i>Plant Physio</i> ,103(1):125–130. | <i>Plant Physio</i> ,103(1):125–130. | ||
<li>Hoops S, | <li>Hoops S, | ||
- | <i>et al.</i> (2010)COPASI–a COmplex | + | <i>et al.</i> (2010)COPASI–a COmplex Pathway Simulator <i>Bioinformatics</i> ,22,3067-3074,2006,http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl485 |
<li>COPASI Documentation 2.Steady State calculation(2013,May 16).Retrieved from http://www.copasi.org/tiki-integrator.php?repID=9&file=ch07s02.html<il> | <li>COPASI Documentation 2.Steady State calculation(2013,May 16).Retrieved from http://www.copasi.org/tiki-integrator.php?repID=9&file=ch07s02.html<il> | ||
- | <li>Ting Chen, <i>et al.</i> | + | <li>Ting Chen, <i>et al.</i> Modelling gene expression with differential equations (1999) <i>Pacic Symposium of Biocomputing</i> |
<li>Gaussian function(Consulted on 2013,September 27)Retrieved from http://uqu.edu.sa/files2/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/4282164/Gaussian%20function.pdf | <li>Gaussian function(Consulted on 2013,September 27)Retrieved from http://uqu.edu.sa/files2/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/4282164/Gaussian%20function.pdf |
Revision as of 00:11, 29 October 2013
Mathematical models that represent the dynamic behavior of biological systems are a quite prolific field of work and are pillar for Systems Biology. A number of deterministic and stochastic formalisms have been developed at different abstraction levels that range from the molecular to the population levels.
In principle, a model that is simple but that is good enough to describe and make predictions, with a degree of certainty, about the phenomenon under scrutiny, would be desirable.
Deterministic mathematical models that describe the behavior of genetic circuits and the interactions of the proteins they encode are usually built upon mass action kinetics theory.
Aside from the common objection that they are not suitable to describe systems that show a low number of particles, we believe that a deterministc model at a molecular level of these kind of systems and the degree of certainty with which they can be used for inter-system comparison or usage, do not outweigh the costs of the experimental determination of parameters.
Here we propose a model for the description and comparison of the behavior of the effect of RNA thermometers or RNATs on the expression of a reporter protein. The model is tested with relative fluorescence units data, which are not hard to obtain, and the model and its parameters should allow for inter-system comparisons i.e., to compare the temperature-dependent gene regulation features of different RNATs.
We present a model for the relation between time, temperature and the change in fluorescence (measured in Relative Fluorescent Units or RFUs) of an E. coli culture that harbors a genetic construction where a fluorescent protein is under control of a RNAT.
We expect the temperature to be the main factor involved in the regulation of the reporter gene. In an ideal situation, where temperature is changed over time and where cells are left to reach the maximum fluorescence at each temperature, we expect to first have an off state (basal fluorescence) at low temperatures followed by an increase in the relative fluorescence until an optimum is reached at a certain temperature. Then, we expect to observe a decline until an off state is reached again. Time will have almost the same effect as it does in any other giving biological phenomena involving gene expression.
The relative fluorescence units (RFUs) were calculated in relation to the amount of fluorescence emitted by an E. coli K12 culture transformed with a constitutively expressed part BBa_E1010 (for RFP expression) or BBa_E0040 (for GFP expression) per unit of Optical Density at 600 nm light (OD600) after 17hr of growth at 37°C in LB medium.
All fluorescence measurements were normalised to the OD600 nm of their corresponding culture.
In this way the amount of fluorescence emitted by our culture was calculated as follows:
\begin{equation} \large F_{R} = \frac{F_{sample}}{F_{standard}} \end{equation}where Fsample is the OD600nm-normalised fluorescence emitted by a sample, while Fstandard is the OD600-normalised fluorescence measurement for the corresponding standard culture (again, BBa_E1010 for RFP and BBa_E0040 for GFP).
In our experiments, we had the same unchanging global conditions (temperature, initial conditions, and medium used to grow cells).
For each measurement at a given temperature, the system was left growing until a point in which the OD normalised relative fluorescence reached its saturation point.
After a few exploratory tests at different incubation times, it was found that the optimal incubation time to reach signal saturation was around 15 hours to 20 hours. Taken this into account, all the measurements used for the model were done at 17 hours of incubation time. Thus, we can say these fluorescence measurements were Steady State measurements
Our measurements were made in LB medium at 25, 30, 37 and 42°C, for each one of our constructions that are part of the whole circuit.