Team:USTC CHINA/Modeling/B.SubtilisCulture
From 2013.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
<h1>Designs&Results</h1> | <h1>Designs&Results</h1> | ||
<p align="justify"> | <p align="justify"> | ||
- | The methodology of RSM can be divided into two subplots: Central Composite Design (CCD) and Box-Behnken Design. Generally the overall runs of Box-Behnken Design is fewer when | + | The methodology of RSM can be divided into two subplots: Central Composite Design (CCD) and Box-Behnken Design. Generally the overall runs of Box-Behnken Design is fewer when factors are fixed, but Central composite design is often recommended when the sequential experimentation is required, because it incorporates information from a properly planned factorial experiment. In our experiment, time is more precious than reagents, and as time itself is also an independent factor, Box-Behnken Design would not have saved any time if adopted. Thus we selected CCD.</br> |
- | CCD itself can also be classified into three subplots: Central Composite Circumscribed Design (CCC), Central Composite Inscribed design(CCI) and Central Composite Face-centered Design(CCF). The alpha value of CCC is related to the number of factors, whereas in CCF α is fixed at 1, and only CCC is rotatable. The rotational invariance empowers CCC to be mathematically preferred, but the value of alpha in a five-factor-CCC is over 2. In other words, if we adopted CCC, we would get some absurd treatments where the concentration of some specific actual material were negative. If we narrowed down the | + | CCD itself can also be classified into three subplots: Central Composite Circumscribed Design(CCC), Central Composite Inscribed design(CCI) and Central Composite Face-centered Design(CCF). The alpha value of CCC is related to the number of factors, whereas in CCF α is fixed at 1, and only CCC is rotatable. The rotational invariance empowers CCC to be mathematically preferred, but the value of alpha in a five-factor-CCC is over 2. In other words, if we adopted CCC, we would get some absurd treatments where the concentration of some specific actual material were negative. If we narrowed down the ranges to ensure the concentration of all medium component are positive in every treatment, the ranges would be too narrow to yield cogent results. Therefore, we finally selected CCF.</br> |
We conducted our experiments according to the following table, which was calculated by Minitab, and the results measured by OD value, were also included:</p> | We conducted our experiments according to the following table, which was calculated by Minitab, and the results measured by OD value, were also included:</p> | ||
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="577" align="center"> | <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="577" align="center"> | ||
Line 621: | Line 621: | ||
<p align="center"><b> Table 2.</b> Treatments and results of our experiment</p> | <p align="center"><b> Table 2.</b> Treatments and results of our experiment</p> | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
- | The result of No.42 medium is destroyed due to some | + | The result of No.42 medium is destroyed due to some unknown reasons. Additionally, multiple center points, which means conducting multiple experiments at the center points with identical treatments, is a very common phenomenon in DOE, although we dis only experiment at the center point and reuse its result, as a result of our limited time and reagents.</br> |
<b>Estimated Regression Coefficients for OD</br></b> | <b>Estimated Regression Coefficients for OD</br></b> | ||
<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> | <table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> | ||
Line 821: | Line 821: | ||
According to the ANOVA calculated by Mnitab, we got the expression of OD:</br> | According to the ANOVA calculated by Mnitab, we got the expression of OD:</br> | ||
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/96/BS_formation.png"></br> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/96/BS_formation.png"></br> | ||
- | P represents confidence coefficient, which is a key judgment to check the reliability of the fitting function. In other words, if P=0.05, the probability that this term is wrong is 5%. The coefficient of determination (R) was calculated to be 0.9225, indicating that the model could explain 92% of the variability .From the above table we can identify eight statistically significant and reliable terms:</p> | + | P represents confidence coefficient, which is a key judgment to check the reliability of the fitting function. In other words, if P=0.05, the probability that this term is wrong is 5%. The coefficient of determination (R) was calculated to be 0.9225, indicating that the model could explain 92% of the variability. From the above table we can identify eight statistically significant and reliable terms:</p> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>Constant;</li> | <li>Constant;</li> | ||
Line 834: | Line 834: | ||
<p align="justify"> | <p align="justify"> | ||
- | The influences of linear terms predominated, except NaCl, which substantiated our suspicion, whereas most square terms and interaction terms were ignorable and statistically unreliable. Temperature and time and two most influential | + | The influences of linear terms predominated, except NaCl, which substantiated our suspicion, whereas most square terms and interaction terms were ignorable and statistically unreliable. Temperature and time and two most influential factors.</br> |
- | As | + | As the intact response surface is six-dimensional, it is impossible to draw the intact surface in our three-dimensional world. Therefore we had to fix some factors to lower the dimensional, draw contours and surfaces, and e can extrapolate this super surface by combining these pictures:</p> |
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/24/%E6%9E%AF%E8%8D%891.png"></br> | <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/2/24/%E6%9E%AF%E8%8D%891.png"></br> |
Revision as of 14:40, 25 October 2013