Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Modelling/QuantitativeModelling

From 2013.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Some text for enzyme kinetics)
 
(26 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<html>
<html>
 +
 +
<head>
 +
 +
<style>
 +
 +
p{
 +
padding-left: 0 !important;
 +
}
 +
 +
</style>
 +
 +
</head>
 +
<div id="Banner"><h1>Quantitative Modelling</h1></div>
<div id="Banner"><h1>Quantitative Modelling</h1></div>
</html>
</html>
Line 12: Line 25:
-
<p>At the beginning of the project we were looking for a reporter protein.The wet lab team has made a list of possible reporter proteins and narrowed them down based on past experiences such that only those that are easy to work with are left. Then the task was passed on to the modelling team, such that we would have concrete evidence to support our choice of one over another. Plus we didn't know the hard constrains on the reporter's performance so that all possible conditions have to be considered. Given that it is much easier to do simulations using models than to do experiments in the lab, the task is a natural fit. So the kinetics of those proteins were examined in the hope that one of them will stand out. The two proteins that we had focused on are horseradish peroxidase and beta-lactomase. Ordinary differential equations describing their kinetics were written in Mathematica to produce a interactive plot of output over time, with parameters such as initial enzyme concentration and initial substrate concentration being the parameters that can be adjusted. </p>
+
<p>In the beginning of the project we were looking for a reporter system. The wet lab team has made a list of possible reporters that can be used <i>in vitro</i>. We wanted to ensure that the reporter system gave us a rapid output, was stable and did not require cellular machinery to work. We wanted to test this <i>in silico </i> before we tested it in the wetlab. We wanted to ensure there was concrete evidence to support our choice of one reporter enzyme over another. Given that it is much easier to do simulations using models than to do experiments in the lab, we simulated horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and beta-galactosidase which are one of the most rapid reporters known in the literature. We programmed differential equations modelling enzyme kinetics in Mathematica to produce a interactive plot of output over time, with parameters such as initial enzyme concentration and initial substrate concentration being the parameters that can be adjusted. </p>
-
<p>After careful examination of the models under various parameters, out of those two we decided to use horseradish peroxidase because it is fast and give accurate response, evident from the kinetic models. However it turns out that we couldn't produce horseradish peroxidase in E. Coli. After some more literature search we found a substitue of horseradish peroxidase, ferritin, which has the promise of fast kinetics and accurate response just like horseradish peroxidase.</p>
+
 +
<p>Two screen shots of the interactive models are attached here (see Figures 1 and 2). By changing the sliders, the corresponding parameters will change, whose response is plotted in blue. By comparing to the red curve, which is plotted with those adjustable parameters held at fixed values, we can immediately see the effect of those parameters, such that a range of combination of the parameters can be considered for the evaluation of the reporters. To see the functional interactive models, click
 +
<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Modeling/QuantitativeApp" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
-
 
+
<figure style="float:left;">
-
 
+
-
<figure>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/UCalgary2013SWbGalSlider.jpg" alt="Snap shot of interactive beta-galactosidase kinetics model" width="409" height="337">
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/69/UCalgary2013SWbGalSlider.jpg" alt="Snap shot of interactive beta-galactosidase kinetics model" width="409" height="337">
 +
<figcaption>
 +
<p><b>Figure 1.</b>Snap shot of interactive beta-galactosidase kinetics model.</p>
 +
</figcaption>
</figure>
</figure>
-
 
+
<figure style="float:left;">
-
<figure>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c2/UCalgary2013SWHRPSlider.jpg" alt="Snap shot of interactive horseradish peroxidase kinetics model" width="409" height="385">
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c2/UCalgary2013SWHRPSlider.jpg" alt="Snap shot of interactive horseradish peroxidase kinetics model" width="409" height="385">
 +
<figcaption>
 +
<p><b>Figure 2.</b>Snap shot of interactive horseradish peroxidase kinetics model.</p>
 +
</figcaption>
</figure>
</figure>
-
<h2>Agent based model for DNA binding to TALEs
+
<p style="clear: both;">After careful examination of the models under various parameters, we decided to use HRP because it is fast and give accurate response, evident from the kinetic models. However it turns out that we couldn't produce HRP in <i>E. coli</i>. After some more literature search we found a substitue of horseradish peroxidase, <a href=" https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Reporter/PrussianBlueFerritin">ferritin</a>, which is known to has fast kinetics and accurate response just like horseradish peroxidase.</p>
-
</h2>
+
-
<p>For any detection system, the sensitivity and specificity are of great importance. Ideally, one should determine those parameters from repeated experiments, but to shorten the development time and to provide some insight on directions of further improvements, we seek to develop a model describing the behaviour of the system, from which the sensitivity and specificity can be theoretically obtained.
+
<br>
-
</p>
+
<h2>Agent Based Modelling</h2>
-
<h3>How did we do this?
+
<p>For any detection system, the sensitivity and specificity are of great importance. Ideally, one should determine these parameters from repeated experiments, but to shorten the development time and to provide some insight on directions of further improvements, we developed an agent based model to describe the behaviour of the system. We have been able to challenge this model with varying the amount of target DNA that the TALEs in our system would bind to, as well as the amount of TALEs that would be on our strip. Through this we have been able to predict the amount of protein that needs to be loaded onto our strips before we started our prototyping.</p>
-
</h3>
+
-
<p>A simple 2D Monte-Carlo method was used for the simulation of DNA moving along the strip and bind to TALE. At the end of the simulation the number of positive DNA binding to the TALE are tallied with the number of negative DNA that bind.
+
<h3>How was our model created?</h3>
-
</p>
+
-
<p>A 2D region of the test strip, viewed from the top, was partitioned into a grid of squares such that a single TALE (0.1 nm by 0.1 nm by 0.1 nm) will be occupying a single square. Initially, about 45% of the spaces counting from the left are designated the DNA loading zone, where only the DNA will be placed. The remaining spaces will be initially allocated for TALEs to be present. DNA then moves from its current square to its neighbouring squares, one square at a time, whose probabilities are set in such a way so that moving from left to right is favoured. When DNA enters a square occupied by a TALE, the probability of binding to that TALE is determined by whether the DNA is positive or negative. If binding occurs, the TALE becomes saturated and additional DNA cannot bind. After some time, the number of TALEs bound by a positive DNA are tallied against the number of TALEs bound by a negative DNA, from which sensitivity and specificity can be calculated.  
+
<p>A simple 2D Monte-Carlo method was used for the simulation of the DNA movement along the strip, as well as for the action of the TALEs binding the DNA. Once a TALE binds to the DNA it is rendered unable to bind to any further DNA, effectively simulating saturation. For the quantitative output generated by the simulation, the number of target DNA binding to the TALEs is tallied with the number of non-target DNA that binds to the TALEs. To determine the sensitivity of our system we set the probability of target DNA binding to TALEs equal to 1, with non-target DNA having a probability of binding equal to 0. In future iterations we plan on altering these parameters such that we can determine the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in our system. These calculated parameters will also be tested in the lab, allowing us to feed our experimental data back into our model in an iterative fashion.</p>
-
</p>
+
-
<h3>What did it show?
+
<p>A 2D region of the test strip, viewed from the top, was partitioned into a grid of squares such that a single TALE (0.1 nm by 0.1 nm, represented by the colour black) will be occupying a single square. The spaces on the left side of the grid are designated as the DNA loading zone, where the DNA species (red for target DNA, green for non-target DNA) will initially be located. The remaining spaces on the right will be initially allocated for the TALEs, representing the test line on our prototype. DNA then moves from its current square to its neighbouring squares, one square at a time, where the probability of the movement is set in such a way so that moving from left to right is favoured. This was designed to simulate the flow of fluid that will be used in our prototype and is currently used in home pregnancy tests. When DNA enters a square occupied by a TALE, the probability of binding to that TALE is determined by whether the DNA is target or non-target. If binding occurs, the TALE becomes saturated and additional DNA cannot bind, represented visually by the TALE changing from black to blue. After the simulation has run its course, the number of TALEs bound by a positive DNA are tallied against the number of TALEs bound by a negative DNA, from which sensitivity and specificity can be calculated.</p>
-
</h3>
+
-
<p>Currently, our model only supports probability of positive DNA binding equalling one and that of negative DNA equalling zero. In addition, a downscaled model is deployed enabling the user to interact with what the model has processed. Please note that this requires installation of third-party software: Mathematica Player provided by Wolfram Inc. free of charge.
+
<figure>
-
</p>
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/6/66/UCalgary2013Simulation.jpg">
-
<p>The positive DNA&#39;s are colored red, negative DNA is green, TALEs are black and after binding (i.e. saturation) they turn blue. The sliders under &quot;global settings&quot;€ are parameters needed before the simulation runs. Given that a simulation can take 30 seconds to complete, they should not be changed frequently as it will take longer to show the results. The sliders under &quot;€œdisplay settings&quot;€ are parameters needed after the simulation runs. Their responses are much faster and are best played by clicking on the plus sign to the right and hit &quot;€œPlay&quot;.
+
<figcaption>
-
</p>
+
<p><b>Figure 3.</b> Representation of our agent based model, with the simulation before hitting run on the left, and after the simulation on the right. The bound TALES, shown in blue, would be where the blue line on our prototype would appear if this was a test strip.</p> </figcaption> </figure>
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<h3>What did our model show?</h3>
-
<p>
+
<p>We initially tested our model by varying the number of target DNA sequences vs non-target DNA and the number of TALEs bound to our test strip. After performing 3 runs from each of our 25 conditions (5 for both the TALEs and the target DNA levels), for a total processing time of approximately 6 hours, we obtained the number of saturated TALEs in a 50 x 50 grid square representing our prototype for 75 runs. This data would have taken us approximately 4 weeks (based on the construction time of our recent prototypes) to do in the lab. The data from this was analyzed and is represented as a 3D surface below in Figure 4. Based on the graph, it seems that the main determinant in the sensitivity of our system will be the amount of TALEs on the test strip, which makes intuitive sense.</p>
-
<a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Modeling/QuantitativeApp" target="_blank">Link to Quantitative Model</a>
+
-
</p>
+
-
<p>In addition to deploying the model on the webpage we had also investigated the effects of changing the ratios between positive and negative DNA, and the number of TALEs available. For 5 levels of each of those parameters, 3 runs were conducted since the method is stochastic, resulting a total of 125 experiments. They are summarized in the graph below.
 
-
</p>
 
<figure>
<figure>
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/UCalgary2013SWSensitivityTuningResult.jpg" alt="Results" width="645" height="431">
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c0/UCalgary2013SWSensitivityTuningResult.jpg" alt="Results" width="645" height="431">
<figcaption>
<figcaption>
-
<p><b>Figure 1.</b> Model results of sensitivity tuning for TALE test strip.</p>
+
<p><b>Figure 4.</b> Model results of sensitivity tuning for TALE test strip.</p>
</figcaption>
</figcaption>
</figure>
</figure>
-
<p>From the graph we clearly see that not much TALE or DNA is required to have enough DNA bind to TALE, such that the signal cascade starting from the TALE can be read on the strip. Thus we have some theoretical evidence that our constructs will work the way they are designed. Also note that this experiment is not designed for specificity and sensitivity because of the simplicity of the binding probabilities chosen. We do acknowledge that as percentage of positive DNA increases, the total binding number will also increase, so it is not a &quot;€œfair&quot; comparison of performance of various levels of percentage of positive DNA. But for the purpose of ensuring the signals will be large enough to be read, this suffices.
+
<br>
-
</p>
+
<p><b>We have deployed our agent based model into an application playable by the <a href="http://www.wolfram.com/cdf-player/">Mathematica CDF Player</a>, and it can be found <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Modeling/QuantitativeApp" target="_blank">here</a>, along with our enzyme kinetic models. The Mathematica code for our model can also be found at this location.</b></p>
 +
<br>
 +
<h2>Full System Kinetic Model</h2>
-
<h3>What to be done?
+
<p>With a preliminary understanding of how our system works we proceeded to quantitatively model our entire system. To do this <span class="yellow">we used the kinetic constants found in our experiments</span> from the TALE and prussian blue ferritin characterization to build a deterministic model in Scilab. We modelled the binding of an immobilized TALE to target DNA in solution and then the subsequent binding of one of our FerriTALEs. We then used the Michaelis-Menton kinetics of our prussian blue ferritin to calculate how quickly it converts TMB into the coloured product that we can see. A list of our constants and variables can be seen in the table below.</p>
-
</h3>
+
 
 +
<center>
 +
<table width="800" border="1">
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td><b>Variable</b></td>
 +
    <td><b>Description</b></td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td><b>Constant</b></td>
 +
    <td><b>Value</b></td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>IT</td>
 +
    <td>Immobilized TALE on nitrocellulose</td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>IT dissociation constant</td>
 +
    <td>293 nM</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>D</td>
 +
    <td>Target DNA Seqeunce</td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>FT dissociation constant</td>
 +
    <td>66 nM</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>ID</td>
 +
    <td>Immobilized DNA</td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>IR catalytic constant</td>
 +
    <td>5118 min<sup>-1</sup></td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>FT</td>
 +
    <td>FerriTALE</td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>IR</td>
 +
    <td>Immobilized FerriTALE on captured DNA</td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
  <tr>
 +
    <td>X</td>
 +
    <td>Coloured output chemical</td>
 +
    <td bgcolor=#A9AAAB>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
 +
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
 +
  </tr>
 +
</table>
 +
</center>
 +
<figure>
 +
<figcaption>
 +
<p><b>Table 1.</b>Variables and constants used in our deterministic model.</p>
 +
</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 
 +
<p>When we assembled our reactions into differential equations we had 6 equations to cover the change in our 6 variables over time. These can be seen below in the screenshot of the Scilab model.</p>
 +
 
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/9/95/Calgary2013_Screen_Shot_2013-10-28_at_7.20.15_PM.png" alt="Results" width="645" height="431">
 +
<figcaption>
 +
<p><b>Figure 5.</b> Screenshot of the code for the Scilab model showing the differential equations governing the change of our 6 variables over time.</p>
 +
</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
 +
 
 +
<p>When this equation was run with the amount of DNA present in a super shedding cow the output chemical, X, changes over time as shown below.</p>
 +
 
 +
<figure>
 +
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2013/c/c1/Calgary2013product_concentration_2013_robert.png" alt="Results" width="645" height="431">
 +
<figcaption>
 +
<p><b>Figure 6.</b> Change in X, the output chemical of our prussian blue ferritin reaction, over time in a system with the amount of target DNA present in a super shedding cow. The red line indicates the concentration at which the reaction becomes visible to the naked eye.</p>
 +
</figcaption>
 +
</figure>
-
<p>In the future the model will be expanded to include parameters changing the probability of binding to TALE for both the positive and negative DNA. After which more experiments will be run to investigate the effects of those probabilities upon the sensitivity and specificity of the strip. We wish to conclude from those experiments, what is the bare minimal amount of TALE required on the strip, such that it gives good enough sensitivity and specificity for all possible ranges of probability of binding. This will in turn translate to the concentration of TALE needed, an important design parameter concerning the strip.
+
<p>The red line on the figure above shows when the reaction reaches 22.176 &micro;M, which is the concentration at which a blue dot or line becomes visible. This value was calculated based on the kinetic parameters we determined in our <a href="https://2013.igem.org/Team:Calgary/Project/OurSensor/Reporter/PrussianBlueFerritin">characterization of prussian blue ferritin</a>. This takes approximately 4.9 minutes, meaning that we will be able to see a <span class="yellow"><b>visible response from a super shedding cow in less than 5 minutes</b></span>!</p>
-
</p>
+
</section>
</section>
</html>
</html>

Latest revision as of 03:24, 29 October 2013

Quantitative Modelling

Enzyme kinetics for potential reporter proteins

In the beginning of the project we were looking for a reporter system. The wet lab team has made a list of possible reporters that can be used in vitro. We wanted to ensure that the reporter system gave us a rapid output, was stable and did not require cellular machinery to work. We wanted to test this in silico before we tested it in the wetlab. We wanted to ensure there was concrete evidence to support our choice of one reporter enzyme over another. Given that it is much easier to do simulations using models than to do experiments in the lab, we simulated horseradish peroxidase (HRP) and beta-galactosidase which are one of the most rapid reporters known in the literature. We programmed differential equations modelling enzyme kinetics in Mathematica to produce a interactive plot of output over time, with parameters such as initial enzyme concentration and initial substrate concentration being the parameters that can be adjusted.

Two screen shots of the interactive models are attached here (see Figures 1 and 2). By changing the sliders, the corresponding parameters will change, whose response is plotted in blue. By comparing to the red curve, which is plotted with those adjustable parameters held at fixed values, we can immediately see the effect of those parameters, such that a range of combination of the parameters can be considered for the evaluation of the reporters. To see the functional interactive models, click here.

Snap shot of interactive beta-galactosidase kinetics model

Figure 1.Snap shot of interactive beta-galactosidase kinetics model.

Snap shot of interactive horseradish peroxidase kinetics model

Figure 2.Snap shot of interactive horseradish peroxidase kinetics model.

After careful examination of the models under various parameters, we decided to use HRP because it is fast and give accurate response, evident from the kinetic models. However it turns out that we couldn't produce HRP in E. coli. After some more literature search we found a substitue of horseradish peroxidase, ferritin, which is known to has fast kinetics and accurate response just like horseradish peroxidase.


Agent Based Modelling

For any detection system, the sensitivity and specificity are of great importance. Ideally, one should determine these parameters from repeated experiments, but to shorten the development time and to provide some insight on directions of further improvements, we developed an agent based model to describe the behaviour of the system. We have been able to challenge this model with varying the amount of target DNA that the TALEs in our system would bind to, as well as the amount of TALEs that would be on our strip. Through this we have been able to predict the amount of protein that needs to be loaded onto our strips before we started our prototyping.

How was our model created?

A simple 2D Monte-Carlo method was used for the simulation of the DNA movement along the strip, as well as for the action of the TALEs binding the DNA. Once a TALE binds to the DNA it is rendered unable to bind to any further DNA, effectively simulating saturation. For the quantitative output generated by the simulation, the number of target DNA binding to the TALEs is tallied with the number of non-target DNA that binds to the TALEs. To determine the sensitivity of our system we set the probability of target DNA binding to TALEs equal to 1, with non-target DNA having a probability of binding equal to 0. In future iterations we plan on altering these parameters such that we can determine the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity in our system. These calculated parameters will also be tested in the lab, allowing us to feed our experimental data back into our model in an iterative fashion.

A 2D region of the test strip, viewed from the top, was partitioned into a grid of squares such that a single TALE (0.1 nm by 0.1 nm, represented by the colour black) will be occupying a single square. The spaces on the left side of the grid are designated as the DNA loading zone, where the DNA species (red for target DNA, green for non-target DNA) will initially be located. The remaining spaces on the right will be initially allocated for the TALEs, representing the test line on our prototype. DNA then moves from its current square to its neighbouring squares, one square at a time, where the probability of the movement is set in such a way so that moving from left to right is favoured. This was designed to simulate the flow of fluid that will be used in our prototype and is currently used in home pregnancy tests. When DNA enters a square occupied by a TALE, the probability of binding to that TALE is determined by whether the DNA is target or non-target. If binding occurs, the TALE becomes saturated and additional DNA cannot bind, represented visually by the TALE changing from black to blue. After the simulation has run its course, the number of TALEs bound by a positive DNA are tallied against the number of TALEs bound by a negative DNA, from which sensitivity and specificity can be calculated.

Figure 3. Representation of our agent based model, with the simulation before hitting run on the left, and after the simulation on the right. The bound TALES, shown in blue, would be where the blue line on our prototype would appear if this was a test strip.

What did our model show?

We initially tested our model by varying the number of target DNA sequences vs non-target DNA and the number of TALEs bound to our test strip. After performing 3 runs from each of our 25 conditions (5 for both the TALEs and the target DNA levels), for a total processing time of approximately 6 hours, we obtained the number of saturated TALEs in a 50 x 50 grid square representing our prototype for 75 runs. This data would have taken us approximately 4 weeks (based on the construction time of our recent prototypes) to do in the lab. The data from this was analyzed and is represented as a 3D surface below in Figure 4. Based on the graph, it seems that the main determinant in the sensitivity of our system will be the amount of TALEs on the test strip, which makes intuitive sense.

Results

Figure 4. Model results of sensitivity tuning for TALE test strip.


We have deployed our agent based model into an application playable by the Mathematica CDF Player, and it can be found here, along with our enzyme kinetic models. The Mathematica code for our model can also be found at this location.


Full System Kinetic Model

With a preliminary understanding of how our system works we proceeded to quantitatively model our entire system. To do this we used the kinetic constants found in our experiments from the TALE and prussian blue ferritin characterization to build a deterministic model in Scilab. We modelled the binding of an immobilized TALE to target DNA in solution and then the subsequent binding of one of our FerriTALEs. We then used the Michaelis-Menton kinetics of our prussian blue ferritin to calculate how quickly it converts TMB into the coloured product that we can see. A list of our constants and variables can be seen in the table below.

Variable Description   Constant Value
IT Immobilized TALE on nitrocellulose   IT dissociation constant 293 nM
D Target DNA Seqeunce   FT dissociation constant 66 nM
ID Immobilized DNA   IR catalytic constant 5118 min-1
FT FerriTALE      
IR Immobilized FerriTALE on captured DNA      
X Coloured output chemical      

Table 1.Variables and constants used in our deterministic model.

When we assembled our reactions into differential equations we had 6 equations to cover the change in our 6 variables over time. These can be seen below in the screenshot of the Scilab model.

Results

Figure 5. Screenshot of the code for the Scilab model showing the differential equations governing the change of our 6 variables over time.

When this equation was run with the amount of DNA present in a super shedding cow the output chemical, X, changes over time as shown below.

Results

Figure 6. Change in X, the output chemical of our prussian blue ferritin reaction, over time in a system with the amount of target DNA present in a super shedding cow. The red line indicates the concentration at which the reaction becomes visible to the naked eye.

The red line on the figure above shows when the reaction reaches 22.176 µM, which is the concentration at which a blue dot or line becomes visible. This value was calculated based on the kinetic parameters we determined in our characterization of prussian blue ferritin. This takes approximately 4.9 minutes, meaning that we will be able to see a visible response from a super shedding cow in less than 5 minutes!