Difference between revisions of "Team:HKUST-Rice/Modeling"

Line 72: Line 72:
 
<body>
 
<body>
 
<div class= "project_superrow">
 
<div class= "project_superrow">
<div id= "page_title"><h1>Modeling</h1>
+
<div id= "page_title"><h1>Modeling</h1></div>
  
 
                 <div id="MYicon1">
 
                 <div id="MYicon1">
Line 93: Line 93:
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<div class="project_row">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
<h1>Prediction model:</h1>
+
<h1>Prediction model</h1>
 
<div class="project_image">
 
<div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/f9/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_20.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/f/f9/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_20.PNG" alt="image caption">
Line 102: Line 102:
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<h1>Model's Assumption</h1>
 
<h1>Model's Assumption</h1>
<p>The effect of the endogenous Kdp system of <i>E. coli</i> was neglected.<br><br>
+
<p id="subTitle">The effect of the endogenous Kdp system of <i>E. coli</i> was neglected.<br><br>
 
In our engineered <i>E. coli</i>, it contains the inserted plasmid of P<sub>KdpF</sub> plus green fluorescence protein generator (BBa_E0240) in a pSB3K3 backbone as well as the endogenous <i>kdp</i> operon, and both operons have the same promoter, P<sub>KdpF</sub>. As a matter of fact, titration by the endogenous kdp operon of the transcription inducer, phosphorylated KdpE which binds to P<sub>KdpF</sub> was expected initially. And the titration of phosphorylated KdpE is anticipated to lower the expression of GFP. However, when the DNA copy number of both endogenous and the inserted operons were determined, it was found that the number of endogenous <i>kdp</i> operon is 10 times smaller than that of the inserted one:
 
In our engineered <i>E. coli</i>, it contains the inserted plasmid of P<sub>KdpF</sub> plus green fluorescence protein generator (BBa_E0240) in a pSB3K3 backbone as well as the endogenous <i>kdp</i> operon, and both operons have the same promoter, P<sub>KdpF</sub>. As a matter of fact, titration by the endogenous kdp operon of the transcription inducer, phosphorylated KdpE which binds to P<sub>KdpF</sub> was expected initially. And the titration of phosphorylated KdpE is anticipated to lower the expression of GFP. However, when the DNA copy number of both endogenous and the inserted operons were determined, it was found that the number of endogenous <i>kdp</i> operon is 10 times smaller than that of the inserted one:
 
</p>
 
</p>
Line 118: Line 118:
 
<p>This implied that the number of endogenous promoter P<sub>KdpF</sub> is ten times smaller than that of the inserted operon and accounts only 8.33% of the total number of promoter P<sub>KdpF</sub> in the engineered <i>E. coli</i>. Therefore, the titration effect of phosphorylated KdpE becomes insignificant. As a result, the effect of endogenous Kdp system was negligible.
 
<p>This implied that the number of endogenous promoter P<sub>KdpF</sub> is ten times smaller than that of the inserted operon and accounts only 8.33% of the total number of promoter P<sub>KdpF</sub> in the engineered <i>E. coli</i>. Therefore, the titration effect of phosphorylated KdpE becomes insignificant. As a result, the effect of endogenous Kdp system was negligible.
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
Level of KdpD, KdpE and KdpF were assumed to be constant.
+
<p id="subTitle">Level of KdpD, KdpE and KdpF were assumed to be constant.</p>
 
<br><br>
 
<br><br>
 
In accordance to [Kremling A. 04], for the potassium ion concentration range which we were studying- 0 mM to 0.02 mM, the fluctuation of the concentration KdpF as well as KdpD and KdpE was only within 10 μM and 3 μM respectively. Due to the small fluctuation range compared to the gene expression of GFP reporter, it was reasonable to assume the concentration of KdpD, KdpE and KdpF to be constant in the model.
 
In accordance to [Kremling A. 04], for the potassium ion concentration range which we were studying- 0 mM to 0.02 mM, the fluctuation of the concentration KdpF as well as KdpD and KdpE was only within 10 μM and 3 μM respectively. Due to the small fluctuation range compared to the gene expression of GFP reporter, it was reasonable to assume the concentration of KdpD, KdpE and KdpF to be constant in the model.
Line 132: Line 132:
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<h1>Equations of the Model:</h1>
 
<h1>Equations of the Model:</h1>
             <p><b>Phosphorylation of KdpD:</b></p>
+
             <p id="subTitle"><b>Phosphorylation of KdpD:</b></p>
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/2/22/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_2%3D3.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/2/22/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_2%3D3.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
</div>
 
</div>
  
  <p><b>Phosphyl-group Transfer:</b></p>
+
  <p id="subTitle"><b>Phosphyl-group Transfer:</b></p>
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/0/0a/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_4.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/0/0a/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_4.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
 
<p><b>Binding of KdpE to promoter PkdpF:</b></p>
+
<p id="subTitle"><b>Binding of KdpE to promoter PkdpF:</b></p>
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/8/8c/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_5.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/8/8c/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_5.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
</div>
 
</div>
<p><b>Transcription:</b></p>
+
<p id="subTitle"><b>Transcription:</b></p>
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/4/48/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_6.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/4/48/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_6.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
</div>
 
</div>
<p><b>Translation:</b></p>
+
<p id="subTitle"><b>Translation:</b></p>
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/af/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_7.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/af/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_7.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
</div>
 
</div>
<p><b>Green Fluorescent Protein maturation:</b></p>
+
<p id="subTitle"><b>Green Fluorescent Protein maturation:</b></p>
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
             <div class="project_image">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/9e/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_8.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/9/9e/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_8.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
 
                     <div class="project_row">
 
                     <div class="project_row">
 
<hr class="para">
 
<hr class="para">
<h1>Data point fitting to the model:</h1>
+
<h1>Data point fitting to the model:</h1>
<p>The experimental data from FACS were used to fit in the prediction model; then we adapt the unit conversion from [Caitlin C, Jeniffer B 13] to convert GFP per cell fluorescence intensity to concentration of GFP per cell:<p>
+
<p>The experimental data from FACS were used to fit in the prediction model; then we adapt the unit conversion from [Caitlin C, Jeniffer B 13] to convert GFP per cell fluorescence intensity to concentration of GFP per cell:<p>
<div class="project_image">
+
<div class="project_image">
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/a8/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_9.PNG" alt="image caption">
+
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2015/a/a8/Team_HKUST-Rice_2015_Modelling_9.PNG" alt="image caption">
 
+
 
</div>
 
</div>
</div>
+
</div>
  
 
                     <div class="project_row">
 
                     <div class="project_row">

Revision as of 09:21, 7 September 2015

Modeling

Introduction

To fully appreciate the mechanism of our biosensor and its behavior in an ideal situation, we explored the structure and dynamics of our system by creating a mathematical model of the reaction kinetics. We integrated the work done on Kdp system mechanism and information on the expression of GFP generator into this modeling and obtained a graph of green fluorescence intensity per cell against [K+].


Prediction model

image caption

Model's Assumption

The effect of the endogenous Kdp system of E. coli was neglected.

In our engineered E. coli, it contains the inserted plasmid of PKdpF plus green fluorescence protein generator (BBa_E0240) in a pSB3K3 backbone as well as the endogenous kdp operon, and both operons have the same promoter, PKdpF. As a matter of fact, titration by the endogenous kdp operon of the transcription inducer, phosphorylated KdpE which binds to PKdpF was expected initially. And the titration of phosphorylated KdpE is anticipated to lower the expression of GFP. However, when the DNA copy number of both endogenous and the inserted operons were determined, it was found that the number of endogenous kdp operon is 10 times smaller than that of the inserted one:

image caption
image caption
image caption

This implied that the number of endogenous promoter PKdpF is ten times smaller than that of the inserted operon and accounts only 8.33% of the total number of promoter PKdpF in the engineered E. coli. Therefore, the titration effect of phosphorylated KdpE becomes insignificant. As a result, the effect of endogenous Kdp system was negligible.

Level of KdpD, KdpE and KdpF were assumed to be constant.



In accordance to [Kremling A. 04], for the potassium ion concentration range which we were studying- 0 mM to 0.02 mM, the fluctuation of the concentration KdpF as well as KdpD and KdpE was only within 10 μM and 3 μM respectively. Due to the small fluctuation range compared to the gene expression of GFP reporter, it was reasonable to assume the concentration of KdpD, KdpE and KdpF to be constant in the model.

It was assumed that the initial concentration of mRNA for GFP, immature GFP and mature GFP equal to zero.

It was assumed that all reactions below were in steady state such that:
image caption

Equations of the Model:

Phosphorylation of KdpD:

image caption

Phosphyl-group Transfer:

image caption

Binding of KdpE to promoter PkdpF:

image caption

Transcription:

image caption

Translation:

image caption

Green Fluorescent Protein maturation:

image caption

Data point fitting to the model:

The experimental data from FACS were used to fit in the prediction model; then we adapt the unit conversion from [Caitlin C, Jeniffer B 13] to convert GFP per cell fluorescence intensity to concentration of GFP per cell:

image caption

Parameters and Variables list

Parameters:

Values:

k1: Rate constant of forward auto-phosphorylation

0.23 1/µM hr

k-1: Rate constant of backward auto-phosphorylation

0.0000051 1/µM hr

k2: Rate constant of forward phosphyl-group transfer

0.00227 1/µM hr

k-2: Rate constant of backward phosphyl-group transfer

0.00087 1/µM hr

Kb: Dissociation constant (KdpE-DNA)

0.0532 1/µM

Kh: Dissociation constant (KdpF-KdpE dephosphorylation system)

0.0532 µM (adjustable)

k0h: Reference kh value

0.00023 1/µM hr (adjustable)

C0K+: Reference concentration of potassium ions

0.02mM

ktr: transcription rate constant

10600 hr-1

kz: mRNA degradation rate of kdpFABC and kdpDE coding region

21.74 hr-1

kd: degradation rate of KdpDE

0.2 hr-1

kd,F: degradation of KdpF

4.8 hr-1

ktlD: translation rate constant of KdpD

160 hr-1

ktlE: translation rate constant of KdpE

8100 hr-1

ktlF: translation rate constant of KdpF

5.4 hr-1

u: growth rate of the cell (in K minimal medium, 2nd order)

0.275466667 hr-1

(exp. obtained)

Ψ: basal activity of the promoter

0.0017

kdeg,GFP,mRNA: GFP mRNA degradation rate (1st order)

0.0048s-1

=17.28 /hr

γI: Immature GFP degradation rate

0.7 hr-1

γm: Mature GFP degradation rate

0.021 hr-1

ρ: Immature GFP synthesis rate (trans rate, 1st order)

1440 protein/hr/mRNA (0.4protein/s/mRNA)

w: GFP maturation rate (1st order)

6.48 hr-1

Table 1. Parameters list 1.

Parameters

Values

ADP concentration

0.305 mM

ATP concentration

3.05 mM

Initial concentration of mRNA (GFP)

0/cell

Concentration of KdpF

10 µM

Concentration of KdpE

2.6 µM

Concentration of KdpD

2.6 µM

Concentration of inserted plasmid

0.0183 µM

Initial concentration of immature and mature GFP

0 /cell

Table 2. Parameters list 2.

Variables

Denotation

Unit

[kdpD]

Concentration of KdpD

µM

[kdpDP]

Concentration of phosphorylated KdpD

µM

[kdpEP]

Concentration of phosphorylated KdpE

µM

[ADP]

Concentration of ADP molecules

mM

[ATP]

Concentration of ATP molecules

mM

[kdpF]

Concentration of KdpF

µM

k3

Rate constant of dephosphorylation of KdpE

 

kh

 

 

cK+

Concentration of potassium ions

mM

[kdpE - DNA]

Concentration of KdpE bound promoter PkdpF

µM

[DNAf]

Concentration of Unbound promoter PkdpF

µM

[DNA0]

Total concentration of promoter PkdpF

µM

[mRNAGFP]

Concentration of mRNA molecules for green fluorescence protein

 

[GFPI]

Concentration of immature green fluorescent protein

µM

[GFPM]

Concentration of mature green fluorescent protein

µM

Table 3. Variables list.


References


Heermann R, Zigann K, Gayer S, Rodriguez-Fernandez M, Banga JR, et al. (2014) Dynamics of an Interactive Network Composed of a Bacterial Two- Component System, a Transporter and K+ as Mediator. PLoS ONE 9(2): e89671. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089671

Brewster RC, Jones DL, Phillips R (2012) Tuning Promoter Strength through RNA Polymerase Binding Site Design in Escherichia coli. PLoS Comput Biol 8(12): e1002811. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002811

Modeling, Simulation and Identification of the Dynamics of K Uptake in E. coli. (2014). Universitatsbibliothek der TU Munchen.

Kelly, Jason et al. “Measuring the activity of BioBrick promoters using an in vivo reference standard.” Journal of Biological Engineering 3.1 (2009): 4.

J. Gayer, Stefan. "Modeling, Simulation and Identification of the Dynamics of K Uptake in E. Coli." Technische Universitat Munchen Fachgebiet Fur Systembiotechnologie (2013). Print.

Kremling, A., Heermann, R., Centler, F., & Gilles, E. (2004). Analysis of two-component signal transduction by mathematical modeling using the KdpD/KdpE system of Escherichia coli.

Conboy, C., & Braff, J. (2013, May 29). Molecules of Equivalent GFP. Retrieved from http://openwetware.org/wiki/MEG