Team:Peking/Modeling/CalculationProcess

From 2010.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(Identifying Minimal IOA Networks)
(Equations Set Up)
 
(18 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
<br><br>
<br><br>
<font size=6><font color=#585858><font face="Franklin Gothic Demi Cond">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Calculating Process</font></font></font>
<font size=6><font color=#585858><font face="Franklin Gothic Demi Cond">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Calculating Process</font></font></font>
-
<br><br>
+
<br><br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</html>
 +
[[Team:Peking/Modeling|Modeling]] > [[Team:Peking/Modeling/CalculationProcess|Calculation Process]] <html>
</div>
</div>
Line 19: Line 20:
=Network Enumeration=
=Network Enumeration=
<html>
<html>
-
<p>We use three nodes as a minimal framework: one node that receives input( A in Figure 2 ), a second node that transmits output( C in Figure 2 ), and a third node that can play diverse regulatory roles( B in Figure 2 ). There are 9 direct links among the three nodes and there are altogether 3^9=19,683 three-node topologies. With 3,645 topologies that have no direct or indirect links from the input to the output occluded, there remain a total of 16,038 possible three-node topologies that contain at least one direct or indirect causal link from the input node to the output node. For each topology, we sampled 10,000 sets of network parameters with the method of latin hypercube sampling (LHS, Figure 3). In all, we have analyzed a total of 16,038*10,000 different circuits. This search resulted in an exhaustive circuit function map used to extract core topological motifs essential for IOA.
+
<p>We use three nodes as a minimal framework: one node that receives input( A in Figure 2 ), a second node that transmits output( C in Figure 2 ), and a third node that can play diverse regulatory roles( B in Figure 2 ). There are 9 direct links among the three nodes and there are altogether 3^9=19,683 three-node topologies. With 3,645 topologies that have no direct or indirect links from the input to the output occluded, there remain a total of 16,038 possible three-node topologies that contain at least one direct or indirect causal link from the input node to the output node. For each topology, we sampled 10,000 sets of network parameters with the method of latin hypercube sampling (LHS, Figure 3). In all, we have analyzed a total of 16,038*10,000 different circuits. This search resulted in an exhaustive circuit function map used to extract core topological motifs essential for IOA.</html>
-
<br><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/d/d7/Network.png" width="245"><br>
+
[[Image:Network.png|245px|center]]<br>
 +
<html>
<b><font size=1.5>Figure 2 Three-node network with all of its possible directed links(Ref. 7) </b>
<b><font size=1.5>Figure 2 Three-node network with all of its possible directed links(Ref. 7) </b>
-
There are altogether 9 possible links and the input here is Hg(Ⅱ), and the concentration of C is taken as output.<br>
+
There are altogether 9 possible links and the input here is Hg(Ⅱ), and the concentration of C is taken as output.<br></html>
-
<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/d/d3/LHS.png" width="315"><br>
+
[[Image:LHS.png|315px|center]]<br>
-
<b>Figure 3  Latin Hypercube Sampling</b>
+
<html><font size=1.5>
-
<br>When sampling a function of N variables, the range of each variable is divided into M equally probable intervals, M sample points are then placed to satisfy the Latin Hypercube requirements. Then each sample is theonly one in each axis-aligned hyperplane containing it.</font>
+
<b>Figure 3  Latin Hypercube Sampling</b></font>
 +
When sampling a function of N variables, the range of each variable is divided into M equally probable intervals, M sample points are then placed to satisfy the Latin Hypercube requirements. Then each sample is the Only one in each axis-aligned hyperplane containing it.</font>
</p>
</p>
</html>
</html>
Line 32: Line 35:
=Equations Set Up=
=Equations Set Up=
<html>
<html>
-
Our model is based on the following statements:<br>
+
Our model is based on mainly the following statements:<br>
-
<br>(1) The nodes are restricted to TF nodes so that the links stand for TF-TF interactions via DNA. The expression level is quantified by the equilibrium binding probability P of TF binding on its site and the maximum expression rate constant <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/4/49/Beita.png" width="16">, and we adopt a constant <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/a/aa/Lamda.png" width="16"> to modify P to make different TFs equal status. When it comes to several TF factors, we use the multiplication of their <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/7/70/LamdaP.png" width="25"> or <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/a/ac/1-lamdaP.png" width="45"> to indicate their interactions.<br>
+
<br>(1) The nodes are restricted to TF nodes so that the links stand for TF-TF interactions via DNA. The expression level is quantified by the equilibrium binding probability P of TF binding on its site and the maximum expression rate constant β, and we adopt a constant λ to modify P to make different TFs equal status. When it comes to several TF factors, we use the multiplication of their λP or 1-λP to indicate their interactions.<br>
-
<br>(2) We take into consideration only the transcription and translation and TF-DNA interactions because other reactions such as signal-transduction activities typically operate much faster and can be considered to be approximately at steady state on the slow timescales of transcription networks. Also the TF activity levels can be considered to be at steady state within the equations that describe network dynamics on the slow timescale of changes in protein levels. So that the equations contain only the accumulation and degradation of the protein products ( here the TFs). <br>
+
<br>(2) We take into consideration only the transcription and translation process because other reactions such as signal-transduction activities typically operate much faster and can be considered to be approximately at steady state on the slow timescales of transcription networks. Also the TF activity levels can be considered to be at steady state within the equations that describe network dynamics on the slow timescale of changes in protein levels. So that the equations contain only the accumulation and degradation of the protein products ( here the TFs). <br>
-
<br>(3) It has been observed that one ordinary gene usually has a nonzero expression level with no TFs on its binding site. We propose that one repressor will lower the initial expression level and one activator will shift it, further on, each TF has its unique contribution to the final expression level, which means for example that the expression level with two repressor and one activator binding on is different from the level under the regulation of two activators and one repressor, but may not necessarily lower than the latter if the only one activator is very strong.<br>
+
<br>(3) It has been observed that one ordinary gene usually has a nonzero expression level with no TFs on its binding site. We propose that one repressor will lower the initial expression level and one activator will shift it, further on, each TF has its unique contribution to the final expression level,that is, they shift or lower the expression level to different extents according to their own properties.<br>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;Consider first the simplest condition under which there is only one link from a node to another. (A<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/8/88/Jiantou.png" width="13">C, Figure 4)<br>
<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;Consider first the simplest condition under which there is only one link from a node to another. (A<img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/8/88/Jiantou.png" width="13">C, Figure 4)<br>
It is widely accepted that the possibility of TF binding to the binding site in promoter is<br><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/0/02/Function1.png" width="120">(X*: the effective concentration of one TF; Kd : the dissociation constant )<br><br>
It is widely accepted that the possibility of TF binding to the binding site in promoter is<br><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/0/02/Function1.png" width="120">(X*: the effective concentration of one TF; Kd : the dissociation constant )<br><br>
Line 43: Line 46:
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-
&nbsp;&nbsp;As <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/1/15/Function3.png" width="177">(Figure 5)
+
&nbsp;&nbsp;As <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/1/15/Function3.png" width="177">(Figure 5(a))
<br><br>
<br><br>
-
&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/0/00/Function4.png" width="386">(The subscript of X is the node number.)  
+
&nbsp;&nbsp;Thus <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/0/00/Function4.png" width="386">(Figure 5(b))(The subscript of X is the node number.)  
<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually, the first component of the equation is the fundamental expression level of the network in which the <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/a/ac/1-lamdaP.png" width="45"> is the possibility that the TF is off the DNA target site, and the second component of the equation is the effective expression level in which <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/7/70/LamdaP.png" width="25"> is the possibility that TF is on its site.
<br><br>&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually, the first component of the equation is the fundamental expression level of the network in which the <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/a/ac/1-lamdaP.png" width="45"> is the possibility that the TF is off the DNA target site, and the second component of the equation is the effective expression level in which <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/7/70/LamdaP.png" width="25"> is the possibility that TF is on its site.
<br><br>
<br><br>
Line 55: Line 58:
[[Image:Simple_network.png|center|50px]]
[[Image:Simple_network.png|center|50px]]
<html>
<html>
-
<font size=1.5><br><b>Figure 4 simplest network</b> There is only one link from node A to node C and we don’t regulate the property of the link. Actually, whether it is activation, repression or no regulation is represented by <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/a/aa/Lamda.png" width="16">.
+
<font size=1.5><br><b>Figure 4 simplest network</b> There is only one link from node A to node C and we don’t regulate the property of the link. Actually, whether it is activation, repression or no regulation is represented by λ.
<br></font>
<br></font>
</html>
</html>
-
[[Image:MerR+Hg.png|300px|center]]
+
[[Image:MerR+Hg+DNA.png|650px|center]]
<br>
<br>
<html>
<html>
-
<font size=1.5><br><b>Figure 5 MerR interacts with Hg(Ⅱ)</b> The orange poor arc sector stands for the MerR monomer and the orange major arc sector stands for the MerR dimer. The blue ball is Hg ion that can be bound by the MerR dimer, and only the complex can serve as Transcription Factor that promotes the expression of downstream genes. We list the balance equations, derive the calculation function of X* as above, and substitute this function to the ODE equations used in our model.
+
<font size=1.5><br><b>Figure 5 MerR interacts with Hg(Ⅱ)& MerR-Hg binding to DNA</b> (a)The orange poor arc sector stands for the MerR monomer and the orange major arc sector stands for the MerR dimer. The blue ball is Hg ion that can be bound by the MerR dimer, and only the complex can serve as Transcription Factor that promotes the expression of downstream genes. We list the balance equations, derive the calculation function of X* as above, and substitute this function to the ODE equations used in our model. (b) As the MerR dimer is only slightly repress DNA transcription, we regrad Kd' << K1*Kd, so neglecting the competitive binding of MerR dimer to DNA.
<br></font>
<br></font>
</html>
</html>
<html>
<html>
-
<font size=1.5><br><b>Table 1 Physiological range of the model parameters</b></font>
+
<font size=1.5><br><b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Table 1 Physiological range of the model parameters</b></font>
<br>
<br>
</html>
</html>
-
[[Image:PKTable1.jpg|500px]]
+
[[Image:Table_1.png|500px|center]]
<br>
<br>
Line 79: Line 82:
[[https://2010.igem.org/Team:Peking/Modeling TOP]]
[[https://2010.igem.org/Team:Peking/Modeling TOP]]
-
 
-
=Identifying Minimal IOA Networks=
 
-
Here we define Q value as the number of IOA function circuit among 10000 sets of network parameters, and it indicates the robustness of one topology to finish the IOA function—the larger  Q value is, the more robust the topology is. We sort in reverse sequence all the network topologies according to their Q value and the x axis is their rank( Figure 6).We can observe that most network topologies have 0 or low Q value while there’s only a small part of the topologies having large Q value.<br><br>
 
-
We firstly analysis the first 160 network topologies ( Q >=705 ) and list in Figure 7 all the simplest topologies that have only 3 or less direct links between the three nodes.( Figure 7)  Among the 14 topologies, there are 12 three-link networks and 2 two-node networks so that we can see that the minimal number of links for the topologies to be functional is two but the most usual number is 13. The common features of the networks capable of IOA are either one negative control loop (NCL) or one negative feedback loop (NFL). Here we define NCL as a topology that has one negative control on the input-receiving node (A) from the intermediate node (B) and one positive regulation on the output node (C) from A node.(as the 1st topology in Figure 7 and the 1st one in Figure 8) Similarly we define NFL as a topology that share the positive-regulation link from A to C, while uniquely have one negative feedback from C to A.(as the 2nd topology in Figure 7 and the 2nd one in Figure 8) And the NCL topology seemingly more robust than the NFL topology, as there are 9 topologies out of the 14 simplest networks contain NCL topology compared to 6 of NFL, so that B node appears to be important, which will be discussed in details in the following part.
 
-
<br>
 
-
[[Image:Qlinear.jpg|350px|center]]
 
-
<br>
 
-
<html><font size=1.5><b>Figure 6 The Q value network topologies Sequence</b>We sort in reverse sequence all the network topologies according to their Q value. X Axis is their ranks, while Y Axis is their corresponding Q values. The figure indicates that most network topologies have 0 or low Q value while there’s only a small part of the topologies having large Q value.<br></font></html>
 
-
[[Image:LINEAR1.png|300px|center]]
 
-
[[Image:LINEAR2.png|300px|center]
 
-
<br>
 
-
<html><font size=1.5><b>Figure 7 All Functional Networks</b>The numbers below each network are their ranks. The two bigger topologies have 2 links while the other 12 networks have 3 links. In each network, the green arc with one short straight line at one end stands for repression from the start node to the end node and the red arc with one arrow at one end stands for activation.</font>
 
-
<br></html>
 
-
[[Image:LINEAR REPRE.png|300px]]
 
-
<br>
 
-
<html><font size=1.5><b>Figure 8 The NCL and NFL topology</b>The green and red line have the same meaning as in Figure 7. </font></html>
 
-
<br>
 
-
[[https://2010.igem.org/Team:Peking/Modeling TOP]]
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
<html>
<html>
-
 
</div>
</div>
-
<html>
 
<div id="bottomwhite">
<div id="bottomwhite">
<a href="#top"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/8/87/Top.png" width="100px" height="75px"alt="go back to top"></a>
<a href="#top"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2010/8/87/Top.png" width="100px" height="75px"alt="go back to top"></a>
</div>
</div>
-
</html>
 

Latest revision as of 13:07, 27 October 2010

Better visual effects via FireFox ~~~




   Calculating Process


         Modeling > Calculation Process

Network Enumeration

We use three nodes as a minimal framework: one node that receives input( A in Figure 2 ), a second node that transmits output( C in Figure 2 ), and a third node that can play diverse regulatory roles( B in Figure 2 ). There are 9 direct links among the three nodes and there are altogether 3^9=19,683 three-node topologies. With 3,645 topologies that have no direct or indirect links from the input to the output occluded, there remain a total of 16,038 possible three-node topologies that contain at least one direct or indirect causal link from the input node to the output node. For each topology, we sampled 10,000 sets of network parameters with the method of latin hypercube sampling (LHS, Figure 3). In all, we have analyzed a total of 16,038*10,000 different circuits. This search resulted in an exhaustive circuit function map used to extract core topological motifs essential for IOA.

Network.png

Figure 2 Three-node network with all of its possible directed links(Ref. 7) There are altogether 9 possible links and the input here is Hg(Ⅱ), and the concentration of C is taken as output.

LHS.png

Figure 3 Latin Hypercube Sampling When sampling a function of N variables, the range of each variable is divided into M equally probable intervals, M sample points are then placed to satisfy the Latin Hypercube requirements. Then each sample is the Only one in each axis-aligned hyperplane containing it.

[TOP]

Equations Set Up

Our model is based on mainly the following statements:

(1) The nodes are restricted to TF nodes so that the links stand for TF-TF interactions via DNA. The expression level is quantified by the equilibrium binding probability P of TF binding on its site and the maximum expression rate constant β, and we adopt a constant λ to modify P to make different TFs equal status. When it comes to several TF factors, we use the multiplication of their λP or 1-λP to indicate their interactions.

(2) We take into consideration only the transcription and translation process because other reactions such as signal-transduction activities typically operate much faster and can be considered to be approximately at steady state on the slow timescales of transcription networks. Also the TF activity levels can be considered to be at steady state within the equations that describe network dynamics on the slow timescale of changes in protein levels. So that the equations contain only the accumulation and degradation of the protein products ( here the TFs).

(3) It has been observed that one ordinary gene usually has a nonzero expression level with no TFs on its binding site. We propose that one repressor will lower the initial expression level and one activator will shift it, further on, each TF has its unique contribution to the final expression level,that is, they shift or lower the expression level to different extents according to their own properties.

  Consider first the simplest condition under which there is only one link from a node to another. (AC, Figure 4)
It is widely accepted that the possibility of TF binding to the binding site in promoter is
(X*: the effective concentration of one TF; Kd : the dissociation constant )

  According to hypothesis (1)&(3), the link from A(node1) to C(node3) can be translated as



( :the basal translation rate factor;:the effective translation rate factor.)

  As (Figure 5(a))

  Thus (Figure 5(b))(The subscript of X is the node number.)

  Actually, the first component of the equation is the fundamental expression level of the network in which the is the possibility that the TF is off the DNA target site, and the second component of the equation is the effective expression level in which is the possibility that TF is on its site.

  As to general conditions, there are


  And in order to make the equations fit hypothesis 3,we deduced the proper range of , that is, no regulation , activation and repression .The choice of other Parameter values and their reference is in Table 1.

Simple network.png


Figure 4 simplest network There is only one link from node A to node C and we don’t regulate the property of the link. Actually, whether it is activation, repression or no regulation is represented by λ.

MerR+Hg+DNA.png



Figure 5 MerR interacts with Hg(Ⅱ)& MerR-Hg binding to DNA (a)The orange poor arc sector stands for the MerR monomer and the orange major arc sector stands for the MerR dimer. The blue ball is Hg ion that can be bound by the MerR dimer, and only the complex can serve as Transcription Factor that promotes the expression of downstream genes. We list the balance equations, derive the calculation function of X* as above, and substitute this function to the ODE equations used in our model. (b) As the MerR dimer is only slightly repress DNA transcription, we regrad Kd' << K1*Kd, so neglecting the competitive binding of MerR dimer to DNA.

                        Table 1 Physiological range of the model parameters

Table 1.png


[TOP]

Network Topologies’ Analysis

Aiming at getting the values of r for each circuit, we need to numerically simulate the ODE equations to get the steady-state concentration of output node C under each input concentration, and then making linear fit of input and output concentrations. As our input concentration range is 10-9~10-5, we select points that have the same logarithmic distance intervals, then simulate output evolution curve to get the steady concentration one point by one. We choose the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method to solve the ODE equations and so as to save calculation time, we adopt Implicit Runge-Kutta algorithm to get the output steady concentration when Input=10-9M and set the very concentration as initial value for the Newton-Raphson method for following different Input concentration. And considering the possibility of bistable network topology, we calculate the two directions (positive sequence and the reverse ) that Input concentration changes to avoid wrongly supposing it as one IOA function circuit.

[TOP]

go back to top