Difference between revisions of "Team:Tec-Monterrey/Model"

The description of our system had a progressive development parallel to the realization of the whole project. Initially, a simple system of linear coupled differential equations was proposed to describe the whole system, but as the understanding of all the aspects the system involves improved, the model was continuously refined to encompass a more suitable description that became both accurate and practical.

Biological systems modeling is the creation of a kinetics diagram that connects all the important species of the system through relationships that represent bio-chemical reactions. In the case of the E. coding system, the methodology consisted in:

• The identification of each individual component
• Consulting literature on the possible interactions
• Creating a kinetic diagram
• Establishing the whole differential equations system via biochemical reactions and the eventual message insertion inside our bacteria

In the bateria, five precursor species were identified as the ones relevant for the system. These precursors are precisely $Cas1$ protein, $Cas2$ protein, the msr-msd ($UM$ from ‘unprocessed message’), the retrotranscriptase ($RT$) protein, and IPTG ($I$ from 'inductor'). The first four species are produced by IPTG regulated transcription, which has some advantages, mainly the fact that the bacteria is not able to metabolize it, so its concentration does not change. Production

Research on IPTG induction in our plasmid led us to the Hill equation, an expression that is simple, practical and commonly used in regulated protein production modeling.

It is well known that the induction stimulates the transcription of RNA which then is translated by the ribosomes into proteins. So, the Hill equation is valid when it is assumed that, as soon as the RNA is produced, it is immediately processed and translated into the corresponding proteins by the bacteria.This means that all these four species are able to be modeled by the Hill equation.

An important thing to consider is the native production of these proteins by the bacteria. Although it is expected that this basal production is insignificant when compared to the IPTG regulated production, the use of this basal production increases the accuracy in which the insertions are related to the inductor concentrations.

Degradation

It is also known that the proteins are prone to degradation, which implies that the protein production can be ‘shielded’ by this degradation. Therefore, knowing how the degradation operates, turns out to be essential to the description of E. coding. It is also important to take into consideration that this degradation is proportional to the protein quantity; so the protein count, in controlled optimal conditions, will tend to an equilibrium at every IPTG concentration. Cas complex

The key complex in the whole system is the Cas complex, responsible for the eventual message insertion in the bacteria's genome. Aiming for a simple and compact notation, this complex will hereby be denoted by $X$.

The formation of $X$ is identified in previous research as the binding of two dimers of $Cas1$, and one dimer of $Cas2$, forming a hexamer of $Cas1$ and $Cas2$. To prevent introducing complexity to the model, $X$ formation is taken as the independent binding of $4 Cas1$ proteins with $2 Cas2$ proteins.

Although it may happen that $X$ is stable, a backward biochemical reaction is considered as possible in order to improve the precision of the model.

Bound $RT$ and msr-msd complex

The other fundamental complex in the E-coding system is the one that carries out the message processing function, denoted ‘MP’. This is essential because, in order for the message to be inserted in the bacteria’s genome, a retrotranscription of the msd in the msr-msr is necessary by means of the retrotranscriptase protein to yield the RNA-ssDNA or msDNA, which contains the target sequence to be inserted. This is analogous to a ready-to-insert message, so for compactness in notation, we denote it as ‘M’. It is known that both $X$ and ‘M’ interact because of the fact that the Cas proteins complex $X$ will cut the target message M from the msDNA, forming a ‘Storage Machinery' (SM). And this final SM is the complex responsible of the final insertion into the bacteria’s genome. The capability of message insertions by the bacteria is greatly affected by the concentration of the SM available inside the bacteria. An efficiency factor $P_{SM}$ is taken under consideration, which can be interpreted as the probability that a single SM is inserted, or the affinity to effectuate the insertion inside the bacteria's genome.

Although mainly the project was based on inserting inside the bacteria’s genome, another proposition is the insertion in another plasmid, designed specifically to store E. coding messages. So, this insertion factor would help model the discrepancies between different insertion sites.