Difference between revisions of "Team:XJTU-China/Model"

(\space added)
(hairpin include)
Line 60: Line 60:
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section3">Production Simulink Model</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section3">Production Simulink Model</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section4">Microfluidics Model</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section4">Microfluidics Model</a></li>
 +
            <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section7">Hairpin Coupling Model</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section5">Market Prediction Model</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section5">Market Prediction Model</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section6">Results and Discussion</a></li>
 
             <li class="nav-item"><a href="#section6">Results and Discussion</a></li>
Line 82: Line 83:
 
  <li>Market Prediction Model</li>
 
  <li>Market Prediction Model</li>
 
  <li>Microfluidics Model</li>
 
  <li>Microfluidics Model</li>
 +
  <li>Hairpin Coupling Model</li>
  
 
</ol>
 
</ol>
Line 323: Line 325:
  
 
<div align="center"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/1/1b/T--XJTU-China--181016d08.png"width="400"/></div>
 
<div align="center"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/1/1b/T--XJTU-China--181016d08.png"width="400"/></div>
 +
</div>
  
 +
<div class="page-header" id="section7">
  
 +
<h2>Hairpin Coupling Model</h2>
 +
<div align="center"><h3>The Establishment of Hairpin Coupling Model</h3></div>
 +
<p>
 +
Hairpin coupling model is set up with the help of OUC, we have a good time discussing our hairpin coupling model. Thanks to our collaboration, we can set up a hairpin coupling model as a fresh man.
 +
At the very beginning, the most important thing to set up the hairpin coupling model is to determine how can the hairpin structure couple the upstream and downstream expression.
 +
<br><br>
 +
The hairpin structure is the same with the stem-loop structure and forms when there is a similar strand of DNA or RNA due to the base complementary pairing principle. When the hairpin is in the gene and between two coding sequences, the expression levels of these two coding sequence will change because of the hairpin structure. What’s more important is that how can we determine the coupling efficiency based on the hairpin structure.
 +
<br><br>
 +
The hairpin structure is between the two coding sequences and we can use ordinary differential equation to describe the dynamics of genetic circuit. The expression level of protein can be defined as follows:
 +
$$\frac{\text{d}[Protein_1]}{ \text{d}t}=k_1-\delta_1 [Protein_1]$$
 +
$$\frac{\text{d}[Protein_2]}{ \text{d}t}=k_2-\delta_2 [Protein_2]$$
 +
When the protein expression level is stable, the expression level of two protein can be defined as:
 +
$$Protein_1^{Sta}=\frac{k_1}{\delta_1}$$
 +
$$Protein_2^{Sta}=\frac{k_2}{\delta_2}$$
 +
 +
Then the coupling efficiency can be defined as follows:
 +
$$cpEff=\frac{ Protein_2^{Sta}}{ Protein_1^{Sta}}=\frac{\frac{k_2}{\delta_2}}{\frac{k_1}{\delta_1}}=\frac{k_2 \cdot \delta_1}{k_1 \cdot \delta_2}$$
 +
Where $k_1$ means the transcription rate of $protein_1$ and $k_2$ represents the transcription rate of $protein_2$. Due to the research of OUC, we can calculate $k_1$, $k_2$ of coding sequence using a thermodynamics model.<br><br>
 +
 +
The translation rate of the coding sequence can be defined as the following formula in statistical thermodynamics because with the decrease of Gibbs free energy, the system will become more stable and the ribosome will be more likely binding DNA. Then the $k_1$ can be calculated as
 +
$$k_1 \varpropto e^{-\beta \cdot \Delta G_{total1}}$$
 +
We make the formula into an equation:
 +
$$k_1 = k_1^’ e^{-\beta \cdot \Delta G_{total1}}$$
 +
Where $\beta$ is the Boltzmann constant, which is $0.45 \pm 0.05 mol/kcal $, $k_1^’$ is the coefficient of the Gibbs free energy function.
 +
<br><br>
 +
The $\Delta G_{total1}$ is the total binding free energy between the ribosome and $5’$ UTR, and can be calculated as follows:
 +
$$\Delta G_{total1} =\sum_i \Delta G_i$$
 +
Where $\sum_i \Delta G_i$ means the Gibbs free energy from the different sites interacting with each other, including the free energy of mRNA-rRNA complex, the non-coding sequence between the coding sequence, the free energy of the ribosome-mRNA complex and the free energy of tRNA-ribosome complex.
 +
<br><br>
 +
The free energy above can be calculated by Nucleic Acid Package which is a software for nucleic acid structure and free energy design. Thus, the five parts of free energy can be calculated by the software.
 +
<br><br>
 +
For the calculation of transcription rate $k_2$, we add related factors into $k_2$ as follows to describe the influence of hairpin structure:
 +
$$k_2 \varpropto e^{-\beta \Delta G_{total2}}+r_{reinit}$$
 +
Similarly, we make the formula above as an equation:
 +
$$ k_2 =k_2^’[ e^{-\beta \Delta G_{total2}}+r_{reinit}]$$
 +
Where $k_2^’$ is the coefficient of the Gribbs free energy function and the hairpin influence function. And it is easy to calculate $\Delta G_{total2}$ due to the formula above:
 +
$$\Delta G_{total2} =\sum_i \Delta G_i$$
 +
<div align="center"><img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2018/b/b9/T--XJTU-China--181018d01.png"width="600"/></div>
 +
As for $r_{reinit}$, the downstream gene is likely to be expressed in a high level because the distance of two genes are short while the downstream gene is also more likely to be terminated because of the more complex hairpin structure it has. So $r_{reinit}$ can be calculated as follows:
 +
$$r_{reinit}=k_{dis} \cdot k_{com} e^{-\beta \Delta G_{total2}}$$
 +
Where $\Delta G_{total2} =\sum_i \Delta G_i -\Delta G_{coupling}F_{coupling}$, $k_{dis} $ means the distance between two coding sequences with the hairpin structure and $k_{com}$ means the complexity of the hairpin structure. From the research of OUC, we can know $k_{dis}$ is the same with the intergenic distance dependence as follows:
 +
$$k_{dis}=\left\{\begin{matrix}
 +
{0.0072 \pm 0.0048 \qquad 0 \le d \le 25}\\
 +
{0.0220 \qquad d=-4}\\
 +
{0.0072+(0.0004)\cdot (d+10) \qquad -10\le d \le 25}
 +
\end{matrix}\right.$$
 +
 +
Where $d=n_{nt}-3$ and $n_{nt}$ is the number of single nucleotides between the starting site and the terminating site. For the different hairpin structure, the value of $k_{com}$ is different and is defined as the length of the hairpin structure:
 +
 +
$$k_{com}= k_{com}^’ e^{-\beta \Delta Len G_{total2}}$$
 +
Where $k_{com}^’$ is the coefficient of the hairpin complex function and $Len$ is the length of hairpin structure determined by the complementary base pairing.
 +
Considering $F_{coupling}=\frac{1}{1+C\cdot e^{- \beta \cdot \Delta G_{total2}}}$ as is shown in the hairpin coupling model by OUC, we can get the coupling efficiency as follows:
 +
$$cpEff==\frac{k_2 \cdot \delta_1}{k_1 \cdot \delta_2}=\frac{ \delta_2 \cdot k_2^{'} [ e^{-\beta \Delta G_{total2}}+r_{reinit}]}{\delta_1 \cdot k_1^{'} e^{-\beta \cdot \Delta G_{total1}}}$$
 +
 +
 +
 +
<div align="center">
 +
<a href=https://2018.igem.org/Team:XJTU-China/Model>OUC Hairpin Coupling Model</a></div>
 +
 +
 +
 +
</p>
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
 
<div class="page-header" id="section5">
 
<div class="page-header" id="section5">
 
<h2>Market Prediction Model</h2>
 
<h2>Market Prediction Model</h2>
 
<div align="center"><h3>The Establishment of Market Prediction Model</h3></div>
 
<div align="center"><h3>The Establishment of Market Prediction Model</h3></div>
  
 +
<p>In our market model, we’d like to analyze the relationship between the choice of psicose and the market scale. Then, the market od psicose is predicted.</p>
  
  
<p>In our market model, we’d like to analyze the relationship between the choice of psicose and the market scale. Then, the market od psicose is predicted.</p>
 
  
  
Line 397: Line 464:
 
Whang L M, Hsiao C J, Cheng S S. A dual-substrate steady-state model for biological hydrogen production in an anaerobic hydrogen fermentation process[J]. Biotechnology & Bioengineering, 2010, 95(3):492-500.<br>
 
Whang L M, Hsiao C J, Cheng S S. A dual-substrate steady-state model for biological hydrogen production in an anaerobic hydrogen fermentation process[J]. Biotechnology & Bioengineering, 2010, 95(3):492-500.<br>
 
Rousu J, Elomaa T, Aarts R. Predicting the speed of beer fermentation in laboratory and industrial scale[J]. 1999, 1607.<br>
 
Rousu J, Elomaa T, Aarts R. Predicting the speed of beer fermentation in laboratory and industrial scale[J]. 1999, 1607.<br>
 +
Tattersall P, Ward D C. Rolling hairpin model for replication of parvovirus and linear chromosomal DNA[J]. Nature, 1976, 263(5573):106-109.
 +
Briffotaux J, Kobryn K. Preventing Broken Borrelia Telomeres: ResT COUPLES DUAL HAIRPIN TELOMERE FORMATION WITH PRODUCT RELEASE*[J]. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2010, 285(52):41010.
 +
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
           </div>
 
           </div>

Revision as of 20:30, 17 October 2018

Modelling

       

In order to predict the concentration of different substance in E.coli, we set the kinetic model according to the reaction rate theory and enzymatic reaction kinetics as our first model in our project. And the production and conversion rate model is included to simulate the directed evolution model and the natural evolution model, and then we can get the time we need in our directed evolution method of DTE. The third model we set up is the microfluidics model to predict and simulate the situation in the microfluidics chip, which is our hardware for the gradient concentration of the psicose and antibiotic to let us have a high throughput experiment. The fourth model we set is the market prediction model to predict the future market and the coefficient between different age groups and the tendency to adopt psicose.

      
  1. Psicose Synthesis Kinetic Model
  2.   
  3. Production Simulink Model
  4.   
  5. Market Prediction Model
  6.   
  7. Microfluidics Model
  8.   
  9. Hairpin Coupling Model
   

The Establishment of Psicose Synthesis Kinetic Model

In our design, the DTE process is one of the most significant parts in manufacturing psicose. The main process of psicose manufacture is catalyzed by D-psicose 3-epimerase. The models of device A, B, C and D are as follows.

In device A, extracellular concentration of $psicose$ is higher than the intracellular concentration, so it can enter the cells by diffusion. As a small molecular, the $psicose$ inside the cell can be combined with $pPsiR$ to generate $CCI$. $pPsiR$ is a repressor, which can bind to promoters on DNA and block gene expression. After binding with $psicode$,$pPsiR$ falls off from the promoter and the gene starts expressing, And eventually produce the produce $EGFP$.

For device A, the dynamic equations can be listed as follows:

Concentrations of $psicose$ are different inside and outside the cell, so the diffusion rate of $psicose$ is proportional to the concentration difference between inside and outside of the cells. so the rate at which $psicose$ enters the cell by diffusion is $$-\gamma_F([PsiO]-[PsiI])$$
Where $\gamma_F$ is the diffusion coefficient.

Considering that the volume of the cells is small enough to be negligible relative to the external solution, so the amount of $psicose$ that diffuses into the cells is very small. We can think of the concentration of the external solution as constant, which means $$\frac{\text{d}[PsiO]}{ \text{d}t}=0$$ When reducer psicose combines with repressor, the process is $$\eta_1 PsiI+pPsiR\rightarrow CCI$$ Where $PsiI$ is the intracellular $psicose$, $pPsiR$ is $psicose$ dependent repressor, $CCI$ is $psicose$-repressor complex and $\eta_1$ is coordination number of $psicose$ for $pPsiR$.

The change in concentration of $PsiI$,$pPsiR$ and $CCI$ contains three influencing factors: the binding reaction of $pPsiR$ and $psicose$, and the degradation reaction of themselves and the reverse reaction.

Here we consider the binding reaction as a second order reaction and the degradation reaction and reverse reaction as first order reactions. According to law of mass action, reaction rate is proportional to the product of the reactant concentration, so we have $$\frac{\text{d}[PsiI]}{\text{d}t}=-\gamma_F([PsiI]-[PsiO])-m_{pPsiR,Psi}[PsiI]^{\eta_1}[pPsiR]+m_{CCI}[CCI]-\delta_{PsiI}[PsiI]$$ And considering $pPsiR$ is constantly expressing, we can get $$\frac{\text{d}[pPsiR]}{\text{d}t}=\alpha_{pPsiR}-m_{pPsiR,Psi}[PsiI]^{\eta_1}[pPsiR]+m_{CCI}[CCI]-\delta_{pPsiR}[pPsiR]$$ Where $m_{pPsiR,Psi}$ is the coefficient of reaction rate of the binding reaction, $\alpha_{pPsiR}$ is the rate of constant expression of $pPsiR$, $\delta_{pPsiR}$ and $\delta_{PsiI}$ are coefficients of reaction rate of the degradation reaction of $pPsiR$ and $PsicoseI$ respectively.
The concentration of inactivated repressor is $$\frac{\text{d}[CCI]}{\text{d}t}=m_{pPsiR,Psi}[PsiI]^{\eta_1}[pPsiR]-m_{CCI}[CCI]-\delta_{CCI}[CCI]$$ The change in $EGFP$ concentration depends on the concentration of its repressor, $pPsiR$ which can be described by Hill-equation. Considering $EGFP$ is also degrading, the equation is $$\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}=H\frac{\beta_{EGFP}K^n}{K^n+[pPsiR]^n} -\delta_{EGFP}[EGFP]$$ Where $n$ is hill coefficient, $K$ is the ligand concentration producing half occupation, $\beta_{EGFP}$ is maximal transcription rate of gene $EGFP$, and $H$ is a constant used to indicate the deviation between the theoretical and actual values.

In device B, extracellular concentration of $IPTG$ is higher than which is intracellular, so it can enter the cells by diffusion. As a small molecular, the $IPTG$ inside the cell can be combined with $pLacR$ to generate $CC$. $pLacR$ is a repressor, which can bind to promoters on DNA and block gene expression. After binding with $IPTG$, $pLacR$ falls off from the promoter and the gene starts expressing, and eventually produce the produce $EGFP$. Since the gene of $ABR$ and the gene of $EGFP$ are connected in series, they are expressed together.

Similarly, we can get the function of device B by using the reaction rate equation and the diffusion function. First, $$\frac{\text{d}[IPTGO]}{\text{d}t}=0$$ According to the reaction between $IPTGI$ and $pLacR$ and the reaction rate equation, we can get $$\eta_2 IPTGI+pLacR\rightarrow CC$$ Where $\eta_2$ is coordination number of $IPTG$ for $pLacR$.

This reaction is similar with the reaction in device A, so we have $$\frac{\text{d}[IPTGI]}{\text{d}t}=-\gamma_{IPTG}([IPTGI]-[IPTGO])-m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI]^{\eta_2}[pLacR]+m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{IPTG}[IPTGI]$$ Similarly, we can also get $$\frac{\text{d}[pLacR]}{\text{d}t}=\alpha_{pLacR}-m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI]^{\eta_2}[pLacR]+m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{pLacR}[pLacR]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[CC]}{\text{d}t}=m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI]^{\eta_2}[pLacR]-m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{CC}[CC]$$ And $pLac$ is a transcription activator of gene $EGFP$, according to hill equation, the concentration of $EGFP$ is $$\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}=H\frac{\beta_{EGFP}K^n}{K^n+[pLacR]^n} -\delta_{EGFP} [EGFP] $$ The concentration of $EGFP$ is the same as the concentration of antibiotics resistance due to the transcription and translation of antibiotic resistance gene combined with the gene of $EGFP$. $$\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}=\frac{\text{d}[ABR]}{\text{d}t}$$ Where $[EGFP]$ is the concentration of $EGFP$ and $[ABR]$ is the concentration of antibiotic resistance protein expression.

Device C is the same with device B. The only difference is the hairpin between gene of $EGFP$ and gene of $RFP$. Similarly, we can get the function of hairpin and its coefficient.

The first few equations are the same as in device B: $$\frac{\text{d}[IPTGO]}{\text{d}t}=0$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[IPTGI]}{\text{d}t}=-\gamma_{IPTG}([IPTGI]-[IPTGO])-m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI][pLacR]+m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{IPTG}[IPTGI]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[pLacR]}{\text{d}t}=\alpha_{pLacR}-m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI][pLacR]+m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{pLacR}[pLacR]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[CC]}{\text{d}t}=m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI][pLacR]-m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{CC}[CC]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}=H\frac{\beta_{EGFP}K^n}{K^n+[pLacR]^n} -\delta_{EGFP} [EGFP]$$ The presence of the hairpin leads to a decrease in $RFP$ expression efficiency, so we have $$\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}=k\frac{\text{d}[RFP]}{\text{d}t}$$ Where $[RFP]$ is the concentration of red fluorescence protein, $k$ is the coefficient of hairpin.

In device D, $IPTG$ gets in cells and bind with $pLacR$, which is a repressor for gene $DTE$. After $IPTG$ binding with $pLacR$, $DTE$ starts to express, and as an enzyme, to catalysis $fructose$ to turn into $psicose$. As more and more $psicose$ are produced, more and more the repressor of gene $EGFP$, $pLacR$ are inactivated, so expression of $EGPF$ increase. At the same time, expression of $ABR$ also increase since the gene of $ABR$ and the gene of $EGFP$ are connected in series by a hairpin.

For device D, $psicose$ and $fuctose$ get in cells by diffusion: $$\frac{\text{d}[PsiO]}{\text{d}t}=\frac{-\gamma_{F}([PsiO]-[PsiI])}{V_{outside}}=0 $$ $$\frac{\text{d}[FO]}{\text{d}t}=\frac{-\gamma_{F}([FO]-[FI])}{V_{outside}}=0$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[IPTGO]}{\text{d}t}=\frac{-\gamma_{F}([IPTGO]-[IPTGI])}{V_{outside}}=0$$ And device D consists of device A and device C connected by an extra step:

$$FI\overset{DTE}{\rightarrow}PsiI $$ This reaction is an enzyme catalyzed reaction, which can be described by Michaelis equation, so we can get the following equations: $$\frac{\text{d}[FI]}{\text{d}t}=\gamma_{F}([FI]-[FO])-\frac{k_2[DTE][FI]}{K_M+[FI]}-\delta_{FI}[FI]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[PsiI]}{\text{d}t}=-\gamma_{F}([PsiI]-[PsiO])+\frac{k_2[DTE][FI]}{K_M+[FI]}-\delta_{PsiI}[PsiI]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[IPTGI]}{\text{d}t}=-\gamma_{IPTG}([IPTGI]-[IPTGO])+m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI][pLacR]-\delta_{IPTG}[IPTGI]$$ Where $k_2$ is reaction rate coefficient of transition state product’s decomposition reaction, $K_M$ is the Michaelis contant.
The rest of the equations are the same with which in device A and device C: $$\frac{\text{d}[pLacR]}{\text{d}t}=\alpha_{pLacR}-m_{IPTG,pLacR}[IPTGI][pLacR]+m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{pLacR}[pLacR]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[pPsiR]}{\text{d}t}=\alpha_{pPsiR}-m_{pPsiR,PsiI}[pPsiR][PsiI]+m_{CCI}[CCI]-\delta_{pLacR}[pLacR]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[pPsiR]}{\text{d}t}=\alpha_{pPsiR}-m_{pPsiR,Psi}[PsiI][pPsiR]+m_{CCI}[CCI]-\delta_{pPsiR}[pPsiR]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[CC]}{\text{d} t}=m_{IPTG,pLacR}[PsiI][pPsiR]-m_{CC}[CC]-\delta_{CC}[CC]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[CCI]}{\text{d} t}=m_{pSiR}[PsiI][pPsiR]-m_{CCI}[CCI]-\delta_{CCI}[CCI]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[DTE]}{\text{d}t}=H\frac{\beta_{EGFP}K^n}{K^n+[pLacR]^n}-\delta_{DTE}[DTE]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}=H\frac{\beta_{EGFP}K^n}{K^n+[pPsiR]^n}-\delta_{EGFP}[EGFP]$$ $$\frac{\text{d}[ABR]}{\text{d}t}=k\frac{\text{d}[EGFP]}{\text{d}t}$$ The results are shown in the Results Tab as follows.


Basing our model, we can calculate and simulate our system as follows:



From the picture below, it is evident that with time going by, the concentration of IPTG outside the cell will decrease due to the diffusion process, while the RFP expression level is increasing stably.

If we do more experiments shown below, we can find that the expression level of RFP is increasing with the increase of the concentration of IPTG, which proves that we can get a linear range of IPTG to get the RFP expression level. According to device A, B, C, D, this conclusion can also be made, which proves the validation of our kinetic model

With the directed evolution method to produce psicose, what matters is the conversion rate and the scale of the production system. As the results shown above, if we cultivate our system for many times, the conversion rate of DTE is increasing stably with the directed evolution method.

If we do diretecd evolution for more times, we will get the same result and the increase of conversion rate with directed evolution is stable, while the conversion rate of DTE in natural evolution system fluctuate in a certain range.

If we have a system with a stable psicose production of 50,what happens in directed evolution system is the slight increase in the production with the times of producting increasing. Whereas, the production of natural evolution system is still in the original production and vibrate in a small range.

With more simulations ,we can find that although the production is not always increasing all the time, the main stream of the directed evolution is to have a good production of psicose. The production of natural system will increase or decrease due to the vibration of the conversion rate, and if we select the positive strain each evolution process,, we will get the same production results which is the factory method for strain selection.

Reference

Schmidt F R. Optimization and scale up of industrial fermentation processes.[J]. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, 2005, 68(4):425-435.
Lin P Y, Whang L M, Wu Y R, et al. Biological hydrogen production of the genus Clostridium: Metabolic study and mathematical model simulation[J]. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2007, 32(12):1728-1735.
Whang L M, Hsiao C J, Cheng S S. A dual-substrate steady-state model for biological hydrogen production in an anaerobic hydrogen fermentation process[J]. Biotechnology & Bioengineering, 2010, 95(3):492-500.
Rousu J, Elomaa T, Aarts R. Predicting the speed of beer fermentation in laboratory and industrial scale[J]. 1999, 1607.
Tattersall P, Ward D C. Rolling hairpin model for replication of parvovirus and linear chromosomal DNA[J]. Nature, 1976, 263(5573):106-109. Briffotaux J, Kobryn K. Preventing Broken Borrelia Telomeres: ResT COUPLES DUAL HAIRPIN TELOMERE FORMATION WITH PRODUCT RELEASE*[J]. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2010, 285(52):41010.