"
Team:Pitt/cathelicidinModels/Results
From 2014.igem.org
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
body { | body { | ||
background-image: url("https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f8/Pitt_background_image.gif"); | background-image: url("https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014/f/f8/Pitt_background_image.gif"); | ||
| + | } | ||
| + | td{ | ||
| + | border: 2px solid black; | ||
} | } | ||
</style> | </style> | ||
| Line 16: | Line 19: | ||
<div class = "central_section"> | <div class = "central_section"> | ||
<h2 id = "results">Results</h2> | <h2 id = "results">Results</h2> | ||
| - | + | <br> | |
| - | <br>< | + | <p>All the results are split between two sets of data: Normal Conditions, where cathelicidin production by epithelial cells is random, and Topical Cathelicidin, where cathelicidin production is pseudo-applied by over-stimulating epithelial cells.</p> |
| - | <p> | + | <p>When analyzing Boolean networks, relative values are far more important than literal values, because no units were ever associated to the values. Despite the absence of real units, relative interactions between nodes can still carry important information. Given the simplicity of the model, we expected Topical Cathelicidin led to an increased immune system response relative to Normal Conditions, as shown in Table 1. Furthermore, Topical Cathelicidin showed a decrease in P. acnes and in Injury, which is to be expected. These results are graphically shown in Figure 1 where more cathelicidin causes a relatively significant drop in the average value of P. acnes.</p> |
| - | < | + | <table style = "border-collapse:collapse"> |
| + | <tr><td style = "font-size:14"><b>Node</b></td><td style = "font-size:14">Normal Conditions</td><td style = "font-size:14"> Topical Cathelicidin</td></tr> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Cathelicidin</td><td>23%</td><td>35%</td></tr> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Probionibacterium acnes</td><td>44%</td><td>37%</td></tr> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Immune Resposne (Inflammation)</td><td>21%</td><td>28%</td></tr> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Injury (Inflammation)</td><td>52%</td><td>42%</td></tr> | ||
| + | <tr><td>Average Inflammation (Immune + Injury)</td><td>37%</td><td>35%</td></tr> | ||
| + | </table> | ||
| + | <br> | ||
| + | <p style = "border: 2px solid black;padding:10px;">Table 1 – Average percent time activation of key nodes after 1000 simulations of 50-rounds cycles.</p> | ||
<hr> | <hr> | ||
Revision as of 19:11, 17 October 2014
Results
All the results are split between two sets of data: Normal Conditions, where cathelicidin production by epithelial cells is random, and Topical Cathelicidin, where cathelicidin production is pseudo-applied by over-stimulating epithelial cells.
When analyzing Boolean networks, relative values are far more important than literal values, because no units were ever associated to the values. Despite the absence of real units, relative interactions between nodes can still carry important information. Given the simplicity of the model, we expected Topical Cathelicidin led to an increased immune system response relative to Normal Conditions, as shown in Table 1. Furthermore, Topical Cathelicidin showed a decrease in P. acnes and in Injury, which is to be expected. These results are graphically shown in Figure 1 where more cathelicidin causes a relatively significant drop in the average value of P. acnes.
| Node | Normal Conditions | Topical Cathelicidin |
| Cathelicidin | 23% | 35% |
| Probionibacterium acnes | 44% | 37% |
| Immune Resposne (Inflammation) | 21% | 28% |
| Injury (Inflammation) | 52% | 42% |
| Average Inflammation (Immune + Injury) | 37% | 35% |
Table 1 – Average percent time activation of key nodes after 1000 simulations of 50-rounds cycles.
Conclusions
Page currently under Construction.
Next Page
Previous Page
