"
Team:SCUT-China/Modeling/Result
From 2014.igem.org
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
The sequence of the first kinetic model is AT, ACP, KS, AT, KR, ACP, KS, KR, ACP, TE(the second AT domain ignored).<br/><br/> | The sequence of the first kinetic model is AT, ACP, KS, AT, KR, ACP, KS, KR, ACP, TE(the second AT domain ignored).<br/><br/> | ||
The model stacked :<br/><br/> | The model stacked :<br/><br/> | ||
| - | <img | + | <img src="https://2014.igem.org/File:Modeling_Result_pic1.jpg"/> |
</p> | </p> | ||
Revision as of 10:34, 17 October 2014
Data and Result
To prove the accuracy of kinetic equations of the related domains, we stacked the related equations according to the sequence of DEBS 1. When establishing the kinetic model of domain, we got into trouble. According to the analysis of reaction mechanism and kinetic equation we show before, the initial value of the kinetic equations on second AT domain depends on the concentration of DEBS 1, that is, the result of the kinetic equations on Module 2 are not affected by the result of previous domains.
However, if we have a further simplified model in which the second AT domain is ignored, the whole kinetic model stacked will be affected by the whole DEBS 1, including Loading, Module 1, Module 2.
Therefore, we establish two kinetic models stacked, and compare them with each other. Then we compare them with the kinetic model of the whole DEBS 1.
The kinetic data we have found:
The sequence of DEBS 1 + TE is AT, ACP, KS, AT, KR, ACP, KS, AT, KR, ACP, TE.
The sequence of the first kinetic model is AT, ACP, KS, AT, KR, ACP, KS, KR, ACP, TE(the second AT domain ignored).
The model stacked :
