Team:Waterloo/Math Book

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
(adds parameter table)
m (fixes up table)
Line 61: Line 61:
<tr>
<tr>
<td>Parameter</td>
<td>Parameter</td>
-
<td>Value}</td>
+
<td>Value</td>
<td>Description</td>
<td>Description</td>
<td>Source/Rationale</td>
<td>Source/Rationale</td>
Line 68: Line 68:
<tbody>
<tbody>
<tr>
<tr>
-
<td>&alpha;<sub>m<sub>y</sub></sub>, &alpha<sub>r}</td>
+
<td>&alpha;<sub>m<sub>y</sub></sub>, &alpha;<sub>r</sub></td>
<td>0.0011 nM &bull; min<sup>-1</sup></td>
<td>0.0011 nM &bull; min<sup>-1</sup></td>
<td>mRNA production from SarA P1 Promoter</td>
<td>mRNA production from SarA P1 Promoter</td>
Line 75: Line 75:
<tr>
<tr>
<td>&alpha;<sub>m<sub>c</sub></sub></td>
<td>&alpha;<sub>m<sub>c</sub></sub></td>
-
<td>0.0011 nM $\cdot$ min<sup>-1</sup></td>
+
<td>0.0011 nM &bull; min<sup>-1</sup></td>
<td>mRNA production from Xylose Promoter</td>
<td>mRNA production from Xylose Promoter</td>
<td>Same as SarA rate since the addition of the Xylose-inducible promoter was to simplify labwork and thus for modelling we assume it is fully induced.</td>
<td>Same as SarA rate since the addition of the Xylose-inducible promoter was to simplify labwork and thus for modelling we assume it is fully induced.</td>
Line 89: Line 89:
<td><cite ref="Roberts2006"></cite> report log-phase mRNA half-lives in <em>{S. aureus}. An approximate average value of 4 minutes leads to this degradation rate.</td>
<td><cite ref="Roberts2006"></cite> report log-phase mRNA half-lives in <em>{S. aureus}. An approximate average value of 4 minutes leads to this degradation rate.</td>
<tr>
<tr>
-
<td>&gamma<sub>c</sub>, &gamma<sub>b</sub></td>
+
<td>&gamma;<sub>c</sub>, &gamma;<sub>b</sub></td>
-
<td>-5.6408e<sup>-04</sup> min\textsuperscript{-1}</td>
+
<td>-5.6408e<sup>-04</sup> min<sup>-01</sup></td>
<td>dCas9/complex degradation rate</td>
<td>dCas9/complex degradation rate</td>
<td>Based off half-life of SarA protein in <em>S. aureus</em> as reported in <cite ref="Michalik2012"></cite> </td>
<td>Based off half-life of SarA protein in <em>S. aureus</em> as reported in <cite ref="Michalik2012"></cite> </td>
Line 110: Line 110:
<tr>
<tr>
<td>k<sub>-</sub></td>
<td>k<sub>-</sub></td>
-
<td>0.01-1.0 nM</td>
+
<td>0.01 to 1.0 nM</td>
<td>Rate of dissociation of $(C:R)</td>
<td>Rate of dissociation of $(C:R)</td>
<td>Range defined relative to other parameters based on QSSA</td>
<td>Range defined relative to other parameters based on QSSA</td>
<tr>
<tr>
<td>Fold Reduction</td>
<td>Fold Reduction</td>
-
<td>6-35</td>
+
<td>6 to 35</td>
<td>Maximum percent repression achievable with CRISPRi system</td>
<td>Maximum percent repression achievable with CRISPRi system</td>
<td>Based on the relative fluorescence measurements observed when the non-coding strand was targeted by dCas9 in <cite ref="Bikard2013"></cite></td>
<td>Based on the relative fluorescence measurements observed when the non-coding strand was targeted by dCas9 in <cite ref="Bikard2013"></cite></td>

Revision as of 04:55, 17 October 2014

Math Book

This page gathers the detailed process information for the mathematical models created by the team this year. Code related to the models can be accessed from this github page.

CRISPR

We decided to create a model of the CRISPR system for two main reasons:

  • Identifying the parts of the network that could be targeted by our lab team to improve repression efficiency
  • To approximate time-series mecA repression data for use in modelling the overall vulnerability of a S. aureus population

Model Formation

After a literature review we were able to construct the CRISPR interference system network. The targeted single guide RNA (sgRNA) associates with nuclease-deficient Cas9 protein (dCas9) to form a complex that binds with the DNA complementary to the sgRNA target . The bound complex prevents transcription elongation by RNA polymerase, repressing YFP mRNA expression . The chemical network is shown below:

CRISPR Network Diagram

Using standard mass-action kinetics, the network simplifies into the following set of differential equations:

MISSINGEQUATION

We chose the model kinetics to be largely first-order; this decision was supported by the findings of several recent studies . To simplify the model, we assumed that the formation of the dCas9-sgRNA complex ($b$ in Figure xyz) is in made a quasi-steady-state. That is, we assume that the association/dissociation of dCas9 and sgRNA occurs on a faster timescale than the other reactions in the network (i.e. transcription, translation and the binding of the complex to the DNA), allowing us to assume that the complex is always at steady-state, relative to the other time-dependent species concentrations. This same assumption was made in previous modelling efforts, e.g. .

Under this quasi-steady state assumption, the differential expression for the complex is given by:

MISSINGEQUATION

Our model then simplifies to:

MISSINGEQUATION

This is the same assumption made by previous teams.

Modelling Incomplete Repression

A recent study by Bikard et al. found that maximal repression (on the order of 100 fold) was achieved when the promoter was targeted. However, targeting the promoter is not viable in this project since an essential promoter from elsewhere in the genome has been harnessed to produce the fluorescent promoter. Instead, we model the incomplete repression (ranging from 6-fold to 35-fold) observed when the off-promoter regions, specifically on the non-coding strand, are targeted.

There are two possible approaches for modelling the incomplete repression, each reflecting a different physical mechanism that allows leaky YFP expression. In the first mechanism, RNA polymerase is sometimes able to cleave the bound dCas9-sgRNA complex from the DNA. In the second mechanism, the complex binds inefficiently and is sometimes separated from the DNA, permitting transcription to continue.

We assumed that the incomplete repression is accounted for by the first mechanism. This assumption was based on several studies showing radically different repression rates if the complex targets the promoter, preventing transcription initiation, rather than targeting the DNA further downstream and impeding transcription elongation. The differences in the system behaviour depending on whether or not RNA polymerase has the opportunity to bind suggest that the “cleavage” mechanism may more closely resemble the chemical reality.

Consequently, we modelled incomplete repression using a leaky expression term proportional to the expected YFP expression when the complex is saturated. The differential equation model was updated with a repression term dependent on the fold reduction FR and the initial concentration of YFP mRNA, Y0:

MISSINGEQUATION

This equation was derived using two boundary conditions. Before repression, when the concentration of the complex is zero, YFP mRNA is produced at the rate expected from the sarA promoter, α. After repression has reached its steady state, the YFP mRNA production has been reduced by FR fold, to Y0/FR.

Parameters

Parameter Value Description Source/Rationale
αmy, αr 0.0011 nM • min-1 mRNA production from SarA P1 Promoter Determined based on linear fitting to the time-series fluorescence measurements from YFP/P2-P3-P1 fusion, as reported in and fluorescence per molecule from
αmc 0.0011 nM • min-1 mRNA production from Xylose Promoter Same as SarA rate since the addition of the Xylose-inducible promoter was to simplify labwork and thus for modelling we assume it is fully induced.
βc 0.0057-0.4797 protein • transcript-1 min-1 dCas9 protein synthesis rate from dCas9 mRNA Estimated from peptide elongation rates in Streptomyces coelicolor , the dCas9 BioBrick from and ribosome density from report log-phase mRNA half-lives in {S. aureus}. An approximate average value of 4 minutes leads to this degradation rate.
γc, γb -5.6408e-04 min-01 dCas9/complex degradation rate Based off half-life of SarA protein in S. aureus as reported in
Ka 0.28 nM Dissociation constant for (C:R) and DNA (given by k2/k1 found this dissociation rate for dCas9 and a single-stranded DNA substrate.
n 2.5 Hill Constant for Repression UCSF iGEM 2013
k+ 0.01-1.0 nM Rate of association of $C$ and $R$ to form $(C:R) Range defined relative to other parameters (one order of magnitude times based on QSSA
k- 0.01 to 1.0 nM Rate of dissociation of $(C:R) Range defined relative to other parameters based on QSSA
Fold Reduction 6 to 35 Maximum percent repression achievable with CRISPRi system Based on the relative fluorescence measurements observed when the non-coding strand was targeted by dCas9 in

Production of dCas9 from dCas9 mRNA

Degradation rate of dCas9

mRNA production from the sarA promoter

Initial Model Results

Updating mRNA Production Rates

Sensitivity Analysis

sRNA

Relevant Biology

Model Formation

Conjugation

References

[1]D. Bikard et al. “Programmable repression and activation of bacterial gene expression using an engineered CRISPR-Cas system”. In: Nucleic Acids Res. 41.15 (Aug. 2013), pp. 7429–7437.
[2]Florian Brandt et al. “The Native 3D Organization of Bacterial Polysomes”. In: Cell 136.2 (2009), pp. 261 –271. issn: 0092-8674. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.11.016.
[3]A. G. Cheng, D. Missiakas, and O. Schneewind. “The giant protein Ebh is a determinant of Staphylococcus aureus cell size and complement resistance”. In: J. Bacteriol. 196.5 (2014), pp. 971–981.
[4]A. L. Cheung, K. Nishina, and A. C. Manna. “SarA of Staphylococcus aureus binds to the sarA promoter to regulate gene expression”. In: J. Bacteriol. 190.6 (Mar. 2008), pp. 2239–2243.
[5]G. Domingue, J. W. Costerton, and M. R. Brown. “Bacterial doubling time modulates the effects of opsonisation and available iron upon interactions between Staphylococcus aureus and human neutrophils”. In: FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 16.3-4 (Dec. 1996), pp. 223–228.
[6]S. Michalik et al. “Life and death of proteins: a case study of glucose-starved Staphylococcus aureus”. In: Mol. Cell Proteomics 11.9 (Sept. 2012), pp. 558–570.
[7]R. Milo et al. “BioNumbers-the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology”. In: Nucleic Acids Res. 30 (Jan. 2010), pp. D750–D753. url: http://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?id=107869}.
[8]L. S. Qi et al. “Repurposing CRISPR as an RNA-guided platform for sequence-specific control of gene expression”. In: Cell 152.5 (Feb. 2013), pp. 1173–1183.
[9]C. Roberts et al. “Characterizing the effect of the Staphylococcus aureus virulence factor regulator, SarA, on log-phase mRNA half-lives”. In: J. Bacteriol. 188.7 (Apr. 2006), pp. 2593–2603. doi: 10.1128/JB.188.7.2593-2603.2006
[10]Marlena Siwiak and Piotr Zielenkiewicz. “Transimulation - Protein Biosynthesis Web Service”. In: PLoS ONE 8.9 (Sept. 2013), e73943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073943.
[11]S.H. Sternberg et al. “DNA interrogation by the CRISPR RNA-guided endonuclease Cas9”. In: Nature 7490 (2014), 6267. doi: 10.1038/nature13011. url: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature13011.html.
[12]Freiburg iGEM Team. dCas9. BBa K1150000 Standard Biological Part. 2013. url: http://parts.igem.org/Part:BBa_K1150000.
[13]UCSF iGEM Team. Operation CRISPR: Decision Making Circuit Model. 2013. url: https://2013.igem.org/Team:UCSF/Modeling.
[14]Jian-Qiu Wu and Thomas D. Pollard. “Counting Cytokinesis Proteins Globally and Locally in Fission Yeast”. In: Science 310.5746 (2005), pp. 310–314. doi: 10.1126/science.1113230.
[15]Jianfang Jia and Hong Yue. “Sensitivity Analysis and Parameter Estimation of Signal Transduction Pathways Model”. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asian Control Conference (Aug. 2009), pp. 1357–1362.
[16]Fi-John Chang and J. W. Delleur. “Systematic Parameter Estimation Of Watershed Acidification Model”. In: Hydrological Processes 6. (1992), pp. 29–44. doi: 10.1002/hyp.3360060104.
[17]Aiba, H. (2007). Mechanism of RNA silencing by Hfq-binding small RNAs. Current opinion in microbiology, 10 (2), 134-139.
[18]Horstmann, N., Orans, J., Valentin-Hansen, P., Shelburne, S. A., & Brennan, R. G. (2012). Structural mechanism of Staphylococcus aureus Hfq binding to an RNA A-tract. Nucleic acids research, gks809.
[19]Eyraud, A., Tattevin, P., Chabelskaya, S., & Felden, B. (2014). A small RNA controls a protein regulator involved in antibiotic resistance in Staphylococcus aureus. Nucleic acids research, gku149.
[20]Shimoni, Y., Friedlander, G., Hetzroni, G., Niv, G., Altuvia, S., Biham, O., & Margalit, H. (2007). Regulation of gene expression by small non‐coding RNAs: a quantitative view. Molecular Systems Biology, 3 (1)
[21]Fender, A., Elf, J., Hampel, K., Zimmermann, B., & Wagner, E. G. H. (2010). RNAs actively cycle on the Sm-like protein Hfq. Genes & Development, 24 (23),2621-2626.
[22] Swain, P. S. (2004). Efficient attenuation of stochasticity in gene expression through post-transcriptional control. Journal of molecular biology, 344 (4),965-976.
[23] Hussein, R., & Lim, H. N. (2012). Direct comparison of small RNA and transcription factor signaling. Nucleic acids research, 40 (15), 7269-7279.
[24] Levin, B.R., Stewart, F.M. and Rice, V.A. 1979. “The Kinetics of Conjugative Plasmid Transmission: Fit of a Simple Mass Action Model.” In: Plasmid. 2. pp. 247-260.
[25]Projan, S.J. and Archer, G.L. 1989. “Mobilization of the Relaxable Staphylococcus aureus Plasmid pC221 by the Conjugative Plasmid pGO1 Involves Three pC221 Loci.” In: Journal of Bacteriology. pp. 1841-1845.
[26]Phornphisutthimas, S., Thamchaipenet, A., and Panijpan, B. 2007. “Conjugation in Escherichia coli.” In: The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 35. 6. pp. 440-445.
[27]Phornphisutthimas, S., Thamchaipenet, A., and Panijpan, B. 2007. “Conjugation in Escherichia coli.” In: The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 35. 6. pp. 440-445.
[28]P Chung P., McNamara P.J., Campion J.J., Evans M.E. 2006. “Mechanism-based pharmacodynamic models of fluoroquinolone resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.” In: In: Antimicrobial Agents Chemotherapy. 50. pp. 2957-2965.
[29] Chang H., Wang L. “A Simple Proof of Thue's Theorem on Circle Packing” In: arXiv:1009.4322v1.