IGEM:IMPERIAL/2006/project/Oscillator/Theoretical Analyses/3Dto2D: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
Baijiongjun (talk | contribs) |
|||
(8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Template:IGEM:IMPERIAL/2006/project/Oscillator/Theoretical Analysis}} | {{Template:IGEM:IMPERIAL/2006/project/Oscillator/Theoretical Analysis}} | ||
== '''Model Simplification | == '''Model Simplification''' == | ||
<br><br> | |||
< | *<font size="4">'''Why we can simplify the 3d Model into a 2D Model'''</font size="4"> | ||
* | :*Simplification is possible because of the similarity of the growth rates of the predator terms (V and W) in the 3D Model | ||
* | ::*Their complex production terms are identical | ||
::*Only their dissipative terms (-d1*V and -d2*W ) varies | |||
* | :*A simple hypotheses could lead to a very big simplification in our analysis | ||
*2D analysis is much simpler, and still will give us valid prediction on whether the system will oscillate. | :*A 2D analysis is much simpler, and still will give us valid prediction on whether the system will oscillate. | ||
<br><br> | |||
* System then | *<font size="4">'''Required Hypotheses for Simplification'''</font size="4"> | ||
:* Hypothesis 1: to ensure V and W have same growth rates | |||
::* '''Hypothesis 1: d1=d2''') | |||
:* Hypothesis 2:To have equality of the initial conditions | |||
::* '''Hypothesis 2: [aiiA] = [LuxR]''' at time t=0 | |||
:* Under previous 2 Hypotheses | |||
::* aiiA and LuxR start at the same concentration | |||
::* they have the same rate of production and degradation | |||
::* hence they have at the same concentration throughout | |||
:* System then can be simplified to | |||
[[Image:3Dmodel-simple.png|center]] | |||
<br><br> | |||
[[Image:simplification.jpg|thumb|600px|center|Summary of our approach]] | |||
<br> | |||
*<font size="4"> '''Validity of the hypotheses'''</font size="4"> | |||
:* Hypothesis 1 : d1=d2 | |||
::* The assumption of d1=d2 is feasible because aiiA and LuxR within the cells will be washed out at the same rate in chemostat. | |||
::* As long as we can ensure the washing out rate is much more dominant than their natural half-life (easily achieved) the assumption should hold | |||
:* Hypothesis 2 is not really essential | |||
::* it is fortunate as it was hard to ensure | |||
::* if d1=d2, the difference between W and V will decay to 0 exponentially (with a time constant 1/d1) | |||
::* therefore after a little time we can assume V=W | |||
::* the larger d1, the faster the assumption becomes valid | |||
::* the larger the difference between initial values of V & W, the longer the settling time of reaching V=W only | |||
::* In particular we are sure that the condition on the parameters for obtaining a limit cycle will still be identical in 2D and 3D despite of the initial concentrations of U V W. | |||
<br><br> | |||
* ''' | *<font size="4">'''Problem : in Theory , there is a Huge Difference Between 2D and 3D'''</font size="4> | ||
** | :* Poincare-Bendixson Theorem works for 1D and 2D only, but not 3D | ||
** | ::* We only need simple requirements for a limit cycle in 2D | ||
** | ::* In 3D the requirement is more complex - or much more complex | ||
** | :* So are our results in 2D worth anything ? | ||
** | ::*If our hypotheses are exactly met: Yes! | ||
::*In practice hypotheses not exactly met, but we have a margin of error | |||
::*A slight error on Hypothesis 2 is not important | |||
::*Slight error on hypothesis 1 (d1 not strictly equal to d2): 2 Scenarii | |||
:::* Scenario 1: (the kind one) | |||
::::* For d1=d2 and a range of parameters well chosen we have oscillations | |||
::::* Because the system is well behaved , we still have oscillations at the vicinity of these parameters (hence for d1 slightly different from d2) | |||
:::* Scenario 2: (the not so nice one) | |||
::::*[aiiA] and [LuxR] get more and more out of synchronisation | |||
::::*However, if the hypotheses are almost met, we can hope to have a few synchronised cycles | |||
<br><br> | |||
< | *<font size="4">'''Conclusion'''</font size="4"> | ||
:*There is a lot to learn from the 2D model | |||
:*A word of caution: | |||
:::[[Image:2d model 0b.PNG|thumb|400px|left|Simulation of Full 3D model done by Cell Designer|center]] | |||
<br style="clear:both;"/> | |||
::*The simulation above shows individual cycles of [aiiA] and [LuxR] | |||
::** Frequencies are equal | |||
::** Profiles very similar | |||
::** Peak amplitudes different | |||
::**Clearly for such cycles d1=d2 was not met and yet we have oscillations. We therefore have to study the 3D case in its entirety at some point | |||
::*However for our current interest of whether the system can result in generation, 2D case of d1=d2 should be enough | |||
<html> | |||
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code --> | |||
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> | |||
var sc_project=1999441; | |||
var sc_invisible=1; | |||
var sc_partition=18; | |||
var sc_security="18996820"; | |||
</script> | |||
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/frames.js"></script><noscript><a href="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://c19.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=1999441&java=0&security=18996820&invisible=1" alt="website statistics" border="0"></a> </noscript> | |||
<!-- End of StatCounter Code --> | |||
< | </html> | ||
< | |||
Latest revision as of 06:12, 1 November 2006
Analysis of the Model of the Molecular Predation Oscillator
Model Simplification
- Why we can simplify the 3d Model into a 2D Model
- Simplification is possible because of the similarity of the growth rates of the predator terms (V and W) in the 3D Model
- Their complex production terms are identical
- Only their dissipative terms (-d1*V and -d2*W ) varies
- A simple hypotheses could lead to a very big simplification in our analysis
- A 2D analysis is much simpler, and still will give us valid prediction on whether the system will oscillate.
- Required Hypotheses for Simplification
- Hypothesis 1: to ensure V and W have same growth rates
- Hypothesis 1: d1=d2)
- Hypothesis 2:To have equality of the initial conditions
- Hypothesis 2: [aiiA] = [LuxR] at time t=0
- Under previous 2 Hypotheses
- aiiA and LuxR start at the same concentration
- they have the same rate of production and degradation
- hence they have at the same concentration throughout
- System then can be simplified to
- Validity of the hypotheses
- Hypothesis 1 : d1=d2
- The assumption of d1=d2 is feasible because aiiA and LuxR within the cells will be washed out at the same rate in chemostat.
- As long as we can ensure the washing out rate is much more dominant than their natural half-life (easily achieved) the assumption should hold
- Hypothesis 2 is not really essential
- it is fortunate as it was hard to ensure
- if d1=d2, the difference between W and V will decay to 0 exponentially (with a time constant 1/d1)
- therefore after a little time we can assume V=W
- the larger d1, the faster the assumption becomes valid
- the larger the difference between initial values of V & W, the longer the settling time of reaching V=W only
- In particular we are sure that the condition on the parameters for obtaining a limit cycle will still be identical in 2D and 3D despite of the initial concentrations of U V W.
- Problem : in Theory , there is a Huge Difference Between 2D and 3D
- Poincare-Bendixson Theorem works for 1D and 2D only, but not 3D
- We only need simple requirements for a limit cycle in 2D
- In 3D the requirement is more complex - or much more complex
- So are our results in 2D worth anything ?
- If our hypotheses are exactly met: Yes!
- In practice hypotheses not exactly met, but we have a margin of error
- A slight error on Hypothesis 2 is not important
- Slight error on hypothesis 1 (d1 not strictly equal to d2): 2 Scenarii
- Scenario 1: (the kind one)
- For d1=d2 and a range of parameters well chosen we have oscillations
- Because the system is well behaved , we still have oscillations at the vicinity of these parameters (hence for d1 slightly different from d2)
- Scenario 2: (the not so nice one)
- [aiiA] and [LuxR] get more and more out of synchronisation
- However, if the hypotheses are almost met, we can hope to have a few synchronised cycles
- Conclusion
- There is a lot to learn from the 2D model
- A word of caution:
- The simulation above shows individual cycles of [aiiA] and [LuxR]
- Frequencies are equal
- Profiles very similar
- Peak amplitudes different
- Clearly for such cycles d1=d2 was not met and yet we have oscillations. We therefore have to study the 3D case in its entirety at some point
- However for our current interest of whether the system can result in generation, 2D case of d1=d2 should be enough
- The simulation above shows individual cycles of [aiiA] and [LuxR]
<html>
<!-- Start of StatCounter Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript">
var sc_project=1999441;
var sc_invisible=1;
var sc_partition=18;
var sc_security="18996820";
</script>
<script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/frames.js"></script><noscript><a href="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://c19.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=1999441&java=0&security=18996820&invisible=1" alt="website statistics" border="0"></a> </noscript> <!-- End of StatCounter Code --> </html>