Difference between revisions of "Team:Newcastle/Model"

Line 139: Line 139:
  
 
       <h3 style="font-family: Rubik; margin-top: 2%; margin-bottom: 2%">Rationale and Aim</h3>
 
       <h3 style="font-family: Rubik; margin-top: 2%; margin-bottom: 2%">Rationale and Aim</h3>
       <p>After the initial design of the Sensynova platform, it was important to determine, in silico, if multicellular biosensor systems constructed according to our paradigm would be able to produce responses to target molecules which were comparable to traditional whole cell sensors. Therefore, a 3D, spatially explicit, stochastic model was constructed, in which each cell was modelled as a separate agent containing kinetic equations specific to the biosensor components present in that cell type. To enable the application of experimentally derived rate constants, an IPTG sensor was designed according to our platform and modelled. This design was later used as our proof-of- concept in vitro system.
+
       <p>After the initial design of the Sensynova platform, it was important to determine, <i>in silico</i>, if multicellular biosensor systems constructed according to our paradigm would be able to produce responses to target molecules which were comparable to traditional whole cell sensors. Therefore, a 3D, spatially explicit, stochastic model was constructed, in which each cell was modelled as a separate agent containing kinetic equations specific to the biosensor components present in that cell type. To enable the application of experimentally derived rate constants, an IPTG sensor was designed according to our platform and modelled. This design was later used as our proof-of- concept <i>in vitro</i> system.
 
       </br></br>
 
       </br></br>
       Additionally, in traditionally engineered biosensor systems, biosensor components are often present in equal amounts, mostly one detection device to one processing device to one reporter device. However, other than ease of production, there is no evidence that a component ratio of 1:1:1 is optimum for all systems. An unexpected side effect of splitting biosensor components into different cells was the production of a new design space in which biosensor behaviour could be altered by varying the ratios of cell types, and therefore biosensor components, in a multicellular system. We wanted to harness this new method of fine-tuning biosensor circuits through the in silico exploration of cell type ratios and subsequent in vitro confirmation of optimum component ratios.</p>
+
       Additionally, in traditionally engineered biosensor systems, biosensor components are often present in equal amounts, mostly one detection device to one processing device to one reporter device. However, other than ease of production, there is no evidence that a component ratio of 1:1:1 is optimum for all systems. An unexpected side effect of splitting biosensor components into different cells was the production of a new design space in which biosensor behaviour could be altered by varying the ratios of cell types, and therefore biosensor components, in a multicellular system. We wanted to harness this new method of fine-tuning biosensor circuits through the <i>in silico</i> exploration of cell type ratios and subsequent <i>in vitro</i> confirmation of optimum component ratios.</p>
  
  

Revision as of 13:31, 1 November 2017

spacefill

Our Models

For our project, we built three types of models. The first was an agent-based model which simulated our multicellular biosensor framework. This model gave insight into the optimal ratio of cell-types to have in the system. This information was used during experimental characterisation to optimise our system.

Our second model was a statistical, multifactorial Design of Experiments (DoE) approach towards optimising Cell-Free Protein Synthesis (CFPS) systems. This statistical model was used to generate an experimental design to gather data on the importance of certain supplements in CFPS systems, and then use the experimental data to optimise CFPS systems.

Our third model was an agent-based model designed to replicate the functions of a digital microfluidic chip and schedule the tasks for the device. The final piece of software controls agents which are the microfluidic droplets and moves them around the simulated chip according to predefined movement plans which can be read from either the program itself or custom external files. This provides a quicker, more inexpensive means of testing the chip than repeated real-world experiments.