Difference between revisions of "Team:TAS Taipei/Model"

Line 277: Line 277:
 
                     <div class="row">
 
                     <div class="row">
 
                         <div class="image_container col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
 
                         <div class="image_container col-lg-8 col-lg-offset-2">
                             <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/ca/T--TAS_Taipei--3-4.png" id="group">
+
                             <img src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/6/60/T--TAS_Taipei--3-4-new.png" id="group">
 
                             <h4 class="subtitle"><b>Figure 3-4 </b><span class="subCred"></span></h4>
 
                             <h4 class="subtitle"><b>Figure 3-4 </b><span class="subCred"></span></h4>
 
                         </div>
 
                         </div>

Revision as of 10:55, 31 October 2017

X

Project

Experiment

Modeling

Prototype

Human Practice

Safety

About Us

Attributions

Home

Modeling

Computational Biology provides us insight on how to apply experimental data to real world applications!

test
hi

MODELING

Our models aim to facilitate the implementation of the two nanoparticle (NP) trapping aspects of our project:
  1. Proteorhodopsin (PR)-expressing bacteria to trap citrate-coated NPs
  2. Biofilm-coated biocarriers to trap all other NPs
Using variables which are common to any wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) -- such as NP concentration, flow rate, and water retention time in each tank -- we can determine the amount of bacteria or surface area of biofilm needed to reduce NP concentration in the treated effluent to a desired value.

INTRODUCTION

We aim to implement our NP trapping systems in different steps of the wastewater treatment process. There are several factors that will affect the NP trapping efficiency for the proteorhodopsin (PR) bacteria and biofilm models. Our PR bacteria would be added to aeration tanks, where water movement is fast and turbulent, while our biofilm (attached to biocarriers), would be placed in the clarifier or sedimentation tanks, where water movement is calmer to prevent biofilm detachment.

Due to the lack of literature on our proposed NP-trapping techniques using PR and biofilm, experimental trials and our prototype design were integral to the modeling process. Experimental trapping rates from our prototype were used to fit our model to the current trapping abilities of our PR construct (BBa_K2229400) and our biofilm construct (BBa_K2229300). After experimentally determining the rate constants for our PR bacteria and biofilm constructs, the mathematical models can be used to determine two objectives, given an initial NP concentration and a final target NP concentration.

    Objective 1: What PR bacteria concentration is needed in the aeration tanks?

    Objective 2: How many biofilm-coated biocarriers are needed in the secondary sedimentation tank?

PROTEORHODOPSIN TRAPPING MODEL

Proteorhodopsin and citrate binding modeled as a ligand-receptor interaction

To model the binding of PR bacteria to CC-NPs, we used a coarse-grained model for ligand-receptor interaction (Ruiz-Herrero et al. 2013). The model is based on the chemical interaction between a freely diffusing ligand L (nanoparticle), and a cell membrane receptor R (PR bacteria), which combine to form a complex C (nanoparticle-loaded PR bacteria) in the following reaction scheme:

test

Figure 3-1 Reaction scheme for PR bacteria and nanoparticles. Our bacteria (R) and nanoparticles (L) bind with the affinity rate k(on) to form the complex C. Conversely, starting with the complex C, nanoparticles fall off bacteria with the dissociation rate k(off). Figure: Justin Y.


where kon is the binding rate constant of our PR bacteria to CC-NPs and koff is the rate constant of NPs dissociating from PR bacteria. L, R, and C are all functions of time because our PR bacteria bind to NPs over time, which decreases the concentration of free NPs (L) and available PR bacteria (R) while increasing the concentration of NP-loaded PR bacteria (C). Therefore, we can use the following differential equation to model the progression of NP trapping over time by our PR bacteria:

test

Equation 1: Binding and Dissociation Model


To determine the kon and koff rate constants, we fitted our model to match experiments (figures 3-3 and 3-4) that show a decrease in CC-AgNPs when mixed with a known concentration of our PR bacteria (BBa_K2229400). Determining kon and koff rate constants will enable us to use equation 1 and inform WWTPs what concentration of PR bacteria is needed to treat their tanks given a starting NP concentration and desired final NP concentration. Below, we will explain how we obtained both the kon and koff rate constants.

Determining NP binding rate (kon) and dissociation rate (koff) constants using experimental data

Binding-Only Model (kon only)

We first determined kon while assuming a best-case scenario where NPs do not fall off of PR once they bind, which means that koff

Equation 2: Binding-Only Model


Since the time-dependent functions [L] and [R] for binding between CC-NPs and PR bacteria are unknown in literature, we used finite-difference methods (FDM) to model this equation. (Click here to learn more about how we used FDM!)

We obtained kon, the binding rate constant, from experimental data where CC-AgNPs were mixed with a known concentration of our PR bacteria (BBa_K2229400) (figures 3-2 and 3-3 below).

Figure 3-2 The binding rate kon A known concentration of our PR bacteria (BBa_K2229400) was mixed with a known concentration of citrate-capped AgNPs, and the decrease in nanoparticle concentration over 5 hours was measured. By inputting the known bacteria and nanoparticle concentrations, we fitted our model to our experimental data to find kon Figure: Justin Y.


Figure 3-3 Experiment: Justin Y


To find the kon value for our PR bacteria, we fitted our model to our experimental data (Click here to learn how we fit our model using RMSE!). 1.9×10-7 µL cells-1 hr-1 was the kon value for which the Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE), a measure of the error between the model and the experiment, was the lowest. However, as Figure 3-3 shows, the Binding-Only Model does not reflect how the experimental data reaches an asymptote towards the end of 5 hours. One of the things that may account for this discrepancy between our Binding-Only Model and our experimental data is NPs falling off of the PR bacteria. As we show below, our revised model does a better job of describing the experimental data after accounting for this effect. Since our Binding-Only Model does not take the NP dissociation rate constant, koff, into account, we now needed to determine this value.

Binding and Dissociation Model (kon and koff)

For the first hour, few NPs are bound by the bacteria and there are many PR receptor sites open, so we assumed that the number of NPs falling off is negligible in the first hour. Thus, we assume that the dissociation rate, koff, is 0 from t = 0 to t = 1. Based on this assumption, we found a kon value that fitted our model to the first two points (the first hour) of our experimental data. As the yellow curve (step 2, figure 3-4 below) shows, the model fits the first two data points but falls below the experimental data as time goes on. We assumed that this discrepancy is due to NPs falling off the bacteria. Thus, our next step was finding a koff value that would fit our model to the asymptotic behavior of our experimental data. 0.32 hr-1 was the koff value that yielded the lowest RMSE. (Click here to learn how we found koff using RMSE!). The green curve (step 3 figure 3-4 below) includes this koff value, and fits our experimental data much better with the lowest RMSE. Thus, our final Binding and Dissociation model includes both kon and koff.

Figure 3-4


CC-NP Trapping by PR Bacteria Calculator

We developed two calculators to help WWTPs use our PR bacteria to clean up CC-NPs. Calculator 1 allows WWTPs to input their NP concentration, their target NP concentration, and the time water spends in the tank to determine the initial PR bacteria concentration they need to add.

Calculator 1

Initial NP Concentration (micromolar)
Target NP Concentration (micromolar)
Retention Time (the amount of time water stays in the tank, hours)
Initial Bacteria Concentration Needed (# of bacteria/microliter):    

Calculator 2 allows WWTPs to input their NP concentration, PR bacteria concentration they plan to add, and the time water spends in the tank to determine the final NP concentration of the water leaving the tank.

Calculator 2

Initial NP Concentration (micromolar)
Initial Bacteria Concentration (# of cells/microliter)
Amount of time that can be used for the process (hours)
Resulting NP Concentration (micromolar):    

Example Application of Completed Model

We used our Binding and Dissociation model (in figure 3-5 below) to determine the trapping of CC-NP concentration over time by our PR bacteria using the kon and koff values above (3.5×10-7 µL cells-1 hr-1 and 0.32 hr-1 respectively) and time intervals of 0.1 hours (click here to learn why).

Figure 3-5


In this example, the initial conditions of L and R were set to the same values as our experimental trial, which means that [NP] = 1.078 µM and [PR bacteria] = 569600 cells/µL. Under these conditions, our model predicts that NP concentration after 5 hours is 0.693 µM (the percent difference of our modeled value from our experimental value (0.708 µM) is 2.19%). WWTPs can obtain a graph like this one by inputting the variables specific to their treatment plant, such as initial NP concentration and how much time water spends in the tank.

Calculation Explanations for FDM and RMSE

Finite-Difference Method (FDM) Explanation

We used Euler’s Method to create our FDM model, and our formulas for the Binding-Only Model are shown below (table 3-1). As the table shows, by plugging in values for L and R at t = 0, a fixed value for kon, and the time interval Δt, dC/dt = Y1 at t = 0 can be calculated. In other words, we can find the trapping rate at t = 0. As per FDM methods, we assume that the trapping rate is Y1 for t = [0, t0 + Δt] = [0, t1], so = [NP] trapped during the time interval t = [0, t1]. Therefore, to find the new L at t = t1, we subtract (Δt)Y1 from L0 to get L1. The same process is done for R to find R1 because the decrease in [NP] is directly proportional to the decrease in unsaturated bacteria. Then, using the new values L1 and R1 and the same values of kon and Δt, a new trapping rate Y2 for t = [0, t1 + Δt] = [0, t2] is calculated. This process is repeated for each subsequent value of t.

Table 3-1


Table 3-2 shows a sample of our calculations for the Binding-Only Model using the formulas above, initial L and R conditions that match our experimental trial, the value of kon determined from experimental data, and Δt = 0.1 up to 1 hour.

Table 3-2


At t = 0, no NPs have been trapped and all PR bacteria are available, so we can set L = initial [NP] and R = initial [bacteria], and use these initial conditions to calculate subsequent values.

For our Binding and Dissociation Model, the formulas were modified to include the effect of koff, which is shown below (table 3-3). This shows one of the advantages of Euler’s Method and other FDM models ‒ the form of dC/dt is adaptable to further variables or complications, and the model can still provide results for complex equations.

Table 3-3


Table 3-4 shows a sample of our calculations for the binding and dissociation model using the formulas above, initial L and R conditions that match our experimental trial, the values of kon and koff determined from fitting to experimental data, and Δt = 0.1 up to 1 hour.

Table 3-4


When using FDM, it is important to keep in mind that values after the set initial conditions are numerical approximations. This means that the larger the value of Δt, the more inaccurate the final result.

Figure 3-9 Figure: Justin Y.


For example, Figure 3-10 below shows how the trapping curve changes with different values of Δt. Larger values of Δt result in a final [NP] that is too low. This is because trapping rate is fastest at the beginning (when there are more unbound NPs and unsaturated bacteria), and large values of Δt assume this faster trapping rate for a larger interval of time, thus resulting in a faster decrease in [NP] than if smaller values of Δt were used. To account for error caused by FDM, we ran our model with decreasing values of Δt until there was a negligible difference in final [NP], which was at Δt = 0.1. Since the error due to FDM is negligible for Δt = 0.1, our model used time intervals of Δt = 0.1 hours.

Figure 3-10


Minimizing Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) to find kon and koff

To determine the best fit of our model to our experimental data, we calculated the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE). We did this by squaring the difference between each experimental value and its respective modeling value, averaging these values, and finding the square root. The lower this RMSE value, the better the fit of our model to our experimental data.

For our binding-only model (the blue curve in Figure 3-4), the RMSE was calculated for all of the experimental data points, and we found an initial kon value that gave the lowest RMSE. For our binding and dissociation model, we first found a new kon value that fit the first two experimental data points, then found a koff value that fit the rest of the data points. To find the kon value, the RMSE was calculated for the first two points. To find the koff value, the RMSE was calculated for all the points.

BIOFILM TRAPPING MODEL

Evaluating the trapping rate through the change in substrate concentration and volumetric flow rate

Determining the significance of different factors

Surface Area

Example Application

Initial nanoparticle concentration (micromolar)
Velocity of water in contact with biofilm (cm/sec)
Total Volume of Container (L)
Time for biofilm to be in contact with NP solution (seconds)
Surface Area of biofilm used
Resulting Nanoparticle Concentration (micromolar):    

Initial NP concentration (micromolar)
Target NP Concentration (micromolar)
Velocity of Water in contact with Biofilm (cm/s)
Total Volume of tank (L)
Total time biofilm is in contact with NP solution (s)
Surface Area of Biofilm Needed(cm2):    

REFERENCES

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit. Est sit odit dolorum illum nemo harum voluptatem sapiente consequuntur hic, earum quos facilis ea magnam, laudantium ipsam. Inventore labore non, accusantium nemo? Similique optio praesentium ad aliquam illo, ipsum, accusantium explicabo architecto molestias fugiat maiores. Optio pariatur, aliquam quia commodi dignissimos?