Difference between revisions of "Team:INSA-UPS France/Model/Simulation"

Line 203: Line 203:
 
     <section>
 
     <section>
 
       <h1>Data</h1>
 
       <h1>Data</h1>
<p>Our model is mostly set by data from publications, because the majority of the required data necessitates complex experiments we could not perform during our project.</p>
+
<p>Model parameters were mostly collected from publications, because a large part of the required data necessitates a complex set of hundreds of experiments that could not have been performed in the course of the project.</p>
  
 
<table style="font-size:8pt;">
 
<table style="font-size:8pt;">
Line 720: Line 720:
 
</table>
 
</table>
  
<p>Even if we mostly describe our model as a predictive one, some preliminary experimental results were implemented into our model. Indeed, an experimental estimation of our two chassis behaviour on a common medium was needed.</p>
+
<p>Some preliminary experimental results were also expoited to refine important parameters of the model. Indeed, we needed an experimental estimation of the growth rate of the two chassis microorganisms grown on a common medium.</p>
  
 
<table style="font-size:8pt;">
 
<table style="font-size:8pt;">
Line 784: Line 784:
 
     <section>
 
     <section>
 
       <h1>Solver</h1>
 
       <h1>Solver</h1>
<p>The system of ODEs was solved using <b>Matlab R2017a</b>, thanks to the free offer from iGEM. Initially set with <i>ode45</i> solver, the recommanded Matlab ODE solver, the final script uses <i>ode15s</i> because <i>ode45</i> was not enough efficient. <i>ode15s</i> is the solver recommanded when having problems or inefficiency with <i>ode45</i>, and is adapted to stiff problems.(17)</p>
+
<p>The system of ODEs was solved using <b>Matlab R2017a</b>, thanks to the free offer from iGEM. We used the <i>ode15s</i> solver, which was in this situation more efficient than the <i>ode45s</i> solver, very likely because the different time scales between some processes (e.g. growth vs signalling) rendered the problem partially stiff.(17)</p>
 
<p>You can freely re-use our code: <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/ec/T--INSA-UPS_France--iGEM_INSA-UPS_France_2017_Model.zip" alt="">General_resolution + System_of_ODEs</a>.</p>
 
<p>You can freely re-use our code: <a href="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/ec/T--INSA-UPS_France--iGEM_INSA-UPS_France_2017_Model.zip" alt="">General_resolution + System_of_ODEs</a>.</p>
 
</section>
 
</section>
Line 790: Line 790:
 
<section>
 
<section>
 
       <h1>Simulation results</h1>
 
       <h1>Simulation results</h1>
<p>At the beginning of the project, we needed to know if our microbial synthetic consortium would work and if the information transmission was possible. So we used our system of ODEs and our solver to have a first estimation of the functioning of our synthetic system. We already had some experimental data from microbial growth assays, and we used them to have more realistic predictions.</p>
+
<p>At the beginning of the project, we needed to know if our microbial synthetic consortium would work and if the information transmission was possible. So we used our system of ODEs and our solver to have a first estimation of the functioning of our synthetic system.</p>
  
 
<p>Design parameters, such as <i>Vibrio harveyi</i> and <i>Pichia pastoris</i> initial concentration and the device volume, were set to biologically plausible values.</p>
 
<p>Design parameters, such as <i>Vibrio harveyi</i> and <i>Pichia pastoris</i> initial concentration and the device volume, were set to biologically plausible values.</p>
Line 806: Line 806:
 
           <img width=10% float:left src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c0/T--INSA-UPS_France--simpleVc_t.png" alt="">
 
           <img width=10% float:left src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/c/c0/T--INSA-UPS_France--simpleVc_t.png" alt="">
 
<figcaption><b>Temporal evolution of <i>Vibrio cholerae</i> concentration under realistic conditions (device size, initial concentrations in the device)</b></figcaption>
 
<figcaption><b>Temporal evolution of <i>Vibrio cholerae</i> concentration under realistic conditions (device size, initial concentrations in the device)</b></figcaption>
<p>This simulation confirmed the <b>feasibility</b> of our project: our microbial consortium would be enough effective to respond to <i>V. cholerae</i> presence, transmit the information and produce enough antimicrobial peptides to provoke <i>V. cholerae</i>. <b>The response time to reach a non-pathogenic concentration is estimated to 53.6 min</b>.</p></div>
+
<p>This simulation confirmed the <b>feasibility</b> of our project: our microbial consortium would be enough effective to detect the presence of <i>V. cholerae</i>, transmit this information and, in response, produce enough antimicrobial peptides to kill <i>V. cholerae</i>. <b>The response time to reach a non-pathogenic concentration is estimated to 53.6 min</b>.</p></div>
  
 
         <div class="section-inside">
 
         <div class="section-inside">
Line 813: Line 813:
 
           <figcaption><b>Evolution of the twelve variables constituing our ODEs system</b></figcaption>
 
           <figcaption><b>Evolution of the twelve variables constituing our ODEs system</b></figcaption>
 
         </figure>
 
         </figure>
<p>This visual representation of our system simulation allows us to check that every variables evolves in a realistic range of concentrations, and we are sure there is no aberration in our model. After this simulation results, further assessments were perfomed to evaluate the sensibility and robustness of the synthetic system: to support rational design, we had to check the sensibility of the system to parameters variation, and identify which parameters had a significant impact on our response time (time to reach a non-pathogenic concentration).
+
<p>This visual representation of the system's dynamics allows us to check that every variables evolves in a realistic range of concentrations, hence indicating the model predicts a consistent behaviour. Further analyses were then perfomed to evaluate the sensibility and robustness of the synthetic system. We first tested whether the system would be robust to the variation of some parameters that could arise during the manufacturing or transport processes. Then, we identified parameters that control the response time (time to reach a non-pathogenic concentration) to guide the rational design of the system and of the device.
 
</p>
 
</p>
 
<h2><b>&rarr;</b> Sensitivity analysis methods and their results are described in <a href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:INSA-UPS_France/Model/Analysis">our model analysis page</a></h2>
 
<h2><b>&rarr;</b> Sensitivity analysis methods and their results are described in <a href="https://2017.igem.org/Team:INSA-UPS_France/Model/Analysis">our model analysis page</a></h2>

Revision as of 16:47, 18 October 2017

Simulation

Equations

The dynamics of our microbial consortium was summed up in twelve differential equations. Every biological or physical process was described mathematically, and was gathered to constitute our system of ODEs. For fearless people, our complete mathematical model and demonstration can be found there!

We need to characterize the growth and death of the three microorganisms: Vibrio cholerae (Vc) in water (W), Vibrio harveyi (Vh) and Pichia pastoris (Pp) in the device (D). \begin{equation} \frac{d[\textit{Vc}]_W}{dt} = V_{growth,Vc} - V_{death,Vc} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{d[\textit{Vh}]_D}{dt} = V_{growth,Vh} - V_{death,Vh} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{d[\textit{Pp}]_D}{dt} = V_{growth,Pp} - V_{death,Pp} \end{equation}

Microorganisms death is impacted by antimicrobial peptides production(AMPpeptide,Pp), produced by translation of antimicrobial peptides mRNA (AMPRNA). Peptides and mRNA are also degraded. \begin{equation} \frac{d[AMP_{RNA}]_{Pp}}{dt}=V_{transcription,AMP} - V_{degradation,AMP RNA} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{d[AMP_{peptide}]_{D}}{dt}=V_{translation,AMP} - V_{degradation,AMP} + \frac{V_{diff,AMP,W \to D}}{\mathcal{V}_D} \end{equation}

These peptides are transfered from the device (D) to water (W). \begin{equation} \frac{d[AMP]_W}{dt} = -V_{diff,AMP,W\to D} \end{equation}

To produce antimicrobial peptides, an activation by diacetyl (dac) is needed. Diacetyl can freely diffuse from the device (D) to water (W). \begin{equation} \frac{d[dac]_D}{dt}=V_{prod,dac}+\frac{V_{diff,dac,W \to D}}{\mathcal{V}_D} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{d[dac]_W}{dt}=- V_{diff,dac,W \to D} \end{equation}

Diacetyl is produced by the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALSenzyme). Als gene is first transcribed into ALSRNA, which is then translated into the protein. Both the enzyme and its mRNA can be degraded. \begin{equation} \frac{d[ALS_{RNA}]_{Vh}}{dt} = V_{transcription,ALS} - V_{degradation,ALS RNA} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{d[ALS_{enzyme}]_{Vh}}{dt} = V_{translation,ALS} - V_{degradation,ALSenzyme} \end{equation}

ALS production has to be activated by the quorum sensing molecule CAI-1, initially in water (W), after diffusing into the device (D). \begin{equation} \frac{d[CAI\text{-}1]_D}{dt} = \frac{V_{diff,CAI\text{-}1,W\to D}}{\mathcal{V}_D} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{d[CAI\text{-}1]_W}{dt} = -V_{diff,CAI\text{-}1,W\to D} \end{equation}

Data

Model parameters were mostly collected from publications, because a large part of the required data necessitates a complex set of hundreds of experiments that could not have been performed in the course of the project.

Name Notation Unit Value Reference
Vibrio cholerae maximum growth rate μMAX,Vc s-1 3.10-4 BioNumbers ID 112369 (1)
Leucrocine I MIC for V. cholerae MICLeucro,Vc mol/L 6.4.10-5 Pata et al., 2011 (2)
Leucrocine I MIC for V. harveyi MICLeucro,Vh mol/L 6.4.10-5 Pata et al., 2011 (2) - Extrapolation from V. cholerae result
Leucrocine I MIC for P. pastoris MICLeucro,Pp mol/L Assuming no effects on Pichia pastoris
Leucrocine I IC50 for V. cholerae MICLeucro,Vc mol/L 1.92.10-4 Considering IC50 = 3.MIC - Extrapolation of data from standard antibiotics (Farrag et al., 2015 (3))
Leucrocine I IC50 for V. harveyi IC50Leucro,Vh mol/L 1.92.10-4 Considering IC50 = 3.MIC - Extrapolation of data from standard antibiotics (Farrag et al., 2015 (3))
Leucrocine I IC50 for P. pastoris IC50Leucro,Pp mol/L Assuming no effects on Pichia pastoris
cOT2 MIC for V. cholerae MICcOT2,Vc mol/L 8.1.10-6 Prajanban et al., 2017 (4)
cOT2 MIC for V. harveyi MICcOT2,Vh mol/L 8.1.10-6 Prajanban et al., 2017 (4) - Extrapolation from V. cholerae result
cOT2 MIC for P. pastoris MICcOT2,Pp mol/L Assuming no effects on Pichia pastoris
cOT2 IC50 for V. cholerae IC50cOT2,Vc mol/L 2.43.10-5 Considering IC50 = 3.MIC - Extrapolation of data from standard antibiotics (Farrag et al., 2015 (3))
cOT2 IC50 for V. harveyi IC50cOT2,Vh mol/L 2.43.10-5 Considering IC50 = 3.MIC - Extrapolation of data from standard antibiotics (Farrag et al., 2015 (3))
cOT2 IC50 for P. pastoris IC50cOT2,Pp mol/L Assuming no effects on Pichia pastoris
D-NY15 MIC for V. cholerae MICD-NY15,Vc mol/L 1.54.10-5 Yaraksa et al., 2014 (5)
D-NY15 MIC for V. harveyi MICD-NY15,Vh mol/L 1.54.10-5 Yaraksa et al., 2014 (5) - Extrapolation from V. cholerae result
D-NY15 MIC for P. pastoris MICD-NY15,Pp mol/L Assuming no effects on Pichia pastoris
D-NY15 IC50 for V. cholerae IC50D-NY15,Vc mol/L 4.62.10-5 Considering IC50 = 3.MIC - Extrapolation of data from standard antibiotics (Farrag et al., 2015 (3))
D-NY15 IC50 for V. harveyi IC50D-NY15,Vh mol/L 4.62.10-5 Considering IC50 = 3.MIC - Extrapolation of data from standard antibiotics (Farrag et al., 2015 (3))
D-NY15 IC50 for P. pastoris IC50D-NY15,Pp mol/L Assuming no effects on Pichia pastoris
V. cholerae death rate with AMP kkill,Vc s-1 3.10-3 Yaraksa et al., 2014 (5)
V. harveyi death rate with AMP kkill,Vh s-1 3.10-3 Extrapolation from Yaraksa et al., 2014 (5)
P. pastoris death rate with AMP kkill,Pp s-1 0 Assuming no effects
Transfer coefficient through the membrane K s-1 1 Arbitrary value
Number of als gene per cell alsDNA,0 Nb/cell 15 Considering a low copy plasmid (6)
Number of AMP gene per cell AMPDNA,0 Nb/cell 1 Protocol: genomic integration
V. harveyi transcription rate ktranscript,Vh nt/s 30 Molecular Biology course, Transcription - Faculté des Sciences - Rabat (7)
Vibrio harveyi transcription rate ktranslation,Vh nt/s 15 Molecular Biology course, Translation - Faculté des Sciences - Rabat (8)
als gene promoter influence kP,als / 1 Inductible promoter
AMP gene promoter influence kP,AMP / 1 Inductible promoter
mRNA degradation constant Kdeg,mRNA s-1 5.10-3 Esquerré et al., 2015 (9)
als gene length DNA length nucleotides 1662 UniProtKB - Q7DAV2 (10)
als mRNA length RNA length nucleotides 1730 Parts design
Number of CqsS* receptor per cell CqsS*/cell Nb/cell 1015 Arbitrary value
Number of Odr10 receptor per cell Odr10/cell Nb/cell 1015 Arbitrary value
Pichia pastoris transcription rate ktranscript,Pp nt/s 50 Molecular Biology course - INSA Toulouse(11)
Pichia pastoris translation rate ktranslation,Pp nt/s 48 Molecular Biology course, Translation - Faculté des Sciences - Rabat (8)
AMP gene length DNA length nucleotides 360 Parts design
AMP mRNA length RNA length nucleotides 651 Parts design
Vibrio cholerae minimal pathogenic concentration [Vc]pathogenic cell/L 4.104 Medical Microbiology 4th edition (12)
CAI-1 initial concentration [CAI-1]0 mol/L 1.10-5 Ng et al., 2011 (13)
Michaelis-Menten constant of acetolactate synthase KM,ALS mol/L 1.36.10-2 Atsumi et al., 2009 (14)
Catalytic rate constant of acetolactate synthase kcat,ALS s-1 1.21.102 Atsumi et al., 2009 (14)
Degradation constant of acetolactate synthase Kdeg,ALS s-1 0 Assuming a negligeable value in our conditions
Degradation constant of antimicrobial peptides Kdeg,AMP s-1 0 Aleinein et al., 2013 (15)
Activation constant of CqsS*-CAI-1 complex Ka,CqsS*-CAI-1 mol/L 3.6.10-8 Ng et al., 2011 (13)
High Vibrio cholerae concentration in water [Vc]0 cell/L 107 Huq et al., 1984 (16)
Dry weight of a bacterial cell DWVh pg/cell 0.28 BioNumbers ID 100008
Volume of a bacterial cell Vintra,Vh μm3 1 BioNumbers ID 100004
Volume of a yeast cell Vintra,Pp μm3 66 BioNumbers ID 100452
Dry weight of a yeast cell DWPp pg/cell 18.48 Estimation from yeast cell volume and ratio dry weight/volume for a bacterial cell
Ribosome density on a yeast cell Nb/kb 6.5 BioNumbers ID 103026
Number of ribosome on AMP mRNA Ribosome/RNA Nb/RNA 2.34 Deduced from ribosome density and mRNA length
RNA polymerase density on a yeast gene Nb/kb 6.5 BioNumbers ID 103026
Number of RNA polymerase on AMP DNA RNA polymerase/DNA Nb/DNA 4.95 BioNumbers ID 108308
Ribosome density on a bacterial mRNA Nb/kb 6.6 BioNumbers ID 107727
Number of ribosome on als mRNA Ribosomes/RNA Nb/RNA 11 Deduced from ribosome density and mRNA length
RNA polymerase density on a bacterial gene Nb/kb 7.6 Assuming the same density than yeast (BioNumbers ID 108308)
Number of RNA polymerase on als DNA RNA Polymerase/DNA Nb/DNA 13 Deduced from RNA polymerase density and DNA length
Pyruvate concentration in a bacterial cell [S] mol/L 3.9.10-4 BioNumbers ID 101192

Some preliminary experimental results were also expoited to refine important parameters of the model. Indeed, we needed an experimental estimation of the growth rate of the two chassis microorganisms grown on a common medium.

Name Notation Unit Value Reference
Vibrio harveyi JMH626 maximum growth rate μMAX,Vh s-1 2.10-4 Experiment - 21/06/17
Pichia pastoris SMD1168 maximum growth rate μMAX,Pp s-1 4.10-5 Experiment - 21/06/17
Vibrio cholerae lag time tl,Vc s 1800 Experiment - 21/06/17, extrapolation from V. harveyi growth
Vibrio harveyi lag time tl,Pp s 1800 Experiment - 21/06/17
Pichia pastoris lag time tl,Pp s 14 400 Experiment - 21/06/17

Solver

The system of ODEs was solved using Matlab R2017a, thanks to the free offer from iGEM. We used the ode15s solver, which was in this situation more efficient than the ode45s solver, very likely because the different time scales between some processes (e.g. growth vs signalling) rendered the problem partially stiff.(17)

You can freely re-use our code: General_resolution + System_of_ODEs.

Simulation results

At the beginning of the project, we needed to know if our microbial synthetic consortium would work and if the information transmission was possible. So we used our system of ODEs and our solver to have a first estimation of the functioning of our synthetic system.

Design parameters, such as Vibrio harveyi and Pichia pastoris initial concentration and the device volume, were set to biologically plausible values.

  • [Vh]0,D = 1012 cell/L (OD600nm ≈ 1.5 (18))
  • [Pp]0,D = 1012 cell/L (OD600nm ≈ 1.5 (18))
  • VD = 20.10-3 L

Temporal evolution of Vibrio cholerae concentration under realistic conditions (device size, initial concentrations in the device)

This simulation confirmed the feasibility of our project: our microbial consortium would be enough effective to detect the presence of V. cholerae, transmit this information and, in response, produce enough antimicrobial peptides to kill V. cholerae. The response time to reach a non-pathogenic concentration is estimated to 53.6 min.

Evolution of the twelve variables constituing our ODEs system

This visual representation of the system's dynamics allows us to check that every variables evolves in a realistic range of concentrations, hence indicating the model predicts a consistent behaviour. Further analyses were then perfomed to evaluate the sensibility and robustness of the synthetic system. We first tested whether the system would be robust to the variation of some parameters that could arise during the manufacturing or transport processes. Then, we identified parameters that control the response time (time to reach a non-pathogenic concentration) to guide the rational design of the system and of the device.

Sensitivity analysis methods and their results are described in our model analysis page

References

  • (1): Milo R, Jorgensen P, Moran U, Weber G, Springer M. BioNumbers—the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(suppl 1):D750–D753 http://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/
  • (2): Pata S, Yaraksa N, Daduang S, Temsiripong Y, Svasti J, Araki T, Thammasirirak S, Characterization of the novel antibacterial peptide Leucrocin from crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) white blood cell extracts. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 2011, 35, 545–553
  • (3): Farrag A, Elsehrawi H, Younes A, Synthesis, Antimicrobial Evaluation and Docking Study of Novel Heterocyclic Compounds Bearing a Biologically Active Sulfonamide Moiety. J. Pharm. Appl. Chem. 2015, 1, No. 1, 27-35
  • (4): Prajanban B, Jangpromma N, Araki T, Klaynongsruang S, Antimicrobial effects of novel peptides cOT2 and sOT2 derived from Crocodylus siamensis and Pelodiscus sinensis ovotransferrins. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1859. 2017, 860–869
  • (5): Yaraksa N, Anunthawan T, Theansungnoen T, Daduang S, Araki T, Apisak D, Sompong T, Design and synthesis of cationic antibacterial peptide based on Leucrocin I sequence, antibacterial peptide from crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis) white blood cell extracts. Journal of Antibiotics. Mar 2014, Tokyo 67.: 205-212.
  • (6): QIAGEN, Origins of replication and copy numbers of various plasmids and cosmids In: Growth Of Bacterial Cultures, 2013 - 2017. https://www.qiagen.com/dk/resources/technologies/plasmid-resource-center/growth%20of%20bacterial%20cultures/
  • (7): Belkadi B, Expression génétique - Transcription In: Biologie Moléculaire, Faculté des Sciences - Rabat, 2010-2011. http://www.fsr.ac.ma/cours/biologie/BELKADI/transcription.pdf
  • (8): Belkadi B, Expression génétique - Traduction In: Biologie Moléculaire, Faculté des Sciences - Rabat, 2009-2010. http://www.fsr.ac.ma/cours/biologie/BELKADI/traduction.pdf
  • (9): Esquerre T, Moisan A, Chiapello H, Arike L, Vilu R, Gaspin C, Cocaign-Bousquet M, Girbal L, Genome-wide investigation of mRNA lifetime determinants in Escherichia coli cells cultured at different growth rates. BMC Genomics. 2015, 16, 275, doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1482-8
  • (10): UNIPROT, Q7DAV2, Alpha-acetolactate synthase - Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis (strain IL1403) : http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/Q7DAV2
  • (11): Capp JP, Chap.3 : Transcription In: Cours de Biologie Moléculaire, INSA Toulouse, 2016
  • (12): Baron S, editor. Medical Microbiology. 4th edition. Galveston (TX): University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston; 1996.
  • (13): Ng WL, Perez LJ, Wei Y, Kraml C, Semmelhack MF, Bassler BL, Signal production and detection specificity in Vibrio CqsA/CqsS quorum-sensing systems. Mol. Microbiol. 2011, 79: 1407–1417.
  • (14): Atsumi S, Li Z, Liao JC, Acetolactate synthase from Bacillus subtilis serves as a 2-ketoisovalerate decarboxylase for isobutanol biosynthesis in Escherichia coli. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009a, 75:6306–6311
  • (15): Aleinein R.A., Schäfer H., Wink M., Secretory ranalexin produced in recombinant Pichia pastoris exhibits additive bactericidal activity when used in combination with polymyxin B or linezolid against multi-drug resistant bacteria. Biotechnol. J. 2014, 9, 110–119.
  • (16): Huq A., West, P. A., Small, E. B., Huq, M. I., and Colwell, R. R., Influence of water temperature, salinity and pH on survival and growth of toxigenic Vibrio cholerae serovar O1 associated with live copepods in laboratory microcosms, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1984, 48: 420–424.
  • (17): MATHWORKS, Basic Solver Selection In: Choose an ODE Solver: https://fr.mathworks.com/help/matlab/math/choose-an-ode-solver.html
  • (18): AGILENT. E. coli Cell Culture Concentration from OD600 Calculator http://www.genomics.agilent.com/biocalculators/calcODBacterial.jsp