Team:CIDEB-UANL Mexico/math union

From 2014hs.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 342: Line 342:
<div class="container-text">
<div class="container-text">
-
<p>The union module is based in the use of a fusion protein composed by L2 and AIDA. L2+AIDA is a protein which is not affected by external factors during its transcription as well as its translation, so we need to use the stablished parameters but with the data we obtained from it:
+
<p>The union module is based in the use of a fusion protein composed by L2 and AIDA. L2+AIDA is a protein which is not affected by external factors during its transcription as well as its translation, so we need to use the stablished parameters but with the data we obtained from it:<br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large \frac{d\left [ mRNA \right ]}{dt}= \alpha_{1}-\left [ mRNA \right ]
\large \frac{d\left [ mRNA \right ]}{dt}= \alpha_{1}-\left [ mRNA \right ]
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
-
</p>
+
</p><br>
-
<p>We used the parameters for translation and transcription rate from Singapore 2008 iGEM team as well as the speeds at which <i>E. coli</i> carry out transcription and translation assuming a transcription speed of <i>(70nt/s)</i> and a translation speed of <i>(40aa/s)</i>. So we used them in the equations below with the L2+AIDA gene length <i>(2620nt)</i> and protein length (856aa) respectively:
+
<p>We used the parameters for translation and transcription rate from Singapore 2008 iGEM team as well as the speeds at which <i>E. coli</i> carry out transcription and translation assuming a transcription speed of <i>(70nt/s)</i> and a translation speed of <i>(40aa/s)</i>. So we used them in the equations below with the L2+AIDA gene length <i>(2620nt)</i> and protein length (856aa) respectively:<br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large    \alpha_{1} =  \frac{transcription speed}{gene length \cdot(nt)}
\large    \alpha_{1} =  \frac{transcription speed}{gene length \cdot(nt)}
\large    \alpha_{2} =  \frac{translation speed}{protein length \cdot(aa)}
\large    \alpha_{2} =  \frac{translation speed}{protein length \cdot(aa)}
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
 +
<br>
<br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
Line 361: Line 362:
</p>
</p>
-
<p>Then, we use the parameters for degradation rates for proteins and mRNAs from Beijing PKU 2009 iGEM team:</p>
+
<p>Then, we use the parameters for degradation rates for proteins and mRNAs from Beijing PKU 2009 iGEM team:</p><br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large    d_{1} =  \frac{1}{half-life} + \frac{1}{30} \cdot(min)
\large    d_{1} =  \frac{1}{half-life} + \frac{1}{30} \cdot(min)
-
\end{equation}
+
\end{equation}<br>
 +
 
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large    d_{2} =  \frac{1}{half-life} + \frac{1}{30} \cdot(min)
\large    d_{2} =  \frac{1}{half-life} + \frac{1}{30} \cdot(min)
-
\end{equation}
+
\end{equation}<br>
<p>As the protein was the fusion of two we need to search for each half-life. The half-life of membrane proteins range between 2 to 20 hours in <i>E. coli</i> (Hare, 1991), and as AIDA-I is a membrane protein its half-life must be between that range since it is not determined the specific half-life of AIDA.  To find the half-life of L2 we assumed it was 7.8 hours (Bergant, 2010). Bergant’s team made test with a homologous protein but found in the minor capsid of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Although the function of the L2 strand in HPV is viral, and in <i>E. coli</i> is ribosomal, both share similar structures and sequences. Once we have decided to use the half-life from the homologous L2 we determined to use it as the half-life for the fusion protein because it was between the range of AIDA-I, and also because it was the lower half-life assuming as <i>E. coli</i> start the L2 degradation, it would degrade the whole protein.</p>
<p>As the protein was the fusion of two we need to search for each half-life. The half-life of membrane proteins range between 2 to 20 hours in <i>E. coli</i> (Hare, 1991), and as AIDA-I is a membrane protein its half-life must be between that range since it is not determined the specific half-life of AIDA.  To find the half-life of L2 we assumed it was 7.8 hours (Bergant, 2010). Bergant’s team made test with a homologous protein but found in the minor capsid of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Although the function of the L2 strand in HPV is viral, and in <i>E. coli</i> is ribosomal, both share similar structures and sequences. Once we have decided to use the half-life from the homologous L2 we determined to use it as the half-life for the fusion protein because it was between the range of AIDA-I, and also because it was the lower half-life assuming as <i>E. coli</i> start the L2 degradation, it would degrade the whole protein.</p>
-
<p>For determining the degradation rate of average mRNA we used the information from Selinger’s team (2003). They carried several experiments for finding average mRNA half-life in <i>E. coli</i>. They used mRNAs about 1100 bp concluding they have an average half-life of 5min. So with this we found the average mRNA half-life of L2+AIDA was 11.9 min.</p>
+
<p>For determining the degradation rate of average mRNA we used the information from Selinger’s team (2003). They carried several experiments for finding average mRNA half-life in <i>E. coli</i>. They used mRNAs about 1100 bp concluding they have an average half-life of 5min. So with this we found the average mRNA half-life of L2+AIDA was 11.9 min.</p><br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
Line 378: Line 380:
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
-
<p>With all these information we could find the degradation rates for both transcription and translation ofL2+AIDA
+
<br><p>With all these information we could find the degradation rates for both transcription and translation ofL2+AIDA
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large    d_{1} =  \frac{1}{11.9} + \frac{1}{30} = 0.11
\large    d_{1} =  \frac{1}{11.9} + \frac{1}{30} = 0.11
-
\end{equation}
+
\end{equation}<br>
 +
 
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large    d_{2} =  \frac{1}{468} + \frac{1}{30} = 0.035
\large    d_{2} =  \frac{1}{468} + \frac{1}{30} = 0.035
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
-
</p>
+
</p><br>
<p>For the simulation we used Simbiology using the previous data in the equations for finding the amount of proteins <i>E. coli</i> would produce at certain time.  The simulation find out the next graph as the result.</p>
<p>For the simulation we used Simbiology using the previous data in the equations for finding the amount of proteins <i>E. coli</i> would produce at certain time.  The simulation find out the next graph as the result.</p>
-
<center><p><img width=535 src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014hs/0/05/Aida_total.png"
+
<br><center><p><img width=535 src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014hs/0/05/Aida_total.png"
align=center hspace=12 alt="IMG_0317"></p></center>
align=center hspace=12 alt="IMG_0317"></p></center>
-
<p>But for translation there was another factor we had to consider, the <b><i>“f<sub>post</sub>”</i></b> which were the posttranslational variables affecting the production of the functional protein:
+
<br><p>But for translation there was another factor we had to consider, the <b><i>“f<sub>post</sub>”</i></b> which were the posttranslational variables affecting the production of the functional protein:<br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large \frac{d[P]}{dt} = \alpha_{2} \cdot[mRNA] - d_{2}[P] - f_{post}
\large \frac{d[P]}{dt} = \alpha_{2} \cdot[mRNA] - d_{2}[P] - f_{post}
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
-
</p>
+
</p><br>
<p>As the fusion protein needs to be expressed in the membrane of <i>E. coli</i>, we needed to find the average velocity at which <i>E. coli</i> exports its proteins. The process by which bacteria exports its proteins are divided into three phases, the “breathing” between translation and the second phase, which is movement of a protein to the membrane and translocation; in this phase the protein attaches to the membrane of bacteria (Peskin, 1991). Using this information, we found <i>E. coli</i> completes these phases in an average of 5 to 6 min depending on the protein size (Driessen, 1990). We determined to use 5.5min because L2+AIDA are not too small or too big in length <i>(2620nt)</i>.</p>
<p>As the fusion protein needs to be expressed in the membrane of <i>E. coli</i>, we needed to find the average velocity at which <i>E. coli</i> exports its proteins. The process by which bacteria exports its proteins are divided into three phases, the “breathing” between translation and the second phase, which is movement of a protein to the membrane and translocation; in this phase the protein attaches to the membrane of bacteria (Peskin, 1991). Using this information, we found <i>E. coli</i> completes these phases in an average of 5 to 6 min depending on the protein size (Driessen, 1990). We determined to use 5.5min because L2+AIDA are not too small or too big in length <i>(2620nt)</i>.</p>
Line 403: Line 406:
<p>According to Ikeda y Kuroda (2011) L2 carries out an unfolding process to become functional. We found that the 50S ribosomal proteins L2, L3, L14, L23, L24, and L32, as well as the 30S ribosomal proteins S12 and S18 were native premolten globules in their free forms but adopted rigid well-folded conformations during the formation of a functional ribosome. They exhibit some amount of ordered secondary structure; the unfolding of a protein molecule results in an essential increase in its hydrodynamic volume. For instance, there is a well-documented 15–20% increase in the hydrodynamic radius of globular proteins upon their transformation into the molten globule state (Unversky, 2002). Also, we used the equation from Unversky to find the L2 unfolding rate in <i>E. coli</i> which is shown below:
<p>According to Ikeda y Kuroda (2011) L2 carries out an unfolding process to become functional. We found that the 50S ribosomal proteins L2, L3, L14, L23, L24, and L32, as well as the 30S ribosomal proteins S12 and S18 were native premolten globules in their free forms but adopted rigid well-folded conformations during the formation of a functional ribosome. They exhibit some amount of ordered secondary structure; the unfolding of a protein molecule results in an essential increase in its hydrodynamic volume. For instance, there is a well-documented 15–20% increase in the hydrodynamic radius of globular proteins upon their transformation into the molten globule state (Unversky, 2002). Also, we used the equation from Unversky to find the L2 unfolding rate in <i>E. coli</i> which is shown below:
-
\begin{equation}
+
<br>\begin{equation}
\large  [H]boundary = \frac{[R]+1.51}{2.785}
\large  [H]boundary = \frac{[R]+1.51}{2.785}
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
-
</p>
+
</p><br>
-
<p>This equation gives the estimation of the "boundary" mean hydrophobicity value, <b><i>“[H]boundary”</i></b>, below which a polypeptide chain with a given net charge <b><i>“[R]”</i></b> will most probably be unfolded. Thus, sequences of natively unfolded proteins may be characterized by a low sequence complexity and/or high net charge coupled with low mean hydrophobicity.  The values are specified for globular proteins. According to Ikeda and Kuroda (2011) the net charge <b><i>“[R]”</i></b> of L2 is 10.9, so we substituted it in the equation:
+
<p>This equation gives the estimation of the "boundary" mean hydrophobicity value, <b><i>“[H]boundary”</i></b>, below which a polypeptide chain with a given net charge <b><i>“[R]”</i></b> will most probably be unfolded. Thus, sequences of natively unfolded proteins may be characterized by a low sequence complexity and/or high net charge coupled with low mean hydrophobicity.  The values are specified for globular proteins. According to Ikeda and Kuroda (2011) the net charge <b><i>“[R]”</i></b> of L2 is 10.9, so we substituted it in the equation:<br>
\begin{equation}
\begin{equation}
\large  [H]boundary = \frac{10.9 + 1.51}{2.785} = 4.45
\large  [H]boundary = \frac{10.9 + 1.51}{2.785} = 4.45
\end{equation}
\end{equation}
-
</p>
+
</p><br>
<p>With the unfolding value and the rate of membrane transport in <i>E. coli</i> we could use it in Simbiology for modelling the functional L2+AIDA production. The results are shown next:</p>
<p>With the unfolding value and the rate of membrane transport in <i>E. coli</i> we could use it in Simbiology for modelling the functional L2+AIDA production. The results are shown next:</p>
Line 421: Line 424:
<center><p><img width=540 src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014hs/1/16/Nonfunctional_irre.png"
<center><p><img width=540 src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2014hs/1/16/Nonfunctional_irre.png"
-
align=center hspace=12 alt="IMG_0317"></p></center>
+
align=center hspace=12 alt="IMG_0317"></p></center><br>
<p>Comparing both graphs (<b>Graph 1</b> and <b>Graph 2</b>) we realize that although <i>E. coli</i> needs to transport the L2+AIDA proteins to its membrane, the rate at which <i>E. coli</i> does it is slower than the production of the fusion protein, but one thing we noticed and was great is that according to Simbiology, almost all the proteins once they are inserted in the membrane unfold correctly leaving less than 25 nonfunctional proteins.</p>
<p>Comparing both graphs (<b>Graph 1</b> and <b>Graph 2</b>) we realize that although <i>E. coli</i> needs to transport the L2+AIDA proteins to its membrane, the rate at which <i>E. coli</i> does it is slower than the production of the fusion protein, but one thing we noticed and was great is that according to Simbiology, almost all the proteins once they are inserted in the membrane unfold correctly leaving less than 25 nonfunctional proteins.</p>
Line 433: Line 436:
<p>● Martina Bergant, N. M. (2010). Modification of Human Papillomavirus Minor Capsid Protein L2 by Sumoylation. <i>Journal of Virology</i>, 11585-11589.</p>
<p>● Martina Bergant, N. M. (2010). Modification of Human Papillomavirus Minor Capsid Protein L2 by Sumoylation. <i>Journal of Virology</i>, 11585-11589.</p>
<p>● Takeshi Ikeda, A. K. (2011). Why does the silica-binding protein "Si-tag" bind strongly to silica surfaces? Implications of conformational adaptation of the intrinsically disordered polypeptide to soli surfaces. <i>Colloids and Surfaces</i>, 359-363.</p>
<p>● Takeshi Ikeda, A. K. (2011). Why does the silica-binding protein "Si-tag" bind strongly to silica surfaces? Implications of conformational adaptation of the intrinsically disordered polypeptide to soli surfaces. <i>Colloids and Surfaces</i>, 359-363.</p>
-
<p>● Uversky, V. (2002). Natively unfolded proteins: A point where biology waits for physics. <i>Protein Science</i>, 739-756.</p>
+
<p>● Uversky, V. (2002). Natively unfolded proteins: A point where biology waits for physics. <i>Protein Science</i>, 739-756.</p><br>
<div style="text-align: right;"><a href="https://2014hs.igem.org/Team:CIDEB-UANL_Mexico/math_union#"><font color="blue">Return to the Top</font></a></p></div>
<div style="text-align: right;"><a href="https://2014hs.igem.org/Team:CIDEB-UANL_Mexico/math_union#"><font color="blue">Return to the Top</font></a></p></div>

Revision as of 06:18, 15 June 2014

iGEM CIDEB 2014 - Project

Union Module

The union module is based in the use of a fusion protein composed by L2 and AIDA. L2+AIDA is a protein which is not affected by external factors during its transcription as well as its translation, so we need to use the stablished parameters but with the data we obtained from it:
\begin{equation} \large \frac{d\left [ mRNA \right ]}{dt}= \alpha_{1}-\left [ mRNA \right ] \end{equation}


We used the parameters for translation and transcription rate from Singapore 2008 iGEM team as well as the speeds at which E. coli carry out transcription and translation assuming a transcription speed of (70nt/s) and a translation speed of (40aa/s). So we used them in the equations below with the L2+AIDA gene length (2620nt) and protein length (856aa) respectively:
\begin{equation} \large \alpha_{1} = \frac{transcription speed}{gene length \cdot(nt)} \large \alpha_{2} = \frac{translation speed}{protein length \cdot(aa)} \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \large \alpha_{1} = \frac{(70)(60)}{2620} = 1.6 \large \alpha_{2} = \frac{(40)(60)}{856} = 2.8 \end{equation}

Then, we use the parameters for degradation rates for proteins and mRNAs from Beijing PKU 2009 iGEM team:


\begin{equation} \large d_{1} = \frac{1}{half-life} + \frac{1}{30} \cdot(min) \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \large d_{2} = \frac{1}{half-life} + \frac{1}{30} \cdot(min) \end{equation}

As the protein was the fusion of two we need to search for each half-life. The half-life of membrane proteins range between 2 to 20 hours in E. coli (Hare, 1991), and as AIDA-I is a membrane protein its half-life must be between that range since it is not determined the specific half-life of AIDA. To find the half-life of L2 we assumed it was 7.8 hours (Bergant, 2010). Bergant’s team made test with a homologous protein but found in the minor capsid of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV). Although the function of the L2 strand in HPV is viral, and in E. coli is ribosomal, both share similar structures and sequences. Once we have decided to use the half-life from the homologous L2 we determined to use it as the half-life for the fusion protein because it was between the range of AIDA-I, and also because it was the lower half-life assuming as E. coli start the L2 degradation, it would degrade the whole protein.

For determining the degradation rate of average mRNA we used the information from Selinger’s team (2003). They carried several experiments for finding average mRNA half-life in E. coli. They used mRNAs about 1100 bp concluding they have an average half-life of 5min. So with this we found the average mRNA half-life of L2+AIDA was 11.9 min.


\begin{equation} \large HL = \frac{1100 \cdot(nt)}{5 min} \end{equation}

With all these information we could find the degradation rates for both transcription and translation ofL2+AIDA \begin{equation} \large d_{1} = \frac{1}{11.9} + \frac{1}{30} = 0.11 \end{equation}
\begin{equation} \large d_{2} = \frac{1}{468} + \frac{1}{30} = 0.035 \end{equation}


For the simulation we used Simbiology using the previous data in the equations for finding the amount of proteins E. coli would produce at certain time. The simulation find out the next graph as the result.


IMG_0317


But for translation there was another factor we had to consider, the “fpost which were the posttranslational variables affecting the production of the functional protein:
\begin{equation} \large \frac{d[P]}{dt} = \alpha_{2} \cdot[mRNA] - d_{2}[P] - f_{post} \end{equation}


As the fusion protein needs to be expressed in the membrane of E. coli, we needed to find the average velocity at which E. coli exports its proteins. The process by which bacteria exports its proteins are divided into three phases, the “breathing” between translation and the second phase, which is movement of a protein to the membrane and translocation; in this phase the protein attaches to the membrane of bacteria (Peskin, 1991). Using this information, we found E. coli completes these phases in an average of 5 to 6 min depending on the protein size (Driessen, 1990). We determined to use 5.5min because L2+AIDA are not too small or too big in length (2620nt).

According to Ikeda y Kuroda (2011) L2 carries out an unfolding process to become functional. We found that the 50S ribosomal proteins L2, L3, L14, L23, L24, and L32, as well as the 30S ribosomal proteins S12 and S18 were native premolten globules in their free forms but adopted rigid well-folded conformations during the formation of a functional ribosome. They exhibit some amount of ordered secondary structure; the unfolding of a protein molecule results in an essential increase in its hydrodynamic volume. For instance, there is a well-documented 15–20% increase in the hydrodynamic radius of globular proteins upon their transformation into the molten globule state (Unversky, 2002). Also, we used the equation from Unversky to find the L2 unfolding rate in E. coli which is shown below:
\begin{equation} \large [H]boundary = \frac{[R]+1.51}{2.785} \end{equation}


This equation gives the estimation of the "boundary" mean hydrophobicity value, “[H]boundary”, below which a polypeptide chain with a given net charge “[R]” will most probably be unfolded. Thus, sequences of natively unfolded proteins may be characterized by a low sequence complexity and/or high net charge coupled with low mean hydrophobicity. The values are specified for globular proteins. According to Ikeda and Kuroda (2011) the net charge “[R]” of L2 is 10.9, so we substituted it in the equation:
\begin{equation} \large [H]boundary = \frac{10.9 + 1.51}{2.785} = 4.45 \end{equation}


With the unfolding value and the rate of membrane transport in E. coli we could use it in Simbiology for modelling the functional L2+AIDA production. The results are shown next:

IMG_0317

IMG_0317


Comparing both graphs (Graph 1 and Graph 2) we realize that although E. coli needs to transport the L2+AIDA proteins to its membrane, the rate at which E. coli does it is slower than the production of the fusion protein, but one thing we noticed and was great is that according to Simbiology, almost all the proteins once they are inserted in the membrane unfold correctly leaving less than 25 nonfunctional proteins.


Bibliography

● Arnold Driessen, W. W. (1990). Proton transfer rate-limiting for translocation of precursor proteins by the Escherichia coli translocase. Biochemistry, 2471-2475.

● Charles Peskin, S. S. (1991). What drives the translocation of proteins. Biophysics, 3770-3774.

● Douglas Selinger, R. M. (2003). Global RNA Half-Life Analysis in Escherichia coli Reveals Positional Patterns of Transcript Degradation. Genome Research, 216-223.

● James Hare, K. T. (1991). Mechanisms of plasma membrane protein degradation: Recycling proteins are degraded more rapidly than those confined to the cell surface. PNAS, 5902-5906.

● Martina Bergant, N. M. (2010). Modification of Human Papillomavirus Minor Capsid Protein L2 by Sumoylation. Journal of Virology, 11585-11589.

● Takeshi Ikeda, A. K. (2011). Why does the silica-binding protein "Si-tag" bind strongly to silica surfaces? Implications of conformational adaptation of the intrinsically disordered polypeptide to soli surfaces. Colloids and Surfaces, 359-363.

● Uversky, V. (2002). Natively unfolded proteins: A point where biology waits for physics. Protein Science, 739-756.


iGEM CIDEB 2014 - Footer