Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
D
Duke
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Model registry
Analyze
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
2023 Competition
Duke
Commits
12b68f2f
Commit
12b68f2f
authored
1 year ago
by
Alexander Diefes
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
Edited success rates section
parent
352517fb
No related branches found
Branches containing commit
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Pipeline
#339135
passed
1 year ago
Stage: build
Stage: deploy
Changes
1
Pipelines
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
wiki/pages/model.html
+6
-6
6 additions, 6 deletions
wiki/pages/model.html
with
6 additions
and
6 deletions
wiki/pages/model.html
+
6
−
6
View file @
12b68f2f
...
...
@@ -781,12 +781,12 @@
<p>
With its current construction, the model implies that the process goes
to completion; that is, both ligand-dependent and ligand-independent
pathways successfully yield a released transcription factor for every
pathways successfully yield a released transcription factor for every
synNotch
receptor. The current parameters that represent these processes only
influence the time-scales on which they occur. However, we know this not
to be true. There exist experimental data that show a certain proportion
of antibody ectodomain expression in the absence of ligand (
Roybal
et
al., 2016;
Morsut
et al., 2016). Thus, there must be success terms
of antibody ectodomain expression in the absence of ligand (
Morsut
et
al., 2016;
Roybal
et al., 2016). Thus, there must be success terms
implemented somewhere in this process, since the activation pathways do
not release all transcription factor. We introduce success rates for
both ligand-dependent and ligand-independent activation in our model. To
...
...
@@ -804,7 +804,7 @@
<p>
We use the following table to outline our procedure:
</p>
<table>
<tr>
<th>
"ligand concentration
</th>
<th>
"ligand concentration
"
</th>
<th>
mCherry response (relative to total)
</th>
<th>
Linear relationship between \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\)
</th>
<th>
Parameter space of \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\)
</th>
...
...
@@ -816,14 +816,14 @@
<td>
\[(\alpha, \beta) \in (0.67, 1) \times (0.50, 1)\]
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
\[
$
10^
0
= 1
$
\]
</td>
<td>
\[10^
{0}
= 1\]
</td>
<td>
50%
</td>
<td>
\[\beta = -4.54 \alpha + 2.77\]
</td>
<td>
\[(\alpha, \beta) \in (0.39, 0.61) \times (0, 1)\]
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
\[10^{0.5} = 3.162\]
</td>
<td>
75
&
</td>
<td>
75
%
</td>
<td>
\[\beta = -14.18 \alpha + 3.79\]
</td>
<td>
\[(\alpha, \beta) \in (0.20, 0.27) \times (0, 1)\]
</td>
</tr>
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment