ENH integrate new appendices
This commit is contained in:
parent
fe9a57d519
commit
75b1b9e588
|
@ -1558,16 +1558,15 @@ quantified for \gls{stp} protein using the \gls{bca} assay.
|
||||||
% TODO defend why the microcarriers were saturated with stp
|
% TODO defend why the microcarriers were saturated with stp
|
||||||
The effective diffusivity of the microcarriers was determined using a
|
The effective diffusivity of the microcarriers was determined using a
|
||||||
pseudo-steady-state model. Each microcarrier was assumed to be a porous sphere
|
pseudo-steady-state model. Each microcarrier was assumed to be a porous sphere
|
||||||
with a fixed number of `\gls{stp} binding sites' equal to the maximum number of
|
with a fixed number of `\gls{stp} binding sites' equal to the number of
|
||||||
\gls{stp} molecules that could binding to the surface per area (eg, we assumed
|
\gls{stp} molecules experimentally determined to bind to the microcarriers.
|
||||||
the surface was fully covered by \gls{stp}). Because the reaction rate between
|
Because the reaction rate between biotin and \gls{stp} was so fast, we assumed
|
||||||
biotin and \gls{stp} was so fast, we assumed that the interface of free biotin
|
that the interface of free biotin shrunk as a function of \gls{stp} bound until
|
||||||
shrunk as a function of \gls{stp} bound until the center of the microcarriers
|
the center of the microcarriers was reached. We also assumed that the pores in
|
||||||
was reached. We also assumed that the pores in the microcarriers were large
|
the microcarriers were large enough that the interactions between the \gls{stp}
|
||||||
enough that the interactions between the \gls{stp} and surfaces would be small,
|
and surfaces would be small, thus the apparent diffusivity could be represented
|
||||||
thus the apparent diffusivity could be represented as a fraction of the
|
as a fraction of the diffusion coefficient of \gls{stp} in water. This model was
|
||||||
diffusion coefficient of \gls{stp} in water. This model was given by
|
given by \cref{eqn:stp_diffision_1,eqn:stp_diffision_2}:
|
||||||
\cref{eqn:stp_diffision_1,eqn:stp_diffision_2}:
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% TODO actually derive these equations, eg state the initial conditions and
|
% TODO actually derive these equations, eg state the initial conditions and
|
||||||
% governing equation
|
% governing equation
|
||||||
|
@ -1598,15 +1597,23 @@ diffusion coefficient of \gls{stp} in water. This model was given by
|
||||||
The diffusion rate of \gls{stp} was assumed to be
|
The diffusion rate of \gls{stp} was assumed to be
|
||||||
\SI{6.2e-7}{\cm\squared\per\second}\cite{Kamholz2001}. Since all but $\beta$ was
|
\SI{6.2e-7}{\cm\squared\per\second}\cite{Kamholz2001}. Since all but $\beta$ was
|
||||||
known, the experimental data was fit using these equations using
|
known, the experimental data was fit using these equations using
|
||||||
\inlinecode{ode45} in MATLAB and least squares as the fitting error. These equations were then used analogously to describe the reaction profile of
|
\inlinecode{ode45} in MATLAB and least squares as the fitting error. These
|
||||||
|
equations were then used analogously to describe the reaction profile of
|
||||||
\glspl{mab} assuming a diffusion rate of
|
\glspl{mab} assuming a diffusion rate of
|
||||||
\SI{4.8e-7}{\cm\squared\per\second}\cite{Sherwood1992}. These same coefficients
|
\SI{4.8e-7}{\cm\squared\per\second}\cite{Sherwood1992}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
These same coefficients
|
||||||
were used in determining the kinetics of the washing steps, and
|
were used in determining the kinetics of the washing steps, and
|
||||||
\SI{5.0e-6}{\cm\squared\per\second}\cite{Niether2020} was used as the diffusion
|
\SI{5.0e-6}{\cm\squared\per\second}\cite{Niether2020} was used as the diffusion
|
||||||
coefficient for free biotin (which should be the only species left in solution
|
coefficient for free biotin (which should be the only species left in solution
|
||||||
after all the \gls{snb} has hydrolyzed). All diffusion coefficients were taken
|
after all the \gls{snb} has hydrolyzed).
|
||||||
to be valid at \gls{rt} and in \gls{di} water, which is a safe assumption given
|
|
||||||
that our reaction medium was 1X \gls{pbs}.
|
All diffusion coefficients were taken to be valid at \gls{rt} and in \gls{di}
|
||||||
|
water, which is a safe assumption given that our reaction medium was 1X
|
||||||
|
\gls{pbs}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
See \cref{sec:appendix_binding} and \cref{sec:appendix_washing} for the MATLAB
|
||||||
|
code (and output in the case of the washing steps) used.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
% METHOD add the equation governing the washing steps
|
% METHOD add the equation governing the washing steps
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
@ -4471,7 +4478,7 @@ hosted using \gls{aws} using their proprietary Aurora implementation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The code is available here: \url{https://github.gatech.edu/ndwarshuis3/mdma}.
|
The code is available here: \url{https://github.gatech.edu/ndwarshuis3/mdma}.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\chapter{binding kinetics code}
|
\chapter{binding kinetics code}\label{sec:appendix_binding}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The \gls{stp} binding kinetic profile was fit and calculated using the following
|
The \gls{stp} binding kinetic profile was fit and calculated using the following
|
||||||
MATLAB code. Note that the \inlinecode{geometry} parameter was varied so as to
|
MATLAB code. Note that the \inlinecode{geometry} parameter was varied so as to
|
||||||
|
@ -4486,7 +4493,7 @@ reflect the \gls{mab} coating process.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\lstinputlisting{../code/diffusion_mab.m}
|
\lstinputlisting{../code/diffusion_mab.m}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\chapter{washing kinetics code}
|
\chapter{washing kinetics code}\label{sec:appendix_washing}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The wash steps for the \gls{dms} were modeled using the following code:
|
The wash steps for the \gls{dms} were modeled using the following code:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue