The HIV model describes the mechanism of irreversible inhibition of HIV proteinase. The enzyme is only active in a dimer form and the product is a competitive inhibitor for the substrate and the inhibitor is irreversible It is described in Figure 15, where E represent the enzyme, S and P represent substrate and product respectively.
[Schema of HIV proteinase model]
|
In this model, the mechanism is described with an ODE system
made up of
differential equations (see Figure 16).
The problem is to estimate a number of rate constants of the
mechanism of irreversible inhibition of HIV proteinase. Data
on the inhibition of the dissociative dimeric proteinase
from HIV are used. Note that at this time the data are
real experimental data, so that there exist measurement error.
As shown in Table 6, the real experimental data
are produced from five time courses at four different inhibitor
concentrations measured fluorimetrically. The HIV proteinase
(assay concentraion
) is added to a solution of
an irreversible inhibitor and a fluorogenic substrate (
).
Five assays are conducted, at four different concentrations of the
inhibitor (
and
in replicate).
The fluorescence changes are monitored for 1 hour in each experiment.
| Dataset |
|
Parameter |
|
Optimum |
|
bounds | ||||||||||||||||||||
| - | - |
|
- | - | - | $-$ | - | |||||||||||||||||||
| - | - |
|
- | - | - | $-$ | - | |||||||||||||||||||
| - | - |
|
- | - | - | $-$ | - | |||||||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | x[0] | $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | - |
|
- | x[1] | $-$ | |||||||||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | x[2] | $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | x[3] | $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| - | - |
|
- | x[4] | $-$ | |||||||||||||||||||||
| - | - | - | - | - | $-$ | - | ||||||||||||||||||||
| A | x[5] | $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B | $-$ | x[6] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | $-$ | x[7] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D | $-$ | x[8] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| E | $-$ | x[9] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | x[10] | $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B | $-$ | x[11] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | $-$ | x[12] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D | $-$ | x[13] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| E | $-$ | x[14] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| A | x[15] | $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| B | $-$ | x[16] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| C | $-$ | x[17] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| D | $-$ | x[18] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| E | $-$ | x[19] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| $-$ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Also as shown in Table 6, the problem is set
to fit the rate constants
and
to
the experimental data. According to the original papers
, it is assumed that there is a certain
degreen of uncertainty in the value of the initial concentrations
of substrate and enzyme, and that the offset (baseline) of the
fluorimeter is not exactly zero. Therefore, there are a total of
adjustable parameters (given in Table 6).
The allowed ranges are also listed in the table.
The global optimization problem is stated as the minimization of an
unweighted distance measure between experimental and predicted values
of the measured state variable:
For more information, please read the original paper
.