Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Determine depency of delG error on dPstated #106

Open
sonyahanson opened this issue Jun 5, 2017 · 1 comment
Open

Determine depency of delG error on dPstated #106

sonyahanson opened this issue Jun 5, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

@sonyahanson
Copy link
Contributor

Tested the effect of changing dPstated = 0.35 * inputs['Pstated'] to dPstated = 0.15 * inputs['Pstated']. Interestingly, this removed the long tails for the Src-Erlotonib fits, changing them from this (dPstated = 0.35 * inputs['Pstated']):

src-erlotinib-ef_binding_iter0

to this (dPstated = 0.15 * inputs['Pstated']):

src-erlotinib-ef_binding_iter0

Similarly for the same number of iterations, running the same job three times gives more consistent answers with dPstated at 0.15, changing this (dPstated = 0.35 * inputs['Pstated']):

comparing_src_geferl_3iter

to this (dPstated = 0.15 * inputs['Pstated']):
comparing_src_geferl_3iter

@MehtapIsik
Copy link
Contributor

This is very interesting!

dPstate =0.15 can still be a realistic number. I wonder what would happen if you make uncertainty in protein concentration absurdly low. Something like dPstate =0.01 or 0.001. I wonder if fitting the model will get more difficult or will DeltaG uncertainties get narrower and narrower making the model look better (perhaps wrongly).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants