Theory on the accurate estimation of Michaelis-Menten enzyme kinetic parameters from steady state and progress curve datasets
Murugan, R.
Show abstract
We show that neither pure steady state nor pure progress curve analysis yield reliable estimate of enzyme KM values since these methods are valid only at specific timescales and also use different type of datasets. All the currently proposed validity conditions of these methods assume a priori knowledge on KM. Hence, there is no way to check whether the obtained KM from a given dataset is a reliable estimate or not. Here we propose an integrated approach in which the same time course dataset will be analysed both in the progress curve as well as steady state perspectives at different reaction timescales across replications and substrate concentrations. Our theory shows that there exists an optimum reaction time at which the error in the estimation of KM using various progress curve and steady state methods show the least possible value so that the coefficient of variation of the median KM values obtained across various methods attains a minimum. Using detailed stochastic simulations, we confirm that the KM value obtained with minimum coefficient of variation across various methods is actually the reliable estimate that is close to the original KM value. We further show that using multiple nonlinear regression methods, the type of inhibition viz. competitive, uncompetitive and mixed can be accurately classified apart from obtaining the accurate inhibitor constants and IC50 values from Dixon type average velocity steady state datasets.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Efficient computation of adjoint sensitivities at steady-state in ODE models of biochemical reaction networks 96%
- Likelihood-ratio test statistic for the finite-sample case in nonlinear ordinary differential equation models 95%
- The Correlation Between Cell and Nucleus Size is Explained by an Eukaryotic Cell Growth Model 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.