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

Suggested change to SBML multi-compartment model example #364

Open
sbmlsecretary opened this issue Mar 31, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

Suggested change to SBML multi-compartment model example #364

sbmlsecretary opened this issue Mar 31, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@sbmlsecretary
Copy link
Contributor

We should update the example of multicompartmental model use in the SBML specification (example 7.8 on p. 130 of SBML Level 3 Version 2 Core Release 2 of 29 March 2019 as the current definition is problematic, being both ambiguous and incorrectly scaled.

Submitted on behalf of Prof J.-H.S. Hofmeyr who suggests the following:

"""
I suggest the following changes to the SBML compartment model so that it can serve as an example of correct scaling. Replace

v_T = k_T (y_1n - y_1c) V_c

with

v_T = k_T (y_1n - y_1c) A

and provide new values for A (in dm^2) and k_T (in dm/s) that still give A.k_T = 25000 dm^3/s (the value that V_c.k_T currently gives). In fact, just make A = 1 dm^2. This means that the model will still give identical numerical output.

This also means that they can just write "The reaction between the compartments called cytosol and nucleus is a transport reaction whose detailed mechanism is not modeled here; it is regarded simply as a reversible process that spans the two three-dimensional compartments."
"""

Reported by: bgoli

Original Ticket: sbml/sbml-specifications//366

@sbmlsecretary
Copy link
Contributor Author

I agree with this suggestion.

Original comment by: fbergmann

@sbmlsecretary
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nice catch by Dr. Hofmeyr. Thank you for bringing this up.

Original comment by: mhucka

@sbmlsecretary
Copy link
Contributor Author

  • labels: --> Level 2 Version 5 Core, Level 3 Version 1 Core, Level 3 Version 2 Core

Original comment by: luciansmith

@sbmlsecretary sbmlsecretary self-assigned this Mar 15, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant