Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by lh64@cornell.edu
on 24 Sep 2012 at 7:46
Section 4.5 of the Primer (Sekar & Faeder, 2012) states that '0' is a special
symbol for designating sources and sinks, even though this is not implemented
currently in BNG. As such, I think we should revert to the original plan of
using '0' as the official null symbol. I also think that we should elevate this
issue to High priority given that it is in official BNG documentation. Anyone
have any opinions on this?
Original comment by lh64@cornell.edu
on 4 Dec 2012 at 9:43
Because '0' is documented in the Primer we have decided to revert back to the
original idea of using it as the official BNGL null symbol.
Note that for cBNGL we came to the consensus that synthesized complexes must
explicitly state their target compartment, i.e., 0 -> A()@C is valid but 0 ->
A() is not.
Original comment by lh64@cornell.edu
on 7 Dec 2012 at 11:26
the null pattern is now implemented for vanilla BNGL. Work is ongoing to
implement compartment handling.
I refactored a couple validation models with the null pattern replacing the use
of an abstract 0() molecule. Specific models affected: heise.bngl and
gene_expr_simple.bngl
Original comment by justinshogg
on 10 Dec 2012 at 12:28
The null pattern is now fully implemented.
Under cBNGL, the rate of a zero order synthesis reaction is multiplied by the
volume of the species compartment. If multiple species are synthesized in the
same compartment, the same volume multiplier is applied. However, if species
are synthesized in multiple compartments, then no multiplier is applied and BNG
issues a warning.
Original comment by justinshogg
on 11 Dec 2012 at 12:25
Original comment by justinshogg
on 11 Dec 2012 at 12:26
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
lh64@cornell.edu
on 24 Sep 2012 at 7:45