| | Name | Initial Conc. (uM) | Volume (fL) | Buffered |
| 1 | Blocked-rec-Gq | 0 | 1.5 | No |
| 2 | G-GDP | 1 | 1.5 | No |
| | From M&L, total Gprot = 1e5molecules/cell At equil, 92340 are here, 400 are in G*GTP, and another 600 are assoc with the PLC and 6475 are as G*GDP. This is OK. From Pang and Sternweis JBC 265:30 18707-12 1990 we get conc est 1.6 uM to 0.8 uM. A number of other factors are involved too. |
| 3 | mGluR | 0.3 | 1.5 | No |
| | From M&L, Total # of receptors/cell = 1900 Vol of cell = 1e-15 (10 um cube). Navogadro = 6.023e23 so conversion from n to conc in uM is n/vol*nA * 1e3 = 1.66e-6 However, for typical synaptic channels the density is likely to be very high at the synapse. Use an estimate of 0.1 uM for now. this gives a total of about 60K receptors/cell, which is in line with Fay et at. |
| 4 | mGluRAntag | 0 | 1.5 | Yes |
| | I am implementing this as acting only on the Rec-Gq complex, based on a more complete model PLC_Gq48.g which showed that the binding to the rec alone contributed only a small amount. |
| 5 | Rec-Glu | 0 | 1.5 | No |
| | This acts like an enzyme to activate the g proteins Assume cell has vol 1e-15 m^3 (10 uM cube), conversion factor to conc in uM is 6e5 |
| 6 | Rec-Glu-Gq | 0 | 1.5 | No |
| 7 | Rec-Gq | 0 | 1.5 | No |
| | Fraction of Rec-Gq is 44% of rec, from Fay et al. Since this is not the same receptor, this value is a bit doubtful. Still, we adjust the rate consts in Rec-bind-Gq to match. |
