Skip to main content
. 2023 Apr 23;26(5):106714. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.106714

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Model calibration simulations compared to experimental data for abemaciclib treatments

(A) Model calibration of normalized cell number to experimental data (mean ± s.e., n = 3) in E2+abema(300 nM) condition. The experimental data are shown in red and the calibration simulation results are shown in yellow (solid line represents the lowest cost value simulation and the shaded regions contains the central 98% of the cohort simulations).

(B) Model calibration of normalized cell number to experimental data (mean ± s.e., n = 3) in E2+abema(500 nM) condition.

(C) Model calibration of normalized c-Myc level to experimental data (mean ± s.e., n = 3) in E2+abema(500 nM) condition.

(D) Model calibration of normalized RB1-pp level to experimental data (mean ± s.e., n = 3) in E2+abema(500 nM) condition.