| Literature DB >> 24415847 |
Abstract
Growth of developing and regenerative biological tissues of different cell types is usually driven by stem cells and their local environment. Here, we present a computational framework for continuum tissue growth models consisting of stem cells, cell lineages, and diffusive molecules that regulate proliferation and differentiation through feedback. To deal with the moving boundaries of the models in both open geometries and closed geometries (through polar coordinates) in two dimensions, we transform the dynamic domains and governing equations to fixed domains, followed by solving for the transformation functions to track the interface explicitly. Clustering grid points in local regions for better efficiency and accuracy can be achieved by appropriate choices of the transformation. The equations resulting from the incompressibility of the tissue is approximated by high-order finite difference schemes and is solved using the multigrid algorithms. The numerical tests demonstrate an overall spatiotemporal second-order accuracy of the methods and their capability in capturing large deformations of the tissue boundaries. The methods are applied to two biological systems: stratified epithelia for studying the effects of two different types of stem cell niches and the scaling of a morphogen gradient with the size of the Drosophila imaginal wing disc during growth. Direct simulations of both systems suggest that that the computational framework is robust and accurate, and it can incorporate various biological processes critical to stem cell dynamics and tissue growth.Entities:
Keywords: Cell lineages; Interfacial motion; Multigrid ; Tissue modeling
Year: 2013 PMID: 24415847 PMCID: PMC3883546 DOI: 10.1007/s10915-013-9728-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Sci Comput ISSN: 0885-7474 Impact factor: 2.592
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of the internal tissue pressure for the case with one variable boundary given by Eqs. (4–6) without time evolution using the iterative pseudospectral approach in Appendix 7
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Iter. | CPU(s) | Error | Order | Iter. | CPU(s) | Error | CPU(s) | |
| 8 | 0.466 | – | 16 | 5.40e | 2.17 | – | 34 | 9.90e | NC | – |
| 16 | 0.100 | 2.22 | 19 | 0.182 | 0.226 | 3.27 | 64 | 0.226 | NC | – |
| 32 | 2.55e | 1.98 | 21 | 0.624 | NC | – | – | – | NC | – |
| 64 | 6.42e-3 | 1.99 | 21 | 2.19 | NC | – | – | – | NC | – |
| 128 | 1.61e | 2.00 | 18 | 6.93 | NC | – | – | – | NC | – |
| 256 | 4.02e | 2.00 | 15 | 20.4 | NC | – | – | – | NC | – |
| 512 | 1.00e | 2.00 | 12 | 63.9 | NC | – | – | – | NC | – |
The boundary is described by the curve . An exact testing case is constructed with and a corresponding where is the curvature of . A linear scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10) along with a tolerance of for the iterative method. Parameters chosen are
NC no convergence of the iterative method
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of the internal tissue pressure for the case with one variable boundary given by Eqs. (4–6) without time evolution using fourth-order central difference approximations along with a multigrid solver
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | CPU(s) | Error | Order | CPU(s) | Error | Order | CPU(s) | |
| 8 | 0.512 | – | 1.30e | 29.0 | – | 1.50e | 412.8 | – | 1.20e |
| 16 | 6.23e | 3.04 | 1.70e | 1.99 | 3.87 | 1.70e | 128.2 | 1.69 | 1.50e |
| 32 | 1.22e | 2.35 | 6.60e | 7.54e | 4.72 | 6.50e | 5.86 | 4.45 | 6.40e |
| 64 | 2.78e | 2.14 | 0.256 | 9.65e | 2.97 | 0.256 | 0.168 | 5.61 | 0.242 |
| 128 | 6.69e | 2.06 | 1.12 | 1.69e | 2.51 | 1.15 | 8.97e | 3.75 | 1.12 |
| 256 | 1.64e | 2.02 | 5.92 | 4.19e | 2.01 | 5.84 | 1.04e | 3.11 | 5.99 |
| 512 | 4.08e | 2.01 | 29.5 | 1.05e | 2.00 | 30.6 | 2.74e | 1.92 | 30.2 |
The variable boundary , choice of transformation, and parameters chosen are the same as those given in Table 1
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of the internal tissue pressure and boundary movement for the case with one dynamic boundary given by Eqs. (4–6) up to time
|
|
|
| CPU(s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 8 | – | – | – | – | 3.60e |
| 16 | 4.28e | – | 8.44e | – | 0.504 |
| 32 | 1.022e | 2.07 | 2.41e | 1.81 | 8.13 |
| 64 | 2.54e | 2.01 | 5.35e | 2.17 | 136.0 |
| 128 | 6.27e | 2.02 | 1.23e | 2.12 | 2,372.3 |
| 256 | 1.55e | 2.02 | 2.97e | 2.05 | 46,870.3 |
The initial state of dynamic boundary is described by the curve , and a uniform influx of cells is assumed by . An exponential scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10) with . is taken for time discretization. Parameters chosen are and
Fig. 1plotted on computational grids for numerical tests in rectangular coordinates with shown on the domains and . a An exponential scaling for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10) with and as implemented for calculations in Table 3 and Fig. 3. b An arctangent scaling for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10) with and and as implemented for calculations in Table 5
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation testing the implementation of the kinematic boundary condition for the case with one dynamic boundary given by Eqs. (4–6) up to time
|
|
|
| CPU(s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 2.0e | 1.71e | – | 1.89e | – | 4.69 |
| 1.0e | 4.46e | 1.94 | 4.91e | 1.94 | 9.28 |
| 5.0e | 1.14e | 1.97 | 1.26e | 1.96 | 18.7 |
| 2.5e | 2.87e | 1.99 | 3.16e | 2.00 | 37.7 |
| 1.25e | 7.20e | 2.00 | 8.33e | 1.92 | 75.1 |
The initial state of the dynamic boundary is described by , and a uniform influx of cells is assumed by . The exact solutions are given by and . A linear scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10). is taken for spatial discretization. Parameters chosen are and
Fig. 3Distributions of the densities of stem cells (), TA cells (), TD cells (), concentrations of and , and pressure () at time for stratified epithelium simulations with a free-form stem cell niche. Initial conditions and the assumed spatiotemporal discretization are those used for this figure, and parameters used are given in Table 7
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of the internal tissue pressure and boundary movement for the case with two dynamic boundary given by Eqs. (4, 25–28) up to time
|
|
|
|
| CPU(s) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 3.10e |
| 16 | 9.42e | – | 7.53e | – | 2.04e | – | 0.427 |
| 32 | 3.71e | 1.34 | 9.47e | 2.99 | 6.65e | 1.61 | 7.83 |
| 64 | 1.11e | 1.74 | 1.44e | 2.72 | 2.40e | 1.47 | 123.6 |
| 128 | 2.75e | 2.02 | 3.10e | 2.21 | 5.67e | 2.08 | 2,344.7 |
| 256 | 6.96e | 1.98 | 8.55e | 1.86 | 1.46e | 1.95 | 47,573.1 |
The initial states of the dynamic boundaries and are described by the curves and , and a uniform influx of cells is assumed by . An arctangent scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10) with . is taken for time discretization. Parameters chosen are and
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of the internal tissue pressure and boundary movement in polar coordinates given by Eqs. (4–6) up to time
|
|
|
| CPU(s) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 16 | – | – | – | – | 0.152 |
| 32 | 2.47e | – | 5.90e | – | 2.70 |
| 64 | 3.97e | 2.63 | 1.50e | 1.98 | 45.5 |
| 128 | 9.38e | 2.08 | 3.85e | 1.96 | 895.9 |
| 256 | 1.96e | 2.26 | 8.97e | 2.10 | 26,032.1 |
The initial state of dynamic boundary is described by the curve , and a uniform influx of cells is assumed by . A linear scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (38–40). is taken for time discretization. Parameters chosen are and
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of epithelial growth and stratification with a rigid stem cell niche described in Eqs. (4–7, 65–72, 75–76) up to time
|
|
|
|
|
| CPU (s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 8.90e |
| 16 | 1.66e | – | 2.04e | – | 1.66e | – | 9.18e | – | 1.38 |
| 32 | 6.22e | 1.42 | 7.20e | 1.50 | 3.55e | 2.22 | 1.67e | 2.45 | 24.2 |
| 64 | 1.54e | 2.02 | 1.97e | 1.88 | 7.53e | 2.24 | 3.89e | 2.10 | 396.0 |
| 128 | 3.84e | 2.00 | 4.98e | 1.97 | 1.67e | 2.17 | 9.56e | 2.03 | 7,499.5 |
| 256 | 9.51e | 2.01 | 1.25e | 1.99 | 3.90e | 2.10 | 2.74e | 1.80 | 142,867.4 |
A linear scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10). is taken for time discretization. Initial conditions: , and . Chosen parameters are similar to those in [11]: , , , , , and . All hill exponents are chosen to be 2
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU times for calculation of epithelial growth and stratification with a rigid stem cell niche described in Eqs. (4–7, 65–70, 73–76) up to time
|
|
|
|
|
| CPU (s) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 8 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 9.50e |
| 16 | 5.34e | – | 7.17e | – | 8.53e | – | 1.22e | – | 1.40 |
| 32 | 1.63e | 1.71 | 1.87e | 1.94 | 3.71e | 1.20 | 3.24e | 1.91 | 25.1 |
| 64 | 3.88e | 2.08 | 4.68e | 2.00 | 9.84e | 1.91 | 8.19e | 1.98 | 392.4 |
| 128 | 9.37e | 2.05 | 1.16e | 2.01 | 2.45e | 2.01 | 2.07e | 1.98 | 6,930.0 |
| 256 | 3.00e-4 | 1.64 | 2.89e | 2.01 | 5.91e | 2.05 | 5.35e | 1.95 | 141,816.8 |
An exponential scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (8–10) with . is taken for time discretization. Initial conditions and parameters are given in Table 7
Fig. 2The dynamic interface at times for stratified epithelium simulations with a free-form stem cell niche. Initial conditions are , , and . A discretization size of is used along with . Parameters used are given in Table 7
Errors, orders of accuracy, and CPU time for calculations of growth and the expansion–repression system on the imaginal wing disc given in Eqs. (35–37, 85–86) up to time up to time
|
|
|
|
| CPU (s) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | ||
| 16 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.571 |
| 32 | 1.20 | – | 4.73e | – | 22.5 | – | 8.62 |
| 64 | 0.132 | 3.18 | 1.10e | 2.11 | 22.5 | 0.82 | 140.4 |
| 128 | 1.70e | 2.96 | 2.23e | 2.30 | 3.02 | 2.07 | 2,595.9 |
| 256 | 3.52e | 2.27 | 4.89e | 2.19 | 0.374 | 3.02 | 48,841.2 |
A linear scaling is used for the transformation in Eqs. (38–40) along with . is taken for time discretization. Initial conditions: . Parameters used are adapted from the original model in [7]: , , , and . The Hill exponent is chosen to be 4
Fig. 4Distributions of on the imaginal wing disc a prior to and b after growth of the disc. is also plotted on the unit square after scaled by c prior to and d after growth of the disc. A proliferation profile of is assumed. A discretization size of is used along with . Initial conditions and parameters used are given in Table 9 aside from , and