Giovanni Dalmasso1, Paula Andrea Marin Zapata1, Nathan Ryan Brady2,3, Anne Hamacher-Brady1,3. 1. Lysosomal Systems Biology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and BioQuant, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Systems Biology of Cell Death Mechanisms, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and BioQuant, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. W. Harry Feinstone Department of Molecular Microbiology & Immunology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Abstract
Mitochondria are semi-autonomous organelles that supply energy for cellular biochemistry through oxidative phosphorylation. Within a cell, hundreds of mobile mitochondria undergo fusion and fission events to form a dynamic network. These morphological and mobility dynamics are essential for maintaining mitochondrial functional homeostasis, and alterations both impact and reflect cellular stress states. Mitochondrial homeostasis is further dependent on production (biogenesis) and the removal of damaged mitochondria by selective autophagy (mitophagy). While mitochondrial function, dynamics, biogenesis and mitophagy are highly-integrated processes, it is not fully understood how systemic control in the cell is established to maintain homeostasis, or respond to bioenergetic demands. Here we used agent-based modeling (ABM) to integrate molecular and imaging knowledge sets, and simulate population dynamics of mitochondria and their response to environmental energy demand. Using high-dimensional parameter searches we integrated experimentally-measured rates of mitochondrial biogenesis and mitophagy, and using sensitivity analysis we identified parameter influences on population homeostasis. By studying the dynamics of cellular subpopulations with distinct mitochondrial masses, our approach uncovered system properties of mitochondrial populations: (1) mitochondrial fusion and fission activities rapidly establish mitochondrial sub-population homeostasis, and total cellular levels of mitochondria alter fusion and fission activities and subpopulation distributions; (2) restricting the directionality of mitochondrial mobility does not alter morphology subpopulation distributions, but increases network transmission dynamics; and (3) maintaining mitochondrial mass homeostasis and responding to bioenergetic stress requires the integration of mitochondrial dynamics with the cellular bioenergetic state. Finally, (4) our model suggests sources of, and stress conditions amplifying, cell-to-cell variability of mitochondrial morphology and energetic stress states. Overall, our modeling approach integrates biochemical and imaging knowledge, and presents a novel open-modeling approach to investigate how spatial and temporal mitochondrial dynamics contribute to functional homeostasis, and how subcellular organelle heterogeneity contributes to the emergence of cell heterogeneity.
Mitochondria are semi-autonomous organelles that supply energy for cellular biochemistry through oxidative phosphorylation. Within a cell, hundreds of mobile mitochondria undergo fusion and fission events to form a dynamic network. These morphological and mobility dynamics are essential for maintaining mitochondrial functional homeostasis, and alterations both impact and reflect cellular stress states. Mitochondrial homeostasis is further dependent on production (biogenesis) and the removal of damaged mitochondria by selective autophagy (mitophagy). While mitochondrial function, dynamics, biogenesis and mitophagy are highly-integrated processes, it is not fully understood how systemic control in the cell is established to maintain homeostasis, or respond to bioenergetic demands. Here we used agent-based modeling (ABM) to integrate molecular and imaging knowledge sets, and simulate population dynamics of mitochondria and their response to environmental energy demand. Using high-dimensional parameter searches we integrated experimentally-measured rates of mitochondrial biogenesis and mitophagy, and using sensitivity analysis we identified parameter influences on population homeostasis. By studying the dynamics of cellular subpopulations with distinct mitochondrial masses, our approach uncovered system properties of mitochondrial populations: (1) mitochondrial fusion and fission activities rapidly establish mitochondrial sub-population homeostasis, and total cellular levels of mitochondria alter fusion and fission activities and subpopulation distributions; (2) restricting the directionality of mitochondrial mobility does not alter morphology subpopulation distributions, but increases network transmission dynamics; and (3) maintaining mitochondrial mass homeostasis and responding to bioenergetic stress requires the integration of mitochondrial dynamics with the cellular bioenergetic state. Finally, (4) our model suggests sources of, and stress conditions amplifying, cell-to-cell variability of mitochondrial morphology and energetic stress states. Overall, our modeling approach integrates biochemical and imaging knowledge, and presents a novel open-modeling approach to investigate how spatial and temporal mitochondrial dynamics contribute to functional homeostasis, and how subcellular organelle heterogeneity contributes to the emergence of cell heterogeneity.
Mitochondria are essential sources of ATP, and their morphology is dynamic; mitochondria are highly mobile within a cell [1, 2] and undergo fusion and fission events, resulting in a continuum of morphologies among populations of mitochondria, from tubular to small puncta [3]. Furthermore, mitochondrial homeostasis is dependent on biogenesis through fission-dependent duplication [4] and mitochondrial quality control is carried out by autophagy-mediated degradation, i.e. mitophagy [5-8]. Systems biology studies on mitochondrial morphology have contributed insights into how dynamic mitochondrial behavior relates to homeostasis and functional maintenance. Frequency of fusion and fission cycles determines efficiency of mitophagy [9], and suggests that altered cycles in aging organisms may contribute to maintaining mitochondrial mass [10]. Simulations also suggest that spatial limitations, which decrease fusion and fission capacities during aging, can increase the heterogeneity of mitochondrial genotypes within a cell, and consequently increase heterogeneity among a population of cells [11]. Furthermore, mitochondrial mobility has been predicted to have a role in maintaining a healthy mitochondrial population [12]. Of note, these studies did not address how morphological states and mass homeostasis coordinate bioenergetic supply and demand. Indeed, fission, fusion, biogenesis and mitophagy activities both respond to, and shape, the cellular bioenergetic state [13-20]. Thus, in this study, we sought to analyze how reactions of individual mitochondria form a collective population response, to organize morphological states and maintain mass homeostasis, under basal conditions and in response to bioenergetic stress.To that end, we employed agent-based modeling (ABM), a computational method to simulate spatial and temporal population activities [21-25], which has been applied in several areas of systems biology, including, apoptotic death receptor dynamics [26], autophagy dynamics [27], dosage screening of drug combinations [28] and lipid composition [29]. This discrete modeling approach involves the repetitive update of rules describing the behavior of autonomous agents, thus relying on computational power to simulate global behavior emerging from collective action of all agents. Using ABM, we simulated individual spatial and temporal behaviors of mitochondria, and bi-directional mitochondria-environment bioenergetic signaling. We analyzed the temporal behavior of mitochondrial subpopulations with variable masses, and report that the distribution of mitochondrial subpopulations is determined by fusion-fission activities and the total mitochondrial mass, but is minimally impacted by the directionality of mitochondrial movement. Further, the time required to establish sub-population homeostasis, and to effectively transmit information among the population, is determined by fusion/fission events and mitochondrial velocities. Our simulations also suggest that the ability of mitochondrial populations to re-establish homeostasis following damage requires environmental bioenergetic stress sensing. Overall, these findings demonstrate that ABM permits a precise investigation of the link between subcellular and cell decisions, and provides a framework for understanding the bidirectional relationship of organelle dynamics with cellular environmental signaling processes, and the emergence of cell heterogeneity.
Results
Agent based model of mitochondrial fusion-fission cycles
Mitochondrial fusion and fission processes were modeled using a discrete approach, since a continuous approximation was unreasonable due to the low copy number of mitochondria. To this end, we employed agent-based modeling (ABM), considering mitochondria as discrete agents which can move, fuse with each other, or undergo fission (Fig 1A and 1B). Without explicitly deriving phenomenological equations, time-course ABM simulations proceed by increasing time (t) with a discrete step (Δt = 1s), followed by iterative evaluation of a set of behavioral rules for all mitochondrial agents. Simulations were performed in the NetLogo modeling environment [30] as described in ‘Materials and Methods’. The cellular spatial domain and the set of behavioral rules governing mitochondrial movement, and fusion and fission processes were implemented as follows.
Fig 1
An agent-based model of mitochondrial dynamics determined by organelle mobility and fusion-fission cycles.
(A) Model representation. The model consists of a two-dimensional grid (elements of 1 μm × 1 μm) in which the cell is represented by a circle with a diameter of 50 μm, and a nucleus with a diameter of 16.6 μm. The dashed circle (diameter, 25 μm) divides the cell in two regions, perinuclear (red arrow) and cytosolic (blue arrow), with different mitochondrial mobility. The mitochondrial population consists of agents with masses ranging continuously from a minimum value Mmin of 0.5 μm2 to a maximum value Mmax of 3 μm2. The mitochondria population is in turn subdivided into three groups: small (mass smaller or equal 1 μm2, orange), medium (mass between 1 μm2 and 2 μm2, blue) and large (mass greater than 2 μm2, green). (B) Schematic describing mitochondrial dynamics, consisting of fusion (f) and fission (F) cycles occurring with temporal frequencies (ff, Ff) of minutes. Mitochondria of all masses are able to undergo fusion and fission events according to fusion and fission probabilities (fp, Fp). Time step used in all the simulation, Δt = 1sec. (C) Schematic describing mitochondrial movement and unfeasible actions. Each mitochondrion checks, with an internal control, the surrounding area with a radius of 1.0 μm in order to avoid unfeasible actions such as moving outside the cell or inside the nucleus and overlapping other mitochondria. If the area is free, the mitochondrion first move one step forward, with a velocity v, and than rotates by a random angle ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]. If the mitochondrion encounters either another mitochondrion (and no fusion occur), the nucleus, or the cell border, the mitochondrion rotates by a random angle ϑ2 ϵ[0°, 90°]. (D) Basic flow chart of the model representing the fusion-fission cycle and main components of the model. Shaded boxes indicate the main processes of the model (fusion and fission) with the respective governing equations.
An agent-based model of mitochondrial dynamics determined by organelle mobility and fusion-fission cycles.
(A) Model representation. The model consists of a two-dimensional grid (elements of 1 μm × 1 μm) in which the cell is represented by a circle with a diameter of 50 μm, and a nucleus with a diameter of 16.6 μm. The dashed circle (diameter, 25 μm) divides the cell in two regions, perinuclear (red arrow) and cytosolic (blue arrow), with different mitochondrial mobility. The mitochondrial population consists of agents with masses ranging continuously from a minimum value Mmin of 0.5 μm2 to a maximum value Mmax of 3 μm2. The mitochondria population is in turn subdivided into three groups: small (mass smaller or equal 1 μm2, orange), medium (mass between 1 μm2 and 2 μm2, blue) and large (mass greater than 2 μm2, green). (B) Schematic describing mitochondrial dynamics, consisting of fusion (f) and fission (F) cycles occurring with temporal frequencies (ff, Ff) of minutes. Mitochondria of all masses are able to undergo fusion and fission events according to fusion and fission probabilities (fp, Fp). Time step used in all the simulation, Δt = 1sec. (C) Schematic describing mitochondrial movement and unfeasible actions. Each mitochondrion checks, with an internal control, the surrounding area with a radius of 1.0 μm in order to avoid unfeasible actions such as moving outside the cell or inside the nucleus and overlapping other mitochondria. If the area is free, the mitochondrion first move one step forward, with a velocity v, and than rotates by a random angle ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]. If the mitochondrion encounters either another mitochondrion (and no fusion occur), the nucleus, or the cell border, the mitochondrion rotates by a random angle ϑ2 ϵ[0°, 90°]. (D) Basic flow chart of the model representing the fusion-fission cycle and main components of the model. Shaded boxes indicate the main processes of the model (fusion and fission) with the respective governing equations.
Spatial domain and agent’s properties
For simplicity, the cellular domain was modeled in two dimensions, represented as a circle with a diameter of 50 μm containing a central nucleus with a diameter of 16.6 μm [31] and a variable number of mitochondria (Fig 1A). Each mitochondrial agent has the following three properties: mass (M) with units μm2, velocity magnitude (v) with units μms-1, and directionality (ϑ), with units angular degrees. As morphologies of individual mitochondria are heterogeneous within a cell and among cell types [3], we introduced a continuous range of mitochondrial masses, from a minimum value (Mmin) of 0.5 μm2 [31] to a maximum value (Mmax) of 3 μm2 [32, 33] (Fig 1A).
Mitochondrial movement rule set
In order to prevent unfeasible actions such as overlaps, each mitochondrion first checks its surrounding area within a radius of 1.0 μm. If this area is free, the mitochondrion first moves with a velocity v following its current directionality ϑ. In each time iteration, the velocity v is randomly chosen within pre-set intervals depending on the intracellular position as explained below. After movement, the directionality is updated by choosing random angle ϑ1 between 0° and 360° (Fig 1C). If the surrounding area is occupied by another mitochondrion (without fusing with it), the nucleus, or the cell border, the mitochondrion does not move and its directionality is updated by choosing a random angle ϑ2 between 0° and 90° (Fig 1C).Mitochondrial mobility can vary in relation to its position inside the cell [34], as the average velocity of mitochondria in the cytosolic region is faster (0.22–0.50 μms-1) than of mitochondria localized in the perinuclear region (0.10 μms-1) [33, 35–38]. Therefore, to simulate mitochondrial spatial dynamics, we subdivided the cell into two regions (Fig 1A). The first region corresponds to the perinuclear area (diameter ≤ 25 μm), where mitochondria were assigned low velocity magnitudes (vl) in the interval 0 ≤ vl ≤ 0.44 μms-1. The second region corresponds to the bulk cytosolic area, where mitochondria were assigned high velocity magnitudes (vh) in the interval 0 ≤ vh ≤ 1 μms-1. Finally, since small mitochondria move faster than large mitochondria [1, 39], we assumed that mitochondrial velocities are inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., v = v*/m, where v* assumes a value of vl or vh according to the intracellular position.
Mitochondrial fusion rule set
Mitochondrial fusion kinetics was parameterized in terms of a fusion probability (Fp), with higher Fp values relating to larger fusion rates. A given mitochondrion can fuse with another mitochondrion according to the following two rules. (I) Before moving, a random number is sampled between 0 and 100. If this number is below the value of Fp, the mitochondrion is allowed to fuse given that there is another mitochondrion within an area of twice its own radius. (II) To avoid formation of unrealistically large mitochondria, the fusion process only takes place if the sum of the mass of the two fused mitochondria is below a maximal mitochondrial mass (Mmax) (Fig 1D and S1 Fig).
Mitochondrial fission rule set
Mitochondrial fission kinetics were parameterized in terms of a fission probability (fp). A given mitochondrion can undergo fission according to the following two rules. (I) A random number is sampled between 0 and 100, and if this number is below the value of fp, the mitochondrion splits into two daughter mitochondria. (II) To avoid unrealistically small mitochondria, the fission process can only occur in mitochondria of a mass greater than two times the minimum mass (M > 2Mmin) (Fig 1D and S1 Fig). The mass of the parent mitochondrion is distributed randomly among the two daughters, satisfying mass conservation and bounds as follows:
Where M is the mass of the parent mitochondrion, M1 and M2 are the masses of the smallest and biggest daughter mitochondrion, respectively, and XF is a scaling coefficient estimated uniformly in the interval [0,1] (XF ~ U[0,1]) (S1 Fig).Notably, mitochondrial fusion and fission cycles occur on the order of minutes [40-42], and thus, at larger time scales than mitochondrial movement. To capture these time scale differences, the rule sets for mitochondrial fission and fusion were only evaluated every 5 minutes [43, 44], while the rule set for mitochondrial movement was evaluated at all time iterations. The update frequency of fusion and fission rules is denoted here as fusion frequency Ff and fission frequency ff, respectively, both of them set to 1 event per 5 minutes for all simulations [45, 46] (Fig 1B and 1D, S1 Fig and S1 Code). Table 1 summarizes all model parameters and their respective value.
Table 1
Description of the parameters used in the model.
Parameter
Description
Value
Biological evidence
DC
Cell diameter.
50 μm
2–100 μm human cell [31].
DN
Nucleus diameter.
16.6 μm
2–10 μm human cell [31].
Mmin
Minimum mitochondrial mass.
0.5 μm2
Mitochondrial morphologies vary within the cell [3, 47]. Length: 1–10 μm mammalian cell [31]. Area: 2–10 μm2 myelinated axon [33], 0.1–0.2 μm2 HeLa cell [48].
Directionality. Rotational angle of mitochondria in free space.
[0°,360°]
Changes in the directionality vector allow full range of directional movements.
ϑ2
Directionality. Rotational angle of mitochondria constrained by other agents.
[0°,90°]
Restricts movements in crowded conditions to avoid unfeasible actions.
Initial mitochondrial mass
Total mitochondrial mass at time point 0.
300 μm2
Mitochondrial volume percentage of HeLa cells: 10%-15% [48, 49] and 20.1%-44.6% [49].
Fusion probability (Fp)
Probability of fusion.
[0,100] %
Fusion events can vary according to the cellular state [47]. In our model this probability varies (is enhanced) according to the level of cellular stress.
Fission probability (fp)
Probability of fission.
[0,100] %
Fission events can vary according to the cellular state [47]. In our model this probability varies (is reduced) according to the level of cellular stress.
Fusion frequency (Ff)
Frequency of fusion.
5 min
Frequency of fusion/fission events per mitochondrion in COS7 and INS1 cells: ~1 event per 5–20 min [43, 46].
Fission frequency (ff)
Frequency of fission.
5 min
Frequency of fusion/fission events per mitochondrion in COS7 and INS1 cells: ~ 1 event per 5–20 min [43, 46].
Biogenesis probability (Bp)
Probability of biogenesis.
[0,100] %
Biogenesis is upregulated by bioenergetic stress and nutrient deprivation [4]. In our model this probability varies (is enhanced) according to the level of cellular stress.
Biogenesis frequency (Bf)
Frequency of biogenesis.
28.9 min
Biogenesis occurs according to cellular needs [4]. Value estimated by maximizing Eq 4, optimizing the repopulation of mitochondria in a cell, starting from mitochondrial mass equal 1 to 15% of the cell area (mass) within 2 days.
Damage probability (Dp)
Probability of damage.
[0,100] %
Damaging events can vary according to different external/internal cell factors [5–7, 47].
Degradation frequency (Df)
Frequency of degradation of damaged mitochondria.
5.7 min
Quality control mechanism to eliminate damaged mitochondria [5–7, 47]. Value estimated by maximizing Eq 5, optimizing the complete depletion of damaged mitochondria within one day starting from a damaged mitochondrial mass of 15% of the cell area.
Ratio low/high damage
Probability of having a low or high damage.
[0,100] %
Mitochondrial damage levels vary according to mitochondrial activity [47].
Damage threshold (dT)
Threshold for a low damaged mitochondrion to become highly damaged.
12.4 min
Value estimated by maximizing Eq 5, optimizing the complete depletion of damaged mitochondria within one day starting from a damaged mitochondrial mass of 15% of the cell area.
MR threshold (MRT)
Mitophagy receptor threshold for autophagosome formation.
12 min
Autophagosome formation for clearance of damaged mitochondria [5–7, 47]. Value estimated by maximizing Eq 5, optimizing the complete depletion of damaged mitochondria within one day starting from a damaged mitochondrial mass of 15% of the cell area.
Δt
Time step increment.
1 sec
Increment of the simulations time steps.
Number of cells
Number of cells considered in each simulation.
100
Number of cells considered to account for cell-to-cell variability.
The effect of fusion and fission on mitochondrial morphology is intrinsically connected to the total mitochondrial mass
We first studied how the combined effect of variations in mass and fusion/fission kinetics affect the mitochondrial population. To this end, simulations were performed using three combinations of fusion-fission probabilities, i.e. dominant fission (Fp = 20%, fp = 80%), dominant fusion (Fp = 80%, fp = 20%), and balanced fusion-fission (Fp = fp = 50%). As mitochondrial masses range from approximately 10–40% of cellular volume [48] we simulated three total mitochondrial masses: 100 μm2 (5% of the total cell area), 200 μm2 (10% of the total cell area) and 300 μm2 (15% of the total cell area) (Fig 2A–2C and S1 Movie). Simulations were run for 2 hours and were initialized by randomly distributing the total mitochondrial mass among a population of mitochondria with masses between Mmin and Mmax.
Fig 2
Impact of fusion and fission probabilities and mitochondrial mass on mitochondrial subpopulations.
(A) Time course response of mitochondrial subpopulations for low total mass (M = 100; 5% of the whole cell area). Three mitochondrial subpopulations are considered: small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and large mass (green line). The partial mass reports the sum of the masses from all mitochondria in a given subpopulation divided by the total mitochondrial mass. Lines display the mean among 100 simulations, and shaded regions display the standard deviation. Small graphs underneath show the evolution of the first derivative of mitochondria with large mass (green line). Three different fusion/fission probability rates are used: 20%/80%, 50%/50% and 80%/20%. Pie charts report the partial mass (in terms of percentages) for the subpopulations at the final simulation time (2 hours). (B) Same as (A) but with a total mitochondrial mass of 200 (10% of the whole cell area). (C) Same as (A) but with a total mitochondrial mass of 300 (15% of the whole cell area).
Impact of fusion and fission probabilities and mitochondrial mass on mitochondrial subpopulations.
(A) Time course response of mitochondrial subpopulations for low total mass (M = 100; 5% of the whole cell area). Three mitochondrial subpopulations are considered: small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and large mass (green line). The partial mass reports the sum of the masses from all mitochondria in a given subpopulation divided by the total mitochondrial mass. Lines display the mean among 100 simulations, and shaded regions display the standard deviation. Small graphs underneath show the evolution of the first derivative of mitochondria with large mass (green line). Three different fusion/fission probability rates are used: 20%/80%, 50%/50% and 80%/20%. Pie charts report the partial mass (in terms of percentages) for the subpopulations at the final simulation time (2 hours). (B) Same as (A) but with a total mitochondrial mass of 200 (10% of the whole cell area). (C) Same as (A) but with a total mitochondrial mass of 300 (15% of the whole cell area).To analyze simulations, we classified mitochondria into three subpopulations: small (M ≤ 1 μm2, color orange), medium (1 μm2 < M < 2 μm2, color blue) and large (M ≥ 2 μm2, color green) (Fig 1A). To evaluate the distribution of mitochondria among subpopulations, a partial mass was estimated for each subpopulation by adding the masses of all mitochondria in the subpopulation divided by the total mass. For each set of parameters, the average of 100 simulations is reported, where each simulation is interpreted as one stochastic cell. To indicate the transition to steady state, the first time-derivative was calculated for the large mass subpopulation (green trace). Pie charts report average subpopulations distributions at the final time point (2 hours).As indicated by the first time-derivatives, mitochondrial subpopulation distributions stabilized within approximately 15 minutes (Fig 2A–2C). For all masses, under conditions of dominant fission, mitochondrial populations adopted a fragmented state (87% to 92% small subpopulation). In contrast, under conditions of dominant fusion, the large subpopulation was most abundant (49% to 69%). Notably, increasing the total mitochondrial mass further increased the abundance of large mitochondria.These results suggest that mitochondrial morphology homeostasis depends on both, fusion and fission probabilities and the total mitochondrial mass. With low total masses (M = 100 μm2), the fusion process is limited by the probability that two mitochondria are in proximity with each other. We suggest then that for low masses, the cell has very little control over the morphology of its mitochondrial network. Alternatively, at masses equivalent to 15% of the cell area (M = 300 μm2), which corresponds to the mitochondrial content of a typical cell line (e.g. HeLa) [49], physical proximity is less limiting. Therefore, higher mitochondrial mass grants the cell better controllability over its mitochondrial network morphology.Importantly, variations in the total mass of mitochondria affect both heterogeneity of the intracellular mitochondrial population and cell-to-cell variability. Namely, higher masses and balanced probabilities of fusion and fission allow for more heterogeneous populations with mitochondria of different sizes, as indicated by the distributions on the pie charts (Fig 2C, middle graph). On the other hand, higher masses lead to less cell-to-cell variability with respect to smaller ones, as can be observed from the spread of the partial mass in the time course plots (Fig 2A–2C).
Influence of mitochondrial directionality on subpopulation distributions
Mitochondrial movement is essential to meet energy demands and prevent cell death [50], and is coordinated by different components of the cytoskeleton such as microtubules [51], which mediate directed movement of organelles [52]. Therefore, we sought to investigate the effect of directed vs. free movement on the behavior of the mitochondrial subpopulations. To this end, we modified the range of variation of the directionality property of mitochondrial agents, assigning unrestricted rotation values (ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]) (Fig 3A), and restricted rotation values (ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°]) (Fig 3B and S2 Movie). The total mass was set to 300, and fusion and fission probabilities to 50%.
Fig 3
Impact of mitochondrial directionality on mitochondrial mass subpopulation distributions.
(A) Mitochondrial movements are indicated by projecting 25 images, one every 100 time steps, representing a total of ~40 minutes of a simulation. Time points are indicated according to color-code. Line graphs display mean values and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations for mitochondrial population with free movement. The initial mass value was fixed to 300 and the angle ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]. The plot represents the evolution of three mitochondrial subpopulations, small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and large mass (green line), normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Small graphs underneath show the evolution of the first derivative of mitochondria with large mass (green line). The simulations were performed for a total time of 2 hours. (B) Same as (A) but with restricted movement, ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°].
Impact of mitochondrial directionality on mitochondrial mass subpopulation distributions.
(A) Mitochondrial movements are indicated by projecting 25 images, one every 100 time steps, representing a total of ~40 minutes of a simulation. Time points are indicated according to color-code. Line graphs display mean values and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations for mitochondrial population with free movement. The initial mass value was fixed to 300 and the angle ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]. The plot represents the evolution of three mitochondrial subpopulations, small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and large mass (green line), normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Small graphs underneath show the evolution of the first derivative of mitochondria with large mass (green line). The simulations were performed for a total time of 2 hours. (B) Same as (A) but with restricted movement, ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°].Compared to unrestricted movement (Fig 3A), restricted directionalities (Fig 3B) resulted in mitochondrial trajectories that followed straight lines, effectively mimicking directed movements. However, the time course distribution of mitochondrial subpopulations was unchanged between restricted and unrestricted movements. These findings suggest that the impact of mitochondrial directionality on the state of the mitochondrial population is negligible.
Transmission dynamics of the mitochondrial network
We next investigated how fusion and fission dynamics, directionality and mobility impact the mitochondrial network transmissivity [41], defined here as the ability to transmit signals among the mitochondrial population by consecutive fusion-fission events. Mitochondrial network transmissivity has been previously measured by photoactivatable GFP within a subpopulation of mitochondria (~10%), finding that the complete mitochondrial population was fluorescent within 30–60 minutes [53, 54]. Here, to simulate transmission dynamics, we introduced the following rule set for inter-mitochondrial GFP heritability: (I) fusion of an unlabeled mitochondrion with a GFP-labeled mitochondrion, results in a parent GFP-labeled mitochondrion. (II) Fission of a GFP-labeled mitochondria results in two GFP-labeled daughter mitochondria. We simulated the effect of a localized photoactivation of 10% of the cellular mitochondria, and quantified GFP transmission through the cell for several values of mitochondrial mass and fusion/fission probabilities (Fig 4A).
Fig 4
In silico photoactivation to quantify transmission dynamics in mitochondrial networks.
(A) Schematic representation of an in silico photoactivation. 10% of mitochondrial mass is assigned a GFP label, which transmit through the cell upon a fusion event: fusion of a mitochondrion with a GFP-labeled mitochondrion, results in a parent GFP-labeled mitochondrion, which upon fission results in two GFP-labeled daughter mitochondria. (B) Transmission dynamic of photoactivated GFP across the mitochondria population moving with free motion (ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]), starting from 10% of labeled mitochondria (green). Simulations were performed with total mitochondrial masses of 100 and 300 and three different fusion/fission probability rates: Fp/fp = 20%/80% (dotted line), Fp/fp = 50%/50% (solid line) and Fp/fp = 80%/20% (dashed line). 100 simulations were performed each and plots represent the average values normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Blue regions indicate the time to 50% network transmission with fusion/fission probability rates of 50%/50%. (C) Same as (B) but with restricted movement, ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°]. Pink regions indicate the time to 50% network transmission with fusion/fission probability rates of 50%/50%. (D) Effect of the mitochondria mobility on transmission dynamics in the case of free movement (blue circles, line) and restricted movement (pink triangles, line). Detailed representation of the time needed to the GFP labeled mitochondrial population to exceed the unlabeled population for an initial total mitochondrial mass of 300 with a fixed fusion/fission probability rate of 50%/50% and three different velocities: vl ϵ [0, 0.44] μms-1, vh ϵ [0, 1] μms-1 and v, equal to vl in the perinuclear region and to vh outside.
In silico photoactivation to quantify transmission dynamics in mitochondrial networks.
(A) Schematic representation of an in silico photoactivation. 10% of mitochondrial mass is assigned a GFP label, which transmit through the cell upon a fusion event: fusion of a mitochondrion with a GFP-labeled mitochondrion, results in a parent GFP-labeled mitochondrion, which upon fission results in two GFP-labeled daughter mitochondria. (B) Transmission dynamic of photoactivated GFP across the mitochondria population moving with free motion (ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]), starting from 10% of labeled mitochondria (green). Simulations were performed with total mitochondrial masses of 100 and 300 and three different fusion/fission probability rates: Fp/fp = 20%/80% (dotted line), Fp/fp = 50%/50% (solid line) and Fp/fp = 80%/20% (dashed line). 100 simulations were performed each and plots represent the average values normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Blue regions indicate the time to 50% network transmission with fusion/fission probability rates of 50%/50%. (C) Same as (B) but with restricted movement, ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°]. Pink regions indicate the time to 50% network transmission with fusion/fission probability rates of 50%/50%. (D) Effect of the mitochondria mobility on transmission dynamics in the case of free movement (blue circles, line) and restricted movement (pink triangles, line). Detailed representation of the time needed to the GFP labeled mitochondrial population to exceed the unlabeled population for an initial total mitochondrial mass of 300 with a fixed fusion/fission probability rate of 50%/50% and three different velocities: vl ϵ [0, 0.44] μms-1, vh ϵ [0, 1] μms-1 and v, equal to vl in the perinuclear region and to vh outside.Simulations were performed with total mitochondrial masses of 100 and 300, fusion/fission probability ratios of 20%/80%, 50%/50% and 80%/20%, and unrestricted (ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 360°]) (Fig 4B and S3 Movie) or restricted movement (ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°]) (Fig 4C). To quantify network transmissivity, we calculated the time to transmit the GFP signal to 50% of mitochondrial mass, denoted as 50% transmission time (shaded areas in Fig 4B and 4C).Under conditions of free movement (Fig 4B), a balanced probability of fusion and fission (50%/50%) produced the fastest GFP transmission (smallest 50% transmission time), while a fusion/fission probability of 80%/20% showed the slowest transmission. Moreover, by increasing total mass, the 50% transmission time was slightly reduced (Fig 4B, blue regions). Similar tendencies were obtained under conditions of restricted movement, but the 50% transmission time was decreased relative to free movement (Fig 4C, pink regions).We further examined the impact of mitochondrial mobility on network transmissivity by changing the velocity intervals of mitochondria (Fig 4D). Mitochondria were assumed to (I) adopt low velocities in all the cellular spatial domain (vl ∀ x), (II) adopt high velocities in all spatial domain (vh ∀ x) or (III) adopt low velocities in the perinuclear region and high velocities in the bulk cytosol (v = vl, or v = vh),as it was implemented in the previous sections. Simulations were performed using fusion and fission probabilities of 50%, a total mass of 300 μm2, and either free or restricted mitochondrial directionalities, and the 50% transmission time was calculated (Fig 4D). Notably, under conditions of restricted movement (pink line), decreasing or increasing velocities had no impact, and compared to free movement, GFP transmission was considerably faster. In contrast, under conditions of free movement, increasing velocities reduced the 50% transmission time (blue line). These findings suggest that restricted mitochondrial movements suppress sensitivities to alterations in spatial dynamics. Therefore, all subsequent simulations were performed under conditions of free mitochondrial movements. Overall, simulation results indicate that fusion and fission events and levels of mitochondrial mass together determine morphology distributions, while the transmission of signals across the mitochondrial population is determined by fusion and fission events and mitochondrial velocities.Given these distributed contributions, we subsequently sought to quantify the impact of parameter perturbations. Sensitivity analysis is an indispensable procedure to test and tune in silico experiments, since it emphasizes the role and the biological relevance of the parameters involved [55]. As an essential tool able to evaluate and refine mathematical models [56], we applied a global sensitivity analysis using Latin-Hypercube Sampling (LHS) and Extended Fourier Amplitude Sampling Test (eFAST) [57].We concentrated on seven parameters, each constrained to the following respective ranges: fusion frequency (0–30), fusion probability (0–100), fission frequency (0–30), fission probability (0–100), mitochondrial mass (50–500 μm2) and mitochondrial velocities in bulk cytosol vh (0.01–1 μms-1) and in the perinuclear region vl (0.01–1 μms-1). Specifically, we sought to assess how parameter perturbations impact the mass of GFP-labeled mitochondria. Using the Latin-Hypercube sampling approach, parameters were simultaneously perturbed, to identify parameters that are highly influential on simulation behavior. Five hundred parameter value sets were generated from the parameter space and simulated (each for the duration of 6 hours). For each parameter, median response values (evolution over time of the GFP-labeled mitochondrial population) were plotted against corresponding parameter value used (S2 Fig), and partial rank correlation coefficients were calculated (Fig 5A).
Fig 5
Sensitivity analysis of the transmission dynamics model.
(A) Effect of parameters perturbation on transmission dynamic. Bar graph represents Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient values for each parameter-output response pairing resulting from a Latin-hypercube sampling of 500 parameter value sets (parameter ranges are described in section “Transmission dynamics of mitochondrial network connectivity”). For each parameter set the model was performed over 6 hours. (B) Results of the eFast method used to partition variance in simulation results between parameters. Solid Bars: sensitivity index (Si)–the fraction of output variance explained by the value assigned to that parameter when parameter of interest; Dashed Bars: total sensitivity index (STi)–the variance caused by higher-order non-linear effects between that parameter and the other explored (includes value of Si). Error bars are standard error over four resample curves. Parameter values sets were generated using the sinusoidal sampling approach. 65 parameters were obtained from each of the 4 resampling curves, producing 2080 parameter value sets (260 per parameter).
Sensitivity analysis of the transmission dynamics model.
(A) Effect of parameters perturbation on transmission dynamic. Bar graph represents Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient values for each parameter-output response pairing resulting from a Latin-hypercube sampling of 500 parameter value sets (parameter ranges are described in section “Transmission dynamics of mitochondrial network connectivity”). For each parameter set the model was performed over 6 hours. (B) Results of the eFast method used to partition variance in simulation results between parameters. Solid Bars: sensitivity index (Si)–the fraction of output variance explained by the value assigned to that parameter when parameter of interest; Dashed Bars: total sensitivity index (STi)–the variance caused by higher-order non-linear effects between that parameter and the other explored (includes value of Si). Error bars are standard error over four resample curves. Parameter values sets were generated using the sinusoidal sampling approach. 65 parameters were obtained from each of the 4 resampling curves, producing 2080 parameter value sets (260 per parameter).The correlation coefficients (Fig 5A and S2 Fig) indicate that the total mitochondrial mass and low-perinuclear velocity (vl) have the least impact on the network transmission, and that fusion and fission-related parameters and high-cytoplasmic velocity (vh) have distributed control over transmission. Positive correlation coefficients indicate that increases in fission probability, fusion probability and velocity contribute to a faster transmission dynamics. In contrast, negative correlations for fusion and fission frequencies indicate that their decrease contributes to an increased transmission. Additionally, the positive correlation between fusion and fission probabilities with the population of GFP-labeled mitochondria, emerged mostly for lower ranges and stabilized for values greater than ~60% (S2C and S2E Fig).We further utilized eFAST global sensitivity analysis to identify highly influential parameters. For nine parameters (eight plus the ‘dummy’ used as negative control), we generated parameter value sets using the sinusoidal curve sampling approach. Briefly, 65 parameter values from each curve were produced, and employed four resampling curves, producing 2080 parameter value sets, 260 per parameter. Simulation responses were analyzed using the Fourier frequency approach and median responses (evolution over time of the GFP-labeled mitochondrial population) calculated [57]. Plots were created detailing the first-order (Si) and total-order (STi) sensitivity indexes calculated for each parameter (Fig 5B). To quantify the impact of a parameter on the simulation, we used the “initial-labeled mass” as a positive control, and as a negative control “dummy”, a parameter which has an arbitrary value range but no actual impact on model behavior. Note, “dummy” parameters result in non-zero sensitivity indexes due to noise derived from the intrinsic stochasticity of the model [57, 58]. Compared to “initial-labeled mass”, eFAST analysis indicates an overall equilibrium of 7 out of 8 parameters, since variations in the Si and STi sensitivity indexes between parameters is low. This indicates the current state of the model is not over-parametrized.
Integrating mitochondrial dynamics with mitochondrial biogenesis
So far, our model captured essential spatial and temporal behavior of mitochondrial morphology and mobility dynamics at a time scale of seconds-to-hours assuming a constant total mitochondrial mass. However, mitochondrial populations are not a closed systems, and on a time scale of hours to days mitochondrial biogenesis occurs from growth and division of pre-existing mitochondria [34]. Furthermore, over time and in response to stress, mitochondria become dysfunctional and quality control of mitochondria occurs through the process of mitophagy [47]. We therefore subsequently incorporated biogenesis and mitophagy behavior.We first established a rule set to describe mitochondrial biogenesis (Fig 6A). Sub-maximal mitochondria (M < 3 μm2) undergo a growth event based on a biogenesis probability (Bp), which can occur according to a biogenesis frequency (Bf) (Fig 6B). All mitochondria grow by increasing their actual mass M to a new value MB, according to the following relation:
Where XB ~ U[0, M·50%]. In this way, every mitochondrion can at most double its mass during one growth event. Additionally, in order to avoid unrestricted growth, the resulting mass of the biogenesis process MB can not exceed a preset maximum value Mmax.
Fig 6
Integration of mitochondrial biogenesis through parameter fitting.
(A) Schematic representation of mitochondrial fusion, fission and biogenesis events. Biogenesis is represented by frequency (Bf) and probability (Bp) parameters, and can occur in all mitochondria with a mass less than Mmax = 3.0 μm2. (B) Basic flow chart of the model representing fusion, fission and biogenesis events. Shaded boxes indicate the main processes of the model (fusion, fission and biogenesis) with governing equation of the biogenesis process. Time step used in all the simulation, Δt = 1 sec. (C) Maximization of the fitness function OB within 100 iterations, reaching a value of -0.049, using a classic genetic algorithm (settings described in the Methods section). (D) Mean of 100 simulations of mitochondrial mass growth over 48 hours, beginning with a mitochondrial mass of 1 and using the parameter values obtained from the optimization (C), biogenesis probability = 22.1% and biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes.
Integration of mitochondrial biogenesis through parameter fitting.
(A) Schematic representation of mitochondrial fusion, fission and biogenesis events. Biogenesis is represented by frequency (Bf) and probability (Bp) parameters, and can occur in all mitochondria with a mass less than Mmax = 3.0 μm2. (B) Basic flow chart of the model representing fusion, fission and biogenesis events. Shaded boxes indicate the main processes of the model (fusion, fission and biogenesis) with governing equation of the biogenesis process. Time step used in all the simulation, Δt = 1 sec. (C) Maximization of the fitness function OB within 100 iterations, reaching a value of -0.049, using a classic genetic algorithm (settings described in the Methods section). (D) Mean of 100 simulations of mitochondrial mass growth over 48 hours, beginning with a mitochondrial mass of 1 and using the parameter values obtained from the optimization (C), biogenesis probability = 22.1% and biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes.Different lines of evidence give insight into mitochondrial biogenesis rates. Biogenesis can double the population of mitochondria during a typical cell division cycle of 48 hours [59], and following near depletion, mitochondrial repopulation occurs over days [60, 61]. Moreover, activated mitochondrial biogenesis increases mitochondrial markers by approximately 2–4 fold [62]. From these biological constraints, using a genetic algorithm [63], we optimized biogenesis frequency and biogenesis probability parameters. Starting with a total initial mass of one, fusion and fission probabilities of 50%, and fusion and fission frequencies of 5 minutes, we optimized biogenesis frequency and biogenesis probability, in order to reach a total mitochondrial mass equal to 300 μm2 within 48 hours. Therefore, we maximized the following objective function (OB):
Where TF represents the final simulation time, i.e., the time needed to reach a total mass of 300 μm2.The genetic algorithm was able to achieve a final fitness function value of -0.049 within 100 iterations (Fig 6C), generating a biogenesis frequency of 28.9 minutes and a biogenesis probability of 22.1%. With these optimized values, the mass of mitochondria increases from 1 to 15% of the cell within two days (Fig 6D and S4 Movie). Note, with these parameters doubling of the mitochondrial population following cell division occurs in approximately 9 hours (S3 Fig), which is less than, and therefore compatible with, the HeLa cell division cycle [64].
Integrating mitochondrial dynamics with mitochondrial damage and mitophagy
We next implemented quality control of damaged mitochondria by mitophagy [6, 8, 65, 66], using the parameter-fitting approach developed for mitochondrial biogenesis (Fig 7A) and a rule-set describing mitochondrial damage and removal (Fig 7B and S4 Fig). As mitochondria utilize fission to segregate healthy from damaged mitochondria [47], we included a probability variable (dp) for the fission process whereby one mitochondrion fragments into one healthy and one damaged mitochondrion [43]. Furthermore, we specified two damage states: low and high, corresponding to pre-mitophagy and mitophagy induction states [8]. To simulate the mitochondrial capture and degradation, we introduced two autophagy agents: sequestering autophagosomes and degrading lysosomes (Fig 7C), which undergo a multi-step interaction with mitochondria to approximate mitophagy dynamics. Over time, low damage levels increase, until levels exceed a fixed-damage threshold (dT), and become high damaged. Highly-damaged mitochondria acquire a mitophagy receptor (MR) level, which is updated at every time step. To approximate the sequestration process, once a receptor threshold is reached, an autophagosome forms at the damaged mitochondrion (Fig 7A) and the receptor level is again set to zero. Subsequently, when the receptor level exceeds threshold a second time; the mitochondrion is considered irreversibly sequestered. Concurrently, a mobile, degradative lysosome is randomly generated within the cell, and the lysosome is attracted to sequestered mitochondrion and both are degraded upon contact. All the above rules are evaluated according to a degradation frequency (Df). The parameters receptor level and damage level are updated and increased at every time step.
Fig 7
Integration of mitochondrial damage sensing and mitophagy through parameter fitting.
(A) Schematic representation of mitochondrial fusion and fission cycles, damage and mitochondrial degradation events. Degradation is represented by frequency (Df) parameter and damage (dT) and receptor (MRT) thresholds. (B) Basic flow chart of the model representing fusion, fission, biogenesis and degradation events. Shaded boxes indicate the main processes of the model (fusion, fission, biogenesis, low/high damage, degradation and increments). Time step used in all the simulation, Δt = 1 sec. (C) Spatial model representation. Highly-damaged mitochondria are represented in black and mitochondria with low damage in brown. The yellow circle indicates an autolysosome and the black circle and semicircle indicate stages of autophagosome formation. (D) Maximization of the fitness function OD within 100 iterations, reaching a value of -0.02, using a classic genetic algorithm. Algorithm (settings described in the Methods section). (E) Mean of 100 simulations of degradation of damaged mitochondria over 24 hours, beginning with 50% low damaged and 50% high damaged mitochondria and using the parameters obtained from the optimization (D), receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes and degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. The initial total mass consists of two equal parts of high-damaged and low-damaged mitochondria.
Integration of mitochondrial damage sensing and mitophagy through parameter fitting.
(A) Schematic representation of mitochondrial fusion and fission cycles, damage and mitochondrial degradation events. Degradation is represented by frequency (Df) parameter and damage (dT) and receptor (MRT) thresholds. (B) Basic flow chart of the model representing fusion, fission, biogenesis and degradation events. Shaded boxes indicate the main processes of the model (fusion, fission, biogenesis, low/high damage, degradation and increments). Time step used in all the simulation, Δt = 1 sec. (C) Spatial model representation. Highly-damaged mitochondria are represented in black and mitochondria with low damage in brown. The yellow circle indicates an autolysosome and the black circle and semicircle indicate stages of autophagosome formation. (D) Maximization of the fitness function OD within 100 iterations, reaching a value of -0.02, using a classic genetic algorithm. Algorithm (settings described in the Methods section). (E) Mean of 100 simulations of degradation of damaged mitochondria over 24 hours, beginning with 50% low damaged and 50% high damaged mitochondria and using the parameters obtained from the optimization (D), receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes and degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. The initial total mass consists of two equal parts of high-damaged and low-damaged mitochondria.Upon full mitophagy activation, mitochondrial populations can be eliminated by mitophagy within 1–2 days [67, 68]. Based on these measurements we optimized three parameters, receptor threshold, damage threshold and degradation frequency, to deplete the population of mitochondria (total mass of 300 μm2). Simulations were initialized by setting 50% of the mitochondrial mass to a low damage state and 50% to a high damage state. The following objective function (OD) was maximized:
Where TF represents the final simulation time, i.e., the time needed to achieve degradation of the total mitochondrial population.The genetic algorithm achieved a final fitness function value of -0.02 within 100 iterations (Fig 7D) generating a receptor threshold of 12 minutes, a damage threshold of 12.4 minutes and a degradation frequency of 5.7 minutes. The resulting model fit eliminates all damaged mitochondria within one day (Fig 7E and S5 Movie).
Energetic sensing, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis must be considered as integrated processes
With the parameters obtained from the optimization of biogenesis and mitophagy, our model can simulate the mitochondrial repopulation within two days, and remove a population of damaged mitochondria within one day, respectively. However, when these processes are combined, in the absence of damage, biogenesis is dominant and uncontrolled growth occurs (Fig 8A). In contrast, if we introduce a fixed probability of damage, the total mass of healthy mitochondria eventually decays over time, in a manner proportional to the probability of damage, and the model fails to maintain mitochondrial homeostasis. This split between biogenesis and degradation dominant regions reveals instability in the system, suggesting biogenesis and degradation must be considered as integrated processes. We thus considered functions of the metabolic sensor AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). AMPK is activated in response to decreased ATP production, i.e. bioenergetic stress [69], and activates PGC-1alpha [70], the master regulator of mitochondrial biogenesis [71]. Moreover, AMPK regulates the removal of defective mitochondria [72].
Fig 8
Interaction between mitochondrial health and cellular energetic state, based on the energetic stress.
(A) Evolution of mitochondrial mass (grey lines) over time subjected to four different damage signals (black line). Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations for an initial total mitochondrial mass of 300 normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Parameter values obtained from the optimization were used, in particular, fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes and damage probabilities: 0%, 10%, 30% and 50%. Simulations were performed for a total of 12 hours. Blue region indicates the area in which biogenesis is dominant while red region indicates the area in which degradation is dominant. (B) Schematic representation of the link between the number of healthy and damaged mitochondria with the energetic stress (ES) of the cell. (C) Schematic representation of the connection between energetic (red line) stress and fission (dark green line) and biogenesis (orange line) probabilities. (D) Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of probabilities of fusion (dark green line), fission (light green line), biogenesis (orange line) and damage signal (black line). Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours. (E) Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded area) of 100 simulations for an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 of the total mitochondrial mass (grey line) and three mitochondria subpopulations: small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and big mass (green line) subjected to five different damage signals (10% and 20%) every two hours for one hour. The plot represents the evolution of the total mass and of three mitochondrial subpopulations normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours. (F) Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of bioenergetics stress (red line). Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours. (G) Same as (D) but with mitochondria subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour. (H) Same as (E) but with mitochondria subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour. (I) Same as (F) but with mitochondria subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour.
Interaction between mitochondrial health and cellular energetic state, based on the energetic stress.
(A) Evolution of mitochondrial mass (grey lines) over time subjected to four different damage signals (black line). Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations for an initial total mitochondrial mass of 300 normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Parameter values obtained from the optimization were used, in particular, fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes and damage probabilities: 0%, 10%, 30% and 50%. Simulations were performed for a total of 12 hours. Blue region indicates the area in which biogenesis is dominant while red region indicates the area in which degradation is dominant. (B) Schematic representation of the link between the number of healthy and damaged mitochondria with the energetic stress (ES) of the cell. (C) Schematic representation of the connection between energetic (red line) stress and fission (dark green line) and biogenesis (orange line) probabilities. (D) Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of probabilities of fusion (dark green line), fission (light green line), biogenesis (orange line) and damage signal (black line). Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours. (E) Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded area) of 100 simulations for an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 of the total mitochondrial mass (grey line) and three mitochondria subpopulations: small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and big mass (green line) subjected to five different damage signals (10% and 20%) every two hours for one hour. The plot represents the evolution of the total mass and of three mitochondrial subpopulations normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours. (F) Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of bioenergetics stress (red line). Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours. (G) Same as (D) but with mitochondria subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour. (H) Same as (E) but with mitochondria subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour. (I) Same as (F) but with mitochondria subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour.To simulate the role of AMPK, we included in our model a dependency between mitochondrial health and cellular bioenergetic state, based on the variable environmental energetic stress (ES) (Fig 8B). We further included additional rules describing that (I) during bioenergetic stress mitochondrial fission is reduced, resulting in mitochondrial networks which can escape mitophagy [40, 73], and (II) complementation of mitochondrial content by fusion [47] permits low-damaged mitochondria to fuse with healthy ones, and recover from the damage (Fig 8C). As such, the probabilities of fusion, fission and biogenesis integrate with the level of bioenergetic stress: a loss of healthy mitochondria intensifies the energy demand level, which, in turn, increases proportionally the probabilities of fusion and biogenesis, and decreases the probability of fission.Given an initial probability of fusion (PF0) and fission (Pf0) equal to 50% and a probability of biogenesis (PB0) equal to 0%, we define the energy stress at time point t, (ESt), as follows:
Where MT is the total mass of healthy mitochondria and MC is the critical mass (300 μm2).Given a stress level , we defined accordingly the probabilities of fusion (PF), fission (Pf) and biogenesis (PB) as:
Where
is the biogenesis probability previously obtained with the optimization, equal to 22.1%. E assumes values in [0,1], while PF, Pf and PB assume values in [0,100]. The equation governing the biogenesis probability is formulated in order to avoid unrestricted growth, since it links the biogenesis probability to the increase of energetic stress. The receptor threshold was set to 12 minutes, the damage threshold to 12.4 minutes and a degradation frequency to 5.7 minutes (values obtained from the optimization).A system subjected to continuous damage levels resulted in a loss of healthy mitochondria proportional to the damage intensity. Although the probabilities of fusion, fission and biogenesis varied dynamically with the increased stress, the model was unable to maintain cellular homeostasis (S5 Fig).However, under normal circumstances, a cell is not constantly subjected to loss of mitochondria; but rather, external factors can induce acute mitochondrial damage, which the cell then eliminates [74-76]. We therefore simulated repeating damage pulses, starting with an initial damage probability of zero, and then transiently (for 1-hour), inducing damage every two hours. Initial probabilities of fusion/fission were set to 50% and biogenesis to 0%. First, we alternated two different probabilities of damage, 10% and 20%, for a period of twelve hours, and subsequently set again the probability of damage to zero (Fig 8D and S6 Movie). During this “low-damage” simulation, the mass of damaged mitochondria transiently increased, proportionally to the damage probability, and, after the damage pulses, it was decreasing to zero during the damage-free intervals due to removal by mitophagy (Fig 8E). These dynamics were paralleled by stable variations in the average total healthy mass (Fig 8E), which, in turn, generated small variations in the stress level (Fig 8F). Since the probabilities of fusion, fission and biogenesis are responsive to the stress levels, variations in healthy mass ultimately lead to variations in these probabilities. Thus, under the simulated stress conditions, our model was able to respond to transient damage impulses and maintain the cell close to its initial state. Interestingly, variations were mainly visible in the small-mass mitochondria subpopulation, while the medium and large subpopulations remained nearly unchanged.We next tested the scenario of increased mitochondrial damage, using with a transient probability of damage of 40%, for one hour every two hours (Fig 8G and S7 Movie). Under these “high-damage” conditions, damaged mitochondria accumulated while the mass of healthy mitochondria was subjected to wide variations (Fig 8H), and after twelve hours, the mass of damaged mitochondria was approximately the same as the healthy population. Following the first damage impulse, the dynamic probability rates of fusion and biogenesis were largely increased (Fig 8G), resulting in altered subpopulations. These simulations highlight that biogenesis and degradation are critical limitations to mitochondrial homeostasis, and suggest that experimental focus on the mechanisms which can increase their capacities [7, 77].The bioenergetic stress response of the two damage scenarios (Fig 8F and 8I) indicate that dynamic adaptation of the probabilities of fusion, fission and biogenesis to the loss of healthy mitochondria is essential in maintain cellular homeostasis. Despite damage-provoked alterations to total mitochondrial mass and subpopulation distributions, the model rapidly regained homeostasis (Fig 8E and 8H). Additionally, since a stress increment is responsible in amplifying the probability of fusion, low damaged mitochondria were more subjected to the recovery process (S6B Fig) as highlighted in minor loss in the total healthy mitochondrial mass (S7A Fig) and in the lower level of stress (S7B Fig).Finally, we assessed parameter influence on this integrated model using sensitivity analysis. We considered eleven parameters, each constrained to the following respective range: MR threshold (0–30), fission probability (0–100), initial mitochondrial mass (50–500), fusion frequency (0–30), fusion probability (0–100), damage probability (0–100), damage threshold (0–30), degradation frequency (0–30), ratio low/high damage (0–100), fission frequency (0–30) and biogenesis frequency (0–30). Specifically, we sought to assess how parameter perturbations impact the total mass of healthy mitochondria.With the Latin-hypercube sampling approach, five hundred parameter value sets were generated from the parameter space, and a total of 500 simulations (each for the duration of 24 hours) were performed. Taking each parameter in turn, median response values (total mass of healthy mitochondria) were plotted against the parameter value that generated them (S8 Fig), and partial rank correlation coefficients were calculated (Fig 9A). The correlation coefficients, as expected, showed the biogenesis frequency and the damage probability to have significant influence on the simulation response (Fig 9A, S8F and S8G Fig). A high value in the damage probability produces a decrease in the total mass of healthy mitochondria while a high biogenesis frequency reduces the production of new mitochondria. Both of these factors that directly influence the augment in the energy demand of the cell. Moreover, positive correlation in the damage probability occurred mainly for high values of this parameter, greater than ~60%, while low values appeared to be almost irrelevant to the energetic stress (S8G Fig), indicating that the model is able to counter low level of damage. Similarly, the biogenesis frequency has a positive correlation only for high values (S8F Fig), demonstrating that the model is not able to contain energetic stress without an appropriate biogenesis frequency, thus underling the importance of this process in restoring mitochondrial homeostasis during nutrient deprivation. Additionally, similar to the case of transmission dynamic, fission, fusion and degradation frequencies appeared to be negative correlated with the energy demand (S8C, S8E and S8K Fig). While these parameters require small values to rapidly react to the changes, the correlation in these parameters is close to zero, indicating low influence in the energetic stress behavior of the cell.
Fig 9
Sensitivity analysis of the full model.
(A) Effect of parameters perturbation on the full model. Bar graph represents Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient values for each parameter-output response pairing resulting from a Latin-hypercube sampling of 500 parameter value sets (parameter ranges are described in section “Energetic sensing, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis are integrated processes”). For each parameter set the model was performed over 24 hours. (B) Results of the eFast method used to partition variance in simulation results between parameters. Solid Bars: sensitivity index (Si)–the fraction of output variance explained by the value assigned to that parameter when parameter of interest; Dashed Bars: total sensitivity index (STi)–the variance caused by higher-order non-linear effects between that parameter and the other explored (includes value of Si). Error bars are standard error over four resample curves. Parameter values sets were generated using the sinusoidal sampling approach. 65 parameters were obtained from each of the 4 resampling curves, producing 3120 parameter value sets (260 per parameter).
Sensitivity analysis of the full model.
(A) Effect of parameters perturbation on the full model. Bar graph represents Partial Rank Correlation Coefficient values for each parameter-output response pairing resulting from a Latin-hypercube sampling of 500 parameter value sets (parameter ranges are described in section “Energetic sensing, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis are integrated processes”). For each parameter set the model was performed over 24 hours. (B) Results of the eFast method used to partition variance in simulation results between parameters. Solid Bars: sensitivity index (Si)–the fraction of output variance explained by the value assigned to that parameter when parameter of interest; Dashed Bars: total sensitivity index (STi)–the variance caused by higher-order non-linear effects between that parameter and the other explored (includes value of Si). Error bars are standard error over four resample curves. Parameter values sets were generated using the sinusoidal sampling approach. 65 parameters were obtained from each of the 4 resampling curves, producing 3120 parameter value sets (260 per parameter).We further determined parameter impact on model performance. From twelve parameters (eleven plus the ‘dummy’ used for statistical comparison), we took 65 parameter values from each curve, and employed four resampling curves, producing 3120 parameter value sets, 260 per parameter. Plots were created for the energy demand, detailing the first-order (Si) and total-order (STi) sensitivity indexes calculated for each parameter (Fig 9B). The result of the eFAST approach confirmed the precedent sensitivity analysis and indicates an overall general balance among most parameters, with the damage probability to be the most influencing parameter on the model behavior (Fig 9B). Additionally, both two sensitivity analysis methods indicate an overall equilibrium in parameter impact on system behavior, which we interpret to indicate that our final integrative model is not over-parametrized.
Discussion
The deregulation of mitochondrial dynamics is a contributing factor to many diseases [16, 78, 79]. Here we developed an agent-based model integrating mitochondrial function, dynamics, biogenesis and mitophagy, and investigated how mitochondrial populations establish and maintain homeostasis, and respond to bioenergetic demands. Our modeling approach offers insights into the systemic properties of mitochondrial population dynamics, and sources of cell-to-cell variability.Under conditions of typical physiological mitochondrial content [49], we predict spatial proximity of mitochondria to be a major determinant for distribution of mitochondrial morphologies. Since mitochondria must interact in order to fuse, mitochondrial density contributes independently of a probability for fusion and fission. Importantly, variations in the total mass of mitochondria affect both heterogeneity of the intracellular mitochondria population and therefore resulted in cell-to-cell variability. We found that higher mitochondrial masses are more responsive to the probability of fusion, and in this case physical proximity does not represent a limiting factor. As a result, higher mitochondrial masses allow for more heterogeneous populations and lead to less cell-to-cell variability. Further, our simulations of network connectivity revealed that fusion and fission probabilities have a minor impact compared to velocities which determine the mobility of mitochondria. Importantly, when integrating isolated mitochondrial biogenesis and degradation processes, we did not obtain stable behavior in mitochondrial morphology dynamics and mass. Only by implementing crosstalk between cellular bioenergetic state and mitochondrial morphologies were we able to obtain a homeostatic-capable dynamic model.Thus, our integrative approach suggests that model-based investigation of organelle dynamics requires incorporating functional and environmental considerations. Similarly, we previously found that in order to accurately simulate experimental data, modeling autophagy dynamics required the consideration of bi-directional signaling, in which recycled nutrients, provided through autophagy activation, establish a negative feedback on autophagy [27]. Here, our modeling approach highlights the limitations of mitochondrial mass homeostasis. Most obviously, during prolonged stress mitochondrial biogenesis is not sufficient to compensate in response to increasing mitochondrial stress, and mitophagy. These limitations directly relate to the role of mitochondria in cell death signaling, and future work will focus on integrating apoptotic stress and different modes of regulated mitophagy [7, 80].An important advantage of our approach to multi-scale modeling is that parameters can be used to account for qualitatively- and quantitatively-measured behavior. Here we employed parameter sweeping [63, 81] to find parameter combinations which produced the best description of experimentally-established dynamics of mitochondrial growth and degradation, and two sensitivity analysis methods [57, 82] to analyze the influence of the parameters on transmission dynamic and energetic sensing. Parameter sweeping identified parameters that best predict experimental observations. For example, optimizing mitophagy, our model predicts recognition and sequestration dynamics (a receptor threshold of 12 minutes, and a damage threshold of 12.4 minutes) and a subsequent degradation event of 5.7 minutes. Thereby these values represent a precise description of cellular mechanisms to be experimentally tested, which has recently become possible due to advances in biosensors for measuring mitochondrial damage, mitophagy and biogenesis (reviewed in [8]). Further, by analyzing the distributions of the parameters obtained from the optimization, and their influence by the sensitivity analysis, we gain insight into parameter impact on model behavior, and relationships between parameters. The result of two different global sensitivity analysis methods on our model in the case of transmission dynamic confirmed our hypothesis that mitochondrial mobility is an essential component for transmission dynamics rather than the total mitochondrial mass. Similarly, in the context of energetic sensing, the model appeared to be mainly subjected to the damage probability and to the frequencies of fusion, fission and biogenesis, determinant components for maintaining homeostasis in the cell. Further, low correlation and an overall equilibrium between parameters suggest that our model performs robustly and is not over-parameterized. This modeling approach could be adopted as framework to transform experimental observation into quantitative statements, thereby driving follow-up target experiments. However, it is important to note that our model represents a generalized mammalian cell. As mitochondrial dynamics and morphologies, as well as cellular size and architecture, vary among cell types [3, 83, 84], our model can be adapted for cell-type specific simulations. For example, altering cellular dimensions in order to determine the impact of restricted mitochondrial movements in neuronal processes [33, 37], or restricting mitochondrial movement in order to analyze the highly-static and ordered mitochondrial arrangement in cardiomyocytes [85].In summary, we propose that ABM is uniquely suited to model complex, multi-scale systems such as mitochondrial dynamics and morphology, and advances model-guided investigation of sources of subcellular heterogeneities towards the goal of understanding cellular behavior, and emergence of cell heterogeneity.
Materials and Methods
Modeling
ABM was implemented using the multi-agent programmable modeling environment NetLogo (v5.2.0) [30]. In NetLogo, mobile agents (turtles) interact in a 2-dimensional environment subdivided into micro-compartments (patches). Our model consists of five classes of agents, two static (cell and nucleus) and three dynamic (mitochondria, autophagososmes and autolysosomes), in particular:cell (static agent): it contains all the other agents, represents the external boundary of the system beyond which mobile agents are not allowed to exceed,nucleus (static agent): it represents the internal boundary of the system inside which mobile agents are not allowed to enter,mitochondria (mobile agents): they are able to move inside the cell assuming variable velocity (vl and vh depending on their position in the cell), rotate in relation to an angle (ϑ1 and ϑ2 depending on their surrounding) and with the properties to undergo fusions (according to a fusion probability Fp and at a fusion frequency Ff), fission (according to a fission probability fp and at a fission frequency ff) and biogenesis (according to a biogenesis probability Bp and at a biogenesis frequency Bf). Also, they can undertake a damage state (according to a damage probability Dp),autophagosomes (mobile agents): they are able to move inside the cell and they are involved in the mitochondrial degradation process representing sequestering autophagosomes,autolysosomes (mobile agents): they are able to move inside the cell and they are involved in the mitochondrial degradation process representing degrading lysosomes,a more detailed description of the model agents is available in the Result section.In order to map the time and space of our model to real physical time and space we decided that a distance of 1 in our simulation space corresponds to a physical distance of 1 μm and each time step of our simulation corresponds to 1 seconds. Therfore, dt and ds are defined as follows:Accordingly, in order to convert the real velocity to a NetLogo velocity vNL, we defined:
where v assumes the values vl or vh previously defined in the text.As a conceptual characterization of the ABM approach adopted in this work we present here a detailed explanation of the model iterations describing the mitochondrial fusion and fission cycle (Fig 1B and 1C and S1 Fig). At time point dt = 0 the model is initialized and mitochondria are assigned a random position inside the cell with and a random size (ranging continuously from Mmin to Mmax) until a total initial mass value, decided from the user (e.g. 300 μm2), is reached. In the first time step (dt = 1) each mitochondrion first moves and rotates (as explained in the results section) then the fusion and fission cycle starts. The program loops over all mitochondria, starting from a randomly chosen mitochondrion j, if the time step matches the fusion frequency (Ff) (e.g. if it is equal to 5 minutes or a multiple of 5 minutes) then a random number is sampled uniformly between 0 and 100, if this number is less than the fusion probability (Fp) the program checks the distance to the closest mitochondrion, if (I) the distance is less or equal to the dimension of j, the program controls if (II) the mass of j plus the mass of the closest mitochondrion is less or equal to Mmax, if this conditions are satisfied the fusion process occurs (if either one of these two conditions are not satisfied the program switch to the next mitochondrion). The two mitochondria fuse to a resulting mitochondrion with a mass equal to the sum of the two masses. The model cycles over all the mitochondria repeating the procedures described above and then moves to the fission process. In the fission process the program loops again over all mitochondria. Starting from a randomly chosen mitochondrion j, if the time step matches the fission frequency (ff) (e.g. if it is equal to 5 minutes or a multiple of 5 minutes) then a random number is sampled uniformly between 0 and 100, if this number is less than the fission probability (fp), the program checks if the mass of j is greater or equal to 2Mmin. If this condition is satisfied the fission process occurs (if not the program switch to the next mitochondrion). The mitochondrion j splits then in two mitochondria of size M1 and M2 given by Eqs (1) and (2). The model cycles over all the mitochondria repeating the procedures described above. Following, the time is incremented of one unit (t = t + Δt) and all the process is repeated until reaching the final time point desired (chosen by the user).The fusion and fission cycle was taken as example since it is both the simplest and the core of the program. The model increases then in complexity and new processes are integrated (S4 and S6 Figs) nevertheless, they work along the lines of this basic procedure.
Optimization
Optimization search was performed with the R package for genetic algorithm [63] using a classic Genetic Algorithm (settings: type = real-valued, popSize = 10, maxfitness = 0, pcrossover = 0.8, pmutation = 0.01). In order to optimize the two objective functions OB and OD (defined in the text) we performed each time 100 iteration. Moreover, in the optimization process, the objective function analyzed at each time step is an average of 10 model simulation runs. The parameters optimized (biogenesis probability, biogenesis frequency, damage threshold, receptor threshold and degradation frequency) were constrained in the range [1,60].
Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis was performed with the Simulation Parameter Analysis R Toolkit ApplicatioN: Spartan (v2.2.1) [57, 82, 86], specifically using the Latin-Hypercube Sampling and Analysis and the eFast Sampling and Analysis. In the section “Transmission dynamics of the mitochondrial network” the GFP-labeled mass of mitochondria was used as a response variable, while in the section “Energetic sensing, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis must be considered as integrated processes” the total mass of healthy mitochondria was used as a response variable.
Additional analysis
Statistical analysis and plotting were executed with the open source environment for statistical computing R (v3.2.1) [87]. All the simulations were performed in R profiting of the link between R and NetLogo given by the R package RNetLogo (v1.0–1) [88, 89].
Fusion/fission cycle algorithm.
Detailed description of the complete algorithm for the fusion/fission cycle represented in Fig 1D.(TIF)Click here for additional data file.
Compound effects between parameters using Latin-hypercube parameter sampling.
Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to total mass.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to initial labeled mass.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to fission probability.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to fission frequency.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to fusion probability.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to fusion frequency.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to vl.Fusion frequency sorted by the value assigned to vh.Red lines represent the lowess smoother lines.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.
Subpopulation analysis with and without integrated cellular bioenergetics state.
Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of total mitochondria mass for an initial mass of 150 fragmented mitochondria with (dark grey line) and without (light grey line) biogenesis integrated with cellular bioenergetics state. Initial parameters values: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes). All simulations were performed for a total time of 12 hours.Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of total mitochondria mass for an initial mass of 150 fragmented mitochondria and with biogenesis integrated with cellular bioenergetics state subjected to three different initial biogenesis frequency values: 28.9 (light blue line), 57.8 (blue line) and 86.7 (dark blue line) minutes. Initial parameters values: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes). All simulations were performed for a total time of 12 hours.Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations for an initial total mitochondrial mass of 150 fragmented mitochondria of the total mitochondrial mass (grey line) and three mitochondrial subpopulations: small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and large mass (green line) without biogenesis integrated with cellular bioenergetics state. Initial parameters values: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes). All simulations were performed for a total time of 12 hours.Same as (C) but with biogenesis integrated with cellular bioenergetics state.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.
Degradation cycle algorithm.
Detailed description of the complete algorithm for the degradation cycle represented in Fig 7B.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded regions) of 100 simulations of probabilities of fusion (dark green line), fission (light green line), biogenesis (orange line) total mitochondrial mass (grey line), three mitochondria subpopulations: small mass (orange line), medium mass (blue line) and big mass (green line), and bioenergetics stress (red line) subjected to a constant damage signals of 5%. The plot represents the evolution of the total mass normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Initial values assigned to the model: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours.Same as (A) but with constant damage signals of 20%.Same as (A) but with constant damage signals of 40%.Same as (A) but with constant damage signals of 60%.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.
Recovery algorithm.
Detailed description of the complete algorithm for the recovery cycle.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.
Energetic sensing and recovery.
Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded area) of 100 simulations for an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 of the total mitochondrial mass with (dark grey) and without (light grey) the recovery process, subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour with and without recovery process. The plot represents the evolution of the total mass and of three mitochondrial subpopulations normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Initial parameters values: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes). Line graphs represent the mean value of 100 simulations. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours.Line graphs display mean value and standard deviation (shaded area) of 100 simulations for an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 of the bioenergetics stress with (dark red) and without (light red) the recovery process, subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour with and without recovery process. The plot represents the evolution of the total mass and of three mitochondrial subpopulations normalized to the total mass at time point 0. Initial parameters values: fusion probability = fission probability = 50%, fusion frequency = fission frequency = 5 minutes, biogenesis probability = 22.1%, biogenesis frequency = 28.9 minutes, receptor threshold = 12 minutes, damage threshold = 12.4 minutes, degradation frequency = 5.7 minutes). Line graphs represent the mean value of 100 simulations. All the simulations were performed for a total time of 24 hours.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to total mass.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to fission probability.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to fission frequency.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to fusion probability.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to fusion frequency.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to biogenesis frequency.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to EN stress level.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to ration L/H damage.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to damage threshold.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to MR threshold.MR threshold sorted by the value assigned to degradation frequency.Red lines represent the lowess smoother lines.(TIFF)Click here for additional data file.
Mitochondrial population model.
NetLogo File for the mitochondrial population full model including fusion/fission, biogenesis, damage and degradation cycles and energetic sensing. Load and use with NetLogo 5.2.0 or newer.(NLOGO)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of central mitochondrial dynamic: fusion-fission cycles.
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing mitochondrial directionality. Starting with an initial total mass of 300 mitochondria, the movie represents the evolution of the population with fusion/fission probabilities of 50%/50% and fusion/fission frequencies of 5 minutes (Fig 2C middle graph).(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of mitochondrial directionality.
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing mitochondrial directionality. Starting with an initial total mass of 300 mitochondria, the movie represents the evolution of the population with fusion/fission probabilities of 50%/50%, fusion/fission frequencies of 5 minutes and ϑ1 ϵ [0°, 10°] (Fig 3B).(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of transmission dynamic in mitochondrial network.
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing transmission dynamic in mitochondrial network. Starting with an initial total mass of 300 mitochondria with 10% of them GFP labeled (green), the movie represents the GFP transmission through the cell. Fusion/fission probabilities of 50%/50% and fusion/fission frequencies of 5 minutes (Fig 4B lower graph).(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of mitochondrial biogenesis.
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing mitochondrial biogenesis. Starting with an initial mitochondrial mass of 1, the movie represents the repopulation of the cell. Fusion/fission probabilities of 50%/50%, fusion/fission frequencies of 5 minutes, biogenesis probability of 22.1% and biogenesis frequency of 28.9 minutes (Fig 6D).(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of mitochondrial damage sensing and mitophagy.
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing mitochondrial damage sensing and mitophagy. Starting with an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 (50% high-damaged and 50% low-damaged), the movie represents mitochondrial degradation (Fig 7E). Receptor threshold of 12 minutes, damage threshold of 12.4 minutes and degradation frequency of 5.7 minutes.(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of mitochondrial energetic sensing (low stress).
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing mitochondrial energetic sensing. Starting with an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 subjected to five different damage signals (10% and 20%) every two hours for one hour, the movie represents the evolution of the population (Fig 8E).(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Time course movie of mitochondrial energetic sensing (high stress).
This movie shows the time-course of one model run describing mitochondrial energetic sensing. Starting with an initial mitochondrial mass of 300 subjected to five different damage signals (40%) every two hours for one hour, the movie represents the evolution of the population (Fig 8H).(AVI)Click here for additional data file.
Authors: Sarah B Berman; Ying-bei Chen; Bing Qi; J Michael McCaffery; Edmund B Rucker; Sandra Goebbels; Klaus-Armin Nave; Beth A Arnold; Elizabeth A Jonas; Fernando J Pineda; J Marie Hardwick Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2009-03-02 Impact factor: 10.539
Authors: Abdel Aouacheria; Stephen Baghdiguian; Heather M Lamb; Jason D Huska; Fernando J Pineda; J Marie Hardwick Journal: Neurochem Int Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Daniel J Klionsky; Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz; Sara Abdelfatah; Mahmoud Abdellatif; Asghar Abdoli; Steffen Abel; Hagai Abeliovich; Marie H Abildgaard; Yakubu Princely Abudu; Abraham Acevedo-Arozena; Iannis E Adamopoulos; Khosrow Adeli; Timon E Adolph; Annagrazia Adornetto; Elma Aflaki; Galila Agam; Anupam Agarwal; Bharat B Aggarwal; Maria Agnello; Patrizia Agostinis; Javed N Agrewala; Alexander Agrotis; Patricia V Aguilar; S Tariq Ahmad; Zubair M Ahmed; Ulises Ahumada-Castro; Sonja Aits; Shu Aizawa; Yunus Akkoc; Tonia Akoumianaki; Hafize Aysin Akpinar; Ahmed M Al-Abd; Lina Al-Akra; Abeer Al-Gharaibeh; Moulay A Alaoui-Jamali; Simon Alberti; Elísabet Alcocer-Gómez; Cristiano Alessandri; Muhammad Ali; M Abdul Alim Al-Bari; Saeb Aliwaini; Javad Alizadeh; Eugènia Almacellas; Alexandru Almasan; Alicia Alonso; Guillermo D Alonso; Nihal Altan-Bonnet; Dario C Altieri; Élida M C Álvarez; Sara Alves; Cristine Alves da Costa; Mazen M Alzaharna; Marialaura Amadio; Consuelo Amantini; Cristina Amaral; Susanna Ambrosio; Amal O Amer; Veena Ammanathan; Zhenyi An; Stig U Andersen; Shaida A Andrabi; Magaiver Andrade-Silva; Allen M Andres; Sabrina Angelini; David Ann; Uche C Anozie; Mohammad Y Ansari; Pedro Antas; Adam Antebi; Zuriñe Antón; Tahira Anwar; Lionel Apetoh; Nadezda Apostolova; Toshiyuki Araki; Yasuhiro Araki; Kohei Arasaki; Wagner L Araújo; Jun Araya; Catherine Arden; Maria-Angeles Arévalo; Sandro Arguelles; Esperanza Arias; Jyothi Arikkath; Hirokazu Arimoto; Aileen R Ariosa; Darius Armstrong-James; Laetitia Arnauné-Pelloquin; Angeles Aroca; Daniela S Arroyo; Ivica Arsov; Rubén Artero; Dalia Maria Lucia Asaro; Michael Aschner; Milad Ashrafizadeh; Osnat Ashur-Fabian; Atanas G Atanasov; Alicia K Au; Patrick Auberger; Holger W Auner; Laure Aurelian; Riccardo Autelli; Laura Avagliano; Yenniffer Ávalos; Sanja Aveic; Célia Alexandra Aveleira; Tamar Avin-Wittenberg; Yucel Aydin; Scott Ayton; Srinivas Ayyadevara; Maria Azzopardi; Misuzu Baba; Jonathan M Backer; Steven K Backues; Dong-Hun Bae; Ok-Nam Bae; Soo Han Bae; Eric H Baehrecke; Ahruem Baek; Seung-Hoon Baek; Sung Hee Baek; Giacinto Bagetta; Agnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna; Hua Bai; Jie Bai; Xiyuan Bai; Yidong Bai; Nandadulal Bairagi; Shounak Baksi; Teresa Balbi; Cosima T Baldari; Walter Balduini; Andrea Ballabio; Maria Ballester; Salma Balazadeh; Rena Balzan; Rina Bandopadhyay; Sreeparna Banerjee; Sulagna Banerjee; Ágnes Bánréti; Yan Bao; Mauricio S Baptista; Alessandra Baracca; Cristiana Barbati; Ariadna Bargiela; Daniela Barilà; Peter G Barlow; Sami J Barmada; Esther Barreiro; George E Barreto; Jiri Bartek; Bonnie Bartel; Alberto Bartolome; Gaurav R Barve; Suresh H Basagoudanavar; Diane C Bassham; Robert C Bast; Alakananda Basu; Henri Batoko; Isabella Batten; Etienne E Baulieu; Bradley L Baumgarner; Jagadeesh Bayry; Rupert Beale; Isabelle Beau; Florian Beaumatin; Luiz R G Bechara; George R Beck; Michael F Beers; Jakob Begun; Christian Behrends; Georg M N Behrens; Roberto Bei; Eloy Bejarano; Shai Bel; Christian Behl; Amine Belaid; Naïma Belgareh-Touzé; Cristina Bellarosa; Francesca Belleudi; Melissa Belló Pérez; Raquel Bello-Morales; Jackeline Soares de Oliveira Beltran; Sebastián Beltran; Doris Mangiaracina Benbrook; Mykolas Bendorius; Bruno A Benitez; Irene Benito-Cuesta; Julien Bensalem; Martin W Berchtold; Sabina Berezowska; Daniele Bergamaschi; Matteo Bergami; Andreas Bergmann; Laura Berliocchi; Clarisse Berlioz-Torrent; Amélie Bernard; Lionel Berthoux; Cagri G Besirli; Sebastien Besteiro; Virginie M Betin; Rudi Beyaert; Jelena S Bezbradica; Kiran Bhaskar; Ingrid Bhatia-Kissova; Resham Bhattacharya; Sujoy Bhattacharya; Shalmoli Bhattacharyya; Md Shenuarin Bhuiyan; Sujit Kumar Bhutia; Lanrong Bi; Xiaolin Bi; Trevor J Biden; Krikor Bijian; Viktor A Billes; Nadine Binart; Claudia Bincoletto; Asa B Birgisdottir; Geir Bjorkoy; Gonzalo Blanco; Ana Blas-Garcia; Janusz Blasiak; Robert Blomgran; Klas Blomgren; Janice S Blum; Emilio Boada-Romero; Mirta Boban; Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia; Philippe Boeuf; Barry Boland; Pascale Bomont; Paolo Bonaldo; Srinivasa Reddy Bonam; Laura Bonfili; Juan S Bonifacino; Brian A Boone; Martin D Bootman; Matteo Bordi; Christoph Borner; Beat C Bornhauser; Gautam Borthakur; Jürgen Bosch; Santanu Bose; Luis M Botana; Juan Botas; Chantal M Boulanger; Michael E Boulton; Mathieu Bourdenx; Benjamin Bourgeois; Nollaig M Bourke; Guilhem Bousquet; Patricia Boya; Peter V Bozhkov; Luiz H M Bozi; Tolga O Bozkurt; Doug E Brackney; Christian H Brandts; Ralf J Braun; Gerhard H Braus; Roberto Bravo-Sagua; José M Bravo-San Pedro; Patrick Brest; Marie-Agnès Bringer; Alfredo Briones-Herrera; V Courtney Broaddus; Peter Brodersen; Jeffrey L Brodsky; Steven L Brody; Paola G Bronson; Jeff M Bronstein; Carolyn N Brown; Rhoderick E Brown; Patricia C Brum; John H Brumell; Nicola Brunetti-Pierri; Daniele Bruno; Robert J Bryson-Richardson; Cecilia Bucci; Carmen Buchrieser; Marta Bueno; Laura Elisa Buitrago-Molina; Simone Buraschi; Shilpa Buch; J Ross Buchan; Erin M Buckingham; Hikmet Budak; Mauricio Budini; Geert Bultynck; Florin Burada; Joseph R Burgoyne; M Isabel Burón; Victor Bustos; Sabrina Büttner; Elena Butturini; Aaron Byrd; Isabel Cabas; Sandra Cabrera-Benitez; Ken Cadwell; Jingjing Cai; Lu Cai; Qian Cai; Montserrat Cairó; Jose A Calbet; Guy A Caldwell; Kim A Caldwell; Jarrod A Call; Riccardo Calvani; Ana C Calvo; Miguel Calvo-Rubio Barrera; Niels Os Camara; Jacques H Camonis; Nadine Camougrand; Michelangelo Campanella; Edward M Campbell; François-Xavier Campbell-Valois; Silvia Campello; Ilaria Campesi; Juliane C Campos; Olivier Camuzard; Jorge Cancino; Danilo Candido de Almeida; Laura Canesi; Isabella Caniggia; Barbara Canonico; Carles Cantí; Bin Cao; Michele Caraglia; Beatriz Caramés; Evie H Carchman; Elena Cardenal-Muñoz; Cesar Cardenas; Luis Cardenas; Sandra M Cardoso; Jennifer S Carew; Georges F Carle; Gillian Carleton; Silvia Carloni; Didac Carmona-Gutierrez; Leticia A Carneiro; Oliana Carnevali; Julian M Carosi; Serena Carra; Alice Carrier; Lucie Carrier; Bernadette Carroll; A Brent Carter; Andreia Neves Carvalho; Magali Casanova; Caty Casas; Josefina Casas; Chiara Cassioli; Eliseo F Castillo; Karen Castillo; Sonia Castillo-Lluva; Francesca Castoldi; Marco Castori; Ariel F Castro; Margarida Castro-Caldas; Javier Castro-Hernandez; Susana Castro-Obregon; Sergio D Catz; Claudia Cavadas; Federica Cavaliere; Gabriella Cavallini; Maria Cavinato; Maria L Cayuela; Paula Cebollada Rica; Valentina Cecarini; Francesco Cecconi; Marzanna Cechowska-Pasko; Simone Cenci; Victòria Ceperuelo-Mallafré; João J Cerqueira; Janete M Cerutti; Davide Cervia; Vildan Bozok Cetintas; Silvia Cetrullo; Han-Jung Chae; Andrei S Chagin; Chee-Yin Chai; Gopal Chakrabarti; Oishee Chakrabarti; Tapas Chakraborty; Trinad Chakraborty; Mounia Chami; Georgios Chamilos; David W Chan; Edmond Y W Chan; Edward D Chan; H Y Edwin Chan; Helen H Chan; Hung Chan; Matthew T V Chan; Yau Sang Chan; Partha K Chandra; Chih-Peng Chang; Chunmei Chang; Hao-Chun Chang; Kai Chang; Jie Chao; Tracey Chapman; Nicolas Charlet-Berguerand; Samrat Chatterjee; Shail K Chaube; Anu Chaudhary; Santosh Chauhan; Edward Chaum; Frédéric Checler; Michael E Cheetham; Chang-Shi Chen; Guang-Chao Chen; Jian-Fu Chen; Liam L Chen; Leilei Chen; Lin Chen; Mingliang Chen; Mu-Kuan Chen; Ning Chen; Quan Chen; Ruey-Hwa Chen; Shi Chen; Wei Chen; Weiqiang Chen; Xin-Ming Chen; Xiong-Wen Chen; Xu Chen; Yan Chen; Ye-Guang Chen; Yingyu Chen; Yongqiang Chen; Yu-Jen Chen; Yue-Qin Chen; Zhefan Stephen Chen; Zhi Chen; Zhi-Hua Chen; Zhijian J Chen; Zhixiang Chen; Hanhua Cheng; Jun Cheng; Shi-Yuan Cheng; Wei Cheng; Xiaodong Cheng; Xiu-Tang Cheng; Yiyun Cheng; Zhiyong Cheng; Zhong Chen; Heesun Cheong; Jit Kong Cheong; Boris V Chernyak; Sara Cherry; Chi Fai Randy Cheung; Chun Hei Antonio Cheung; King-Ho Cheung; Eric Chevet; Richard J Chi; Alan Kwok Shing Chiang; Ferdinando Chiaradonna; Roberto Chiarelli; Mario Chiariello; Nathalia Chica; Susanna Chiocca; Mario Chiong; Shih-Hwa Chiou; Abhilash I Chiramel; Valerio Chiurchiù; Dong-Hyung Cho; Seong-Kyu Choe; Augustine M K Choi; Mary E Choi; Kamalika Roy Choudhury; Norman S Chow; Charleen T Chu; Jason P Chua; John Jia En Chua; Hyewon Chung; Kin Pan Chung; Seockhoon Chung; So-Hyang Chung; Yuen-Li Chung; Valentina Cianfanelli; Iwona A Ciechomska; Mariana Cifuentes; Laura Cinque; Sebahattin Cirak; Mara Cirone; Michael J Clague; Robert Clarke; Emilio Clementi; Eliana M Coccia; Patrice Codogno; Ehud Cohen; Mickael M Cohen; Tania Colasanti; Fiorella Colasuonno; Robert A Colbert; Anna Colell; Miodrag Čolić; Nuria S Coll; Mark O Collins; María I Colombo; Daniel A Colón-Ramos; Lydie Combaret; Sergio Comincini; Márcia R Cominetti; Antonella Consiglio; Andrea Conte; Fabrizio Conti; Viorica Raluca Contu; Mark R Cookson; Kevin M Coombs; Isabelle Coppens; Maria Tiziana Corasaniti; Dale P Corkery; Nils Cordes; Katia Cortese; Maria do Carmo Costa; Sarah Costantino; Paola Costelli; Ana Coto-Montes; Peter J Crack; Jose L Crespo; Alfredo Criollo; Valeria Crippa; Riccardo Cristofani; Tamas Csizmadia; Antonio Cuadrado; Bing Cui; Jun Cui; Yixian Cui; Yong Cui; Emmanuel Culetto; Andrea C Cumino; Andrey V Cybulsky; Mark J Czaja; Stanislaw J Czuczwar; Stefania D'Adamo; Marcello D'Amelio; Daniela D'Arcangelo; Andrew C D'Lugos; Gabriella D'Orazi; James A da Silva; Hormos Salimi Dafsari; Ruben K Dagda; Yasin Dagdas; Maria Daglia; Xiaoxia Dai; Yun Dai; Yuyuan Dai; Jessica Dal Col; Paul Dalhaimer; Luisa Dalla Valle; Tobias Dallenga; Guillaume Dalmasso; Markus Damme; Ilaria Dando; Nico P Dantuma; April L Darling; Hiranmoy Das; Srinivasan Dasarathy; Santosh K Dasari; Srikanta Dash; Oliver Daumke; Adrian N Dauphinee; Jeffrey S Davies; Valeria A Dávila; Roger J Davis; Tanja Davis; Sharadha Dayalan Naidu; Francesca De Amicis; Karolien De Bosscher; Francesca De Felice; Lucia De Franceschi; Chiara De Leonibus; Mayara G de Mattos Barbosa; Guido R Y De Meyer; Angelo De Milito; Cosimo De Nunzio; Clara De Palma; Mauro De Santi; Claudio De Virgilio; Daniela De Zio; Jayanta Debnath; Brian J DeBosch; Jean-Paul Decuypere; Mark A Deehan; Gianluca Deflorian; James DeGregori; Benjamin Dehay; Gabriel Del Rio; Joe R Delaney; Lea M D Delbridge; Elizabeth Delorme-Axford; M Victoria Delpino; Francesca Demarchi; Vilma Dembitz; Nicholas D Demers; Hongbin Deng; Zhiqiang Deng; Joern Dengjel; Paul Dent; Donna Denton; Melvin L DePamphilis; Channing J Der; Vojo Deretic; Albert Descoteaux; Laura Devis; Sushil Devkota; Olivier Devuyst; Grant Dewson; Mahendiran Dharmasivam; Rohan Dhiman; Diego di Bernardo; Manlio Di Cristina; Fabio Di Domenico; Pietro Di Fazio; Alessio Di Fonzo; Giovanni Di Guardo; Gianni M Di Guglielmo; Luca Di Leo; Chiara Di Malta; Alessia Di Nardo; Martina Di Rienzo; Federica Di Sano; George Diallinas; Jiajie Diao; Guillermo Diaz-Araya; Inés Díaz-Laviada; Jared M Dickinson; Marc Diederich; Mélanie Dieudé; Ivan Dikic; Shiping Ding; Wen-Xing Ding; Luciana Dini; Jelena Dinić; Miroslav Dinic; Albena T Dinkova-Kostova; Marc S Dionne; Jörg H W Distler; Abhinav Diwan; Ian M C Dixon; Mojgan Djavaheri-Mergny; Ina Dobrinski; Oxana Dobrovinskaya; Radek Dobrowolski; Renwick C J Dobson; Jelena Đokić; Serap Dokmeci Emre; Massimo Donadelli; Bo Dong; Xiaonan Dong; Zhiwu Dong; Gerald W Dorn Ii; Volker Dotsch; Huan Dou; Juan Dou; Moataz Dowaidar; Sami Dridi; Liat Drucker; Ailian Du; Caigan Du; Guangwei Du; Hai-Ning Du; Li-Lin Du; André du Toit; Shao-Bin Duan; Xiaoqiong Duan; Sónia P Duarte; Anna Dubrovska; Elaine A Dunlop; Nicolas Dupont; Raúl V Durán; Bilikere S Dwarakanath; Sergey A Dyshlovoy; Darius Ebrahimi-Fakhari; Leopold Eckhart; Charles L Edelstein; Thomas Efferth; Eftekhar Eftekharpour; Ludwig Eichinger; Nabil Eid; Tobias Eisenberg; N Tony Eissa; Sanaa Eissa; Miriam Ejarque; Abdeljabar El Andaloussi; Nazira El-Hage; Shahenda El-Naggar; Anna Maria Eleuteri; Eman S El-Shafey; Mohamed Elgendy; Aristides G Eliopoulos; María M Elizalde; Philip M Elks; Hans-Peter Elsasser; Eslam S Elsherbiny; Brooke M Emerling; N C Tolga Emre; Christina H Eng; Nikolai Engedal; Anna-Mart Engelbrecht; Agnete S T Engelsen; Jorrit M Enserink; Ricardo Escalante; Audrey Esclatine; Mafalda Escobar-Henriques; Eeva-Liisa Eskelinen; Lucile Espert; Makandjou-Ola Eusebio; Gemma Fabrias; Cinzia Fabrizi; Antonio Facchiano; Francesco Facchiano; Bengt Fadeel; Claudio Fader; Alex C Faesen; W Douglas Fairlie; Alberto Falcó; Bjorn H Falkenburger; Daping Fan; Jie Fan; Yanbo Fan; Evandro F Fang; Yanshan Fang; Yognqi Fang; Manolis Fanto; Tamar Farfel-Becker; Mathias Faure; Gholamreza Fazeli; Anthony O Fedele; Arthur M Feldman; Du Feng; Jiachun Feng; Lifeng Feng; Yibin Feng; Yuchen Feng; Wei Feng; Thais Fenz Araujo; Thomas A Ferguson; Álvaro F Fernández; Jose C Fernandez-Checa; Sonia Fernández-Veledo; Alisdair R Fernie; Anthony W Ferrante; Alessandra Ferraresi; Merari F Ferrari; Julio C B Ferreira; Susan Ferro-Novick; Antonio Figueras; Riccardo Filadi; Nicoletta Filigheddu; Eduardo Filippi-Chiela; Giuseppe Filomeni; Gian Maria Fimia; Vittorio Fineschi; Francesca Finetti; Steven Finkbeiner; Edward A Fisher; Paul B Fisher; Flavio Flamigni; Steven J Fliesler; Trude H Flo; Ida Florance; Oliver Florey; Tullio Florio; Erika Fodor; Carlo Follo; Edward A Fon; Antonella Forlino; Francesco Fornai; Paola Fortini; Anna Fracassi; Alessandro Fraldi; Brunella Franco; Rodrigo Franco; Flavia Franconi; Lisa B Frankel; Scott L Friedman; Leopold F Fröhlich; Gema Frühbeck; Jose M Fuentes; Yukio Fujiki; Naonobu Fujita; Yuuki Fujiwara; Mitsunori Fukuda; Simone Fulda; Luc Furic; Norihiko Furuya; Carmela Fusco; Michaela U Gack; Lidia Gaffke; Sehamuddin Galadari; Alessia Galasso; Maria F Galindo; Sachith Gallolu Kankanamalage; Lorenzo Galluzzi; Vincent Galy; Noor Gammoh; Boyi Gan; Ian G Ganley; Feng Gao; Hui Gao; Minghui Gao; Ping Gao; Shou-Jiang Gao; Wentao Gao; Xiaobo Gao; Ana Garcera; Maria Noé Garcia; Verónica E Garcia; Francisco García-Del Portillo; Vega Garcia-Escudero; Aracely Garcia-Garcia; Marina Garcia-Macia; Diana García-Moreno; Carmen Garcia-Ruiz; Patricia García-Sanz; Abhishek D Garg; Ricardo Gargini; Tina Garofalo; Robert F Garry; Nils C Gassen; Damian Gatica; Liang Ge; Wanzhong Ge; Ruth Geiss-Friedlander; Cecilia Gelfi; Pascal Genschik; Ian E Gentle; Valeria Gerbino; Christoph Gerhardt; Kyla Germain; Marc Germain; David A Gewirtz; Elham Ghasemipour Afshar; Saeid Ghavami; Alessandra Ghigo; Manosij Ghosh; Georgios Giamas; Claudia Giampietri; Alexandra Giatromanolaki; Gary E Gibson; Spencer B Gibson; Vanessa Ginet; Edward Giniger; Carlotta Giorgi; Henrique Girao; Stephen E Girardin; Mridhula Giridharan; Sandy Giuliano; Cecilia Giulivi; Sylvie Giuriato; Julien Giustiniani; Alexander Gluschko; Veit Goder; Alexander Goginashvili; Jakub Golab; David C Goldstone; Anna Golebiewska; Luciana R Gomes; Rodrigo Gomez; Rubén Gómez-Sánchez; Maria Catalina Gomez-Puerto; Raquel Gomez-Sintes; Qingqiu Gong; Felix M Goni; Javier González-Gallego; Tomas Gonzalez-Hernandez; Rosa A Gonzalez-Polo; Jose A Gonzalez-Reyes; Patricia González-Rodríguez; Ing Swie Goping; Marina S Gorbatyuk; Nikolai V Gorbunov; Kıvanç Görgülü; Roxana M Gorojod; Sharon M Gorski; Sandro Goruppi; Cecilia Gotor; Roberta A Gottlieb; Illana Gozes; Devrim Gozuacik; Martin Graef; Markus H Gräler; Veronica Granatiero; Daniel Grasso; Joshua P Gray; Douglas R Green; Alexander Greenhough; Stephen L Gregory; Edward F Griffin; Mark W Grinstaff; Frederic Gros; Charles Grose; Angelina S Gross; Florian Gruber; Paolo Grumati; Tilman Grune; Xueyan Gu; Jun-Lin Guan; Carlos M Guardia; Kishore Guda; Flora Guerra; Consuelo Guerri; Prasun Guha; Carlos Guillén; Shashi Gujar; Anna Gukovskaya; Ilya Gukovsky; Jan Gunst; Andreas Günther; Anyonya R Guntur; Chuanyong Guo; Chun Guo; Hongqing Guo; Lian-Wang Guo; Ming Guo; Pawan Gupta; Shashi Kumar Gupta; Swapnil Gupta; Veer Bala Gupta; Vivek Gupta; Asa B Gustafsson; David D Gutterman; Ranjitha H B; Annakaisa Haapasalo; James E Haber; Aleksandra Hać; Shinji Hadano; Anders J Hafrén; Mansour Haidar; Belinda S Hall; Gunnel Halldén; Anne Hamacher-Brady; Andrea Hamann; Maho Hamasaki; Weidong Han; Malene Hansen; Phyllis I Hanson; Zijian Hao; Masaru Harada; Ljubica Harhaji-Trajkovic; Nirmala Hariharan; Nigil Haroon; James Harris; Takafumi Hasegawa; Noor Hasima Nagoor; Jeffrey A Haspel; Volker Haucke; Wayne D Hawkins; Bruce A Hay; Cole M Haynes; Soren B Hayrabedyan; Thomas S Hays; Congcong He; Qin He; Rong-Rong He; You-Wen He; Yu-Ying He; Yasser Heakal; Alexander M Heberle; J Fielding Hejtmancik; Gudmundur Vignir Helgason; Vanessa Henkel; Marc Herb; Alexander Hergovich; Anna Herman-Antosiewicz; Agustín Hernández; Carlos Hernandez; Sergio Hernandez-Diaz; Virginia Hernandez-Gea; Amaury Herpin; Judit Herreros; Javier H Hervás; Daniel Hesselson; Claudio Hetz; Volker T Heussler; Yujiro Higuchi; Sabine Hilfiker; Joseph A Hill; William S Hlavacek; Emmanuel A Ho; Idy H T Ho; Philip Wing-Lok Ho; Shu-Leong Ho; Wan Yun Ho; G Aaron Hobbs; Mark Hochstrasser; Peter H M Hoet; Daniel Hofius; Paul Hofman; Annika Höhn; Carina I Holmberg; Jose R Hombrebueno; Chang-Won Hong Yi-Ren Hong; Lora V Hooper; Thorsten Hoppe; Rastislav Horos; Yujin Hoshida; I-Lun Hsin; Hsin-Yun Hsu; Bing Hu; Dong Hu; Li-Fang Hu; Ming Chang Hu; Ronggui Hu; Wei Hu; Yu-Chen Hu; Zhuo-Wei Hu; Fang Hua; Jinlian Hua; Yingqi Hua; Chongmin Huan; Canhua Huang; Chuanshu Huang; Chuanxin Huang; Chunling Huang; Haishan Huang; Kun Huang; Michael L H Huang; Rui Huang; Shan Huang; Tianzhi Huang; Xing Huang; Yuxiang Jack Huang; Tobias B Huber; Virginie Hubert; Christian A Hubner; Stephanie M Hughes; William E Hughes; Magali Humbert; Gerhard Hummer; James H Hurley; Sabah Hussain; Salik Hussain; Patrick J Hussey; Martina Hutabarat; Hui-Yun Hwang; Seungmin Hwang; Antonio Ieni; Fumiyo Ikeda; Yusuke Imagawa; Yuzuru Imai; Carol Imbriano; Masaya Imoto; Denise M Inman; Ken Inoki; Juan Iovanna; Renato V Iozzo; Giuseppe Ippolito; Javier E Irazoqui; Pablo Iribarren; Mohd Ishaq; Makoto Ishikawa; Nestor Ishimwe; Ciro Isidoro; Nahed Ismail; Shohreh Issazadeh-Navikas; Eisuke Itakura; Daisuke Ito; Davor Ivankovic; Saška Ivanova; Anand Krishnan V Iyer; José M Izquierdo; Masanori Izumi; Marja Jäättelä; Majid Sakhi Jabir; William T Jackson; Nadia Jacobo-Herrera; Anne-Claire Jacomin; Elise Jacquin; Pooja Jadiya; Hartmut Jaeschke; Chinnaswamy Jagannath; Arjen J Jakobi; Johan Jakobsson; Bassam Janji; Pidder Jansen-Dürr; Patric J Jansson; Jonathan Jantsch; Sławomir Januszewski; Alagie Jassey; Steve Jean; Hélène Jeltsch-David; Pavla Jendelova; Andreas Jenny; Thomas E Jensen; Niels Jessen; Jenna L Jewell; Jing Ji; Lijun Jia; Rui Jia; Liwen Jiang; Qing Jiang; Richeng Jiang; Teng Jiang; Xuejun Jiang; Yu Jiang; Maria Jimenez-Sanchez; Eun-Jung Jin; Fengyan Jin; Hongchuan Jin; Li Jin; Luqi Jin; Meiyan Jin; Si Jin; Eun-Kyeong Jo; Carine Joffre; Terje Johansen; Gail V W Johnson; Simon A Johnston; Eija Jokitalo; Mohit Kumar Jolly; Leo A B Joosten; Joaquin Jordan; Bertrand Joseph; Dianwen Ju; Jeong-Sun Ju; Jingfang Ju; Esmeralda Juárez; Delphine Judith; Gábor Juhász; Youngsoo Jun; Chang Hwa Jung; Sung-Chul Jung; Yong Keun Jung; Heinz Jungbluth; Johannes Jungverdorben; Steffen Just; Kai Kaarniranta; Allen Kaasik; Tomohiro Kabuta; Daniel Kaganovich; Alon Kahana; Renate Kain; Shinjo Kajimura; Maria Kalamvoki; Manjula Kalia; Danuta S Kalinowski; Nina Kaludercic; Ioanna Kalvari; Joanna Kaminska; Vitaliy O Kaminskyy; Hiromitsu Kanamori; Keizo Kanasaki; Chanhee Kang; Rui Kang; Sang Sun Kang; Senthilvelrajan Kaniyappan; Tomotake Kanki; Thirumala-Devi Kanneganti; Anumantha G Kanthasamy; Arthi Kanthasamy; Marc Kantorow; Orsolya Kapuy; Michalis V Karamouzis; Md Razaul Karim; Parimal Karmakar; Rajesh G Katare; Masaru Kato; Stefan H E Kaufmann; Anu Kauppinen; Gur P Kaushal; Susmita Kaushik; Kiyoshi Kawasaki; Kemal Kazan; Po-Yuan Ke; Damien J Keating; Ursula Keber; John H Kehrl; Kate E Keller; Christian W Keller; Jongsook Kim Kemper; Candia M Kenific; Oliver Kepp; Stephanie Kermorgant; Andreas Kern; Robin Ketteler; Tom G Keulers; Boris Khalfin; Hany Khalil; Bilon Khambu; Shahid Y Khan; Vinoth Kumar Megraj Khandelwal; Rekha Khandia; Widuri Kho; Noopur V Khobrekar; Sataree Khuansuwan; Mukhran Khundadze; Samuel A Killackey; Dasol Kim; Deok Ryong Kim; Do-Hyung Kim; Dong-Eun Kim; Eun Young Kim; Eun-Kyoung Kim; Hak-Rim Kim; Hee-Sik Kim; Jeong Hun Kim; Jin Kyung Kim; Jin-Hoi Kim; Joungmok Kim; Ju Hwan Kim; Keun Il Kim; Peter K Kim; Seong-Jun Kim; Scot R Kimball; Adi Kimchi; Alec C Kimmelman; Tomonori Kimura; Matthew A King; Kerri J Kinghorn; Conan G Kinsey; Vladimir Kirkin; Lorrie A Kirshenbaum; Sergey L Kiselev; Shuji Kishi; Katsuhiko Kitamoto; Yasushi Kitaoka; Kaio Kitazato; Richard N Kitsis; Josef T Kittler; Ole Kjaerulff; Peter S Klein; Thomas Klopstock; Jochen Klucken; Helene Knævelsrud; Roland L Knorr; Ben C B Ko; Fred Ko; Jiunn-Liang Ko; Hotaka Kobayashi; Satoru Kobayashi; Ina Koch; Jan C Koch; Ulrich Koenig; Donat Kögel; Young Ho Koh; Masato Koike; Sepp D Kohlwein; Nur M Kocaturk; Masaaki Komatsu; Jeannette König; Toru Kono; Benjamin T Kopp; Tamas Korcsmaros; Gözde Korkmaz; Viktor I Korolchuk; Mónica Suárez Korsnes; Ali Koskela; Janaiah Kota; Yaichiro Kotake; Monica L Kotler; Yanjun Kou; Michael I Koukourakis; Evangelos Koustas; Attila L Kovacs; Tibor Kovács; Daisuke Koya; Tomohiro Kozako; Claudine Kraft; Dimitri Krainc; Helmut Krämer; Anna D Krasnodembskaya; Carole Kretz-Remy; Guido Kroemer; Nicholas T Ktistakis; Kazuyuki Kuchitsu; Sabine Kuenen; Lars Kuerschner; Thomas Kukar; Ajay Kumar; Ashok Kumar; Deepak Kumar; Dhiraj Kumar; Sharad Kumar; Shinji Kume; Caroline Kumsta; Chanakya N Kundu; Mondira Kundu; Ajaikumar B Kunnumakkara; Lukasz Kurgan; Tatiana G Kutateladze; Ozlem Kutlu; SeongAe Kwak; Ho Jeong Kwon; Taeg Kyu Kwon; Yong Tae Kwon; Irene Kyrmizi; Albert La Spada; Patrick Labonté; Sylvain Ladoire; Ilaria Laface; Frank Lafont; Diane C Lagace; Vikramjit Lahiri; Zhibing Lai; Angela S Laird; Aparna Lakkaraju; Trond Lamark; Sheng-Hui Lan; Ane Landajuela; Darius J R Lane; Jon D Lane; Charles H Lang; Carsten Lange; Ülo Langel; Rupert Langer; Pierre Lapaquette; Jocelyn Laporte; Nicholas F LaRusso; Isabel Lastres-Becker; Wilson Chun Yu Lau; Gordon W Laurie; Sergio Lavandero; Betty Yuen Kwan Law; Helen Ka-Wai Law; Rob Layfield; Weidong Le; Herve Le Stunff; Alexandre Y Leary; Jean-Jacques Lebrun; Lionel Y W Leck; Jean-Philippe Leduc-Gaudet; Changwook Lee; Chung-Pei Lee; Da-Hye Lee; Edward B Lee; Erinna F Lee; Gyun Min Lee; He-Jin Lee; Heung Kyu Lee; Jae Man Lee; Jason S Lee; Jin-A Lee; Joo-Yong Lee; Jun Hee Lee; Michael Lee; Min Goo Lee; Min Jae Lee; Myung-Shik Lee; Sang Yoon Lee; Seung-Jae Lee; Stella Y Lee; Sung Bae Lee; Won Hee Lee; Ying-Ray Lee; Yong-Ho Lee; Youngil Lee; Christophe Lefebvre; Renaud Legouis; Yu L Lei; Yuchen Lei; Sergey Leikin; Gerd Leitinger; Leticia Lemus; Shuilong Leng; Olivia Lenoir; Guido Lenz; Heinz Josef Lenz; Paola Lenzi; Yolanda León; Andréia M Leopoldino; Christoph Leschczyk; Stina Leskelä; Elisabeth Letellier; Chi-Ting Leung; Po Sing Leung; Jeremy S Leventhal; Beth Levine; Patrick A Lewis; Klaus Ley; Bin Li; Da-Qiang Li; Jianming Li; Jing Li; Jiong Li; Ke Li; Liwu Li; Mei Li; Min Li; Min Li; Ming Li; Mingchuan Li; Pin-Lan Li; Ming-Qing Li; Qing Li; Sheng Li; Tiangang Li; Wei Li; Wenming Li; Xue Li; Yi-Ping Li; Yuan Li; Zhiqiang Li; Zhiyong Li; Zhiyuan Li; Jiqin Lian; Chengyu Liang; Qiangrong Liang; Weicheng Liang; Yongheng Liang; YongTian Liang; Guanghong Liao; Lujian Liao; Mingzhi Liao; Yung-Feng Liao; Mariangela Librizzi; Pearl P Y Lie; Mary A Lilly; Hyunjung J Lim; Thania R R Lima; Federica Limana; Chao Lin; Chih-Wen Lin; Dar-Shong Lin; Fu-Cheng Lin; Jiandie D Lin; Kurt M Lin; Kwang-Huei Lin; Liang-Tzung Lin; Pei-Hui Lin; Qiong Lin; Shaofeng Lin; Su-Ju Lin; Wenyu Lin; Xueying Lin; Yao-Xin Lin; Yee-Shin Lin; Rafael Linden; Paula Lindner; Shuo-Chien Ling; Paul Lingor; Amelia K Linnemann; Yih-Cherng Liou; Marta M Lipinski; Saška Lipovšek; Vitor A Lira; Natalia Lisiak; Paloma B Liton; Chao Liu; Ching-Hsuan Liu; Chun-Feng Liu; Cui Hua Liu; Fang Liu; Hao Liu; Hsiao-Sheng Liu; Hua-Feng Liu; Huifang Liu; Jia Liu; Jing Liu; Julia Liu; Leyuan Liu; Longhua Liu; Meilian Liu; Qin Liu; Wei Liu; Wende Liu; Xiao-Hong Liu; Xiaodong Liu; Xingguo Liu; Xu Liu; Xuedong Liu; Yanfen Liu; Yang Liu; Yang Liu; Yueyang Liu; Yule Liu; J Andrew Livingston; Gerard Lizard; Jose M Lizcano; Senka Ljubojevic-Holzer; Matilde E LLeonart; David Llobet-Navàs; Alicia Llorente; Chih Hung Lo; Damián Lobato-Márquez; Qi Long; Yun Chau Long; Ben Loos; Julia A Loos; Manuela G López; Guillermo López-Doménech; José Antonio López-Guerrero; Ana T López-Jiménez; Óscar López-Pérez; Israel López-Valero; Magdalena J Lorenowicz; Mar Lorente; Peter Lorincz; Laura Lossi; Sophie Lotersztajn; Penny E Lovat; Jonathan F Lovell; Alenka Lovy; Péter Lőw; Guang Lu; Haocheng Lu; Jia-Hong Lu; Jin-Jian Lu; Mengji Lu; Shuyan Lu; Alessandro Luciani; John M Lucocq; Paula Ludovico; Micah A Luftig; Morten Luhr; Diego Luis-Ravelo; Julian J Lum; Liany Luna-Dulcey; Anders H Lund; Viktor K Lund; Jan D Lünemann; Patrick Lüningschrör; Honglin Luo; Rongcan Luo; Shouqing Luo; Zhi Luo; Claudio Luparello; Bernhard Lüscher; Luan Luu; Alex Lyakhovich; Konstantin G Lyamzaev; Alf Håkon Lystad; Lyubomyr Lytvynchuk; Alvin C Ma; Changle Ma; Mengxiao Ma; Ning-Fang Ma; Quan-Hong Ma; Xinliang Ma; Yueyun Ma; Zhenyi Ma; Ormond A MacDougald; Fernando Macian; Gustavo C MacIntosh; Jeffrey P MacKeigan; Kay F Macleod; Sandra Maday; Frank Madeo; Muniswamy Madesh; Tobias Madl; Julio Madrigal-Matute; Akiko Maeda; Yasuhiro Maejima; Marta Magarinos; Poornima Mahavadi; Emiliano Maiani; Kenneth Maiese; Panchanan Maiti; Maria Chiara Maiuri; Barbara Majello; Michael B Major; Elena Makareeva; Fayaz Malik; Karthik Mallilankaraman; Walter Malorni; Alina Maloyan; Najiba Mammadova; Gene Chi Wai Man; Federico Manai; Joseph D Mancias; Eva-Maria Mandelkow; Michael A Mandell; Angelo A Manfredi; Masoud H Manjili; Ravi Manjithaya; Patricio Manque; Bella B Manshian; Raquel Manzano; Claudia Manzoni; Kai Mao; Cinzia Marchese; Sandrine Marchetti; Anna Maria Marconi; Fabrizio Marcucci; Stefania Mardente; Olga A Mareninova; Marta Margeta; Muriel Mari; Sara Marinelli; Oliviero Marinelli; Guillermo Mariño; Sofia Mariotto; Richard S Marshall; Mark R Marten; Sascha Martens; Alexandre P J Martin; Katie R Martin; Sara Martin; Shaun Martin; Adrián Martín-Segura; Miguel A Martín-Acebes; Inmaculada Martin-Burriel; Marcos Martin-Rincon; Paloma Martin-Sanz; José A Martina; Wim Martinet; Aitor Martinez; Ana Martinez; Jennifer Martinez; Moises Martinez Velazquez; Nuria Martinez-Lopez; Marta Martinez-Vicente; Daniel O Martins; Joilson O Martins; Waleska K Martins; Tania Martins-Marques; Emanuele Marzetti; Shashank Masaldan; Celine Masclaux-Daubresse; Douglas G Mashek; Valentina Massa; Lourdes Massieu; Glenn R Masson; Laura Masuelli; Anatoliy I Masyuk; Tetyana V Masyuk; Paola Matarrese; Ander Matheu; Satoaki Matoba; Sachiko Matsuzaki; Pamela Mattar; Alessandro Matte; Domenico Mattoscio; José L Mauriz; Mario Mauthe; Caroline Mauvezin; Emanual Maverakis; Paola Maycotte; Johanna Mayer; Gianluigi Mazzoccoli; Cristina Mazzoni; Joseph R Mazzulli; Nami McCarty; Christine McDonald; Mitchell R McGill; Sharon L McKenna; BethAnn McLaughlin; Fionn McLoughlin; Mark A McNiven; Thomas G McWilliams; Fatima Mechta-Grigoriou; Tania Catarina Medeiros; Diego L Medina; Lynn A Megeney; Klara Megyeri; Maryam Mehrpour; Jawahar L Mehta; Alfred J Meijer; Annemarie H Meijer; Jakob Mejlvang; Alicia Meléndez; Annette Melk; Gonen Memisoglu; Alexandrina F Mendes; Delong Meng; Fei Meng; Tian Meng; Rubem Menna-Barreto; Manoj B Menon; Carol Mercer; Anne E Mercier; Jean-Louis Mergny; Adalberto Merighi; Seth D Merkley; Giuseppe Merla; Volker Meske; Ana Cecilia Mestre; Shree Padma Metur; Christian Meyer; Hemmo Meyer; Wenyi Mi; Jeanne Mialet-Perez; Junying Miao; Lucia Micale; Yasuo Miki; Enrico Milan; Małgorzata Milczarek; Dana L Miller; Samuel I Miller; Silke Miller; Steven W Millward; Ira Milosevic; Elena A Minina; Hamed Mirzaei; Hamid Reza Mirzaei; Mehdi Mirzaei; Amit Mishra; Nandita Mishra; Paras Kumar Mishra; Maja Misirkic Marjanovic; Roberta Misasi; Amit Misra; Gabriella Misso; Claire Mitchell; Geraldine Mitou; Tetsuji Miura; Shigeki Miyamoto; Makoto Miyazaki; Mitsunori Miyazaki; Taiga Miyazaki; Keisuke Miyazawa; Noboru Mizushima; Trine H Mogensen; Baharia Mograbi; Reza Mohammadinejad; Yasir Mohamud; Abhishek Mohanty; Sipra Mohapatra; Torsten Möhlmann; Asif Mohmmed; Anna Moles; Kelle H Moley; Maurizio Molinari; Vincenzo Mollace; Andreas Buch Møller; Bertrand Mollereau; Faustino Mollinedo; Costanza Montagna; Mervyn J Monteiro; Andrea Montella; L Ruth Montes; Barbara Montico; Vinod K Mony; Giacomo Monzio Compagnoni; Michael N Moore; Mohammad A Moosavi; Ana L Mora; Marina Mora; David Morales-Alamo; Rosario Moratalla; Paula I Moreira; Elena Morelli; Sandra Moreno; Daniel Moreno-Blas; Viviana Moresi; Benjamin Morga; Alwena H Morgan; Fabrice Morin; Hideaki Morishita; Orson L Moritz; Mariko Moriyama; Yuji Moriyasu; Manuela Morleo; Eugenia Morselli; Jose F Moruno-Manchon; Jorge Moscat; Serge Mostowy; Elisa Motori; Andrea Felinto Moura; Naima Moustaid-Moussa; Maria Mrakovcic; Gabriel Muciño-Hernández; Anupam Mukherjee; Subhadip Mukhopadhyay; Jean M Mulcahy Levy; Victoriano Mulero; Sylviane Muller; Christian Münch; Ashok Munjal; Pura Munoz-Canoves; Teresa Muñoz-Galdeano; Christian Münz; Tomokazu Murakawa; Claudia Muratori; Brona M Murphy; J Patrick Murphy; Aditya Murthy; Timo T Myöhänen; Indira U Mysorekar; Jennifer Mytych; Seyed Mohammad Nabavi; Massimo Nabissi; Péter Nagy; Jihoon Nah; Aimable Nahimana; Ichiro Nakagawa; Ken Nakamura; Hitoshi Nakatogawa; Shyam S Nandi; Meera Nanjundan; Monica Nanni; Gennaro Napolitano; Roberta Nardacci; Masashi Narita; Melissa Nassif; Ilana Nathan; Manabu Natsumeda; Ryno J Naude; Christin Naumann; Olaia Naveiras; Fatemeh Navid; Steffan T Nawrocki; Taras Y Nazarko; Francesca Nazio; Florentina Negoita; Thomas Neill; Amanda L Neisch; Luca M Neri; Mihai G Netea; Patrick Neubert; Thomas P Neufeld; Dietbert Neumann; Albert Neutzner; Phillip T Newton; Paul A Ney; Ioannis P Nezis; Charlene C W Ng; Tzi Bun Ng; Hang T T Nguyen; Long T Nguyen; Hong-Min Ni; Clíona Ní Cheallaigh; Zhenhong Ni; M Celeste Nicolao; Francesco Nicoli; Manuel Nieto-Diaz; Per Nilsson; Shunbin Ning; Rituraj Niranjan; Hiroshi Nishimune; Mireia Niso-Santano; Ralph A Nixon; Annalisa Nobili; Clevio Nobrega; Takeshi Noda; Uxía Nogueira-Recalde; Trevor M Nolan; Ivan Nombela; Ivana Novak; Beatriz Novoa; Takashi Nozawa; Nobuyuki Nukina; Carmen Nussbaum-Krammer; Jesper Nylandsted; Tracey R O'Donovan; Seónadh M O'Leary; Eyleen J O'Rourke; Mary P O'Sullivan; Timothy E O'Sullivan; Salvatore Oddo; Ina Oehme; Michinaga Ogawa; Eric Ogier-Denis; Margret H Ogmundsdottir; Besim Ogretmen; Goo Taeg Oh; Seon-Hee Oh; Young J Oh; Takashi Ohama; Yohei Ohashi; Masaki Ohmuraya; Vasileios Oikonomou; Rani Ojha; Koji Okamoto; Hitoshi Okazawa; Masahide Oku; Sara Oliván; Jorge M A Oliveira; Michael Ollmann; James A Olzmann; Shakib Omari; M Bishr Omary; Gizem Önal; Martin Ondrej; Sang-Bing Ong; Sang-Ging Ong; Anna Onnis; Juan A Orellana; Sara Orellana-Muñoz; Maria Del Mar Ortega-Villaizan; Xilma R Ortiz-Gonzalez; Elena Ortona; Heinz D Osiewacz; Abdel-Hamid K Osman; Rosario Osta; Marisa S Otegui; Kinya Otsu; Christiane Ott; Luisa Ottobrini; Jing-Hsiung James Ou; Tiago F Outeiro; Inger Oynebraten; Melek Ozturk; Gilles Pagès; Susanta Pahari; Marta Pajares; Utpal B Pajvani; Rituraj Pal; Simona Paladino; Nicolas Pallet; Michela Palmieri; Giuseppe Palmisano; Camilla Palumbo; Francesco Pampaloni; Lifeng Pan; Qingjun Pan; Wenliang Pan; Xin Pan; Ganna Panasyuk; Rahul Pandey; Udai B Pandey; Vrajesh Pandya; Francesco Paneni; Shirley Y Pang; Elisa Panzarini; Daniela L Papademetrio; Elena Papaleo; Daniel Papinski; Diana Papp; Eun Chan Park; Hwan Tae Park; Ji-Man Park; Jong-In Park; Joon Tae Park; Junsoo Park; Sang Chul Park; Sang-Youel Park; Abraham H Parola; Jan B Parys; Adrien Pasquier; Benoit Pasquier; João F Passos; Nunzia Pastore; Hemal H Patel; Daniel Patschan; Sophie Pattingre; Gustavo Pedraza-Alva; Jose Pedraza-Chaverri; Zully Pedrozo; Gang Pei; Jianming Pei; Hadas Peled-Zehavi; Joaquín M Pellegrini; Joffrey Pelletier; Miguel A Peñalva; Di Peng; Ying Peng; Fabio Penna; Maria Pennuto; Francesca Pentimalli; Cláudia Mf Pereira; Gustavo J S Pereira; Lilian C Pereira; Luis Pereira de Almeida; Nirma D Perera; Ángel Pérez-Lara; Ana B Perez-Oliva; María Esther Pérez-Pérez; Palsamy Periyasamy; Andras Perl; Cristiana Perrotta; Ida Perrotta; Richard G Pestell; Morten Petersen; Irina Petrache; Goran Petrovski; Thorsten Pfirrmann; Astrid S Pfister; Jennifer A Philips; Huifeng Pi; Anna Picca; Alicia M Pickrell; Sandy Picot; Giovanna M Pierantoni; Marina Pierdominici; Philippe Pierre; Valérie Pierrefite-Carle; Karolina Pierzynowska; Federico Pietrocola; Miroslawa Pietruczuk; Claudio Pignata; Felipe X Pimentel-Muiños; Mario Pinar; Roberta O Pinheiro; Ronit Pinkas-Kramarski; Paolo Pinton; Karolina Pircs; Sujan Piya; Paola Pizzo; Theo S Plantinga; Harald W Platta; Ainhoa Plaza-Zabala; Markus Plomann; Egor Y Plotnikov; Helene Plun-Favreau; Ryszard Pluta; Roger Pocock; Stefanie Pöggeler; Christian Pohl; Marc Poirot; Angelo Poletti; Marisa Ponpuak; Hana Popelka; Blagovesta Popova; Helena Porta; Soledad Porte Alcon; Eliana Portilla-Fernandez; Martin Post; Malia B Potts; Joanna Poulton; Ted Powers; Veena Prahlad; Tomasz K Prajsnar; Domenico Praticò; Rosaria Prencipe; Muriel Priault; Tassula Proikas-Cezanne; Vasilis J Promponas; Christopher G Proud; Rosa Puertollano; Luigi Puglielli; Thomas Pulinilkunnil; Deepika Puri; Rajat Puri; Julien Puyal; Xiaopeng Qi; Yongmei Qi; Wenbin Qian; Lei Qiang; Yu Qiu; Joe Quadrilatero; Jorge Quarleri; Nina Raben; Hannah Rabinowich; Debora Ragona; Michael J Ragusa; Nader Rahimi; Marveh Rahmati; Valeria Raia; Nuno Raimundo; Namakkal-Soorappan Rajasekaran; Sriganesh Ramachandra Rao; Abdelhaq Rami; Ignacio Ramírez-Pardo; David B Ramsden; Felix Randow; Pundi N Rangarajan; Danilo Ranieri; Hai Rao; Lang Rao; Rekha Rao; Sumit Rathore; J Arjuna Ratnayaka; Edward A Ratovitski; Palaniyandi Ravanan; Gloria Ravegnini; Swapan K Ray; Babak Razani; Vito Rebecca; Fulvio Reggiori; Anne Régnier-Vigouroux; Andreas S Reichert; David Reigada; Jan H Reiling; Theo Rein; Siegfried Reipert; Rokeya Sultana Rekha; Hongmei Ren; Jun Ren; Weichao Ren; Tristan Renault; Giorgia Renga; Karen Reue; Kim Rewitz; Bruna Ribeiro de Andrade Ramos; S Amer Riazuddin; Teresa M Ribeiro-Rodrigues; Jean-Ehrland Ricci; Romeo Ricci; Victoria Riccio; Des R Richardson; Yasuko Rikihisa; Makarand V Risbud; Ruth M Risueño; Konstantinos Ritis; Salvatore Rizza; Rosario Rizzuto; Helen C Roberts; Luke D Roberts; Katherine J Robinson; Maria Carmela Roccheri; Stephane Rocchi; George G Rodney; Tiago Rodrigues; Vagner Ramon Rodrigues Silva; Amaia Rodriguez; Ruth Rodriguez-Barrueco; Nieves Rodriguez-Henche; Humberto Rodriguez-Rocha; Jeroen Roelofs; Robert S Rogers; Vladimir V Rogov; Ana I Rojo; Krzysztof Rolka; Vanina Romanello; Luigina Romani; Alessandra Romano; Patricia S Romano; David Romeo-Guitart; Luis C Romero; Montserrat Romero; Joseph C Roney; Christopher Rongo; Sante Roperto; Mathias T Rosenfeldt; Philip Rosenstiel; Anne G Rosenwald; Kevin A Roth; Lynn Roth; Steven Roth; Kasper M A Rouschop; Benoit D Roussel; Sophie Roux; Patrizia Rovere-Querini; Ajit Roy; Aurore Rozieres; Diego Ruano; David C Rubinsztein; Maria P Rubtsova; Klaus Ruckdeschel; Christoph Ruckenstuhl; Emil Rudolf; Rüdiger Rudolf; Alessandra Ruggieri; Avnika Ashok Ruparelia; Paola Rusmini; Ryan R Russell; Gian Luigi Russo; Maria Russo; Rossella Russo; Oxana O Ryabaya; Kevin M Ryan; Kwon-Yul Ryu; Maria Sabater-Arcis; Ulka Sachdev; Michael Sacher; Carsten Sachse; Abhishek Sadhu; Junichi Sadoshima; Nathaniel Safren; Paul Saftig; Antonia P Sagona; Gaurav Sahay; Amirhossein Sahebkar; Mustafa Sahin; Ozgur Sahin; Sumit Sahni; Nayuta Saito; Shigeru Saito; Tsunenori Saito; Ryohei Sakai; Yasuyoshi Sakai; Jun-Ichi Sakamaki; Kalle Saksela; Gloria Salazar; Anna Salazar-Degracia; Ghasem H Salekdeh; Ashok K Saluja; Belém Sampaio-Marques; Maria Cecilia Sanchez; Jose A Sanchez-Alcazar; Victoria Sanchez-Vera; Vanessa Sancho-Shimizu; J Thomas Sanderson; Marco Sandri; Stefano Santaguida; Laura Santambrogio; Magda M Santana; Giorgio Santoni; Alberto Sanz; Pascual Sanz; Shweta Saran; Marco Sardiello; Timothy J Sargeant; Apurva Sarin; Chinmoy Sarkar; Sovan Sarkar; Maria-Rosa Sarrias; Surajit Sarkar; Dipanka Tanu Sarmah; Jaakko Sarparanta; Aishwarya Sathyanarayan; Ranganayaki Sathyanarayanan; K Matthew Scaglione; Francesca Scatozza; Liliana Schaefer; Zachary T Schafer; Ulrich E Schaible; Anthony H V Schapira; Michael Scharl; Hermann M Schatzl; Catherine H Schein; Wiep Scheper; David Scheuring; Maria Vittoria Schiaffino; Monica Schiappacassi; Rainer Schindl; Uwe Schlattner; Oliver Schmidt; Roland Schmitt; Stephen D Schmidt; Ingo Schmitz; Eran Schmukler; Anja Schneider; Bianca E Schneider; Romana Schober; Alejandra C Schoijet; Micah B Schott; Michael Schramm; Bernd Schröder; Kai Schuh; Christoph Schüller; Ryan J Schulze; Lea Schürmanns; Jens C Schwamborn; Melanie Schwarten; Filippo Scialo; Sebastiano Sciarretta; Melanie J Scott; Kathleen W Scotto; A Ivana Scovassi; Andrea Scrima; Aurora Scrivo; David Sebastian; Salwa Sebti; Simon Sedej; Laura Segatori; Nava Segev; Per O Seglen; Iban Seiliez; Ekihiro Seki; Scott B Selleck; Frank W Sellke; Joshua T Selsby; Michael Sendtner; Serif Senturk; Elena Seranova; Consolato Sergi; Ruth Serra-Moreno; Hiromi Sesaki; Carmine Settembre; Subba Rao Gangi Setty; Gianluca Sgarbi; Ou Sha; John J Shacka; Javeed A Shah; Dantong Shang; Changshun Shao; Feng Shao; Soroush Sharbati; Lisa M Sharkey; Dipali Sharma; Gaurav Sharma; Kulbhushan Sharma; Pawan Sharma; Surendra Sharma; Han-Ming Shen; Hongtao Shen; Jiangang Shen; Ming Shen; Weili Shen; Zheni Shen; Rui Sheng; Zhi Sheng; Zu-Hang Sheng; Jianjian Shi; Xiaobing Shi; Ying-Hong Shi; Kahori Shiba-Fukushima; Jeng-Jer Shieh; Yohta Shimada; Shigeomi Shimizu; Makoto Shimozawa; Takahiro Shintani; Christopher J Shoemaker; Shahla Shojaei; Ikuo Shoji; Bhupendra V Shravage; Viji Shridhar; Chih-Wen Shu; Hong-Bing Shu; Ke Shui; Arvind K Shukla; Timothy E Shutt; Valentina Sica; Aleem Siddiqui; Amanda Sierra; Virginia Sierra-Torre; Santiago Signorelli; Payel Sil; Bruno J de Andrade Silva; Johnatas D Silva; Eduardo Silva-Pavez; Sandrine Silvente-Poirot; Rachel E Simmonds; Anna Katharina Simon; Hans-Uwe Simon; Matias Simons; Anurag Singh; Lalit P Singh; Rajat Singh; Shivendra V Singh; Shrawan K Singh; Sudha B Singh; Sunaina Singh; Surinder Pal Singh; Debasish Sinha; Rohit Anthony Sinha; Sangita Sinha; Agnieszka Sirko; Kapil Sirohi; Efthimios L Sivridis; Panagiotis Skendros; Aleksandra Skirycz; Iva Slaninová; Soraya S Smaili; Andrei Smertenko; Matthew D Smith; Stefaan J Soenen; Eun Jung Sohn; Sophia P M Sok; Giancarlo Solaini; Thierry Soldati; Scott A Soleimanpour; Rosa M Soler; Alexei Solovchenko; Jason A Somarelli; Avinash Sonawane; Fuyong Song; Hyun Kyu Song; Ju-Xian Song; Kunhua Song; Zhiyin Song; Leandro R Soria; Maurizio Sorice; Alexander A Soukas; Sandra-Fausia Soukup; Diana Sousa; Nadia Sousa; Paul A Spagnuolo; Stephen A Spector; M M Srinivas Bharath; Daret St Clair; Venturina Stagni; Leopoldo Staiano; Clint A Stalnecker; Metodi V Stankov; Peter B Stathopulos; Katja Stefan; Sven Marcel Stefan; Leonidas Stefanis; Joan S Steffan; Alexander Steinkasserer; Harald Stenmark; Jared Sterneckert; Craig Stevens; Veronika Stoka; Stephan Storch; Björn Stork; Flavie Strappazzon; Anne Marie Strohecker; Dwayne G Stupack; Huanxing Su; Ling-Yan Su; Longxiang Su; Ana M Suarez-Fontes; Carlos S Subauste; Selvakumar Subbian; Paula V Subirada; Ganapasam Sudhandiran; Carolyn M Sue; Xinbing Sui; Corey Summers; Guangchao Sun; Jun Sun; Kang Sun; Meng-Xiang Sun; Qiming Sun; Yi Sun; Zhongjie Sun; Karen K S Sunahara; Eva Sundberg; Katalin Susztak; Peter Sutovsky; Hidekazu Suzuki; Gary Sweeney; J David Symons; Stephen Cho Wing Sze; Nathaniel J Szewczyk; Anna Tabęcka-Łonczynska; Claudio Tabolacci; Frank Tacke; Heinrich Taegtmeyer; Marco Tafani; Mitsuo Tagaya; Haoran Tai; Stephen W G Tait; Yoshinori Takahashi; Szabolcs Takats; Priti Talwar; Chit Tam; Shing Yau Tam; Davide Tampellini; Atsushi Tamura; Chong Teik Tan; Eng-King Tan; Ya-Qin Tan; Masaki Tanaka; Motomasa Tanaka; Daolin Tang; Jingfeng Tang; Tie-Shan Tang; Isei Tanida; Zhipeng Tao; Mohammed Taouis; Lars Tatenhorst; Nektarios Tavernarakis; Allen Taylor; Gregory A Taylor; Joan M Taylor; Elena Tchetina; Andrew R Tee; Irmgard Tegeder; David Teis; Natercia Teixeira; Fatima Teixeira-Clerc; Kumsal A Tekirdag; Tewin Tencomnao; Sandra Tenreiro; Alexei V Tepikin; Pilar S Testillano; Gianluca Tettamanti; Pierre-Louis Tharaux; Kathrin Thedieck; Arvind A Thekkinghat; Stefano Thellung; Josephine W Thinwa; V P Thirumalaikumar; Sufi Mary Thomas; Paul G Thomes; Andrew Thorburn; Lipi Thukral; Thomas Thum; Michael Thumm; Ling Tian; Ales Tichy; Andreas Till; Vincent Timmerman; Vladimir I Titorenko; Sokol V Todi; Krassimira Todorova; Janne M Toivonen; Luana Tomaipitinca; Dhanendra Tomar; Cristina Tomas-Zapico; Sergej Tomić; Benjamin Chun-Kit Tong; Chao Tong; Xin Tong; Sharon A Tooze; Maria L Torgersen; Satoru Torii; Liliana Torres-López; Alicia Torriglia; Christina G Towers; Roberto Towns; Shinya Toyokuni; Vladimir Trajkovic; Donatella Tramontano; Quynh-Giao Tran; Leonardo H Travassos; Charles B Trelford; Shirley Tremel; Ioannis P Trougakos; Betty P Tsao; Mario P Tschan; Hung-Fat Tse; Tak Fu Tse; Hitoshi Tsugawa; Andrey S Tsvetkov; David A Tumbarello; Yasin Tumtas; María J Tuñón; Sandra Turcotte; Boris Turk; Vito Turk; Bradley J Turner; Richard I Tuxworth; Jessica K Tyler; Elena V Tyutereva; Yasuo Uchiyama; Aslihan Ugun-Klusek; Holm H Uhlig; Marzena Ułamek-Kozioł; Ilya V Ulasov; Midori Umekawa; Christian Ungermann; Rei Unno; Sylvie Urbe; Elisabet Uribe-Carretero; Suayib Üstün; Vladimir N Uversky; Thomas Vaccari; Maria I Vaccaro; Björn F Vahsen; Helin Vakifahmetoglu-Norberg; Rut Valdor; Maria J Valente; Ayelén Valko; Richard B Vallee; Angela M Valverde; Greet Van den Berghe; Stijn van der Veen; Luc Van Kaer; Jorg van Loosdregt; Sjoerd J L van Wijk; Wim Vandenberghe; Ilse Vanhorebeek; Marcos A Vannier-Santos; Nicola Vannini; M Cristina Vanrell; Chiara Vantaggiato; Gabriele Varano; Isabel Varela-Nieto; Máté Varga; M Helena Vasconcelos; Somya Vats; Demetrios G Vavvas; Ignacio Vega-Naredo; Silvia Vega-Rubin-de-Celis; Guillermo Velasco; Ariadna P Velázquez; Tibor Vellai; Edo Vellenga; Francesca Velotti; Mireille Verdier; Panayotis Verginis; Isabelle Vergne; Paul Verkade; Manish Verma; Patrik Verstreken; Tim Vervliet; Jörg Vervoorts; Alexandre T Vessoni; Victor M Victor; Michel Vidal; Chiara Vidoni; Otilia V Vieira; Richard D Vierstra; Sonia Viganó; Helena Vihinen; Vinoy Vijayan; Miquel Vila; Marçal Vilar; José M Villalba; Antonio Villalobo; Beatriz Villarejo-Zori; Francesc Villarroya; Joan Villarroya; Olivier Vincent; Cecile Vindis; Christophe Viret; Maria Teresa Viscomi; Dora Visnjic; Ilio Vitale; David J Vocadlo; Olga V Voitsekhovskaja; Cinzia Volonté; Mattia Volta; Marta Vomero; Clarissa Von Haefen; Marc A Vooijs; Wolfgang Voos; Ljubica Vucicevic; Richard Wade-Martins; Satoshi Waguri; Kenrick A Waite; Shuji Wakatsuki; David W Walker; Mark J Walker; Simon A Walker; Jochen Walter; Francisco G Wandosell; Bo Wang; Chao-Yung Wang; Chen Wang; Chenran Wang; Chenwei Wang; Cun-Yu Wang; Dong Wang; Fangyang Wang; Feng Wang; Fengming Wang; Guansong Wang; Han Wang; Hao Wang; Hexiang Wang; Hong-Gang Wang; Jianrong Wang; Jigang Wang; Jiou Wang; Jundong Wang; Kui Wang; Lianrong Wang; Liming Wang; Maggie Haitian Wang; Meiqing Wang; Nanbu Wang; Pengwei Wang; Peipei Wang; Ping Wang; Ping Wang; Qing Jun Wang; Qing Wang; Qing Kenneth Wang; Qiong A Wang; Wen-Tao Wang; Wuyang Wang; Xinnan Wang; Xuejun Wang; Yan Wang; Yanchang Wang; Yanzhuang Wang; Yen-Yun Wang; Yihua Wang; Yipeng Wang; Yu Wang; Yuqi Wang; Zhe Wang; Zhenyu Wang; Zhouguang Wang; Gary Warnes; Verena Warnsmann; Hirotaka Watada; Eizo Watanabe; Maxinne Watchon; Anna Wawrzyńska; Timothy E Weaver; Grzegorz Wegrzyn; Ann M Wehman; Huafeng Wei; Lei Wei; Taotao Wei; Yongjie Wei; Oliver H Weiergräber; Conrad C Weihl; Günther Weindl; Ralf Weiskirchen; Alan Wells; Runxia H Wen; Xin Wen; Antonia Werner; Beatrice Weykopf; Sally P Wheatley; J Lindsay Whitton; Alexander J Whitworth; Katarzyna Wiktorska; Manon E Wildenberg; Tom Wileman; Simon Wilkinson; Dieter Willbold; Brett Williams; Robin S B Williams; Roger L Williams; Peter R Williamson; Richard A Wilson; Beate Winner; Nathaniel J Winsor; Steven S Witkin; Harald Wodrich; Ute Woehlbier; Thomas Wollert; Esther Wong; Jack Ho Wong; Richard W Wong; Vincent Kam Wai Wong; W Wei-Lynn Wong; An-Guo Wu; Chengbiao Wu; Jian Wu; Junfang Wu; Kenneth K Wu; Min Wu; Shan-Ying Wu; Shengzhou Wu; Shu-Yan Wu; Shufang Wu; William K K Wu; Xiaohong Wu; Xiaoqing Wu; Yao-Wen Wu; Yihua Wu; Ramnik J Xavier; Hongguang Xia; Lixin Xia; Zhengyuan Xia; Ge Xiang; Jin Xiang; Mingliang Xiang; Wei Xiang; Bin Xiao; Guozhi Xiao; Hengyi Xiao; Hong-Tao Xiao; Jian Xiao; Lan Xiao; Shi Xiao; Yin Xiao; Baoming Xie; Chuan-Ming Xie; Min Xie; Yuxiang Xie; Zhiping Xie; Zhonglin Xie; Maria Xilouri; Congfeng Xu; En Xu; Haoxing Xu; Jing Xu; JinRong Xu; Liang Xu; Wen Wen Xu; Xiulong Xu; Yu Xue; Sokhna M S Yakhine-Diop; Masamitsu Yamaguchi; Osamu Yamaguchi; Ai Yamamoto; Shunhei Yamashina; Shengmin Yan; Shian-Jang Yan; Zhen Yan; Yasuo Yanagi; Chuanbin Yang; Dun-Sheng Yang; Huan Yang; Huang-Tian Yang; Hui Yang; Jin-Ming Yang; Jing Yang; Jingyu Yang; Ling Yang; Liu Yang; Ming Yang; Pei-Ming Yang; Qian Yang; Seungwon Yang; Shu Yang; Shun-Fa Yang; Wannian Yang; Wei Yuan Yang; Xiaoyong Yang; Xuesong Yang; Yi Yang; Ying Yang; Honghong Yao; Shenggen Yao; Xiaoqiang Yao; Yong-Gang Yao; Yong-Ming Yao; Takahiro Yasui; Meysam Yazdankhah; Paul M Yen; Cong Yi; Xiao-Ming Yin; Yanhai Yin; Zhangyuan Yin; Ziyi Yin; Meidan Ying; Zheng Ying; Calvin K Yip; Stephanie Pei Tung Yiu; Young H Yoo; Kiyotsugu Yoshida; Saori R Yoshii; Tamotsu Yoshimori; Bahman Yousefi; Boxuan Yu; Haiyang Yu; Jun Yu; Jun Yu; Li Yu; Ming-Lung Yu; Seong-Woon Yu; Victor C Yu; W Haung Yu; Zhengping Yu; Zhou Yu; Junying Yuan; Ling-Qing Yuan; Shilin Yuan; Shyng-Shiou F Yuan; Yanggang Yuan; Zengqiang Yuan; Jianbo Yue; Zhenyu Yue; Jeanho Yun; Raymond L Yung; David N Zacks; Gabriele Zaffagnini; Vanessa O Zambelli; Isabella Zanella; Qun S Zang; Sara Zanivan; Silvia Zappavigna; Pilar Zaragoza; Konstantinos S Zarbalis; Amir Zarebkohan; Amira Zarrouk; Scott O Zeitlin; Jialiu Zeng; Ju-Deng Zeng; Eva Žerovnik; Lixuan Zhan; Bin Zhang; Donna D Zhang; Hanlin Zhang; Hong Zhang; Hong Zhang; Honghe Zhang; Huafeng Zhang; Huaye Zhang; Hui Zhang; Hui-Ling Zhang; Jianbin Zhang; Jianhua Zhang; Jing-Pu Zhang; Kalin Y B Zhang; Leshuai W Zhang; Lin Zhang; Lisheng Zhang; Lu Zhang; Luoying Zhang; Menghuan Zhang; Peng Zhang; Sheng Zhang; Wei Zhang; Xiangnan Zhang; Xiao-Wei Zhang; Xiaolei Zhang; Xiaoyan Zhang; Xin Zhang; Xinxin Zhang; Xu Dong Zhang; Yang Zhang; Yanjin Zhang; Yi Zhang; Ying-Dong Zhang; Yingmei Zhang; Yuan-Yuan Zhang; Yuchen Zhang; Zhe Zhang; Zhengguang Zhang; Zhibing Zhang; Zhihai Zhang; Zhiyong Zhang; Zili Zhang; Haobin Zhao; Lei Zhao; Shuang Zhao; Tongbiao Zhao; Xiao-Fan Zhao; Ying Zhao; Yongchao Zhao; Yongliang Zhao; Yuting Zhao; Guoping Zheng; Kai Zheng; Ling Zheng; Shizhong Zheng; Xi-Long Zheng; Yi Zheng; Zu-Guo Zheng; Boris Zhivotovsky; Qing Zhong; Ao Zhou; Ben Zhou; Cefan Zhou; Gang Zhou; Hao Zhou; Hong Zhou; Hongbo Zhou; Jie Zhou; Jing Zhou; Jing Zhou; Jiyong Zhou; Kailiang Zhou; Rongjia Zhou; Xu-Jie Zhou; Yanshuang Zhou; Yinghong Zhou; Yubin Zhou; Zheng-Yu Zhou; Zhou Zhou; Binglin Zhu; Changlian Zhu; Guo-Qing Zhu; Haining Zhu; Hongxin Zhu; Hua Zhu; Wei-Guo Zhu; Yanping Zhu; Yushan Zhu; Haixia Zhuang; Xiaohong Zhuang; Katarzyna Zientara-Rytter; Christine M Zimmermann; Elena Ziviani; Teresa Zoladek; Wei-Xing Zong; Dmitry B Zorov; Antonio Zorzano; Weiping Zou; Zhen Zou; Zhengzhi Zou; Steven Zuryn; Werner Zwerschke; Beate Brand-Saberi; X Charlie Dong; Chandra Shekar Kenchappa; Zuguo Li; Yong Lin; Shigeru Oshima; Yueguang Rong; Judith C Sluimer; Christina L Stallings; Chun-Kit Tong Journal: Autophagy Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 13.391
Authors: Luis S Mayorga; Ignacio Cebrian; Meghna Verma; Stefan Hoops; Josep Bassaganya-Riera Journal: Biol Direct Date: 2018-11-23 Impact factor: 4.540