| Literature DB >> 31768606 |
Tal Pecht1, Anna C Aschenbrenner1,2, Thomas Ulas1, Antonella Succurro3,4.
Abstract
Heterogeneity is universally observed in all natural systems and across multiple scales. Understanding population heterogeneity is an intriguing and attractive topic of research in different disciplines, including microbiology and immunology. Microbes and mammalian immune cells present obviously rather different system-specific biological features. Nevertheless, as typically occurs in science, similar methods can be used to study both types of cells. This is particularly true for mathematical modeling, in which key features of a system are translated into algorithms to challenge our mechanistic understanding of the underlying biology. In this review, we first present a broad overview of the experimental developments that allowed observing heterogeneity at the single cell level. We then highlight how this "data revolution" requires the parallel advancement of algorithms and computing infrastructure for data processing and analysis, and finally present representative examples of computational models of population heterogeneity, from microbial communities to immune response in cells.Entities:
Keywords: Computational modeling; Immune response; Microbial communities; Population heterogeneity; Systems biology
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31768606 PMCID: PMC7010691 DOI: 10.1007/s00018-019-03378-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci ISSN: 1420-682X Impact factor: 9.261
Fig. 1Emergent properties across scales and disciplines. Systems with different typical spatio-temporal scales can in general be described either at the micro-scale (describing in details the individual interactions of the system components) or at the macro-scale (capturing the emergent behavior of such interactions with simpler mathematical models. For example, in ferromagnetic materials the magnetic moment derives from the alignment of individual electrons dipole moments. At temperatures above a critical point (Curie temperature), entropy disrupts such alignment and the material is no more magnetic. Moving from electrons to molecules and proteins, enzymes convert substrates into products after binding the molecules. The reaction requires different steps to successfully happen, but the product formation rate can be well described as a function of substrate concentration, e.g., by the Michaelis–Menten equation. Finally, to describe populations of organisms’ general growth, laws can be defined that capture the overall trends resulting from individual-to-individual interactions. In predator–prey models, few differential equations describe how the different populations harm or benefit each other
Fig. 2Heterogeneity and experimental methods across spatio-temporal scales and biological systems. Heterogeneity for bacterial communities can be found in ecosystems composed of distinct bacteria species, which usually specialize to occupy different metabolic niches and can organize into functional groups. Monocultures can exhibit heterogeneity at different temporal scales when mutations generate subpopulations, and within isogenic populations phenotypic and metabolic heterogeneity can be observed. Heterogeneity in the context of the immune system presents additional degrees of complexity, as it is a characteristic of multicellular eukaryotes. From individuals within a population to organs within an individual, even finer scales of heterogeneity can be observed at the cell type level (e.g., T cells, dendritic cells, and macrophages). Cells exhibit further heterogeneity as they develop and undergo differentiation and, in addition, can be observed in different activation states with different phenotypic profiles. Despite the completely different biology, similar experimental methods can be used to investigate heterogeneity at different scales. From meta-omics bulk techniques to microfluidic growth chambers monitored with time-lapse microscopy, to flow cytometry, to the latest advancements in RNA sequencing of single cells
Developments in bioinformatics tools are fast-paced
| Purpose | Pseudoalignment | Reproducibility | Guided bulk RNA-seq analysis | Guided scRNA-seq analysis | scRNA-seq command line | Batch correction in bulk RNA-seq | Batch correction in scRNA-seq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tools and algorithms | Kallisto [ | Snakemake [ | START [ | ASAP [ | SINCERA [ | Limma [ | Canonical correlation analysis [ |
| Salmon [ | Docker [ | DEBrowser [ | FastGenomics [ | Seurat [ | ComBat [ | ||
| Sailfish [ | Singularity [ | iDEP [ | Granatum [ | Scanpy [ | SVA [ | Mutual nearest neighbors [ | |
| Shiny-Seq [ | Monocle [ |
Here we list some of the latest bioinformatics methods applied for RNA analysis, from sequence alignment to downstream data analysis
Fig. 3Same system can be described with deterministic and stochastic models. a Simplified model of metabolic subpopulations in E. coli monocultures. A glucose consumer G (red cells) can grow with growth rate μG, or switch to consume acetate with rate ψ and efficiency ε. In the same way, an acetate consumer A (yellow cells) can grow with growth rate μA, or switch to consume glucose with rate φ and efficiency ε. The cells that are not successful in switching die out. b, c Evolution in time of the subpopulations in a constant environment, where only acetate is available as carbon source. The solid lines are the results of the deterministic simulation, and the transparent lines are the results from 10 stochastic simulations. The two top panels show the number of cells for glucose (red) and acetate (yellow) consumer populations, the top panel showing as well the overall observable population size (blue). The bottom panel shows the population ratio Γ = NG/NA and reports the equilibrium value Γeq analytically computed, the Γsim value reached by the deterministic model, and the Γavg average value of the stochastic simulations evaluated at the last timepoint. Simulations are run with the parameters: μG = 0 h−1; μA = 0.23 h−1; ψ = φ = 0.24 h−1, ε = 0.9. The initial number of cells are different in the simulation: bNG(0) = 10, NA(0) = 90; cNG(0) = 9, NA(0) = 1
| Single-cell event | Action | Propensity |
|---|---|---|