| Literature DB >> 31815199 |
Kazumasa B Kaneko1, Ryosuke Tateishi2, Takahisa Miyao2, Yuki Takakura2, Nobuko Akiyama2, Ryo Yokota3, Taishin Akiyama2, Tetsuya J Kobayashi1,3,4.
Abstract
Thymic crosstalk, a set of reciprocal regulations between thymocytes and the thymic environment, is relevant for orchestrating appropriate thymocyte development as well as thymic recovery from various exogenous insults. In this work, interactions shaping thymic crosstalk and the resultant dynamics of thymocytes and thymic epithelial cells are inferred based on quantitative analysis and modeling of the recovery dynamics induced by irradiation. The analysis identifies regulatory interactions consistent with known molecular evidence and reveals their dynamic roles in the recovery process. Moreover, the analysis also predicts, and a subsequent experiment verifies, a previously unrecognized regulation of CD4+CD8+ double positive thymocytes which temporarily increases their proliferation rate upon the decrease in their population size. Our model establishes a pivotal step towards the dynamic understanding of thymic crosstalk as a regulatory network system.Entities:
Keywords: Computational models; Differential equations; Lymphocyte differentiation; Regulatory networks; Thymus
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31815199 PMCID: PMC6884561 DOI: 10.1038/s42003-019-0688-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Commun Biol ISSN: 2399-3642
Fig. 1Recovery dynamics of thymocytes and TECs after sub-lethal irradiation. a A schematic diagram of the perturbation experiment. b The left panel shows trajectories of the counts of thymocytes (DN: pink, DP: blue, SP4: light green) and TECs (cTEC: cyan, mTEC: brown) after irradiation. Points correspond to the experimental cell counts, and the solid curves are linear interpolations of the average counts at each time point. The numbers of samples at each time point are shown in Table 1. The right panel shows violin plots of the numbers of thymocytes and TECs without perturbation (n = 15 for thymocytes, n = 16 for TECs). c Typical flow cytometric profiles of the thymocytes after the sub-lethal dose radiation. Thymocytes were analyzed by staining with anti-CD4 and anti-CD8α. Percentage of each fraction is shown in the panels. d Typical flow cytometric profiles of TECs after the sub-lethal dose radiation. TECs (EpCAM+CD45−TER119−) were analyzed by staining with a combination of UEA-1 lectin and anti-CD80. Percentages of UEA-1+ cells (mTECs) and UEA-1– cells (cTECs) are shown in the panels.
The numbers of samples at each time point after irradiation.
| Days after irradiation | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 49 |
| Number of samples (thymocytes) | 4 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Number of samples (TECs) | 4 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 3 |
Fig. 2Schematic diagram and trajectories of the mathematical model inferred from the quantitative data. a A schematic diagram of the intercellular interactions inferred from the experimental data and represented by Eq. (1). b Trajectories of the numbers of thymocytes and TECs obtained by simulating Eq. (1) with the optimally fitted parameter set. The curves represent simulated trajectories, and the points represent the same experimental data as Fig. 1b. Cell types are designated by the color codes which are defined in a. c Trajectories obtained by the bootstrap parameter estimation. Trajectories in different panels with the same color correspond to a simulation with a parameter set estimated from a bootstrapped sample. The trajectories of 100 randomly selected samples are shown in the panels. The points represent the same experimental data as Fig. 1b.
A comparison of the estimated kinetic rates with those from previous studies.
| Term | Value | CI | Previous study |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inflow rate to DN [cells day−1] (estimated by the coarse-grained model) | 3.3 × 104 | [3.3 × 103, 6.6 × 104] | 2.0 × 104 ([ |
Inflow rate to DN (cells day−1) (estimated by the detailed model) | 6.61 × 101 | N/A | 101 ~ 2 × 102 ([ |
| DN apparent proliferation rate (day−1) | 1.3 × 10−1 | [−2.2 × 10−2, 3.3 × 10−1] | 2.3 × 10−1 ([ 3.6 × 10−1 ([ |
| DN differentiation rate (day−1) | 1.4 × 10−1 | [5.7 × 10−6, 3.5 × 10−1] | 2.4 × 10−1 ([ 3.4 × 10−1 ([ |
| DN residence time (hour) | 1.7 × 102 | [6.9 × 101, 4.3 × 106] | 4.2 × 102 ([ |
| DP apparent proliferation rate (day−1) | 1.0 × 10−1 | [5.8 × 10−2, 2.5 × 10−1] | 1.5 × 10−2 ([ −1.6 × 10−1 ([ |
| DP differentiation rate to SP4 (day−1) | 1.1 × 10−1 | [6.0 × 10−2, 2.5 × 10−1] | 2.1 × 10−2 ([ 3.0 × 10−2 ([ |
| DP residence time (hour) | 2.3 × 102 | [9.5 × 101, 4.0 × 102] | 9.4 × 101 ([ |
| Proportion of DP to SP4 in DP export (%) | 10 | [4.9, 30] | 6.0 ([ |
| SP4 apparent export rate (day−1) | 5.2 × 10−1 | [2.7 × 10−1, 1.2 × 100] | 2.0 × 10−2 ([ 1.4 × 10−1 ([ |
(CI: confidence interval) The value of each term is estimated in our model by the following equations of the parameters evaluated at the steady state
Inflow rate to DN thymocytes: ϕ1
DN apparent proliferation rate:
DN differentiation rate:
DN residence time:
DP apparent proliferation rate:
DP differentiation rate to SP4:
DP residence time:
Proportion of DP to SP4 in DP export: r24
SP4 apparent export rate:
We note that our point estimate of the DP residence time 230 h may be an overestimate, although the previous estimates overlap the statistically confident range of the values obtained by our bootstrap analysis. This is because the residence time was estimated only from the output flux rate, due to the fact that the apoptosis rate cannot be estimated in our model
Fig. 3Variations of parameters estimated by bootstrap parameter estimation. The color of each histogram of a parameter designates the related cell type in Fig. 2a to that parameter. The variations of the other parameters and pairwise scatter plots of the estimated values are also shown in Supplementary Figs. 2 and 3, respectively.
Fig. 4Detailed analysis of the proposed mathematical model Eq. (1). a Dynamics of DN subpopulations obtained experimentally with the corresponding fitted trajectories of the detailed model. DN1: pink, DN2: blue, DN3: light green, DN4: green. b A comparison of the trajectories obtained by the detailed model (dotted line) with those of the coarse-grained model for high (solid line) and low (broken line) DN influx rates. The solid and broken lines are almost perfectly overlapped in this panel. The colors represent cell types; DN: pink, DP: blue, cTEC: cyan. c Validation of the model prediction by a proliferation assay of DP cells. Percentages of Ki67-positive DP cells are obtained at 0, 4, 11, 13,17, and 19 days after irradiation. Points represent experimental cell counts, and shaded lines represent linear interpolations of the average counts (n = 3 at each time point). d In silico evaluation of the impact from the disturbed crosstalk between SP4 thymocytes (light green) and mTECs (brown). Thick solid curves are simulated trajectories of SP4 thymocytes and mTECs with parameter values mimicking the experimental condition in ref. [33], γ4 = 5.0 × 10−6 and ϕ = 0. The thin broken curves are those obtained with the optimal parameter values used in Fig. 2b for comparison.
Fig. 5Possible regulatory mechanisms that are capable of reproducing the recovery dynamics of the data, but that are biologically less relevant than the proposed model shown in Fig. 2a. Differences between each model and the one shown in Fig. 2a are designated by red solid lines if additionally included or red broken lines if excluded. The equations corresponding to the models are shown in Methods. The model in a excludes the autoinhibitory regulation of mTECs. The model in b includes an interaction from DN cells to mTECs influx instead of the inhibition from DP cells. The model in c assumes that cTECs promote DP cell proliferation, rather than inducing DP cell differentiation or cell death. The model in d includes an inhibitory regulation of cTECs from DP cells similar to that of mTECs. e, f, g, and h show corresponding trajectories of the models in a, b, c, and d.