| Literature DB >> 34732772 |
Pouyan Keshavarz Motamed1,2, Nima Maftoon3,4.
Abstract
Understanding and predicting metastatic progression and developing novel diagnostic methods can highly benefit from accurate models of the deformability of cancer cells. Spring-based network models of cells can provide a versatile way of integrating deforming cancer cells with other physical and biochemical phenomena, but these models have parameters that need to be accurately identified. In this study we established a systematic method for identifying parameters of spring-network models of cancer cells. We developed a genetic algorithm and coupled it to the fluid-solid interaction model of the cell, immersed in blood plasma or other fluids, to minimize the difference between numerical and experimental data of cell motion and deformation. We used the method to create a validated model for the human lung cancer cell line (H1975), employing existing experimental data of its deformation in a narrow microchannel constriction considering cell-wall friction. Furthermore, using this validated model with accurately identified parameters, we studied the details of motion and deformation of the cancer cell in the microchannel constriction and the effects of flow rates on them. We found that ignoring the viscosity of the cell membrane and the friction between the cell and wall can introduce remarkable errors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34732772 PMCID: PMC8566452 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00905-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
for the reference sphere (r = 4 µm, n = 393) immersed in three different fluids[35].
| 1.5375 | 1.82 |
| 1.3 | 1.54 |
| 1.0 | 1.18 |
The extracted entry time and transit time for the cell radius of 6.5 μm at two flow rates.
| Experiment number | Flow rate ( | Entry time (μs) | Transit time (μs) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22.8 | 17,540 | 3740 |
| 2 | 45.6 | 2470 | 526 |
Parameters used for modelling cancer cell deformation and motion in the microchannel.
| Parameters | Symbol | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time step | 0.01 | ||
| Lattice resolution | 1 | ||
| RPMI 1640 kinetic viscosity | 0.785 | ||
| RPMI 1640 density | 1006 | ||
| Reference friction | 0.922 | ||
| Cancer cell density | 1050 | ||
| Repulsive force activation threshold | 0.1 | ||
| Repulsive force scale coefficient | 0.0001 | - | |
| Repulsive force coefficient | 1.2 | - |
Figure 1Investigations for selecting a computationally efficient geometrical domain to simulate the passage of cancer cells through a microchannel. The selected geometrical domain would be used in the computationally expensive parameter-identification process. Four different models were investigated: (a) Model #1: the entire microchannel setup used in experiments of Byun et al.[9], (b) Model #2: part of the entire microchannel setup of Model #1, (c) Model #3: the entire constriction part of Model #1, (d) Model #4: the entry part of the constriction of Model #1, (e) Comparison of fluid velocities at the depth of 7 µm of the microchannel at cross-section E–E in (b) for the four models, and (f) The fluid velocity with different lattice grid spacing sizes for the flow rate of 22.8 µL/h at the cross section E–E shown in panel (b). Fluid flow is not sensitive to the grid spacing size for the grid spacing of 1.5 µm and finer.
Comparison of the four models in Fig. in terms of entry time and run time for four combinations of viscoelastic parameters.
| Viscoelastic Coefficients | Model #1 | Model #2 | Model #3 | Model #4 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Entry time (s) | Run time (s) | Entry time (s) | Run time (s) | Entry time (s) | Run time (s) | Entry time (s) | Run time (s) | ||||||
| 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.05 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 245 | 40,565 | 245 | 1326 | 250 | 182 | 310 | 103 |
| 1.3 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 410 | 46,346 | 390 | 1567 | 430 | 271 | 1390 | 409 |
| 1.3 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 450 | 47,747 | 435 | 1536 | 470 | 292 | 4250 | 1253 |
| 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 4.0 | 500 | 49,498 | 520 | 1608 | 530 | 324 | 23,340 | 6881 |
Upper and lower bounds for model parameters.
| Lower bound | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0001 |
| Upper bound | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 10.0 | 1.0 |
Figure 2Validation of the proposed parameter identification method using stretch experiments of the red blood cell (RBC) with 374 nodes (a) relaxed state, (b) stretched state, (c) comparison of RBC stretch results obtained (1) experimentally by Mills et al.[3] using optical tweezers, (2) numerically by Cimrak et al.[15] using parameters given in Table 6 and (3) numerically using the parameters identified using the proposed genetic algorithm identification method. The model with parameters identified using the proposed method can replicate experimental data more closely than the model by Cimrak et al. (d) error minimization evolution of the proposed method. The main drop in the error occurred in the first five iterations and the five next iterations fine tuned the parameters and decreased the error to less than the threshold of one.
Parameter values for healthy RBC identified using the stretch experimental data of Mills et al.[3].
| Error | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cimrak et al. (2018) | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.46 |
| Proposed GA method | 0.0016 | 0.0569 | 0.0011 | 0.281 | 2.94 | 0.73 |
The best values for the spring-network model parameters of the lung cancer cell.
| 0.073 | 1.649 | 0.969 | 3.084 | 0.823 | 2.481 | 0.0118 | 0.0009 |
Errors and calculated entry and transit times for the best values of the model parameters for the lung cancer cell at the two flow rates of Table 2.
| Calculated entry time (μs) | Calculated transit time (μs) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16,595 | 3497 | 0.206 | 0.069 | 0.011 |
| 2 | 2094 | 532 |
Figure 3Deformation and motion of a lung cancer (H1975) in a microfluidic channel with flow rate of 22.8 µL/h calculated using the validated model. (a) evolution of the cell length as the cancer cell advanced in the microchannel, (b) motion of the cell in the microchannel represented by the trajectories of its leading and trailing edges, (c) evolution of the area strain of the cell (change in the cell area relative to its undeformed shape divided by its undeformed initial area) as the cell advanced in the microchannel, and (d) snapshots of the 3-D model of cell progression in the microchannel at nine instances. The instances shown in (d) are indicated by arrows in the evolution of cell length in panel (a). The cell underwent a rather sudden elongation in Step i that was accompanied by a jump in the area strain as well. The cell length then quickly decreased upon start of squeezing of the cell to the constriction between Steps i and ii but the area strain continued to grow as the cell expanded in the direction normal to the view provided in panel (d). Between Steps ii and viii, the cell continued to deform as it is evident from panels (a,c,d) while it stayed almost at the same position as panel (b) shows. After complete entry of the cell in the constriction, the cell transited in the constriction in Step ix that was much shorter than the entry time as the sloped trajectory lines of panel (b) near the end of the time show.
Figure 4Comparison of deformation and motion of a lung cancer (H1975) in a microfluidic channel at two flow rates of 22.8 and 45.6 µL/h. (a) evolution of the cell length as the cancer cell advanced in the microchannel, (b) motion of the cell in the microchannel represented by the trajectories of its centre of mass, and (c) evolution of the area strain of the cell (change in the cell area relative to its undeformed shape divided by its undeformed initial area) as the cell advanced in the microchannel. The evolution of the cell at the low flow rate and the steps are marked in Fig. 3 and here it is shown for reference. The cell underwent a higher initial elongation and area strain in Step i with the high flow rate than it did with the low flow rate. The initial high area-strain value, that the cell reached to in Step i with the high flow rate, stayed almost constant during the entry steps. However, with the low flow rate, the area strain gradually increased during the entry steps until it eventually reached to the high value that the cell reached to Step i with the high flow rate.
Figure 5Effects of membrane viscosity on cancer-cell deformation in constriction at two flow rates. (a,c) evolutions of the cell length and area strain at 22.8 µL/h, (b,d) evolutions of the cell length and area strain at 45.6 µL/h. The area strain is defined as the change in the cell area relative to its undeformed shape divided by its undeformed initial area. Membrane viscosity had flow-rate dependent effects of the motion and deformation of the cell. Neglecting the viscosity caused overestimation and underestimation of the entry time to the constriction at the low and high flow rates, respectively.
Figure 6Effects of the viscosity of cell membrane on the 3-D motion and deformation of a lung cancer cell in a microfluidic constriction at the flow rate of at 22.8 µL/h. Neglecting the viscosity caused the cell to get stuck at the constriction entrance after the 6.53 ms while the cell with correctly identified viscosity underwent drastic deformations until it successfully entered the constriction at 16.53 ms.
Figure 7Effects of friction between the walls of the microchannel and the cancer cell on the cell motion and deformation during its transit in the constriction (Step ix in Fig. ) of motion at the flow rates of 22.8 µL/h (a) and 45.6 µL/h (b). The cell is viewed from the top (perpendicular to the microchannel axis). Because neglecting friction caused the cell to pass very fast, instead of time-matched states, axial location-matched states are shown. At both flow rates, the cell velocity magnitude at any location in the constriction was always overestimated when the friction was ignored.
Figure 8Effects of flow rate on the calculated entry time (a) and transit time (b) of a lung cancer cell in a microfluidic constriction as well as relationship between entry time and transit time at different flow rates (c). Simulations were performed using the validated spring-network model of the cell with accurately identified parameters. Both entry time (a) and transit time (b) generally follow a power law decrease with flow rate and they have a linear relationship with each other as the flow rate changes (c).