IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1005387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing individual-based approaches to modelling the self-organization of multicellular tissues

Author

Listed:
  • James M Osborne
  • Alexander G Fletcher
  • Joe M Pitt-Francis
  • Philip K Maini
  • David J Gavaghan

Abstract

The coordinated behaviour of populations of cells plays a central role in tissue growth and renewal. Cells react to their microenvironment by modulating processes such as movement, growth and proliferation, and signalling. Alongside experimental studies, computational models offer a useful means by which to investigate these processes. To this end a variety of cell-based modelling approaches have been developed, ranging from lattice-based cellular automata to lattice-free models that treat cells as point-like particles or extended shapes. However, it remains unclear how these approaches compare when applied to the same biological problem, and what differences in behaviour are due to different model assumptions and abstractions. Here, we exploit the availability of an implementation of five popular cell-based modelling approaches within a consistent computational framework, Chaste (http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/chaste). This framework allows one to easily change constitutive assumptions within these models. In each case we provide full details of all technical aspects of our model implementations. We compare model implementations using four case studies, chosen to reflect the key cellular processes of proliferation, adhesion, and short- and long-range signalling. These case studies demonstrate the applicability of each model and provide a guide for model usage.Author summary: In combination with molecular and live-imaging techniques, computational modelling plays an increasingly important role in the study of tissue growth and renewal. To this end a variety of cell-based modelling approaches have been developed, ranging in complexity from lattice-based cellular automata to lattice-free models that treat cells as point-like particles or extended shapes. However, it remains unclear how these approaches compare when applied to the same biological problem, and under which circumstances each approach is valid. Here we implement five classes of such model in a consistent computational framework, Chaste. We apply each model to four simulation studies, chosen to illustrate how the cellular processes such as proliferation, adhesion, and short- and long-range signalling may be implemented in each model. These case studies demonstrate the applicability of each model and highlight where one may expect to see qualitative differences between model behaviours. Taken together, these findings provide a guide for model usage.

Suggested Citation

  • James M Osborne & Alexander G Fletcher & Joe M Pitt-Francis & Philip K Maini & David J Gavaghan, 2017. "Comparing individual-based approaches to modelling the self-organization of multicellular tissues," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-34, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005387
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005387
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005387&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005387?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1005387. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.