IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1012965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Falsifying computational models of endothelial cell network formation through quantitative comparison with in vitro models

Author

Listed:
  • Tessa M Vergroesen
  • Vincent Vermeulen
  • Roeland M H Merks

Abstract

During angiogenesis, endothelial cells expand the vasculature by migrating from existing blood vessels, proliferating and collectively organizing into new capillaries. In vitro and in vivo experimentation is instrumental for identifying the molecular players and cell behaviour that regulate angiogenesis. Alongside experimental work, computational and mathematical models of endothelial cell network formation have helped to analyse if the current molecular and cellular understanding of endothelial cell behaviour is sufficient to explain the formation of endothelial cell networks. As input, the models take (a subset of) the current knowledge or hypotheses of single cell behaviour and capture it into a dynamical, mathematical description. As output, they predict the multicellular behaviour following from the actions of many individual cells, i.e., formation of a vascular-like network. Paradoxically, computational modelling based on different assumptions, i.e., completely different, sometimes non-intersecting sets of observed single cell behaviour, can reproduce the same angiogenesis-like multicellular behaviour, making it practically impossible to decide which, if any, of these models is correct. Here we present dynamical analyses of time-lapses of in vitro endothelial cell network formation experiments and compare these with dynamic analyses of three mathematical models: (1) the cell elongation model; (2) the contact-inhibited chemotaxis model; and (3) the mechanical cell-cell communication model. We extract a variety of dynamical characteristics of endothelial cell network formation using a custom time-lapse video analysis pipeline in ImageJ. We compare the dynamical network characteristics of the in vitro experiments to those of the cellular networks produced by the computational models. We test the response of the in silico dynamical cell network characteristics to changes in cell density and make related changes in the in vitro experiments. Of the three computational models that we have considered, the cell elongation model best captures the remodelling phase of in vitro endothelial cell network formation. Furthermore, in the in vitro model, the final size and number of lacunae in the network are independent of the initial cell density. This observation is also reproduced in the cell elongation model, but not in the other two models that we have considered. Altogether, we present an approach to model validation based on comparisons of time-resolved data and variations of model conditions.Author Summary: Understanding how blood vessels grow and organise into well-structured networks is crucial for many clinical applications, from wound healing to cancer treatment. The growth of blood vessels, known as angiogenesis, involves endothelial cells migrating, proliferating, and forming new vascular structures. Angiogenesis is studied through biological experiments, but mathematical models are also used to test whether our understanding of cell behaviour is sufficient to explain cell network formation. Models assuming chemotaxis, elongated cell shape, contact inhibition or mechanical cell-cell communication often produce similar results despite the large differences in the underlying assumptions, making it difficult to determine which model is most accurate. In this study, we analysed time-lapse videos of endothelial cell network formation and compared these with three computational models: (1) the cell elongation model, (2) the contact-inhibited chemotaxis model, and (3) the mechanical cell-cell communication model. By examining the dynamics of network formation and testing how they change with cell density, we found that the cell elongation model best captures key aspects of the real-life cell network remodelling process. This approach highlights the importance of time-resolved data in evaluating computational models and provides a framework for refining our understanding of angiogenesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Tessa M Vergroesen & Vincent Vermeulen & Roeland M H Merks, 2025. "Falsifying computational models of endothelial cell network formation through quantitative comparison with in vitro models," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(4), pages 1-18, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1012965
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012965&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012965?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mats Hellström & Li-Kun Phng & Jennifer J. Hofmann & Elisabet Wallgard & Leigh Coultas & Per Lindblom & Jackelyn Alva & Ann-Katrin Nilsson & Linda Karlsson & Nicholas Gaiano & Keejung Yoon & Janet Ros, 2007. "Dll4 signalling through Notch1 regulates formation of tip cells during angiogenesis," Nature, Nature, vol. 445(7129), pages 776-780, February.
    2. Werner Risau, 1997. "Mechanisms of angiogenesis," Nature, Nature, vol. 386(6626), pages 671-674, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rocío Vega & Manuel Carretero & Rui D M Travasso & Luis L Bonilla, 2020. "Notch signaling and taxis mechanisms regulate early stage angiogenesis: A mathematical and computational model," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-31, January.
    2. Eun-A Kwak & Christopher C. Pan & Aaron Ramonett & Sanjay Kumar & Paola Cruz-Flores & Tasmia Ahmed & Hannah R. Ortiz & Jeffrey J. Lochhead & Nathan A. Ellis & Ghassan Mouneimne & Teodora G. Georgieva , 2022. "βIV-spectrin as a stalk cell-intrinsic regulator of VEGF signaling," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-14, December.
    3. repec:plo:pcbi00:1000163 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Yassine El Bakkouri & Rony Chidiac & Chantal Delisle & Jeanne Corriveau & Gael Cagnone & Vanda Gaonac’h-Lovejoy & Ashley Chin & Éric Lécuyer & Stephane Angers & Jean-Sébastien Joyal & Ivan Topisirovic, 2024. "ZO-1 interacts with YB-1 in endothelial cells to regulate stress granule formation during angiogenesis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, December.
    5. Guénaël Cabanes & Ellen van Wilgenburg & Madeleine Beekman & Tanya Latty, 2015. "Ants build transportation networks that optimize cost and efficiency at the expense of robustness," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(1), pages 223-231.
    6. repec:plo:pone00:0014790 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Nathalia Prata Garcia & Layene Caetano Ireno & Marcello Pardi de Castro & Cristiane Tefé-Silva & Karina Furlani Zoccal & Mirella dos Santos Reis & Lúcia Helena Faccioli & Luiz Gustavo Gardinassi, 2020. "Antitumoral Effect of Lobelia Inflata in An Experimental Mouse Model of Melanoma," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 25(1), pages 18856-18864, January.
    8. Teena Bhakuni & Pieter R. Norden & Naoto Ujiie & Can Tan & Sun Kyong Lee & Thomas Tedeschi & Yi-Wen Hsieh & Ying Wang & Ting Liu & Amani A. Fawzi & Tsutomu Kume, 2024. "FOXC1 regulates endothelial CD98 (LAT1/4F2hc) expression in retinal angiogenesis and blood-retina barrier formation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Ariadna Marín-Llauradó & Sohan Kale & Adam Ouzeri & Tom Golde & Raimon Sunyer & Alejandro Torres-Sánchez & Ernest Latorre & Manuel Gómez-González & Pere Roca-Cusachs & Marino Arroyo & Xavier Trepat, 2023. "Mapping mechanical stress in curved epithelia of designed size and shape," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Kimio Takeuchi & Ryoji Yanai & Fumiaki Kumase & Yuki Morizane & Jun Suzuki & Maki Kayama & Katarzyna Brodowska & Mitsuru Nakazawa & Joan W Miller & Kip M Connor & Demetrios G Vavvas, 2014. "EGF-Like-Domain-7 Is Required for VEGF-Induced Akt/ERK Activation and Vascular Tube Formation in an Ex Vivo Angiogenesis Assay," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-7, March.
    11. Fuchun Yang & Shiva Kalantari & Banzhan Ruan & Shaogang Sun & Zhaoqun Bian & Jun-Lin Guan, 2023. "Autophagy inhibition prevents lymphatic malformation progression to lymphangiosarcoma by decreasing osteopontin and Stat3 signaling," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Rui D M Travasso & Eugenia Corvera Poiré & Mario Castro & Juan Carlos Rodrguez-Manzaneque & A Hernández-Machado, 2011. "Tumor Angiogenesis and Vascular Patterning: A Mathematical Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(5), pages 1-10, May.
    13. Julian M L Budd & Krisztina Kovács & Alex S Ferecskó & Péter Buzás & Ulf T Eysel & Zoltán F Kisvárday, 2010. "Neocortical Axon Arbors Trade-off Material and Conduction Delay Conservation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-25, March.
    14. Niina M. Santio & Keerthana Ganesh & Pihla P. Kaipainen & Aleksi Halme & Fatemeh Seyednasrollah & Emad Arbash & Satu Hänninen & Riikka Kivelä & Olli Carpen & Pipsa Saharinen, 2024. "Endothelial Pim3 kinase protects the vascular barrier during lung metastasis," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.

    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:pcbi00:1012965. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.