Abstract
Since their invention in 1994, fluorescent dyes such as carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester (CFSE) are used for cell proliferation analysis in flow cytometry. Importantly, the interpretation of such assays relies on the assumption that the label is divided equally between the daughter cells upon cell division. However, recent experimental studies indicate that division of cells is not perfectly symmetric and there is unequal distribution of protein between sister cell pairs. The uneven partition of protein or mass to daughter cells can lead to an overlap in the generations of CFSE-labelled cells with straightforward consequences for the resolution of individual generations. Numerous mathematical models developed so far for the analysis of CFSE proliferation assay incorporate the premise that the CFSE fluorescence intensity is halved in the two daughter cells. Here, we propose a novel modelling approach for the analysis of the CFSE cell proliferation assays which are characterized by poorly resolved peaks of cell generations in flow cytometric histograms. We formulate a mathematical model in the form of a system of delay hyperbolic partial differential equations which provides a good agreement with the CFSE histograms time-series data and allows an analytical treatment. The model is a further generalization of the recently proposed class of division- and label-structured models as it considers an asymmetric cell division. In addition, the basic structure of the cell cycle, i.e. the resting and cycling cell compartments, is taken into account. The model is used to estimate fundamental parameters such as activation rate, duration of the cell cycle, apoptosis rate, CFSE decay rate and asymmetry factor in cell division of monoclonal T cells during cognate interaction with dendritic cells.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akbarian V, Wang W, Audet J (2012) Measurement of generation-dependent proliferation rates and death rates during mouse erythroid progenitor cell differentiation. Cytometry A 81(5):382–389
Andrew SM, Baker CTH, Bocharov GA (2007) Rival approaches to mathematical modelling in immunology. J Comput Appl Math 205:669–686
Baker CTH, Bocharov GA, Paul CAH, Rihan FA (2005) Computational modelling with functional differential equations: identification, selection and sensitivity. Appl Numer Math 53:107–129
Banks HT, Thompson WC (2012) Mathematical models of dividing cell populations: application to CFSE data. Math Model Nat Phenom 7(5):24–52
Banks HT, Sutton KL, Thompson WC, Bocharov G, Roose D, Schenkel T, Meyerhans A (2011a) Estimation of cell proliferation dynamics using CFSE data. Bull Math Biol 70:116–150
Banks HT, Sutton KL, Thompson WC, Bocharov G, Doumic M, Schenkel T, Argilaguet J, Giest S, Peligero C, Meyerhans A (2011b) A new model for the estimation of cell proliferation dynamics using CFSE data. J Immunol Methods 373:143–160
Banks HT, Thompson WC, Peligero C, Giest S, Argilaguet J, Meyerhans A (2012) A division-dependent compartmental model for computing cell numbers in CFSE-based lymphocyte proliferation assay. CRSC-TR12-03, North Carolina State University
Banks HT, Kapraun DF, Thompson WC, Peligero C, Argilaguet J, Meyerhans A (2013a) A novel statistical analysis and interpretation of flow cytometry data. J Biol Dyn 7(1):96–132
Banks HT, Choi A, Huffman T, Nardini J, Poag L, Thompson WC (2013b) Quantifying CFSE label decay in flow cytometry data. Appl Math Lett 26(5):571–577
Bergmann CC, Lane TE, Stohlman SA (2006) Coronavirus infection of the central nervous system: host-virus stand-off. Nat Rev Microbiol 4(2):121–132
Bernard S, Pujo-Menjouet L, Mackey MC (2003) Analysis of cell kinetics using a cell division marker: mathematical modeling of experimental data. Biophys J 84(5):3414–3424
Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference–a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Chang JT, Palanivel VR, Kinjyo I, Schambach F, Intlekofer AM, Banerjee A, Longworth SA, Vinup KE, Mrass P, Oliaro J, Killeen N, Orange JS, Russell SM, Weninger W, Reiner SL (2007) Asymmetric T lymphocyte division in the initiation of adaptive immune responses. Science 315(5819):1687–1691
Ciocca ML, Barnett BE, Burkhardt JK, Chang JT, Reiner SL (2012) Cutting edge: asymmetric memory T cell division in response to rechallenge. J Immunol 188(9):4145–4148
De Boer RJ, Perelson AS (2005) Estimating division and death rates from CFSE data. J Comput Appl Math 184:140–164
De Boer RJ, Perelson AS (2013) Quantifying T lymphocyte turnover. J Theor Biol 327:45–87
De Boer RJ, Oprea M, Antia R, Murali-Krishna K, Ahmed R, Perelson AS (2001) Recruitment times, proliferation, and apoptosis rates during the \(\text{ CD8 }^+\) T-cell response to lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus. J Virol 75(22):10663–10669
Fernandes RL, Nierychlo M, Lundin L, Pedersen AE, Puentes Tellez PE, Dutta A, Carlquist M, Bolic A, Schpper D, Brunetti AC, Helmark S, Heins AL, Jensen AD, Nopens I, Rottwitt K, Szita N, van Elsas JD, Nielsen PH, Martinussen J, Srensen SJ, Lantz AE, Gernaey KV (2011) Experimental methods and modeling techniques for description of cell population heterogeneity. Biotechnol Adv 29(6):575–599
Ganusov VV, Pilyugin SS, de Boer RJ, Murali-Krishna K, Ahmed R, Antia R (2005) Quantifying cell turnover using CFSE data. J Immunol Methods 298(1–2):183–200
Gershenfeld N (2002) The nature of mathematical modelling. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Gyllenberg M (1986) The size and scar distributions of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Math Biol 24:81–101
Hadamard J (1932) Le probléme de Cauchy et les équations aux dérivées partielles linéaires hyperboliques. Hermann, Paris
Hasenauer J, Schittler D, Allgöwer F (2012a) A computational model for proliferation dynamics of division- and label-structured populations. arXiv:1202.4923v1[q-bio.PE]
Hasenauer J, Schittler D, Allgöwer F (2012b) Analysis and simulation of division- and label-structured population models: a new tool to analyze proliferation assays. Bull Math Biol 74(11):2692–2732
Hawkins ED, Turner ML, Dowling MR, van Gend C, Hodgkin PD (2007) A model of immune regulation as a consequence of randomized lymphocyte division and death times. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(12):5032–5037
Kendall DG (1948) On the role of variable generation time in the development of a stochastic birth process. Biometrika 35:316–330
Knuth, KH (2006) Optimal data-based binning for histograms. arXiv:physics/0605197 [physics.data-an]
Ko KH, Odell R, Nordon RE (2007) Analysis of cell differentiation by division tracking cytometry. Cytometry A 71(10):773–782
Kosarev EL, Pantos E (1983) Optimal smoothing of ‘noisy’ data by fast Fourier transform. J Phys E Sci Instrum 16:537–543
Lee HY, Hawkins E, Zand MS, Mosmann T, Wu H, Hodgkin PD, Perelson AS (2009) Interpreting CFSE obtained division histories of B cells in vitro with Smith–Martin and cyton type models. Bull Math Biol 71(7):1649–1670
Ludewig B, Krebs P, Junt T, Metters H, Ford NJ, Anderson RM, Bocharov G (2004) Determining control parameters for dendritic cell-cytotoxic T lymphocyte interaction. Eur J Immunol 34:2407–2418
Luzyanina T, Mrusek S, Edwards JT, Roose D, Ehl S, Bocharov G (2007a) Computational analysis of CFSE proliferation assay. J Math Biol 54(1):57–89
Luzyanina T, Roose D, Schenkel T, Sester M, Ehl S, Meyerhans A, Bocharov G (2007b) Numerical modelling of label-structured cell population growth using CFSE distribution data. Theor Biol Med Model 24:4–26
Luzyanina T, Roose D, Bocharov G (2009) Distributed parameter identification for a label-structured cell population dynamics model using CFSE histogram time-series data. J Math Biol 59(5):581–603
Lyons AB (2000) Analysing cell division in vivo and in vitro using flow cytometric measurement of CFSE dye dilution. J Immunol Methods 243(1–2):147–154
Lyons AB, Parish CR (1994) Determination of lymphocyte division by flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods 171(1):131–137
Mackey MC, Rudnicki R (1994) Global stability in a delayed partial differential equation describing cellular replication. J Math Biol 33:89–109
Mantzaris NV (2006) Stochastic and deterministic simulations of heterogeneous cell population dynamics. J Theor Biol 241(3):690–706
Mantzaris NV (2007) From single-cell genetic architecture to cell population dynamics: quantitatively decomposing the effects of different population heterogeneity sources for a genetic network with positive feedback architecture. Biophys J 92(12):4271–4288
Mantzaris NV, Liou J, Daoutidis P, Srienc F (1999) Numerical solution of a mass structured cell population balance model in an environment of changing substrate concentration. J Biotechnol 71:157–174
Matera G, Lupi M, Ubezio P (2004) Heterogeneous cell response to topotecan in a CFSE-based proliferation test. Cytometry A 62(2):118–128
McKendrick AG (1925) Applications of mathematics to medical problems. Proc Edinb Math Soc 44:98–130
Metzger P (2012) A unified growth model for division-, age- and label-structured cell populations. University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, Diploma Thesis
Metzger P, Hasenauer J, Allgöwer F (2012) Modeling and analysis of division-, age-, and label-structured cell populations. In: Proceedings of the 9th workshop on computational systems biology (WCSB), vol 9, Ulm, Germany
Miao H, Jin X, Perelson AS, Wu H (2012) Evaluation of multitype mathematical models for CFSE-labeling experiment data. Bull Math Biol 74(2):300–326
Monod J (1949) The growth of bacterial cultures. Ann Rev Microbiol 3:371–394
Nordon RE, Nakamura M, Ramirez C, Odell R (1999) Analysis of growth kinetics by division tracking. Immunol Cell Biol 77(6):523–529
Nordon RE, Ko KH, Odell R, Schroeder T (2011) Multi-type branching models to describe cell differentiation programs. J Theor Biol 277(1):7–18
Pagliara D, Savoldo B (2012) Cytotoxic T lymphocytes for the treatment of viral infections and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders in transplant recipients. Curr Opin Infect Dis 25(4):431–437
Pilyugin SS, Ganusov VV, Murali-Krishna K, Ahmed R, Antia R (2003) The rescaling method for quantifying the turnover of cell populations. J Theor Biol 225(2):275–83
Quah BJ, Parish CR (2012) New and improved methods for measuring lymphocyte proliferation in vitro and in vivo using CFSE-like fluorescent dyes. J Immunol Methods 379(1–2):1–14
Roederer M (2011) Interpretation of cellular proliferation data: avoid the panglossian. Cytometry A 79(2):95–101
Schittler D, Hasenauer J, Allgöwer F (2011) A generalized model for cellproliferation: Integrating division numbers and label dynamics. In: Proceedings of the eight international workshop on computationalsystems biology (WCSB, 2011), Zurich, Switzerland, pp 165–168
Scott DW (1979) On optimal and data-based histograms. Biometrika 66(3):605–610
Sennerstam R (1988) Partition of protein (mass) to sister cell pairs at mitosis: a re-evaluation. J Cell Sci 90(2):301–306
Smith JA, Martin L (1973) Do cells cycle? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70(4):1263–1267
Sturges HA (1926) The choice of a class interval. J Am Stat Assoc 21(153):65–66
Taylor CC (1987) Akaike’s information criterion and the histogram. Biometrika 74(3):636–639
Thompson WC (2011) Partial differential equation modelling of flow cytometry data from CFSE-based proliferation assays. PhD Dissertation. Department of Mathematics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
Tikhonov AN, Arsenin VY (1977) Solutions of ill-posed problems. Winston & Sons, Washington, DC
Venzon DJ, Moolgavkar SH (1988) A method for computing profile-likelihood-based confidence intervals. Appl Stat 37(1):87–94
Wallace PK, Tario JD Jr, Fisher JL, Wallace SS, Ernstoff MS, Muirhead KA (2008) Tracking antigen-driven responses by flow cytometry: monitoring proliferation by dye dilution. Cytometry A 73(11):1019–1034
Wand MP (1997) Data-based choice of histograms bin width. Am Stat 51(1):59–64
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support of this work provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Von-Tobel Foundation (Zurich), the Russian Foundation of Basic Research (11-01-00117a), the Programme of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Basic research for Medicine) and by the Swedish Institute, Visby Program.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
In this appendix, we give the proof of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1.
Proof of Lemma 1
We use a sequential time integration of the chain of linear non-autonomous ordinary differential equations (which the delay equations are reduced to) to compute solutions \(N_0^r(t),~N_1^r(t)\) and \(N_i^c(t),~i=0,1,\ldots ,i_r-1,\) of the model (3). The method of mathematical induction is applied to compute solutions \(N_i^r(t),~i=2,\ldots ,i_r\).
To simplify formulas, let \(c_i: = \alpha _i+\beta _i,~c_i \ne c_k\) for \(i \ne k,~i=0,1,\ldots ,i_r\), \(T_i:= \sum _{j=0}^i \tau _j,~i=0,1,\ldots ,i_r-1\), \(F_i:= 2^i N^0 \prod _{j=0}^{i-1} \alpha _j\) and \(G_{i,j} := \prod _{k=0, k \ne j}^i(c_k-c_j)^{-1},~i=1,\ldots ,i_r\).
The first equation of model (3) is a linear ODE. Time integration of this equation gives
where \(N^0=N_0^r(0)\) is the given initial condition. Substitution of (34) into the equation for \(N_1^r(t)\) gives a linear non-autonomous ODE,
Time integration of this equation gives
where the first equality is due to the initial condition \(N_0^r(t-T_0)=0\) for \(t \in [0,T_0)\) which reduces non-autonomous ODE (35) to an autonomous ODE with zero initial condition \(N_1^r(0)=0\).
Now we assume that \(N_i^r(t)\), defined by
solves the equation for \(N_i^r(t)\) in (3). We have to prove that
solves the equation for \(N_{i+1}^r(t)\) in (3). For this, we substitute (37) in the equation for \(N_{i+1}^r(t)\) in (3) and obtain
and \(N_{i+1}^r(t) = 0,~t \in [0,T_{i})\). Here we used that \(F_{i+1}=2 \alpha _{i} F_i\). Equation (39) is a linear ODE. Time integration of this equation (a number of standard steps) shows that \(N_{i+1}^r(t)\) defined by (38) is its solution.
The solutions \(N_i^c(t),~i=0,1,\ldots ,i_r-1,\) are obtained by the time integration of the corresponding equations. Namely, \(N_0^c(t)\) is computed as
Since \(N_0^r(t-T_0) = 0\) for \(t \in [0,T_0)\), the second integral in (40) is equal to zero for \(t \in [0,T_0)\) and we obtain
and
Similarly, we integrate the equation for \(N_i^c(t),~i\ge 1\), using (37) and that \(N_i^r(t-\tau _i) = 0\) for \(t \in [0,T_i)\),
and
The proof is complete. \(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1
Although the idea of the proof is the same as the one for Theorem 1 in Schittler et al. (2011), Hasenauer et al. (2012a); Hasenauer et al. (2012b), we present the proof in detail since model (5) differs from the one in Schittler et al. (2011), Hasenauer et al. (2012a); Hasenauer et al. (2012b). The plan of the proof is the following: (a) we substitute the functions (13),
into model (5); (b) we use the Eqs. (3) and (14) to obtain, from the result of (a), a certain equality for \(p_i(t,x)\); (c) we solve the hyperbolic PDE (14) for \(p_i(t,x)\) to show that the equality for \(p_i(t,x)\) obtained in (b) is correct. This completes the proof. Below we present the proof for \(i \ge 1\), the proof for \(i=0\) is analogous.
(a) Substitution of the above expressions for \(n_i^r(t,x)\) and \(n_i^c(t,x)\) into model (5) gives
and
(b) Putting the term in brackets on the left hand side of equations (45)–(46) to zero due to (14) and using the Eq. (3) for \(\mathrm{d}N_i^r(t)/\mathrm{d}t\) and \(\mathrm{d}N_i^c(t)/\mathrm{d}t\), the expressions (45)–(46) are reduced to
respectively,
(c) The method of characteristics applied to hyperbolic PDE (14) gives
Using the initial condition for \(p_i(0,x)\) from (15), the solution \(p_i(t,x)\) of PDE (14) is
As follows from (49),
and
If we multiply (51) and (52) by \(\mathrm{e}^{k\tau _{i-1}}/2m_1\) and \(\mathrm{e}^{k\tau _{i-1}}/2m_2\), respectively, and sum the two equalities, we obtain,
where the last equality is due to (50). Hence, the equality (47) is correct and \(n_i^r(t,x) = N_i^r(t) p_i(t,x),~i=1,\ldots ,i_r\), is the solution of model (5).
The equality (48) is correct due to (49). Namely,
Hence, \(n_i^c(t,x)=N_i^c(t) p_i(t,x),~i=1,\ldots ,i_r-1,\) is the solution of model (5). The proof is complete. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luzyanina, T., Cupovic, J., Ludewig, B. et al. Mathematical models for CFSE labelled lymphocyte dynamics: asymmetry and time-lag in division. J. Math. Biol. 69, 1547–1583 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-013-0741-z
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-013-0741-z
Keywords
- Division- and label-structured cell population dynamics
- Delay hyperbolic PDE model
- Asymmetric cell division
- Inverse problem