A general mathematical framework to model generation structure in a population of asynchronously dividing cells.

In otherwise homogeneous cell populations, individual cells undergo asynchronous cell cycles. In recent years, interest in this fundamental observation has been boosted by the wide usage of CFSE, a fluorescent dye that allows the precise estimation by flow cytometry of the number of divisions performed by different cells in a population, and thus the generation structure. In this work, we propose two general mathematical frameworks to model the time evolution of generation structure in a cell population. The first modeling framework is more descriptive and assumes that cell division time is distributed in the cell population, due to intrinsic noise in the molecular machinery in individual cells; while the second framework assumes that asynchrony in cell division stems from randomness in the interactions individual cells make with environmental agents. We reduce these formalisms to recover two preexistent models, which build on each of the hypotheses. When confronted to kinetics data on CFSE labeled cells taken from literature, these models can fit precursor frequency distributions at each measured time point. However, they fail to fit the whole kinetics of precursor frequency distributions. In contrast, two extensions of those models, derived also from our general formalisms, fit equally well both the whole kinetics and individual profiles at each time point, providing a biologically reasonable estimation of parameters. We prove that the distribution of cell division times is not Gaussian, as previously proposed, but is better described by an asymmetric distribution such as the Gamma distribution. We show also that the observed cell asynchrony could be explained by the existence of a single transitional event during cell division. Based on these results, we suggest new ways of combining theoretical and experimental work to assess how much of noise in internal machinery of the cell and interactions with the environmental agents contribute to the asynchrony in cell division.

[1]  Ovide Arino,et al.  A survey of structured cell population dynamics , 1995, Acta biotheoretica.

[2]  A. L. Koch,et al.  A model for statistics of the cell division process. , 1962, Journal of general microbiology.

[3]  J Steinkamp,et al.  Cell heterogeneity during the cell cycle , 1982, Journal of cellular physiology.

[4]  Stephen P. Schoenberger,et al.  Naïve CTLs require a single brief period of antigenic stimulation for clonal expansion and differentiation , 2001, Nature Immunology.

[5]  M. R. Spiegel Mathematical handbook of formulas and tables , 1968 .

[6]  S. Swain,et al.  Two Distinct Stages in the Transition from Naive CD4 T Cells to Effectors, Early Antigen-Dependent and Late Cytokine-Driven Expansion and Differentiation1 , 2000, The Journal of Immunology.

[7]  I. Tannock,et al.  ON THE EXISTENCE OF A Go‐PHASE IN THE CELL CYCLE , 1970 .

[8]  A. B. Lyons,et al.  Determination of lymphocyte division by flow cytometry. , 1994, Journal of immunological methods.

[9]  J. Altman,et al.  In vivo dynamics of anti-viral CD8 T cell responses to different epitopes. An evaluation of bystander activation in primary and secondary responses to viral infection. , 1998, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.

[10]  P. Hodgkin,et al.  Quantitative analysis of lymphocyte differentiation and proliferation in vitro using carboxyfluorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester , 1999, Immunology and cell biology.

[11]  William T. Lee,et al.  Continued Antigen Stimulation Is Not Required During CD4+ T Cell Clonal Expansion1 , 2002, The Journal of Immunology.

[12]  A. Lanzavecchia,et al.  The duration of antigenic stimulation determines the fate of naive and effector T cells. , 1998, Immunity.

[13]  D. Woodland,et al.  Apoptotic cells are generated at every division of in vitro cultured T cell lines. , 1999, Cellular immunology.

[14]  H. Lodish Molecular Cell Biology , 1986 .

[15]  Paul C. Rogers,et al.  From Naive to Memory T Cells , 1996, Immunological reviews.

[16]  D. Cantrell,et al.  The interleukin-2 T-cell system: a new cell growth model. , 1984, Science.

[17]  Philip D. Hodgkin,et al.  A cellular calculus for signal integration by T cells , 2000, Nature Immunology.

[18]  Henrique Veiga-Fernandes,et al.  Response of naïve and memory CD8+ T cells to antigen stimulation in vivo , 2000, Nature Immunology.

[19]  A. L. Koch Does the variability of the cell cycle result from one or many chance events? , 1980, Nature.

[20]  P. Wallace,et al.  A flow cytometric method to estimate the precursor frequencies of cells proliferating in response to specific antigens. , 1999, Journal of immunological methods.

[21]  H. E. Kubitschek THE DISTRIBUTION OF CELL GENERATION TIMES , 1971, Cell and tissue kinetics.

[22]  R. Nordon,et al.  Analysis of growth kinetics by division tracking , 1999, Immunology and cell biology.

[23]  J. Smith,et al.  Do cells cycle? , 1973, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  L. Bradley,et al.  T cell memory. , 1998, Annual review of immunology.