Abstract
Turing’s pattern formation mechanism exhibits sensitivity to the details of the initial conditions suggesting that, in isolation, it cannot robustly generate pattern within noisy biological environments. Nonetheless, secondary aspects of developmental self-organisation, such as a growing domain, have been shown to ameliorate this aberrant model behaviour. Furthermore, while in-situ hybridisation reveals the presence of gene expression in developmental processes, the influence of such dynamics on Turing’s model has received limited attention. Here, we novelly focus on the Gierer–Meinhardt reaction diffusion system considering delays due the time taken for gene expression, while incorporating a number of different domain growth profiles to further explore the influence and interplay of domain growth and gene expression on Turing’s mechanism. We find extensive pathological model behaviour, exhibiting one or more of the following: temporal oscillations with no spatial structure, a failure of the Turing instability and an extreme sensitivity to the initial conditions, the growth profile and the duration of gene expression. This deviant behaviour is even more severe than observed in previous studies of Schnakenberg kinetics on exponentially growing domains in the presence of gene expression (Gaffney and Monk in Bull. Math. Biol. 68:99–130, 2006). Our results emphasise that gene expression dynamics induce unrealistic behaviour in Turing’s model for multiple choices of kinetics and thus such aberrant modelling predictions are likely to be generic. They also highlight that domain growth can no longer ameliorate the excessive sensitivity of Turing’s mechanism in the presence of gene expression time delays. The above, extensive, pathologies suggest that, in the presence of gene expression, Turing’s mechanism would generally require a novel and extensive secondary mechanism to control reaction diffusion patterning.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abdreeff, M., Goodrich, D.W., Pardee, A.B., 2000. Cell proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis. In: The Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine, 5th edn. BC Decker, Hamilton, Chap. 2.
Affolter, M., Basler, K., 2007. The Decapentaplegic morphogen gradient: from pattern formation to growth regulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 663–674.
Alber, M., Glimm, T., Hentschel, H., Kazmierczakd, B., Zhanga, Y., Zhua, J., Newman, S., 2008. The morphostatic limit for a model of skeletal pattern formation in the vertebrate limb. Bull. Math. Biol. 70, 460–483.
Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Walter, P., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., 2002. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 5th edn. Garland, New York.
Arcuri, P., Murray, J.D., 1986. Pattern sensitivity to boundary and initial conditions in reaction-diffusion models. J. Math. Biol. 24, 141–165.
Bard, J., Lauder, I., 1974. How well does Turing’s theory of morphogenesis work? J. Theor. Biol. 45, 501–531.
Beguinot, L., Lyall, R.M., Willingham, M.C., Pastan, I., 1984. Down-regulation of the epidermal growth factor receptor in KB cells is due to receptor internalization and subsequent degradation in lysosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 81, 2384–2388.
Bunow, B., Kernevez, J.P., Joly, G., Thomas, D., 1980. Pattern formation by reaction–diffusion instabilities: applications to morphogenesis in drosophila. J. Theor. Biol. 84, 629–649.
Chang, W., Liou, W., Pen, H., Chou, H., Chang, Y., Li, W., Chiang, W., Pai, L., 2008. The gradient of Gurken, a long-range morphogen, is directly regulated by Cbl-mediated endocytosis. Development 135, 1923–1933.
Chen, Y., Schier, A., 2002. Lefty proteins are long-range inhibitors of squint-mediated nodal signaling. Curr. Biol. 12, 2124–2128.
Crampin, E.J., Gaffney, E.A., Maini, P.K., 1999. Reaction and diffusion on growing domains: scenarios for robust pattern formation. Bull. Math. Biol. 61, 1093–1120.
Crampin, E.J., Hackborn, W.W., Maini, P.K., 2002. Pattern formation in reaction–diffusion models with nonuniform domain growth. Bull. Math. Biol. 64, 747–769.
Dillon, R., Maini, P.K., Othmer, H.G., 1994. Pattern formation in generalized Turing systems I. Steady-state patterns in systems with mixed boundary conditions. J. Math. Biol. 32, 345–393.
Entchev, E.V., Schwabedissen, A., Gonzalez-Gaitan, M., 2000. Gradient formation of the TGF-β homolog Dpp. Cell 103, 981–991.
Fischer, J.A., Eun, S.H., Doolan, B.T., 2006. Endocytosis, endosome trafficking, and the regulation of drosophila development. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 22, 181–206.
Gaffney, E.A., Monk, N.A.M., 2006. Gene expression time delays and Turing pattern formation systems. Bull. Math. Biol. 68, 99–130.
Gierer, A., Meinhardt, H., 1972. A theory of biological pattern formation. Kybernetik 12, 30–39.
Harris, M.P., Williamson, S., Fallon, J.F., Meinhardt, H., Prum, R.O., 2005. Molecular evidence for an activator–inhibitor mechanism in development of embryonic feather branching. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(33), 11734–11739.
Hentschel, H.G.E., Glimm, T., Glazier, J.A., Newman, S.A., 2004. Dynamical mechanisms for skeletal pattern formation in the vertebrate limb. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 1713–1722.
Jing, X.H., Zhou, S.M., Wang, W.Q., Chen, Y., 2006. Mechanisms underlying long- and short-range nodal signaling in zebrafish. Mech. Dev. 123, 388–394.
Kondo, S., Asai, R., 1995. A reaction-diffusion wave on the skin of the marine angelfish Pomacanthus. Nature 376, 765–768.
Kondo, S., Iwashita, M., Yamaguchi, M., 2009. How animals get their skin patterns: fish pigment pattern as a live Turing wave. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 53, 851–856.
Kulesa, P.M., Cruywagen, G.C., Lubkin, S.R., Maini, P.K., Sneyd, J., Ferguson, M.W.J., Murray, J.D., 1996. On a model mechanism for the spatial patterning of teeth primordia in the Alligator. J. Theor. Biol. 180, 287–296.
Lewis, J., 2003. Autoinhibition with transcriptional delay: a simple mechanism for the zebrafish somitogenesis oscillator. Curr. Biol. 13, 1398–1408.
Louvi, A., Artavanis-Tsakonas, S., 2006. Notch signalling in vertebrate neural development. Nat. Rev. 7, 93–102.
Madzvamuse, A., 2006. Time-stepping schemes for moving grid finite elements applied to reaction-diffusion systems on fixed and growing domains. J. Comput. Phys. 214, 239–263.
Madzvamuse, A., Gaffney, E.A., Maini, P.K., 2009. Stability analysis of non-autonomous reaction-diffusion systems: the effects of growing domains. J. Math. Biol. doi:10.1007/s00285-009-0293-4.
Miura, T., Shiota, K., 2000a. Extracellular matrix environment influences chondrogenic pattern formation in limb bud micromass culture: experimental verification of theoretical models. Anat. Rec. 258, 100–107.
Miura, T., Shiota, K., 2000b. TGFβ2 acts as an activator molecule in reaction–diffusion model and is involved in cell sorting phenomenon in mouse limb micromass culture. Dev. Dyn. 217, 241–249.
Miura, T., Shiota, K., Morriss-Kay, G., Maini, P.K., 2006. Mixed-mode pattern in Doublefoot mutant mouse limb-Turing reaction–diffusion model on a growing domain during limb development. J. Theor. Biol. 240, 562–573.
Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, R.N., Maxfield, F.R., 1997. Endocytosis. Physiol. Rev. 77(3), 759–803.
Murray, J.D., 1993. Mathematical Biology, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin.
Nakamasu, A., Takahashi, G., Kanbe, A., Kondo, S., 2009. Interactions between zebrafish pigment cells responsible for the generation of Turing patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 8429–8434.
Neville, A., Matthews, P., Byrne, H., 2006. Interactions between pattern formation and domain growth. Bull. Math. Biol. 68(8), 1975–2003.
Newman, S., Muller, G., 2005. Origination and innovation in the vertebrate limb skeleton: an epigenetic perspective. J. Exp. Zool. B (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 304, 593–609.
Piddini, E., Vincent, J., 2003. Modulation of developmental signals by endocytosis: different means and many ends. Curr. Cell Biol. 15, 474–481.
Rogulja, D., Irvine, K.D., 2005. Regulation of cell proliferation by a morphogen gradient. Cell 123, 449–461.
Roy, C.L., Wrana, J.L., 2005. Clathrin- and nonclathrin-mediated endocytic regulation of cell signaling. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 6, 112–126.
Sakuma, R., Ohnishi, Y., Meno, C., Fujii, H., Juan, H., Takeuchi, J., Ogura, T., Li, E., Miyazono, K., Hamada, H., 2002. Inhibition of nodal signalling by lefty mediated through interaction with common receptors and efficient diffusion. Genes Cells 7, 401–412.
Schnakenberg, J., 1979. Simple chemical reaction systems with limit cycle behaviour. J. Theor. Biol. 81, 389–400.
Seirin-Lee, S., Gaffney, E.A., Monk, N.A.M., 2010. The influence of gene expression time delays on Gierer–Meinhardt pattern formation systems. Bull. Math. Biol. doi:10.1007/s11538-010-9532-5.
Solnica-Krezel, L., 2003. Vertebrate development: taming the nodal waves. Curr. Biol. 13, R7–R9.
Sorkin, A., von Zastrow, M., 2002. Signal transduction and endocytosis: close encounters of many kinds. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 3, 600–614.
Stoscheck, C.M., Carpenter, G., 2002. Down-regulation of egf receptors: direct demonstration of receptor degradation in human fibroblasts. J. Cell Biol. 98, 1048–1053.
Tennyson, C.N., Klamut, H.J., Worton, R.G., 1995. The human dystrophin gene requires 16 hr to be transcribed and is contranscriptionally spliced. Nat. Genet. 9, 184–190.
Turing, A., 1952. The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 237, 37–72.
Uriu, K., Iwasa, Y., 2007. Turing pattern formation with two kinds of cells and a diffusive chemical. Bull. Math. Biol. 67, 2515–2536.
Varea, C., Aragon, J., Barrio, R., 1997. Confined Turing patterns in growing systems. Phys. Rev. E 56(1), 1250–1253.
Wells, A., Welsh, J.B., Lazar, C.S., Wiley, H.S., Gill, G.N., Rosenfeld, M.G., 1990. Ligand-induced transformation by a noninternalizing epidermal growth factor receptor. Science 247, 962–964.
Zeng, W., Thomas, G., Glazier, J., 2004. Non-Turing stripes and spots: a novel mechanism for biological cell clustering. Physica A 341, 482–494.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Seirin Lee, S., Gaffney, E.A. Aberrant Behaviours of Reaction Diffusion Self-organisation Models on Growing Domains in the Presence of Gene Expression Time Delays. Bull. Math. Biol. 72, 2161–2179 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-010-9533-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-010-9533-4