Journal of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 255–285 | Cite as

On the impact of correlation between collaterally consanguineous cells on lymphocyte population dynamics

Article

Abstract

During an adaptive immune response, lymphocytes proliferate for five to twenty-five cell divisions, then stop and die over a period of weeks. Based on extensive flow cytometry data, Hawkins et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:5032–5037, 2007) introduced a cell-level stochastic model of lymphocyte population dynamics, called the Cyton Model, that accurately captures mean lymphocyte population size as a function of time. In Subramanian et al. (J Math Biol 56(6):861–892, 2008), we performed a branching process analysis of the Cyton Model and deduced from parameterizations for in vitro and in vivo data that the immune response is predictable despite each cell’s fate being highly variable. One drawback of flow cytometry data is that individual cells cannot be tracked, so that it is not possible to investigate dependencies in the fate of cells within family trees. In the absence of this information, while the Cyton Model abandons one of the usual assumptions of branching processes (the independence of lifetime and progeny number), it adopts another of the standard branching processes hypotheses: that the fates of progeny are stochastically independent. However, new experimental observations of lymphocytes show that the fates of cells in the same family tree are not stochastically independent. Hawkins et al. (2008, submitted) report on ciné lapse photography experiments where every founding cell’s family tree is recorded for a system of proliferating lymphocytes responding to a mitogenic stimulus. Data from these experiments demonstrate that the death-or-division fates of collaterally consanguineous cells (those in the same generation within a founding cell’s family tree) are strongly correlated, while there is little correlation between cells of distinct generations and between cells in distinct family trees. As this finding contrasts with one of the assumptions of the Cyton Model, in this paper we introduce three variants of the Cyton Model with increasing levels of collaterally consanguineous correlation structure to incorporate these new found dependencies. We investigate their impact on the predicted expected variability of cell population size. Mathematically we conclude that while the introduction of correlation structure leaves the mean population size unchanged from the Cyton Model, the variance of the population size distribution is typically larger. Biologically, through comparison of model predictions for Cyton Model parameterizations determined by in vitro and in vivo experiments, we deduce that if collaterally consanguineous correlation extends beyond cousins, then the immune response is less predictable than would be concluded from the original Cyton Model. That is, some of the variability seen in data that we previously attributed to experimental error could be due to intrinsic variability in the cell population size dynamics.

Keywords

Transient cell population dynamics Expected variability Continuous time branching processes Time-dependent offspring distributions Correlated collaterally consanguineous cells Lymphocytes 

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

60J85 92D25 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lyons AB, Parish CR (1996) Determination of lymphocyte division by flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods 1(1): 131–137Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Parish CR (1999) Fluorescent dyes for lymphocyte migration and proliferation studies. Immunol Cell Biol 77(6): 499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gett AV, Hodgkin PD (2000) A cellular calculus for signal integration by T cells. Nat Immunol 1(4): 239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tangye SG, Avery DT, Deenick EK, Hodgkin PD (2003) Intrinsic differences in the proliferation of naive and memory human B cells as a mechanism for enhanced secondary immune responses. J Immunol 170(2): 686–694Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deenick EK, Gett AV, Hodgkin PD (2003) Stochastic model of T cell proliferation: a calculus revealing IL-2 regulation of precursor frequencies, cell cycle time, and survival. J Immunol 170(10): 4963–4972Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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: 5032–5037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner ML, Hawkins ED, Hodgkin PD (2008) Quantitative regulation of B cell division destiny by signal strength. J Immunol 181(1): 374–382Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Subramanian VG, Duffy KR, Turner ML, Hodgkin PD (2008) Determining the expected variability of immune responses using the Cyton Model. J Math Biol 56(6): 861–892MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hawkins ED, Markham JF, McGuinness LP, Hodgkin PD (2008) Divide or die: a single cell pedigree analysis of alternative stochastic fates (submitted)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Billingsley P (1995) Probability and measure. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abate J, Whitt W (1992) The Fourier-series method for inverting transforms of probability distributions. Queueing Syst Theory Appl 10(1–2): 5–87MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abate J, Whitt W (1992) Numerical inversion of probability generating functions. Oper Res Lett 12(4): 245–251MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choudhury GL, Lucantoni DM, Whitt W (1994) Multidimensional transform inversion with applications to the transient M/G/1 queue. Ann Appl Probab 4(3): 719–740MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kao EPC (1997) An introduction to stochastic processes. Duxbury Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abate J, Choudhury GL, Whitt W (1999) Computational Probability. In: Grassman W (eds) An introduction to numerical transform inversion and its application to probability models. Kluwer, Boston, pp 257–323Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Homann D, Teyton L, Oldstone MBA (2001) Differential regulation of antiviral T-cell immunity results in stable CD8+ but declining CD4+ T-cell memory. Nat Med 7: 913–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yakovlev AY, Yanev NM (1989) Transient processes in cell proliferation kinetics, vol 82 of Lecture Notes in Biomathematics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris TE (2002) The theory of branching processes, Dover Phoenix Editions. Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Athreya KB, Ney PE (2004) Branching processes. Dover Publications Inc., MineolaMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kimmel M, Axelrod DE (2002) Branching processes in biology, vol 19 of Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Prescott DM (1968) Regulation of cell reproduction. Cancer Res 28(9): 1815–1820Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nachtwey DS, Cameron IL (1968) Methods in cell physiology, vol III. Academic Press, New York, pp 213–257Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Smith JA, Martin L (1973) Do cells cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70(4): 1263–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    De Boer RJ, Homann D, Perelson AS (2003) Different dynamics of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses during and after acute lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection. J Immunol 171(8): 3928–3935Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Powell EO (1995) Some features of the generation times of individual bacteria. Biometrika 42: 16–44Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staudte RG, Zhang J, Huggins RM, Cowan R (1996) A reexamination of the cell-lineage data of E O. Powell. Biometrics 52(4): 1214–1222MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kubitschek HE (1967) Cell generation times: ancestral and internal controls. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkely Symp. Math. Stat. and Prob., vol 4, pp 549–572Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Crump KS, Mode CJ (1969) An age-dependent branching process with correlations among sister cells. J Appl Probab 6(1): 205–210MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olofsson P (1996) Branching processes with local dependencies. Ann Appl Probab 6(1): 238–268MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Crump KS, Mode CJ (1968) A general age-dependent branching process, I, II. J Math Anal Appl 24 (1968), 494–508; ibid., 25:8–17Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jagers P (1969) A general stochastic model for population development. Skand. Aktuarietidskr. pp 84–103Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Haccou P, Jagers P, Vatutin VA (2005) Branching processes: variation, growth and extinction of populations. Cambridge University Press, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Clifford P, Sudbury A (1972) The linear cell-size-dependent branching process. J Appl Probab 9: 687–696MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sudbury A, Clifford P (1973) Some results for general cell-size-dependent branching processes. J Appl Probab 10: 289–298MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heijmans HJAM (1984) On the stable size distribution of populations reproducing by fission into two unequal parts. Math Biosci 72(1): 19–50MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alt W, Tyson JJ (1987) A stochastic model of cell division (with application to fission yeast). Math Biosci 84(2): 159–187MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tyson JJ (1989) Effects of asymmetric division on a stochastic model of the cell division cycle. Math Biosci 96(2): 165–184MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huggins RM, Staudte RG (1994) Variance components models for dependent cell populations. J Am Stat Assoc 89: 19–29MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Boucher K, Zorin A, Yakovlev AY, Mayer-Proschel M, Noble M (1999) A stochastic model of generation of oligodendrocytes in cell culture. Math Biosci 159(1): 47–78MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boucher K, Zorin A, Yakovlev AY, Mayer-Proschel M, Noble M (2001) An alternative stochastic model of generation of oligodendrocytes in cell culture. J Math Biol 43(1): 22–36MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yakovlev A, Yanev N (2006) Branching stochastic processes with immigration in analysis of renewing cell populations. Math Biosci 203(1): 37–63MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hyrien O, Ambeskovic I, Mayer-Proschel M, Noble M, Yakovlev A (2006) Stochastic modeling of oligodendrocyte generation in cell culture: model validation with time-lapse data. Theor Biol Med Model 3(2): 37–63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hamilton InstituteNational University of IrelandMaynoothIreland

Personalised recommendations