Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 77, Issue 4, pp 713–734 | Cite as

Choosing an Appropriate Modelling Framework for Analysing Multispecies Co-culture Cell Biology Experiments

  • Deborah C. Markham
  • Matthew J. Simpson
  • Ruth E. BakerEmail author
Original Article


In vitro cell biology assays play a crucial role in informing our understanding of the migratory, proliferative and invasive properties of many cell types in different biological contexts. While mono-culture assays involve the study of a population of cells composed of a single cell type, co-culture assays study a population of cells composed of multiple cell types (or subpopulations of cells). Such co-culture assays can provide more realistic insights into many biological processes including tissue repair, tissue regeneration and malignant spreading. Typically, system parameters, such as motility and proliferation rates, are estimated by calibrating a mathematical or computational model to the observed experimental data. However, parameter estimates can be highly sensitive to the choice of model and modelling framework. This observation motivates us to consider the fundamental question of how we can best choose a model to facilitate accurate parameter estimation for a particular assay. In this work we describe three mathematical models of mono-culture and co-culture assays that include different levels of spatial detail. We study various spatial summary statistics to explore if they can be used to distinguish between the suitability of each model over a range of parameter space. Our results for mono-culture experiments are promising, in that we suggest two spatial statistics that can be used to direct model choice. However, co-culture experiments are far more challenging: we show that these same spatial statistics which provide useful insight into mono-culture systems are insufficient for co-culture systems. Therefore, we conclude that great care ought to be exercised when estimating the parameters of co-culture assays.


Cell migration Cell proliferation Monolayer development Multispecies Co-culture assay 



We appreciate experimental support from Parvathi Haridas. This research is supported by the Australian Research Council (FT130100148) and the 2011 International Exchange Scheme funded by the Royal Society.


  1. Baker RE, Simpson MJ (2010) Correcting mean-field approximations for birth-death-movement processes. Phys Rev E 82:041905MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binder BJ, Landman KA (2011) Quantifying evenly distributed states in exclusion and nonexclusion processes. Physical Review E 83:041914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolker BM, Pacala SW (1997) Using moment equations to understand stochastically driven spatial pattern formation in ecological systems. Theor Pop Biol 52:179–197CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolker BM, Pacala SW (1999) Spatial moment equations for plant competition: understanding spatial strategies and the advantages of short dispersal. Am Nat 153:575–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai AQ, Landman KA, Hughes BD (2007) Multi-scale modeling of a wound-healing cell migration assay. J Theor Biol 245:576–594MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapra SC, Canale RP (1998) Numerical methods for engineers. McGraw Hill, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  7. Codling EA, Plank MJ, Benhamou S (2008) Random walk models in biology. J R Soc Interface 5:813–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deroulers C, Aubert M, Badoual M, Grammaticos B (2009) Modeling tumor cell migration: From microscopic to macroscopic models. Phys Rev E 79:031917MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dieckmann U, Law R (1999) Relaxation projections and the method of moments. In: The geometry of ecological interactions: simplifying spatial complexity, simplifying spatial complexity. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Diggle PJ (1983) Statistical analysis of spatial and spatio-temporal point patterns. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  11. Filipe JAN (1999) Hybrid closure approximation to epidemic models. Phys A 266:238–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Filipe JAN, Maule MM (2003) Analytical methods for predicting the behaviour of population models with general spatial interactions. Math Biosci 183:15–35MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillespie DT (1977) Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys Chem 81:2340–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes BD (1995) Random walks and random environments, vol 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kramer N, Walzl A, Unger C, Rosner M, Krupitza G, Henstschläger M, Dolznig H (2013) In vitro cell migration and invasion assays. Mutat Res-Rev Mutat 752:10–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Law R, Murrell DJ, Dieckmann U (2003) Population growth in space and time: spatial logistic equations. Ecology 84:252–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liggett TM (1999) Stochastic interacting systems: contact voter and exclusion processes. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Markham DC, Simpson MJ, Baker RE (2013a) Simplified method for including spatial correlations in mean-field approximations. Phys Rev E 87:062702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Markham DC, Simpson MJ, Maini PK, Gaffney E, Baker RE (2013b) Incorporating spatial correlations into multispecies mean-field models. Phys Rev E 88:052713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murrell DJ, Dieskman U, Law R (2004) On moment closures for population dynamics in continuous space. J Theor Biol 229:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phelps JH, Tucker CL III (2006) Lagrangian particle calculations of distributive mixing: limitations and applications. Chem Eng Sci 61:6826–6836Google Scholar
  22. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (2007) Numerical recipes: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Raghib M, Hill NA, Dieckmann U (2011) A multi scale maximum entropy closure for locally regulated space-time point process models of population dynamics. J Math Bio 62:605–653MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Sengers BG, Please CP, Oreffo ROC (2007) Experimental characterization and computational modelling of two-dimensional cell spreading for skeletal regeneration. J Roy Soc Interface 4:1107–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sharkey KJ, Fernandez C, Morgan KL, Peeler E, Thrush M, Turnbull JF, Bowers RG (2006) Pairlevelapproximations to the spatio-temporal dynamics of epidemics on asymmetric contact networks. J MathBiol 53, 61–85Google Scholar
  26. Sherratt JA, Murray JD (1990) Models of epidermal wound healing. Proc R Soc Lond B 241:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simpson MJ, Landman KA, Hughes BD (2009) Multi-species simple exclusion processes. Phys A 388:399–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Simpson MJ, Baker RE (2011) Corrected mean-field models for spatially dependent advection-diffusion-reaction phenomena. Phys Rev E 83:051922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simpson MJ, Binder BJ, Haridas P, Wood BK, Treloar KK, McElwain DLS, Baker RE (2013) Experimental and modelling investigation of monolayer development with clustering. Bull Math Biol 75:871–889MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Simpson MJ, Sharp JA, Baker RE (2014a) Distinguishing between mean-field, moment dynamics and stochastic descriptions of birth-death-movement processes. Phys A 395:236–246MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simpson MJ, Haridas P, McElwain DLS (2014b) Do pioneer cells exist? PLoS ONE 9(1):e85488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singer A (2004) Maximum entropy formulation of the Kirkwood superposition approximation. J Chem Phys 121:3657–3666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swanson KR, Bridge C, Murray JD, Alvord EC Jr (2003) Virtual and real brain tumors: using mathematical modeling to quantify glioma growth and invasion. J Neurol Sci 216:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Todaro GJ, Green H (1963) Quantitative studies of the growth of mouse embryo cells in culture and their development into established lines. J Cell Biol 17:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Treloar KK, Simpson MJ, Binder BJ, McElwain DLS, Baker RE (2014) Assessing the role of spatial correlations during collective cell spreading. Sci Rep 4:5713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tremel A, Cai A, Tirtaatmadja N, Hughes BD, Stevens GW, Landman KA, O’Connor AJ (2009) Cell migration and proliferation during monolayer formation and wound healing. Chem Eng Sci 64:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Kilsdonk JWJ, Bergers M, Van Kempen LCLT, Schalkwijk J, Swart GWM (2010) Keratinocytes drive melanoma invasion in a reconstructed skin model. Melanoma Res 20:372–380Google Scholar
  38. Wang Z, Wang Y, Farhangfar F, Zimmer M, Zhang Y (2012) Enhanced keratinocyte proliferation and migration in co-culture with fibroblasts. PLoS ONE 7:e40951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xie Y, Rizzi SC, Dawson R, Lynam E, Richards S, Leavesley DI, Upton Z (2010) Development of a three-dimensional human skin equivalent wound model for investigating novel wound healing therapies. Tisssue Eng Part C 16:1111–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zheng C, Bennett GD (2002) Applied contaminant transport modeling. Wiley-Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah C. Markham
    • 1
  • Matthew J. Simpson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ruth E. Baker
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Wolfson Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Mathematical SciencesQueensland University of Technology (QUT)BrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Tissue Repair and Regeneration ProgramInstitute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, QUTBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations