Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A Mathematical Framework for Understanding Four-Dimensional Heterogeneous Differentiation of \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T Cells

Abstract

At least four distinct lineages of \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T cells play diverse roles in the immune system. Both in vivo and in vitro, naïve \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T cells often differentiate into a variety of cellular phenotypes. Previously, we developed a mathematical framework to study heterogeneous differentiation of two lineages governed by a mutual-inhibition motif. To understand heterogeneous differentiation of \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T cells involving more than two lineages, we present here a mathematical framework for the analysis of multiple stable steady states in dynamical systems with multiple state variables interacting through multiple mutual-inhibition loops. A mathematical model for \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T cells based on this framework can reproduce known properties of heterogeneous differentiation involving multiple lineages of this cell differentiation system, such as heterogeneous differentiation of \(\hbox {T}_\mathrm{H}1\)\(\hbox {T}_\mathrm{H}2, \hbox {T}_\mathrm{H}1\)\(\hbox {T}_\mathrm{H}17\) and \(\hbox {iT}_\mathrm{Reg}\)\(\hbox {T}_\mathrm{H}17\) under single or mixed types of differentiation stimuli. The model shows that high concentrations of differentiation stimuli favor the formation of phenotypes with co-expression of lineage-specific master regulators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Antebi YE et al (2013) Mapping differentiation under mixed culture conditions reveals a tunable continuum of T cell fates. PLoS Biol 11:e1001616. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001616

  2. Ball J, Schaeffer D (1983) Bifurcation and stability of homogeneous equilibrium configurations of an elastic body under dead-load tractions. In: Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 315–339

  3. Bell ML, Earl JB, Britt SG (2007) Two types of Drosophila R7 photoreceptor cells are arranged randomly: a model for stochastic cell-fate determination. J Comp Neurol 502:75–85. doi:10.1002/cne.21298

  4. Chang HH, Hemberg M, Barahona M, Ingber DE, Huang S (2008) Transcriptome-wide noise controls lineage choice in mammalian progenitor cells. Nature 453:544–547. doi:10.1038/nature06965

  5. Cinquin O, Demongeot J (2002) Positive and negative feedback: striking a balance between necessary antagonists. J Theor Biol 216:229–241. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2002.2544

  6. Cinquin O, Demongeot J (2005) High-dimensional switches and the modelling of cellular differentiation. J Theor Biol 233:391–411. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.10.027

  7. Clewley R (2012) Hybrid models and biological model reduction with PyDSTool. PLoS Comput Biol 8:e1002628. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002628

  8. Crotty S (2011) Follicular helper CD4 T cells (TFH). Annu Rev Immunol 29:621–663. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101400

  9. Fang M, Xie H, Dougan SK, Ploegh H, van Oudenaarden A (2013) Stochastic cytokine expression induces mixed T helper cell states. PLoS Biol 11:e1001618–e1001618. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001618

  10. Fontenot JD, Gavin MA, Rudensky AY (2003) Foxp3 programs the development and function of CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells. Nat Immunol 4:330–336. doi:10.1038/ni904

  11. Gerlach C et al (2013) Heterogeneous differentiation patterns of individual CD8+ T cells. Science 340:635–639. doi:10.1126/science.1235487

  12. Ghoreschi K et al (2010) Generation of pathogenic T(H)17 cells in the absence of TGF-beta signalling. Nature 467:967–971. doi:10.1038/nature09447

  13. Golubitsky M, Stewart I, Schaeffer DG (1988) Singularities and groups in bifurcation theory, vol. II. Applied Mathematical Sciences

  14. Guantes R, Poyatos JF (2008) Multistable decision switches for flexible control of epigenetic differentiation. PLoS Comput Biol 4:e1000235. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000235

  15. Hofer T, Nathansen H, Lohning M, Radbruch A, Heinrich R (2002) GATA-3 transcriptional imprinting in Th2 lymphocytes: a mathematical model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:9364–9368. doi:10.1073/pnas.142284699

  16. Hong T, Xing J, Li L, Tyson JJ (2011) A mathematical model for the reciprocal differentiation of T helper 17 cells and induced regulatory T cells. PLoS Comput Biol 7:e1002122. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002122

  17. Hong T, Xing J, Li L, Tyson JJ (2012) A simple theoretical framework for understanding heterogeneous differentiation of CD4+ T cells. BMC Syst Biol 6:66. doi:10.1186/1752-0509-6-66

  18. Hosken NA, Shibuya K, Heath AW, Murphy KM, O’Garra A (1995) The effect of antigen dose on CD4+ T helper cell phenotype development in a T cell receptor-alpha beta-transgenic model. J Exp Med 182:1579–1584

  19. Hsieh CS, Macatonia SE, Tripp CS, Wolf SF, O’Garra A, Murphy KM (1993) Development of TH1 CD4+ T cells through IL-12 produced by Listeria-induced macrophages. Science 260:547–549

  20. Huang S (2013) Hybrid T-helper cells: stabilizing the moderate center in a polarized system. PLoS Biol 11:e1001632–e1001632. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001632

  21. Huang S, Guo YP, May G, Enver T (2007) Bifurcation dynamics in lineage-commitment in bipotent progenitor cells. Dev Biol 305:695–713. doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.02.036

  22. Hwang ES, Szabo SJ, Schwartzberg PL, Glimcher LH (2005) T helper cell fate specified by kinase-mediated interaction of T-bet with GATA-3. Science 307:430–433. doi:10.1126/science.1103336

  23. Ivanov II et al (2006) The orphan nuclear receptor RORgammat directs the differentiation program of proinflammatory IL-17+ T helper cells. Cell 126:1121–1133. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.035

  24. Kusam S, Toney LM, Sato H, Dent AL (2003) Inhibition of Th2 differentiation and GATA-3 expression by BCL-6. J Immunol 170:2435–2441

  25. Luckheeram RV, Zhou R, Verma AD, Xia B (2012) CD4(+)T cells: differentiation and functions. Clin Dev Immunol 2012:925135. doi:10.1155/2012/925135

  26. Manu SS et al (2009) Canalization of gene expression and domain shifts in the Drosophila blastoderm by dynamical attractors. PLoS Comput Biol 5:e1000303. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000303

  27. Maruyama T et al (2011) Control of the differentiation of regulatory T cells and T(H)17 cells by the DNA-binding inhibitor Id3. Nat Immunol 12:86–95. doi:10.1038/ni.1965

  28. Mendoza L (2006) A network model for the control of the differentiation process in Th cells. Bio Syst 84:101–114. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2005.10.004

  29. Mendoza L (2013) A virtual culture of CD4+ T lymphocytes. Bull Math Biol. doi:10.1007/s11538-013-9814-9

  30. Messi M, Giacchetto I, Nagata K, Lanzavecchia A, Natoli G, Sallusto F (2003) Memory and flexibility of cytokine gene expression as separable properties of human T(H)1 and T(H)2 lymphocytes. Nat Immunol 4:78–86. doi:10.1038/ni872

  31. Mjolsness E, Sharp DH, Reinitz J (1991) A connectionist model of development. J Theor Biol 152:429–453

  32. Mucida D, Park Y, Kim G, Turovskaya O, Scott I, Kronenberg M, Cheroutre H (2007) Reciprocal TH17 and regulatory T cell differentiation mediated by retinoic acid. Science 317:256–260

  33. Murphy E, Shibuya K, Hosken N (1996) Reversibility of T helper 1 and 2 populations is lost after long-term stimulation. J Exp Med 183:901–913

  34. Murphy KM, Stockinger B (2010) Effector T cell plasticity: flexibility in the face of changing circumstances. Nat Immunol 11:674–680. doi:10.1038/ni.1899

  35. Naldi A, Carneiro J, Chaouiya C, Thieffry D (2010) Diversity and plasticity of Th cell types predicted from regulatory network modelling. PLoS Comput Biol 6:e1000912. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000912

  36. O’Shea JJ, Paul WE (2010) Mechanisms underlying lineage commitment and plasticity of helper CD4+ T cells. Science 327:1098–1102. doi:10.1126/science.1178334

  37. Oguz C, Laomettachit T, Chen KC, Watson LT, Baumann WT, Tyson JJ (2013) Optimization and model reduction in the high dimensional parameter space of a budding yeast cell cycle model. BMC Syst Biol 7:53. doi:10.1186/1752-0509-7-53

  38. Peine M et al (2013) Stable T-bet(+)GATA-3(+) Th1/Th2 hybrid cells arise in vivo, can develop directly from naive precursors, and limit immunopathologic inflammation. PLoS Biol 11:e1001633–e1001633. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001633

  39. Szabo SJ, Kim ST, Costa GL, Zhang X, Fathman CG, Glimcher LH (2000) A novel transcription factor, T-bet, directs Th1 lineage commitment. Cell 100:655–669

  40. Tyson JJ, Novak B (2010) Functional motifs in biochemical reaction networks. Annu Rev Phys Chem 61:219–240. doi:10.1146/annurev.physchem.012809.103457

  41. Usui T, Preiss JC, Kanno Y, Yao ZJ, Bream JH, O’Shea JJ, Strober W (2006) T-bet regulates Th1 responses through essential effects on GATA-3 function rather than on IFNG gene acetylation and transcription. J Exp Med 203:755–766. doi:10.1084/jem.20052165

  42. van den Ham HJ, de Boer RJ (2008) From the two-dimensional Th1 and Th2 phenotypes to high-dimensional models for gene regulation. Int Immunol 20:1269–1277. doi:10.1093/intimm/dxn093

  43. Wilson HR, Cowan JD (1972) Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons. Biophys J 12:1–24. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(72)86068-5

  44. Yamashita M, Kimura M, Kubo M, Shimizu C, Tada T, Perlmutter RM, Nakayama T (1999) T cell antigen receptor-mediated activation of the Ras/mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway controls interleukin 4 receptor function and type-2 helper T cell differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:1024–1029

  45. Yates A, Callard R, Stark J (2004) Combining cytokine signalling with T-bet and GATA-3 regulation in Th1 and Th2 differentiation: a model for cellular decision-making. J Theor Biol 231:181–196. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.06.013

  46. Zheng W, Flavell RA (1997) The transcription factor GATA-3 is necessary and sufficient for Th2 cytokine gene expression in CD4 T cells. Cell 89:587–596

  47. Zhou L et al (2008) TGF-beta-induced Foxp3 inhibits T(H)17 cell differentiation by antagonizing RORgammat function. Nature 453:236–240. doi:10.1038/nature06878

  48. Zhu J, Paul WE (2010) Peripheral CD4(+) T-cell differentiation regulated by networks of cytokines and transcription factors. Immunol Rev 238:247–262. doi:10.1111/j.1600-065X.2010.00951.x

  49. Zhu J, Yamane H, Paul WE (2010) Differentiation of effector CD4 T cell populations. Annu Rev Immunol 28:445–489. doi:10.1146/annurev-immunol-030409-101212

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Grant R01GM078989-07 from the National Institutes of Health to JJT. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which helped us to improve the manuscript

Author information

Correspondence to John J. Tyson.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (docx 130 KB)

Appendix: Methods

Appendix: Methods

Dynamical Models

We build mathematical models of three different signaling motifs (two generic motifs and one motif specific to T cell differentiation). For each case, we use a generic form of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) suitable for describing both gene expression and protein interaction networks (Mjolsness et al. 1991; Tyson and Novak 2010; Wilson and Cowan 1972). Each ODE in the model has the form:

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\hbox {d}X_i }{\hbox {d}t}= & {} \gamma _i \left( F(\sigma _i W_i )-X_i \right) \nonumber \\ F(\sigma W)= & {} 1\Big /\left( 1+e^{-\sigma W}\right) \nonumber \\ W_i= & {} \left( \omega _i^o +\sum _j^N {\omega _{j\rightarrow i} X_j } \right) \nonumber \\ i= & {} 1,...,N \end{aligned}$$
(1)

Here, \(X_{i}\) is the activity or concentration of protein \(i\). On a time \(\hbox {scale }= 1/\gamma _{i}, X_{i}(t)\) relaxes toward a value determined by the sigmoidal function, \(F\), which has a steepness set by \(\sigma _{i}\). The basal value of \(F\), in the absence of any influencing factors, is determined by \(\omega _i^o \). The coefficients \(\omega _{j\rightarrow i}\) determine the influence of protein \(j\) on protein \(i\). \(N\) is the total number of proteins in the network.

All variables and parameters are dimensionless. One time unit in the simulations corresponds to approximately 1 day. Basal parameter values of each model are listed in supplementary tables (see ‘Cell-to-Cell Variability’ subsection for details).

All simulations and bifurcation analyses were performed with PyDSTool, a software environment for dynamical systems (Clewley 2012).

Bifurcation Diagrams and Steady State Radar Plots

One parameter bifurcation diagrams were plotted by following the steady state solution of the ODEs with change in the value of a control parameter.

In order to analyze the behavior of multi-variable systems, we use radar plots to illustrate the steady states for a particular parameter set. A radar plot depicts the expression level of each key state variable (i.e., master regulator) on one sub-plot, and multiple sub-plots describe multiple steady states. In principle, a radar plot can illustrate unstable steady states as well as stable steady states, but we plot only stable steady states, which correspond to observable cell phenotypes.

Cell-to-Cell Variability

To account for cell-to-cell variability in a population, we made many simulations of the system of ODEs, each time with a slightly different choice of parameter values (to represent slight differences from cell to cell). We assumed that the value of each parameter conforms to a normal distribution with CV = 0.05 (CV = coefficient of variation = standard deviation/mean). We refer to the mean value for each parameter distribution as the ‘basal’ value of that parameter. In the bifurcation analysis of the dynamical system, we consider an imaginary cell that adopts the basal value for each of its parameters, and we define this cell as the ‘average’ cell. However, none of the cells in the simulated population is likely to be this average cell, because every parameter value is likely to deviate a little from the basal value.

Simulation Procedure

In order to simulate the induced differentiation process, we first solved the ODEs numerically with small initial values of master regulator concentrations in the absence of any exogenous signals. After a short period of time, each simulated cell found its own, stable ‘naïve’ steady state in which all master regulators are expressed at low level. Next, we changed the exogenous signals to the values listed in Supplementary Tables S1, S2 and S3 and continued the numerical simulation. Each cell arrived at its corresponding ‘induced’ phenotype, which might vary from cell to cell because of the parametric variability of the population. The expression level of each protein in the network ranges from 0 to 1 unit, and we made the simple assumption that a protein is ‘expressed’ if its level is greater than 0.5 units. We defined the derived population as ‘heterogeneous’ if it contained cells with more than one phenotype.

Parameter Optimization

Before starting to optimize the model parameters, we defined a hyperbox in the parameter space that is bounded by biologically plausible parameter ranges. These ranges are listed in Supplementary Table S3. A population of 200 parameter vectors, generated by Latin hypercube sampling (LHS), captured from 3 to 14 of the 22 experimental constraints that are listed in Table 1 (there are 22 independent constraints in 14 different experimental conditions). Starting with this population, we next implemented Differential Evolution (DE). The two-stage optimization approach based on LHS and DE has been presented previously by Oguz et al. (2013). Details of LHS and DE are provided in the Supplementary Text. For the initial round of DE, we used an aggressive mutation operator (\(F= 0.1\) in Eq. (2) of Supplementary Text) and a non-greedy selection condition. After 900 generations of DE, we obtained several parameter vectors that captured 19 of the 21 experimental constraints. We also identified that Constraint 1 (shown in Table 1) was the experimental constraint with the lowest acceptance (0.03 %) among the parameter vectors generated by DE (\(200\times 900=180{,}000\) vectors). In the second round of DE, starting with the 57 parameter vectors that captured Constraint 1, we used a more conservative mutation operator (\(F= 0.01\)) and a non-greedy selection condition in order to maximize the number of total constraints captured. In addition, we enforced Constraint 1 at every step; a mutant vector could only replace a parent if it captured Constraint 1. After \(\sim \)500 generations, we found several feasible parameter vectors that captured 18–22 of the 22 experimental constraints. The optimized parameter values from the most robust feasible vector are given in Supplementary Table S3. The robustness measure that we used in the robustness analysis is described in Sect. 3 of the Supplementary Text (last paragraph).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, T., Oguz, C. & Tyson, J.J. A Mathematical Framework for Understanding Four-Dimensional Heterogeneous Differentiation of \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T Cells. Bull Math Biol 77, 1046–1064 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-015-0076-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • \(\hbox {CD4}^{+}\) T cells
  • Cell differentiation
  • Mathematical model