Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Mar 28;15(3):e1006577.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006577. eCollection 2019 Mar.

Agent-based modeling of morphogenetic systems: Advantages and challenges

Affiliations
Review

Agent-based modeling of morphogenetic systems: Advantages and challenges

Chad M Glen et al. PLoS Comput Biol. .

Abstract

The complexity of morphogenesis poses a fundamental challenge to understanding the mechanisms governing the formation of biological patterns and structures. Over the past century, numerous processes have been identified as critically contributing to morphogenetic events, but the interplay between the various components and aspects of pattern formation have been much harder to grasp. The combination of traditional biology with mathematical and computational methods has had a profound effect on our current understanding of morphogenesis and led to significant insights and advancements in the field. In particular, the theoretical concepts of reaction-diffusion systems and positional information, proposed by Alan Turing and Lewis Wolpert, respectively, dramatically influenced our general view of morphogenesis, although typically in isolation from one another. In recent years, agent-based modeling has been emerging as a consolidation and implementation of the two theories within a single framework. Agent-based models (ABMs) are unique in their ability to integrate combinations of heterogeneous processes and investigate their respective dynamics, especially in the context of spatial phenomena. In this review, we highlight the benefits and technical challenges associated with ABMs as tools for examining morphogenetic events. These models display unparalleled flexibility for studying various morphogenetic phenomena at multiple levels and have the important advantage of informing future experimental work, including the targeted engineering of tissues and organs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Overview of the two most popular theories for pattern formation during morphogenesis, reaction–diffusion systems and positional information, as well as common features of agent-based models for morphogenesis.
(A) Archetypal Turing reaction–diffusion system with an activator and inhibitor generating repetitive patterns from differential diffusivities and nonlinear reaction terms. The reaction–diffusion system depends on the concept of a chemical prepattern developing in advance of cell fate decision and emphasizes the ability to induce pattern formation from an allegedly homogeneous initial state. (B) Wolpert’s positional information theory proposes an interpretation step based on concentration thresholds that alleviates the need for a morphogenetic pattern to match the chemical prepattern. In positional information, a cell is capable of multiple fate decisions from a single molecular gradient by discerning subtle variances in concentration along the gradient. (C) Agent-based modeling provides a framework capable of implementing features from both theories. Cell agents can act as the sources of activators (“A”) and inhibitors (“I”), permit localized reactions, and make autonomous decisions in response to their local environment. In addition to the generation of static patterns, agent-based modeling allows for the investigation of dynamic, spatiotemporal patterning.
Fig 2
Fig 2. The three most common physical representations of cells in ABMs.
Lattice models are generally the least complex, given the constraints to movement and interaction, whereas both CPM and lattice-free models possess varying degrees of complexity depending on the features included in the model. Miniature depictions of the respective images will be placed beside each subsection discussing morphogenetic ABMs in later sections to designate the types of models described. 2D, two-dimensional; 3D, three-dimensional; ABM, agent-based model; CPM, Cellular Potts Model.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Classification used to categorize three types of agent-based models for morphogenesis; each model class describes the primary mechanism that induces pattern formation.
(A) Proliferation models depend on the differential division of cells, either between cell types with variable growth rates, between cell generations, or as an alternative to cell death. The illustration depicts volume exclusion of cell types A and B when cell type C has a fast division rate. (B) Migration models concentrate on directional movement, both in a purely migrational sense and in terms of polarized growth. The patterning of migration models is typically centered on overall morphology, such as the branched network of a vascular network. (C) The focus of differentiation models is on patterning that is reliant on fate change, in most cases following a hierarchy of lineage commitments. The interactions between the various cell types are major determinants for the resultant behavior.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Comparison of three crypt model implementations and agent descriptions.
(A) Cells are defined on a continuous 2D lattice such that a cell moving off the right edge of the grid reappears on the left edge. Divide and Die gradients are used to describe the behavior of different cell states in the crypt while movement up the crypt is the result of apoptosis. (B) A centroid model may be employed to investigate the role of crypt geometry on the location of anoikis within a crypt. The proliferative state of a cell is defined by prespecified regions along the crypt, and cell death is solely dependent on the occurrence of anoikis. (C) Centroid model that includes differentiation and dedifferentiation between the four main phenotypes present in an intestinal crypt. Wnt signaling is defined by the position within the crypt, whereas Notch signaling is determined by the phenotype of the cell and its neighbors. 2D, two-dimensional.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Overview of the analysis of spatial features using a combination of network analysis and dimensional reduction techniques.
A set of metrics is calculated or extracted from a series of pattern classes that depict typical cell organizations within the system—here, using the defined pattern classes from [133, 134]. The selected metrics should be equally represented in the simulated and experimental systems. Dimensional reduction techniques allow the multivariate data to be condensed to a few axes, ideally separating the defined pattern classes into distinct regions of the latent space. A transform function trained on the pattern class data can then be applied to metrics calculated from experimental and modeling results, mapping both into latent space and compared to the locations of the pattern classes. PCA, principal component analysis; t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding.

Similar articles

Cited by

  • Calibrating agent-based models to tumor images using representation learning.
    Cess CG, Finley SD. Cess CG, et al. PLoS Comput Biol. 2023 Apr 21;19(4):e1011070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011070. eCollection 2023 Apr. PLoS Comput Biol. 2023. PMID: 37083821 Free PMC article.
  • Toward Engineering Biosystems With Emergent Collective Functions.
    Gorochowski TE, Hauert S, Kreft JU, Marucci L, Stillman NR, Tang TD, Bandiera L, Bartoli V, Dixon DOR, Fedorec AJH, Fellermann H, Fletcher AG, Foster T, Giuggioli L, Matyjaszkiewicz A, McCormick S, Montes Olivas S, Naylor J, Rubio Denniss A, Ward D. Gorochowski TE, et al. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020 Jun 26;8:705. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00705. eCollection 2020. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2020. PMID: 32671054 Free PMC article.
  • Computational Biology and in silico Toxicodynamics.
    Knudsen TB, Spencer RM, Pierro JD, Baker NC. Knudsen TB, et al. Curr Opin Toxicol. 2020 Dec 1;23-24(Oct-Dec 2020):119-126. doi: 10.1016/j.cotox.2020.11.001. Curr Opin Toxicol. 2020. PMID: 36561131 Free PMC article.
  • Engineering multicellular living systems-a Keystone Symposia report.
    Cable J, Arlotta P, Parker KK, Hughes AJ, Goodwin K, Mummery CL, Kamm RD, Engle SJ, Tagle DA, Boj SF, Stanton AE, Morishita Y, Kemp ML, Norfleet DA, May EE, Lu A, Bashir R, Feinberg AW, Hull SM, Gonzalez AL, Blatchley MR, Montserrat Pulido N, Morizane R, McDevitt TC, Mishra D, Mulero-Russe A. Cable J, et al. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2022 Dec;1518(1):183-195. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14896. Epub 2022 Sep 30. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2022. PMID: 36177947 Free PMC article.
  • Morphogenetic metasurfaces: unlocking the potential of turing patterns.
    Fromenteze T, Yurduseven O, Uche C, Arnaud E, Smith DR, Decroze C. Fromenteze T, et al. Nat Commun. 2023 Oct 6;14(1):6249. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-41775-9. Nat Commun. 2023. PMID: 37803018 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Thompson DW. On Growth and Form. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1942.
    1. Turing AM. The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis. Phil Trans R Soc Lond. 1952;237(641):37–72.
    1. Segel LA, Jackson JL. Dissipative Structure: An Explanation and an Ecological Example. J Theor Biol. 1972;37:545–59. - PubMed
    1. Meinhardt H, Gierer A. Applications of a Theory of Biological Pattern Formation Based on Lateral Inhibition. J Cell Science. 1974;15:321–46. - PubMed
    1. Wolpert L. Chapter 6 Positional Information and Pattern Formation. Current Topics in Developmental Biology. 1971;6:183–224. - PubMed

Publication types