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
. 2020 Mar;12(2):e1471.
doi: 10.1002/wsbm.1471. Epub 2019 Dec 12.

Theory of cell fate

Michael J Casey  1   2 , Patrick S Stumpf  2   3 , Ben D MacArthur  1   2   3
Affiliations
Review

Theory of cell fate

Michael J Casey et al. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Cell fate decisions are controlled by complex intracellular molecular regulatory networks. Studies increasingly reveal the scale of this complexity: not only do cell fate regulatory networks contain numerous positive and negative feedback loops, they also involve a range of different kinds of nonlinear protein-protein and protein-DNA interactions. This inherent complexity and nonlinearity makes cell fate decisions hard to understand using experiment and intuition alone. In this primer, we will outline how tools from mathematics can be used to understand cell fate dynamics. We will briefly introduce some notions from dynamical systems theory, and discuss how they offer a framework within which to build a rigorous understanding of what we mean by a cell "fate", and how cells change fate. We will also outline how modern experiments, particularly high-throughput single-cell experiments, are enabling us to test and explore the limits of these ideas, and build a better understanding of cellular identities. This article is categorized under: Models of Systems Properties and Processes > Mechanistic Models Biological Mechanisms > Cell Fates Models of Systems Properties and Processes > Cellular Models.

Keywords: cell fate; mathematical model; systems biology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mapping molecular states to cell fates. An individual cell can be described both in terms of its molecular state, and its fate. Each point in the molecular state box is a complete descriptor of the molecular constitution of a cell. The mapping between states and fates is many‐to‐one: different subsets of expression state space may map to the same fates. Here, three different fates A, B, and C, are illustrated, colored blue, red, and gray. Furthermore, similar molecular expression states may map to different fates. Two such states, marked i and ii are illustrated
Figure 2
Figure 2
The cell as a dynamical system. Functional associations between molecular components in the cell give rise to a complex intracellular regulatory network. This network encodes the architecture of a complex dynamical system that may admit numerous attractors, each of which may be identified with a distinct cell “fate”. The basins of attraction of the attractors partition the state space into discrete pieces. The cell's intracelluar molecular dynamics may admit many different kinds of attractor including various different kinds of fixed‐point such as (Upper‐Left) stable nodes and (Right) stable spirals, as well as (Lower‐Left) limit cycles, and (Lower‐Centre) more exotic structures such as limit tori (shown) or even strange attractors
Figure 3
Figure 3
Cell fate trajectories envisaged as a path of steepest descent over a Waddington‐like landscape. The distance from molecular state A to point molecular state B over the landscape is not the same as the Euclidean distance between them in the expression space
Figure 4
Figure 4
Analysis of single‐cell RNA‐Seq profiling of a human bone marrow sample. Each point is an individual cell. (Left) Data are projected into two dimensions using t‐distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t‐SNE) and clustered using the Louvain method. (Right) Known cell fates can be mapped to clusters by examining localization of characteristic markers. Clusters correspond to (1) myeloblasts, (2) monoblasts, (3) lymphoid cells (4) stem and progenitors, and (5) erythroblasts
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Abranches, E. , Guedes, A. M. , Moravec, M. , Maamar, H. , Svoboda, P. , Raj, A. , & Henrique, D. (2014). Stochastic nanog fluctuations allow mouse embryonic stem cells to explore pluripotency. Development, 141(14), 2770–2779. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aibar, S. , González‐Blas, C. B. , Moerman, T. , Imrichova, H. , Hulselmans, G. , Rambow, F. , et al. (2017). Scenic: Single‐cell regulatory network inference and clustering. Nature Methods, 14(11), 1083–1086. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Akashi, K. , Traver, D. , Miyamoto, T. , & Weissman, I. L. (2000). A clonogenic common myeloid progenitor that gives rise to all myeloid lineages. Nature, 404(6774), 193–197. - PubMed
    1. Balaskas, N. , Ribeiro, A. , Panovska, J. , Dessaud, E. , Sasai, N. , Page, K. M. , … Ribes, V. (2012). Gene regulatory logic for reading the sonic hedgehog signaling gradient in the vertebrate neural tube. Cell, 148(1–2), 273–284. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Becht, E. , McInnes, L. , Healy, J. , Dutertre, C.‐A. , Kwok, I. W. , Ng, L. G. , … Newell, E. W. (2019). Dimensionality reduction for visualizing single‐cell data using umap. Nature Biotechnology, 37(1), 38–44. - PubMed

Publication types