Grima Ramon
Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Imperial College, London SW7 2PG, United Kingdom.
Curr Top Dev Biol. 2008;81:435-60. doi: 10.1016/S0070-2153(07)81015-5.
In the past few decades, it has become increasingly popular and important to utilize mathematical models to understand how microscopic intercellular interactions lead to the macroscopic pattern formation ubiquitous in the biological world. Modeling methodologies come in a large variety and presently it is unclear what is their interrelationship and the assumptions implicit in their use. They can be broadly divided into three categories according to the spatial scale they purport to describe: the molecular, the cellular and the tissue scales. Most models address dynamics at the tissue-scale, few address the cellular scale and very few address the molecular scale. Of course there would be no dissent between models or at least the underlying assumptions would be known if they were all rigorously derived from a molecular level model, in which case the laws of physics and chemistry are very well known. However in practice this is not possible due to the immense complexity of the problem. A simpler approach is to derive models at a coarse scale from an intermediate scale model which has the special property of being based on biology and physics which are experimentally well studied. In this article we use such an approach to understand the assumptions inherent in the use of the most popular models, the tissue-level ones. Such models are found to invariably rely on the hidden assumption that statistical correlations between cells can be neglected. This often means that the predictions of these models are qualitatively correct but may fail in spatial regions where cell concentration is small, particularly if there are strong long-range correlations in cell movement. Such behavior can only be properly taken into account by cellular models. However such models unlike the tissue-level models are frequently not easily amenable to analysis, except when the number of interacting cells is small or when the interactions are weak, and thus are rather more suited for simulation. Hence it is our conclusion that the simultaneous theoretical and numerical analysis of models of the same biological system at different spatial scales provides a more robust method of understanding biological systems than the utilization of a single scale model. In particular this enables one to clearly separate nonphysical predictions stemming from model artifacts from those due to genuine physiological behavior.
在过去几十年里,利用数学模型来理解微观细胞间相互作用如何导致生物界普遍存在的宏观模式形成,已变得越来越流行且重要。建模方法多种多样,目前尚不清楚它们之间的相互关系以及使用中隐含的假设。根据它们所描述的空间尺度,可大致分为三类:分子尺度、细胞尺度和组织尺度。大多数模型处理组织尺度的动力学,很少涉及细胞尺度,极少涉及分子尺度。当然,如果所有模型都严格从分子水平模型推导而来,那么模型之间就不会有分歧,或者至少其潜在假设是已知的,在这种情况下,物理和化学定律是广为人知的。然而在实际中,由于问题极其复杂,这是不可能的。一种更简单的方法是从具有基于经过充分实验研究的生物学和物理学这一特殊性质的中间尺度模型推导出粗尺度模型。在本文中,我们采用这样一种方法来理解最流行的模型(即组织水平模型)使用中固有的假设。发现这类模型总是依赖于一个隐含假设,即细胞间的统计相关性可以忽略。这通常意味着这些模型的预测在定性上是正确的,但在细胞浓度较小的空间区域可能会失败,特别是如果细胞运动中存在强的长程相关性。这种行为只能通过细胞模型来恰当考虑。然而,与组织水平模型不同,这类模型除了在相互作用细胞数量少或相互作用弱的情况下,通常不容易进行分析,因此更适合用于模拟。因此我们的结论是,对同一生物系统在不同空间尺度上的模型进行同时的理论和数值分析,比使用单一尺度模型能提供一种更可靠的理解生物系统的方法。特别是这能使人们清楚地将源于模型假象的非物理预测与源于真实生理行为的预测区分开来。