Towards integration of time-resolved confocal microscopy of a 3D in vitro microfluidic platform with a hybrid multiscale model of tumor angiogenesis
Fig 6
Prediction of vascular density.
Fig 6A-C show the uncertainty in the model prediction assuming uncertainty in one parameter calibrated from scenario 4 (shaded in light red, outlined in black) and four parameters (shaded in light blue, outlined in black) calibrated from calibration scenarios 2, 3, and 4, along with the mean of the data. In the 1-parameter case, we consider only the distance between new tip cells with a PDF shown in Fig 5C. In the 4-parameter case, we consider distance between new tip cells, VEGF production and consumption rates (shown in Fig 3D), and stalk cell growth rate (shown in Fig 4B). Fig 6D presents the volume fraction calculated from the data in black, and the predicted volume fraction from the 1-parameter and 4-parameter case in light red and blue, respectively. Fig 6E depicts the prediction of volume fraction compared to the data (blue), and the 1-parameter and 4-parameter cases in orange and yellow, respectively, with the corresponding standard deviations shown in black. The average error in vascular volume fraction is 20.2% and 21.7% of the 1-parameter and 4-parameter case, respectively. We also note the drastic increase in uncertainty moving away from the parent vessel in the 4-parameter case (Fig 6A 120–180 microns, Fig 6B 200–280 microns, and Fig 6C 200–400 microns), highlighting the effects of the VEGF production and consumption rates and the stalk cell divide time on the uncertainty in the prediction.