Computable early Caenorhabditis elegans embryo with a phase field model
Fig 2
Embryo morphology reconstruction from 1- to 4-cell stages.
(A). Comparison of embryo morphology between simulation with cell-cell attraction and experiment from 1- to 4-cell stages (view from y / left-right axis). The 1st and 2nd columns, cell-arrangement progression in phase-field simulation; the time point of each embryonic structure is illustrated on its top; dashed arrows, cell division orientation measured by experiment and inputted into simulation; the 3rd column, a live embryo with mCherry fluorescence on cell membrane (strain ZZY0535 [40]); scale bar, 10 μm. (B). Comparison of cell surface area and cell-cell contact area between simulation and experiment at 4-cell stage, with globally symmetric attraction applied on all the cell-cell contacts (σ = 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2 and 1.5). Inset, range from 0 to 500 μm2 in both coordinates. The quantitative experimental data is obtained at the last moment (time point) of 4-cell stage. (C). Comparison of cell surface area and cell-cell contact area between simulation and experiment at 4-cell stage, with globally symmetric attraction applied on the cell-cell contacts of ABa-ABp, ABa-EMS, ABp-EMS, and ABp-P2 (σ = 0.9), and weaker attraction on the contact of EMS-P2 (σEMS, P2 = 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8). Inset, range from 0 to 500 μm2 in both coordinates. The average δ reaches minimal (≈ 0.06) when σEMS, P2 = 0.2. The quantitative experimental data is obtained at the last moment (time point) of 4-cell stage. (D). Distribution of membrane-attached E-cadherin HMR-1 at 4-cell stage, with substantially higher accumulation in the cell-cell contacts of ABa-ABp, ABa-EMS, ABp-EMS, and ABp-P2 (indicated by blue arrows) than that in EMS-P2 contact (indicated by red arrow) (strain LP172 [48]); scale bar, 10 μm.