Fig 1.
Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a RBC population having different morphology stages of stomatocytosis and echinocytosis.
Fig 2.
The shaded planer area is the area associated with the link.
and
are the normal vectors to the triangles
and
respectively.
Fig 3.
Comparison of SDE shape transformation predicted using CG-RBC membrane model with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) experimental observations and different numerical prediction techniques.
The corresponding CG-RBC membrane model parameters of reference reduced cell volume , bilayer-leaflet-area-difference
and total-membrane-curvature
are indicated next to the predicted RBC shape. Representative images for the shapes predicted by Lim et al. [19, 28, 49] through continuum approach (G. H. W. Lim, personal communication, March 19, 2019), and by Chen and Boyle [15] through SP-RBC model ((M. Chen, personal communication, September 13, 2018)) are presented. These images are similar but not identical to the original images from Lim et al. [19, 28, 49] and Chen and Boyle [15], and therefore for illustrative purposes only.
Fig 4.
Summary of estimated cell surface area , cell volume
, bilayer-leaflet-area-difference
, total-membrane-curvature
and equivalent reduced cell volume
for the experimentally observed discocyte, echinocyte I, echinocyte II and echinocyte III RBC shapes.
Fig 5.
Summary of estimated percentage error for normalized cell length
, normalized cell thickness
and shape factor
between corresponding experimentally observed and CG-RBC membrane model predicted RBC shapes.
Fig 6.
CG-RBC membrane model predicted stomatocyte II, discocyte and echinocyte II shapes at reduced cell volumes of = 0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70 and 0.75.
The coloured regions of the echinocyte II shape represent the membrane curvature on its’ vertex points .
Fig 7.
CG-RBC membrane model predicted stomatocyte II, discocyte and echinocyte II shapes at varying elastic length scale, = 0.11, 0.18, 0.25, 0.35 and 0.56. The coloured regions of the echinocyte II shape represent the membrane curvature on its’ vertex points
.
Fig 8.
Shape Factor for CG-RBC membrane model predicted stomatocyte IV—echinocyte IV RBC shapes.
Fig 9.
The percentage error for (a) normalized cell length
, (b) normalized cell thickness
, (c) shape factor
and (d) resultant average error between corresponding experimentally observed and CG-RBC predicted discocyte, echinocyte I, echinocyte II and echinocyte III shapes at cytoskeletal reference states of
= 1.00, 0.99, 0.94, 0.89, 0.83, 0.78, 0.73, 0.68 and 0.63.
Fig 10.
Qualitative comparison between corresponding experimentally observed and CG-RBC membrane model predicted discocyte, echinocyte I, echinocyte II and echinocyte III shapes at cytoskeletal reference states of = 1.00, 0.99, 0.94, 0.89, 0.83, 0.78, 0.73, 0.68 and 0.63.