Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:35:27.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Simulations of Chemotaxis and Random Motility in Finite Domains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Ehsan Jabbarzadeh  and
Cameron F. Abrams
Ehsan Jabbarzadeh
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering Drexel University3141 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104
Cameron F. Abrams
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering Drexel University3141 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104
Get access

Abstract

Rational design and selection of candidate porous biomaterials to serve as tissue engineering constructs rests on our ability to understand the influence of the porous microarchitecture on the transport of chemical species (e.g., nutrients and signaling compounds), fluid flow, and cellular locomotion and growth. We have begun to study the behavior of chemotactically mobile cells in response to unsteady signaling molecule concentration fields using a computational simulation-based model. The model couples fully time-dependent finite-difference solution of a reaction-diffusion equation for the concentration field of a generic chemoattractant to biased random walks representing individual moving cells. This model is a first step in building a quantitative, pore-level model of mass and cellular transport in porous tissue-engineered constructs. In these proceedings, we focus on our recent findings regarding the influence of flux-reactive boundary conditions in heterogeneous 2D domains on the chemotactic response of otherwise randomly moving cells. In particular, we find that, when cells are forced to “crawl” around obstacles in order to approach a point source of chemoattractant, the reactivity of the obstacle surface with respect to the chemoattractant strongly determines the morphology of the cells' paths of locomotion. Cells crawl along non-reactive surfaces and strongly avoid reactive surfaces, due to the nature of the chemoattractant concentration gradients near the surface. We show further that tuning the reactivity of the surfaces of two obstacles defining a gap can control the passage of cells through the gap. From our work, we infer the importance of a proper treatment of boundary conditions in any future pore-level quantitatve modeling of mass transport and cellular response in porous media.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 845: Symposium AA – Nanoscale Materials Science in Biology and Medicine , 2004 , AA1.9
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Sieminski, A. L. and Gooch, K. J.. Biomaterials, 21: 2233–2241, 2000.Google Scholar
[2] Ratner, B. D.. J. Control. Release, 78:211–218, 2002.Google Scholar
[3] Sharkawy, A. A., Klitzman, B., Truskey, G. A., and Reichert, W. M.. J.Biomed. Mater. Res., pages 586–597, 1998.Google Scholar
[4] Dziubla, T. D., Torjman, M. C., Joseph, J. I., Murphy-Tatum, M., and Lowman, A. M.. Biomaterials, 22: 2893–2899, 2001.Google Scholar
[5] Risau, W.. Nature, 386: 671, 1997.Google Scholar
[6] Golden, M. A., Hanson, S. R., Kirkman, T. R., Schneider, P. A., and Clowes, A. W.. J.Vasc. Surg., 11: 838–844, 1990.Google Scholar
[7] Kidd, K. R., Nagle, R. B., and Williams, S. K.. J.Biomed. Mater. Res., 59: 366–377, 2001.Google Scholar
[8] Sanders, J. E., Malcolm, S. G., Bale, S. D., Wang, Y.-N., and Lamont, S.. Microvasc. Res., 64:174–178, 2002.Google Scholar
[9] Gardner, M.. Scientific American, pages 120–123, 223.Google Scholar
[10] Zygourakis, K., Bizios, R., and Markenscoff, P.. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 38:459–470, 1991.Google Scholar
[11] Lee, Y., Kouvroukoglou, S., McIntire, L. V., and Zygourakis, K.. Biophys. J., 69:1284–1298, 1995.Google Scholar
[12] Peirce, S. M., van Gieson, E. J., and Skalak, T. C.. FASEB J., 18(2), 2004.Google Scholar
[13] Stokes, C. L. and Lauffenburger, D. A.. J.Theor. Biol., 3:377–403, 1991.Google Scholar
[14] Tong, S. and Yuan, F.. Microvas. Res., 61:14–27, 2001.Google Scholar
[15] Sleeman, B. D. and Wallace, I. P.. Math. Comput. Modelling, 36:339–358, 2002.Google Scholar
[16] Jabbarzadeh, E. and Abrams, C. F.. Chemotaxis and random motility in time-varying concentration fields: A computational study. submitted to J.Theo. Biol. Google Scholar
[17] Gordon, P.. J.Soc. Ind. Appl. Math, 13:667, 1965.Google Scholar
[18] Gourlay, A. R.. J.Inst. Math. Appl., 6:375–390, 1970.Google Scholar
[19] Francis, K. and Palsson, B. O.. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA, 94:12258–12262, 1997.Google Scholar
[20] Zigmond, S. H.. J.Cell Biol., 75:606–616, 1977.Google Scholar
[21] Serini, G., Ambrosi, D., Giraudo, E., Gamba, A., Preziosi, L., and Bussolino, F.. EMBO J., 22(8):1771–1779, 2003.Google Scholar