Quantitative guiding of developmental cell fate transitions using a dynamical landscape model
Hajji, I.; Corson, F.; Keil, W.
Show abstract
During development, cells gradually assume specialized fates via changes of transcriptional dynamics in thousands of genes. Landscape modeling approaches, which abstract from the underlying gene regulatory networks and reason in a low-dimensional phenotypic space, have been remarkably successful in explaining terminal fate outcomes. However, their implications for the dynamics of fate acquisition have so far not been tested in vivo. Here we combine a landscape model for C. elegans vulval fate patterning with temporally controlled perturbations of EGF and Notch signaling in vivo using temperature-sensitive mutant alleles. We show that this approach quantitatively predicts non-intuitive fate outcomes and pathway epistasis effects. We further infer how cell fate transitions can be guided towards specific outcomes through timed pulses of signaling activity and verify these model predictions experimentally. Our results highlight the predictive power of landscape models and illustrate a new approach to quantitatively guide cell fate acquisition in a developmental context.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Heritable epigenetic changes are constrained by the dynamics of regulatory architectures 95%
- The cellular architecture of memory modules in Drosophila supports stochastic input integration 95%
- Mother cells control daughter cell proliferation in intestinal organoids to minimize proliferation fluctuations 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The C. elegans Notch proteins LIN-12 and GLP-1 are tuned to lower force thresholds for activation than Drosophila Notch 95%
- A bistable autoregulatory module in the developing embryo commits cells to binary fates 95%
- Non-preferred contrast responses in the Drosophila motion pathways reveal a receptive field structure that explains a common visual illusion 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.