Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Emergence of Metachronal Waves in Active Microtubule Arrays

Emergence of Metachronal Waves in Active Microtubule Arrays 1 2 1, ∗ Stephen E Martin, Matthew E Brunner, and Joshua M Deutsch Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA Voltaic Inc. 2150 Shattuck Ave, #704 Berkeley, CA 94704 (Dated: June 20, 2018) The physical mechanism behind the spontaneous formation of metachronal waves in microtubule arrays in a low Reynolds number fluid has been of interest for the past several years, yet is still not well understood. We present a model implementing the hydrodynamic coupling hypothesis from first principles, and use this model to simulate kinesin-driven microtubule arrays and observe their emergent behavior. The results of simulations are compared to known experimental observations by Sanchez et al.[1, 2]. By varying parameters, we determine regimes in which the metachronal wave phenomenon emerges, and categorize other types of possible microtubule motion outside these regimes. Metachronal waves refer to the synchronization of thin, flexible appendages that result in large-scale wavelike kin formations. These appear in biological systems at the macroscopic scale (e.g. the motion of millipede legs) and at the microscopic scale (e.g. cilia in air pathways). On the microscopic level, metachronal waves are essen- stiff tial components of several critical biological processes, from motility in microorganisms to mucus clearance in human bronchial tubes [3, 4]. If cilia are unable to effec- tively move and synchronize, the results are often severe – especially if the disorder is genetic [3]. Research into physical explanations for cilia beating [5], and of sponta- base neous metachronal behavior in cilia is ongoing and still not well understood [6, 7], although many have suggested that this phenomenon can be explained from hydrody- FIG. 1. Conceptual illustration of forces acting on a single namic coupling between cilia [8–11]. polymer that are not due to hydrodynamic interactions. The Recently, in some remarkable experiments, Sanchez blue vectors indicate the buckling forces due to kinesin walk- ers (tangent to polymer), the red vectors show the direction et al. demonstrated metachronal wave behavior in an and relative magnitude of stiffness forces (in the direction of in vitro system[1, 2]. Microtubules (MTs) aggregated 4 4 d r/ds ), and the green arrows indicate a restorative force into bundles of length 10 − 100μm due to the addition keeping the base of the polymer approximately perpendicular of polyethylene glycol [12]. Many of these bundles at- to the binding surface. tached at one end to a fixed boundary forming dense arrays. When exposed to a solution containing clusters of kinesin and ATP, sustained metachronal wave behav- provides further evidence to support our proposed expla- ior between MT bundles (similar to that displayed by nation. cilia and flagella) was observed. MT bundles were con- strained to move between two glass slides. It is surpris- The general mechanism proposed is quite similar to the ing that a system with such few ingredients could develop model used to describe and simulate cytoplasmic stream- complex behavior that so closely resembles biological sys- ing in Drosophila oocytes, and the fact that it can be tems, which are made up from a much more complicated adapted as such is in many ways a testament to its pre- machinery. Proteomic analysis indicate that eukaryotic dictive power. A fair amount of attention has been paid cilia are composed of many hundreds of proteins [13]. in recent years to the understanding of how metachronal Some important details of this in vitro system are still waves form in such arrays [16–19]. However, such models unclear, most notably whether the MTs in this experi- often rely on assumptions about individual MT (or cilia) ment are unipolar or of mixed polarity. Opposite polarity beat patterns and/or on phenomenology. The model we MTs will move past each other, causing separation into propose makes no such assumptions (beyond some minor unipolar bundles [14, 15]. We present analytical and nu- simplifications), relying on first-principles fluid mechan- merical arguments for unipolarity in S-IV. The surprising ics calculations. This is important, as it is not clear why mechanism for the motion of unipolar bundles described one would want additionally to impose oscillatory be- here, has not previously been given [1, 2], and we believe havior on individual MTs given the lack of a well defined that the agreement between our model and experiments internal structure. arXiv:1806.06993v1 [q-bio.SC] 19 Jun 2018 2 We now present a model for the simulation of the Polymers also feel hydrodynamic forces. As the force Sanchez et al. system. A similar method has been from the kinesin causes the polymers to buckle, we begin used successfully to simulate cytoplasmic streaming in to see complex motion. Each monomer acts as a point Drosophila oocytes[20], and is based on theoretical work force (stokeslet) in the surrounding fluid. This force, that completed several decades ago regarding the calculation a monomer exerts on the fluid, is simply the sum of all of of Stokes flows created by a point force (stokeslet) near the other forces on the monomer: because the Reynolds no-slip boundaries[21, 22]. A conceptual explanation of number is nearly zero, there are no inertial terms, mean- this mechanism is given below, and further details re- ing the force is transferred perfectly from the monomer to garding theory and implementation are given in supple- the fluid. As this is a Stokes flow, the flow contributions mentary materials S-II and S-III. from all stokeslets add linearly, and we can (in principle) calculate the flow everywhere. However, we only need An illustration of how MT bundles are simulated is to calculate the fluid velocity at points with monomers. given in Fig. 1. Each MT bundle is modeled as a chain Therefore, the evolution can be calculated via a pairwise of monomers (i.e. polymer) which are held an approxi- sum over all monomers (see the supplemental materials mately fixed distance from one another by a spring force. S-II. The base of each polymer is anchored to a single point, We also assume all polymer motion is two dimensional and the polymer at the base is kept roughly perpendic- with a constant value of z, which is physically sensi- ular to the anchoring surface. Let the polymer be de- ble when considering the geometry of the Sanchez et al. scribed by the curve r(s), where r(0) is the location of experiments. In this experiment, MT bundles were ob- the polymer base, and s is the arc length. We give the served between glass slides, with a height H , of approx- polymer a stiffness by implementing an energetic cost of imately 10μm, creating a narrow channel for which fluid bending proportional to curvature squared, which implies 4 4 can flow. For this reason, we adopt a two dimensional a local force at s proportional to d r/ds . Additionally, geometry. In addition, the no-slip boundaries of the monomers feel a “buckling” force due to the drag from the walking kinesin F = −f dr/ds, which is parallel plates have a large impact on the hydrodynamic forces kin k to the polymer and toward the polymer base. f will de- between monomers[21, 22], which we give explicitly in the pend linearly on the speed of the kinesin and the solvent supplemental materials S-II. Other close-range contact viscosity. This force continually adds energy to the sys- forces were also used (repulsion from anchoring surface, tem (making it active), and has been shown to be a good monomer-monomer repulsion), and these are explained representation of the average drag force due to kinesin in the supplementary materials S-III. walking along the microtubule away from the polymer We can now address at the qualitative level the mech- base [20]. anism by which we propose the metachronal waves ob- served by Sanchez et al. form. As kinesin walk away from This kind of model for a single chain was first em- the polymer bases, the polymers will tend to buckle. If a ployed to understand glide assay dynamics in two di- polymer is isolated, this buckling will lead to corkscrew mensions [23]. In three dimensions, periodic waves de- motion or periodic waves[20]. When placed in an array, velop whose dynamics have been analyzed in detail [20], however, nearby polymers will exert hydrodynamic forces and related theoretical work has recently also been per- on one another that tend to synchronize their motion. If formed [24]. However, scaling can be used to get the these hydrodynamic forces are sufficiently strong, this relevant length and timescales [23]. The average radius can cause a transition from disordered motion to aligned of curvature depends on the strength of the buckling MTs and correlated motion. force f , and the elastic constant of a filament charac- Despite the fact that this model was developed to ex- terizing its stiffness k . The radius of curvature over stiff plain and simulate cytoplasmic streaming, its mechanism quite a wide range of parameters can be shown to be 1/3 can be easily adapted for related biological phenomena. R = (k /(βf )) , where β ≈ 0.05. Likewise, the stiff k Indeed, when the conditions of the Sanchez et al. ex- angular frequency is ω = f /(νR), where ν is the hydro- periment are simulated in the same way, we observe dynamic drag coefficient per unit length. Although there metachronal waves. It is not clear if this is formally is a fairly large experimental uncertainty in parameters a transition or a more continuous crossover effect, but used to model a Drosophila oocyte, this model finds quite the results found make strong predictions that should be good agreement with the experimental time and length scales. R was predicted to be 25 − 54μm, close to the testable experimentally. In the following, we present the 16.3± 2.2μm observed. Likewise, the time scale was pre- results of these simulations and discuss the required con- dicted to be 203− 1094s, which is in the observed range ditions for metachronal wave formation. of 370 ± 42s. It is interesting that the length and time Videos of select simulations are included in the Sup- scales observed by Sanchez et al. are also quite close to plementary Materials. Fig. 2 shows some still frames these numbers, and that the frequency of biological cilia of simulated arrays demonstrating metachronal wave be- beating is often three orders of magnitude higher than havior in both the planar and circular geometries. this. We characterize the behavior of each system using the 3 for three different values of k . There is an overall oseen strengthening of the metachronal behavior as k is oseen increased from 0.1 to 0.2. The sign of the slope reflects the initial conditions of the system. Long lived waves travel predominantly in a single direction over long times scales resulting in a slope of the crests of the correlation function that can either be positive or negative. Similar crests are seen in the analysis of the real experimental data [1]. With this circular geometry, the correlation function must be periodic, which is why it rises again when i becomes large. The polymer stiffness k also has an interesting ef- stiff fect on metachronal wave formation. Fig. 4 shows the correlation functions for k = 5.0, 10.0, and 20.0 stiff in a planar geometry. While Figs. 4(a-b) are quali- tatively similar, we do see an apparent decrease in the metachronal wavelength. Figs. 4(c-d) show that if the polymer is made too stiff, no metachronal behavior is observed at all. In general, planar geometry appears to cause more coherence in the motion of the different bun- dles, and the correlation function is dominated by motion (a) at the longest lengths and time scales. The distance between plates, H , has a considerable effect on the dynamics as well. Longer range, more co- herent motion is observed when H is larger, and short range, less coherent motion when H is small. See Fig. 5. (b) This is to be expected due to the strong screening effect FIG. 2. Simulated metachronal wave formation for 128- that these boundary conditions impose. Smaller H re- polymer arrays in (a) circular and (b) planar geometries. In duces the hydrodynamic coupling, causing a decrease in both cases, k = 0.1, k = 10.0, H = 1. oseen stiff coherence. When comparing these results to those of Sanchez et al., we find that the basic features agree. The videos in- correlation function for the chain ends x(i, t), cluded in the supplemental materials qualitatively mimic C (Δi, Δt) = hΔx(i + Δi, t + Δt)Δx(i, t)i, (1) the experimental videos, and the experimental correla- tion analysis agrees quite well with the simulations. More where importantly, this agreement between theory and exper- iment was reached from first principles. We only use a Δx(i, t) = x(i, t)−hx(i, t)i. handful of forces in our simulations, and each force has a physical justification for being used. The average is performed over all chain indices i, and time t, after a period of equilibration. Figs. 3, 4, and There are potential shortcomings of this model that 5 show correlation functions for planar and a circular may result in some differences between experiment and geometries (for the circular geometry, the polar angle θ theory. The first is that the experiments observe bundles is the position variable rather than x). In the follow- of microtubules that taper away from their base. The ing, we will discuss these and examine how the system hydrodynamics are not expected to be uniform along the responds to changes in the strength of the interaction length of a chain. In addition these bundles will, for short tensor, k , k , and height H . It should be noted enough times, behave like rigid material, but for longer oseen stiff that changes in the viscosity or kinesin velocity and den- times, because they are connected through walking ki- sity (that affect f ), can be absorbed into a rescaling of nesin molecules, will behave more as individual mictro- time, and of k . tubules with a greatly reduced elastic constant. On the stiff k , has a dramatic effect on the type of wave behav- time scales of the motion, we expect to be in the latter oseen ior seen, or whether it is observed at all. This strength regime. However the details of the hydrodynamics and is a function of the hydrodynamic effects of kinesin walk- elasticity in these bundles is still not understood experi- ing along microtubules, and will depend on their density mentally. In fact, as we mentioned earlier, the polarity of and speed, as explained in detail in Ref. [20]. Fig. 3 individual MT’s is not known experimentally, and argu- shows the correlation results of three 128-polymer simu- ments for their unipolarity are given in the supplemen- lations in the same circular geometry shown in Fig. 2(a) tary information, S-IV. But still, the basic mechanism of 4 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 3. Full correlation functions for circular geometry with H = 1 and k = 10, with k = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 (a-c, stiff oseen respectively). The correlation function at Δi = 0 for all of these values of k are shown in (d). oseen (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 4. Full correlation functions for planar geometry with H = 1 and k = 0.1, with k = 5.0, 10.0, and 20.0 (a-c, oseen stiff respectively). The correlation function at Δi = 0 for all of these values of k are shown in (d). stiff dynamic buckling due to kinesin drag, and metachronal close (∼ H ) to the anchoring plane. However, because of waves being generated by hydrodynamic coupling, is ro- the screening effects of the plates, this should not alter bust over a wide parameter range, so we believe that the behavior at distances large compared to the plate sep- these complications, aside from unipolarity, will not al- aration. We have tested for this by adding image charges ter the basics of our explanation. to the planar case, and found that their effects on corre- lations are small, as expected. At a more technical level, there are other things that may make a slight difference to the results here. The bun- In conclusion, we have developed a model for the spon- dles are constrained to move only in the xy-plane, and taneous formation of wavelike behavior in active polymer while it is true that MT motion is nearly 2-dimensional, arrays that only requires two ingredients: semi-flexible there is some room in the z−direction that MT bundles chains tethered to a surface, and motors walking from can occupy. Additionally, this model does not account their bases to their tips. The hydrodynamics in their for the fluid boundary condition at the anchoring surface. confined geometry gives rise to metachronal waves that This may introduce some errors if a monomer becomes appear remarkably similar to what is observed experi- 5 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 5. Full correlation functions for circular geometry with k = 10, k = 0.2, and H = 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 (a-c, stiff oseen respectively). The correlation function at Δi = 0 for all of these values of H are shown in (d). mentally [1, 2]. There is no need to posit additional mech- [7] C. B. Lindemann and K. A. Lesich, J Cell Sci 123, 519 anisms that force individual bundles to oscillate. This (2010). [8] M. A. Sleigh, Int. Rev. Cytol. 25, 31 (1969). all happens as a consequence of Newton’s laws and fluid [9] M. A. Sleigh, ed., Cilia and Flagella (Academic Press, mechanics, allowing us to gain a better understanding of 1974). how metachronal waves form with considerable predic- [10] L. Gheber and Z. Priel, Biophys. J. 55, 183 (1989). tive power. As such, we have examined new parameter [11] S. Gueron, K. Levit-Gurevich, N. Liron, and J. J. Blum, spaces and have demonstrated boundaries between differ- Prot. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 6001 (1997). ent types of metachronal behavior and regimes in which [12] D. J. Needleman, M. A. Ojeda-Lopez, U. Raviv, K. Ew- no metachronal behavior exists. It would be of great in- ert, J. B. Jones, H. P. Miller, L. Wilson, and C. R. Safinya, Physical review letters 93, 198104 (2004). terest to test these predictions experimentally. Given the [13] G. J. Pazour, N. Agrin, J. Leszyk, and G. B. Witman, simplicity and robust nature of this mechanism, and the J Cell Biol 170, 103 (2005). ubiquity of microtubules and kinesin in cells, it gives one [14] K. Kruse and F. Julic ¨ her, Physical Review Letters 85, further impetus to look for other places in biology where 1778 (2000). this kind of behavior can be found. [15] T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters 90, 138102 (2003). J.M.D. thanks Bill Saxton, Itamar Kolvin, Alex Tayar, [16] M. C. Lagomarsino, P. Jona, and B. Bassetti, Phys. Rev. and Zvonimir Dogic for useful discussions. S.E.M. was E 68, 021908 (2003). partially supported by the ARCS Foundation. This work [17] B. Guirao and J.-F. Joanny, Biophysical journal 92, 1900 was also supported by the Foundational Questions Insti- (2007). tute <http://fqxi.org>. [18] J. Elgeti and G. Gompper, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 4470 (2013). [19] T. Niedermayer, B. Eckhardt, and P. Lenz, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 18, 037128 (2008). [20] C. E. Monteith, M. E. Brunner, I. Djagaeva, A. M. Bi- josh@ucsc.edu elecki, J. M. Deutsch, and W. M. Saxton, Biophys. J. [1] T. Sanchez, D. Welch, D. Nicastro, and Z. Dogic, Science 110, 2053 (2016). 333, 456 (2011). [21] J. R. Blake, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge [2] T. Sanchez and Z. Dogic, in Methods in enzymology, Vol. Philosophical Society 70, 303 (1971). 524 (Elsevier, 2013) pp. 205–224. [22] N. Liron and S. Mochon, Journal of Engineering Mathe- [3] B. A. Afzelius, J. Pathol. 204, 470 (2004). matics 10, 287 (1976). [4] Y. Okada, S. Takeda, Y. Tanaka, J., C. I. Belmonte, and [23] L. Bourdieu, T. Duke, M. Elowitz, D. Winkelmann, N. Hirokawa, Cell 121, 633 (2005). S. Leibler, and A. Libchaber, Physical Review Letters [5] C. J. Brokaw, Proceedings of the National Academy of 75, 176 (1995). Sciences 72, 3102 (1975). [24] G. De Canio, E. Lauga, and R. E. Goldstein, Journal of [6] S. Camalet, F. Julic ¨ her, and J. Prost, Physical Review The Royal Society Interface 14, 20170491 (2017). Letters 82, 1590 (1999). Supplementary materials to: Emergence of Metachronal Waves in Active Microtubule Arrays 1 2 1,∗ Stephen E Martin, Matthew E Brunner, and Joshua M Deutsch Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA Voltaic Inc. 2150 Shattuck Ave, #704 Berkeley, CA 94704 (Dated: June 20, 2018) josh@ucsc.edu arXiv:1806.06993v1 [q-bio.SC] 19 Jun 2018 2 I. SUPPLEMENTARY VIDEO LEGENDS Videos at https://sites.google.com/ucsc.edu/joshdeutsch/metachronal-videos?authuser=0 Supplementary video S1: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S2: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 0.1, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S3: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 0.2, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S4: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 0.5, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S5: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S6: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.3, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S7: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 5. oseen stiff Supplementary video S8: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S9: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 15. oseen stiff Supplementary video S10: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 20. oseen stiff Supplementary video S11: 2 microtubules of opposite polarities, green MT’s have minus ends on surface, and blue MT’s have plus ends on the surface. There are fixed boundary conditions on the surface. This shows a simulation for a set of parameters where the two microtubules move. This behavior was never found when there were more than 2 microtubules in a bundle. Supplementary video S12: Pillar of 9 microtubules of opposite polarities, green MT’s have minus ends on surface, and blue MT’s have plus ends on the surface. There are sliding boundary conditions on the surface. This shows a simulation in a regime with sufficiently weak attractive interactions, f = 1, where there is a twisting motion inside the pillar but then the minus microtubules suddenly slide off of the plus ones, finally lying close to parallel with the plane of attachment. 3 Figure S-1. Fluid speeds as a function of distance ρ from the stokeslet F = ˆı. Solid curves are calculated using the full interaction tensor (S-2) and dashed lines are the far-field approximation (S-3). (a) u (ρ) along the line y = 0; (b) u (ρ) along x x the line x = 0; (c) u (ρ) along the line y = x. II. THE QUASI-2D INTERACTION TENSOR The interaction tensor used in simulations is that of a stokeslet enclosed by two infinite parallel plates, as derived by Liron and Mochon[1]. In general, the interaction tensor G is defined as the relationship between the fluid flow u(r) and the stokeslet F which causes this flow: u(r) = F· G(r) (S-1) We assume the system is embedded in a viscous fluid with viscosity μ. For computational efficiency, we assume all monomers to be only in the xy-plane, with parallel plates at z = ±H/2. This reduces a three-dimensional problem to two dimensions, as (a) the stokeslet is located in the xy-plane, (b) the stokeslet’s direction has no z-component, and (c) we only concern ourselves with flows in the xy-plane (see Fig. S-2). For this arrangement, it can be shown from Liron and Mochon’s general result that the interaction tensor a displacement r (and ρ ≡ |r|) from a single stokeslet F at the origin reduces to 2 3 2 H ρ 1 ρ ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ r⊗ r G(r) = 4 S − I I + 4π S + I − I (S-2) 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 8πμρ H 2 H H 2 H 4 H ρ where X n 1 (−1) S ≡ h i 1/2 4 2 n=0 + n 1 ρ (−1) S ≡ h i 3/2 4π H 2 n=0 + n 2 ξ ρ tanh I ≡ ξJ ξ dξ 1 1 H sinh ξ − ξ 2 ξ ∞ h    i ρ ρ tanh 2 2 I ≡ ξ J ξ − J ξ dξ 2 0 2 H H sinh ξ − ξ Here, J is the Bessel function of the first kind. Because S and S do not converge rapidly as defined above, we also n 1 2 make use of the Poisson sums h i S = K π(2k + 1) 1 0 k=0 h i S = (2k + 1)K π(2k + 1) 2 1 k=0 4 F z = 0 Figure S-2. Illustration of the geometry for which interaction tensor is derived in II. While this is a three-dimensional system, we constrain polymers to the xy-plane. a→b b→a Figure S-3. Illustration of hydrodynamic forces between two example monomers in a planar polymer array. The green forces are the sum of non-hydrodynamic forces on the monomer (and by extension the force the monomer exerts on the surrounding ~ ~ ~ fluid). F and F are the hydrodynamic forces on monomer b due to F and the hydrodynamic force on monomer a due a→b b→a a to F , respectively. where K is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. In the far field, it can be shown that (S-2) approaches 3H r⊗ r G(r) ≈ − I− 2 (S-3) 2 2 32πμρ ρ Fig. S-1 shows plots of u(r) at selected locations, and compares the exact value from (S-2) to the far-field approxi- mation from (S-3). We can now make some conceptual observations regarding this interaction tensor and how it compares to the boundary-free Oseen tensor G : 1 r⊗ r G (r) = I + 8πμr r First, we immediately notice a 1/r dependence (rather than 1/ρ ). This means forces without boundaries tend to be more long-range, and boundaries result in long-range screening. Second, G is always positive, whereas this is not true for the interaction tensor used here. One key implication of this is that flows created by a stokeslet are often flowing opposite its direction (e.g. Fig. S-1b). Both of these qualities may enhance metachronal behavior in the confined system. Screening means that interactions between nearby polymers are most important, creating a “domino effect” from one polymer to the next rather than having motion more influenced by long-range interactions. The creation of opposing flows means (among other things) that if one polymer is moving toward the anchoring surface, it may exert a force on many of its neighboring polymers away from the anchoring surface. This encourages wavelike behavior rather than uniformity of beating motion. 5 III. SIMULATION METHODS The algorithm we implement is built on work that was used to simulate the mechanism behind cytoplasmic streaming in Drosophila oocytes [2], and many of the methods and equations below are explained in detail in these papers. This software simulates an array of active microtubules tethered to a plane that works as follows and is explained in further detail below. 1. After an array of polymers is initialized, forces on all monomers are summed (described below, also see Fig. 1 of main paper) and monomer position and velocity are updated using time step dt. 2. This motion initiates complex flow in the surrounding fluid. The fluid flow is not simulated directly, but the resulting hydrodynamic forces from this flow are calculated via an Oseen tensor with corrections by Blake[3]. This is illustrated in Fig. S-3. 3. Forces on each monomer are summed, and monomer position and velocity are updated accordingly. 4. Once updated, steps 2-3 are repeated. In the present work there were these differences: 1. N Microtubules are confined to the xy-plane, with polymer bases separated by a distance l tethered either to a flat plate at y = 0 or to a circular boundary. For all presented results, N = 128. The geometry of this is shown in Fig. S-2. 2. At the tethering point, a potential was added in order to keep the base monomer approximately orthogonal to the boundary. 3. Rather than the Blake correction to the Oseen tensor, we use the simplified Liron/Mochon interaction ten- sor described in supplemental Section II. We also investigated varying the hydrodynamic coupling parameter k ≡ 1/(8πμ). oseen Now we describe how the above was accomplished in more detail. Each polymer is composed of n = 16 monomers. The ith monomer position r is updated a using a fourth order Runge Kutte integration of the equation dr = u(r )− k (r − r ) (S-4) kin i−1 i+1 dt where dt is the time step (set to 0.003), k (set to 0.2) controls the strength of the kinesin force tangent to the kin polymer (F in Fig. 1), and u(r ) is the fluid velocity due to the motion of all other monomers as given by Equation kin S-1 and S-2 (which imparts the forces F in Fig. S-3): a→b u(r ) = F · G(r − r ) (S-5) j i j j6=i Here, F is the total force on the fluid due to the jth monomer. Because there are are no inertial effects when Re  1, any non-hydrodynamic force exerted on the monomer must be transferred to the fluid. In our case, F = T + C + Q , (S-6) j j j j where • T = k [(|r |− `) ˆr + (|r |− `) ˆr ] j spr j− j− j+ j+ with r ≡ r − r , is the spring force keeping monomer separation approximately constant. For our simula- j± j±1 j tions, k = 100 and ` = 1. In these simulations the separation between polymer bases defines above, l is equal spr to 4`. • C = k (2r − r − r ) j stiff i i+2 i−2 is the stiffness force which resists polymer bending. k is varied in our simulations, but typically 5 ≤ k ≤ stiff stiff • Q = P + B + W + H j j j j jk is the sum of miscellaneous conditional forces: 6 – P = k (r − hˆ) j pin j if (j mod n) = 1 is the force on the base monomer of each polymer chain keeping it pinned to the anchoring surface. For our simulations, we set k = 100 and h = 1. pin – B = k (r − r − `ˆ) j pin2 j j−1 if (j mod n) = 2 is the force on the second monomer in each polymer chain, keeping the base of each polymer approximately orthogonal to the anchoring surface (F in Fig. 1). For our simulations, we set k = 100. base base wall – W = k 1− ˆ j wall if y < d j wall is the repulsive force exerted by the anchoring plane on any monomer that gets close to the wall. For our simulations, we set d = 0.5 and k = 100. wall wall rep – H = k 1− (r − r ) jk rep j k |r −r | j k if |r − r | < d j k rep is the repulsive force between monomers that are very close to one another. For our simulations, we set d = 0.5 and k = 1. rep rep IV. ANALYSIS OF UNIPOLARITY The work of Sanchez et al. [4, 5] consists of a mixture of biotin-labeled kinesin-1 motors bound together to form clusters using multimeric streptavidin and taxol stabilized microtubules in a polyethylene-glycol solution with ATP. These form bundles of microtubules, some of which are adsorbed to air-water or air-glass interfaces, that point out from the interface forming a lawn of microtubule bundles. These bundles are flexible and show bending similar to what is seen in the simulations described here in both the time scales, length scales, and correlations between different bundles. The question that is not answered in the experimental work is the directionality of the microtubules inside a bundle. The microtubules forced into bundles by the polyethylene glycol (PEG) could be of mixed polarity so that some have their minus ends at the interface while others have their plus ends there. We will refer to microtubules with different orientations as having different “polarities”, minus-ends against the interface as “minus” and those with opposite polarity as “plus”. The problems with having a mixed polarity bundle are two fold. The first is that for a wide range of experimental parameters, we expect mixed polarity bundles to be unstable [6, 7]. The second problem is that it is not clear that mixed polarity bundles can give rise to the motion seen experimentally. We will analyze both problems below. A. Instability of mixed polarity bundles The first problem is that adjacent microtubules with different polarities will be linked by kinesin clusters that will apply equal and opposite forces to them. This will cause the minus microtubules to be pushed toward the interface, and the plus ones away from it. The forces from the kinesin act in parallel on a microtubule over its length which is of order 10μm. The forces that these cause can be competitive with depletion forces caused by the PEG as we will now see. A full analysis of this is not possible without more information about the details of the system such as the density of kinesin clusters and chain lengths of the PEG. However we can do a calculation to show that even with very modest assumptions concerning kinesin density, expulsion of plus microtubules will take place. Depletion forces exert an osmotic pressure on microtubules and filaments. Each polymer excludes a roughly spherical region of order its radius of gyration R . Entropic forces favor the separation of microtubules into bundles because less volume is excluded by the PEG. We will estimate the force acting on a single microtubule protruding from a bundle. PEG is depleted in a region of size R around the microtubule. The increase in free energy per unit area caused by this depletion is of order pR where the osmotic pressure is p = k Tρ, and ρ is the number of polymers g B per unit volume. The increase in free energy dF , in raising the microtubule by a height dz, is dF = (2πR dz)px. Here R is the microtubule radius. If we assume that the polymers are close-packed around the microtubule to get the maximum effect, then ρ = 1/(4πR /3). So the force needed to push the microtubule out of the tip of the bundle is f = dF/dz = (3/2)R k T/R . m B g 7 R ≈ 13nm and conservatively taking R = 1nm, which is quite small for PEG, f = 81pN The stall force of m g kinesin is approximately 5pN [8]. So only 16.2 kinesins are needed to overcome the depletion forces and expel this microtubule from the bundle. The minimum separation of kinesin on a microtubule is 8nm and there are 13 tracks around its circumference. Because kinesin has a strong affinity for microtubules we expect a high density of bound kinesin. Therefore 16 kinesins contributing to the force over a distance of 10μm is over three orders of magnitude less dense than the maximum density attainable. This suggests that for a wide range of parameters, the microtubule bundles will become unipolar with minus-ends against the interface. B. Model of mixed polarity bundles The second problem is that it is not clear that a mixed polarity bundle can give rise to the motion seen in experiment. Here we analyze this possibility by using simulation methods similar to what was used previously to understand molecular motor dynamics [9] We assume that the microtubules are inextensible and that opposite polarity microtubules apply forces in equal and opposite directions. We discuss the different forces separately. First there is an effective attractive interaction between microtubules independent of their polarities induced by the presence of PEG polymers. We choose a short range force so the monomers separated by a distance r within a range σ will feel an attractive force due to depletion forces as discussed above. To simplify the expressions we use a normalized unitless distance Δ ≡ r/σ . The force between any two monomers for Δ < 1 is taken to be 4 12 3 f = f Δ (1− Δ ) r (S-7) attr a where f is the strength of the attractive interaction. The reason for choosing this functional dependence on Δ was to produce a force that was close to constant for Δ < 0.6, and then drop smoothly to zero, so as to work well with the Runge Kutte algorithm. Second, we introduce an even shorter range repulsion between monomers that diverges at a hard core radius σ and goes to zero at σ : 1 1 f = f − r (S-8) rep r 2 2 2 2 r − σ σ − σ h h where f is the strength of the repulsive interaction. Third, we introduce an equal and opposite forces between monomers on opposite polarity microtubules that are within a distance σ . The direction of the force is as follows. We compute the tangents to both monomers as (r − r )/2. Then we choose the direction t, to be the average of these two tangents. The magnitude of the i+1 i−1 kinesin force is 12 3 f = f (1− Δ ) (S-9) kin k where f is similar the symbol used previously in the main text and denotes the magnitude of the kinesin force. These forces are added to the elastic forces, viscous drag, and tension that must be introduced to conserve link length and the equation of motion is iterated using a method for updating chains with constant link length [10, 11]. We also tried two separate kinds of boundary conditions. First, tethering the chains to fixed points on the surface which we will call “fixed” boundary conditions. Second, confining the chain ends to a two dimensional plane but letting the ends move within that plane, which we will call “sliding” boundary conditions. We tried a wide range of parameters, of different elastic constants, attractive interactions, number of microtubules, and boundary conditions. What we found is now summarized. For two chain bundles of opposite polarity we did find a set of parameters which showed movement of the bundle with: f = 10.0, σ = 2, σ = 1, f = 3, f = 0.2, k = 100, and chain length of 20, see supplemental move S11. r s h a k stiff For larger bundle sizes, e.g. 9 chains, we did not find anything similar to experiments. With fixed boundary conditions, and started as a pillar of parallel microtubules with slightly randomized directions, the chains would settle down to a pillar shape that would not change with time for sufficiently small attractive interactions f , but when this became greater than a certain value that depends on elastic constant and other parameters, it would suddenly collapse into a ball because this is more highly favored energetically. When we chose sliding boundary conditions, and for sufficiently weak attractive interactions, f = 1 there was a regime where there was twisting motion inside the pillar but then the minus microtubules would suddenly slide off of the plus ones, finally lying close to parallel with the plane of attachment, see supplemental movie S12. It therefore 8 appears that a two microtubule bundle moves because of a strong anisotropy in forces seen in cross sections. In larger bundles, the forces through the bundle are more homogeneous which acts to stabilize them. We conclude that by direct physical modeling of a mixed polarity bundle, it is not clear if there are any reasonable parameters which show motion similar to what is seen in the experiments of Sanchez et al [4, 5]. Note that the elastic constant of a microtubule in a bundle will depend strongly on the rate at which it is bent. For very short times, the bonds between different microtubules caused by kinesin binding will be fixed in position giving the bundle the elastic constant of a cylinder of radius R which is ∝ R . However the oscillations here take place on minute timescales. In that case the individual kinesin molecules have velocities of order 1μm/s so they unbind and move very far on this time scale. This allows neighboring microtubules to move relative to each other, to eliminate stress. Therefore on sufficiently long timescales, this reduces the elastic constant of a microtubule to that of one in isolation. [1] N. Liron and S. Mochon, Journal of Engineering Mathematics 10, 287 (1976). [2] C. E. Monteith, M. E. Brunner, I. Djagaeva, A. M. Bielecki, J. M. Deutsch, and W. M. Saxton, Biophys. J. 110, 2053 (2016). [3] J. R. Blake, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 70, 303 (1971). [4] T. Sanchez, D. Welch, D. Nicastro, and Z. Dogic, Science 333, 456 (2011). [5] T. Sanchez and Z. Dogic, in Methods in enzymology, Vol. 524 (Elsevier, 2013) pp. 205–224. [6] K. Kruse and F. Julic ¨ her, Physical Review Letters 85, 1778 (2000). [7] T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters 90, 138102 (2003). [8] E. Meyh¨ ofer and J. Howard, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92, 574 (1995). [9] J. M. Deutsch and S. E. Martin, Macromolecules 48, 6703 (2015). [10] J. Deutsch, Science 240, 922 (1988). [11] J. Deutsch and T. Madden, The Journal of Chemical Physics 90, 2476 (1989). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Condensed Matter arXiv (Cornell University)

Emergence of Metachronal Waves in Active Microtubule Arrays

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/emergence-of-metachronal-waves-in-active-microtubule-arrays-cQYxu8zYjK
ISSN
2469-990X
eISSN
ARCH-3331
DOI
10.1103/PhysRevFluids.4.103101
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

1 2 1, ∗ Stephen E Martin, Matthew E Brunner, and Joshua M Deutsch Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA Voltaic Inc. 2150 Shattuck Ave, #704 Berkeley, CA 94704 (Dated: June 20, 2018) The physical mechanism behind the spontaneous formation of metachronal waves in microtubule arrays in a low Reynolds number fluid has been of interest for the past several years, yet is still not well understood. We present a model implementing the hydrodynamic coupling hypothesis from first principles, and use this model to simulate kinesin-driven microtubule arrays and observe their emergent behavior. The results of simulations are compared to known experimental observations by Sanchez et al.[1, 2]. By varying parameters, we determine regimes in which the metachronal wave phenomenon emerges, and categorize other types of possible microtubule motion outside these regimes. Metachronal waves refer to the synchronization of thin, flexible appendages that result in large-scale wavelike kin formations. These appear in biological systems at the macroscopic scale (e.g. the motion of millipede legs) and at the microscopic scale (e.g. cilia in air pathways). On the microscopic level, metachronal waves are essen- stiff tial components of several critical biological processes, from motility in microorganisms to mucus clearance in human bronchial tubes [3, 4]. If cilia are unable to effec- tively move and synchronize, the results are often severe – especially if the disorder is genetic [3]. Research into physical explanations for cilia beating [5], and of sponta- base neous metachronal behavior in cilia is ongoing and still not well understood [6, 7], although many have suggested that this phenomenon can be explained from hydrody- FIG. 1. Conceptual illustration of forces acting on a single namic coupling between cilia [8–11]. polymer that are not due to hydrodynamic interactions. The Recently, in some remarkable experiments, Sanchez blue vectors indicate the buckling forces due to kinesin walk- ers (tangent to polymer), the red vectors show the direction et al. demonstrated metachronal wave behavior in an and relative magnitude of stiffness forces (in the direction of in vitro system[1, 2]. Microtubules (MTs) aggregated 4 4 d r/ds ), and the green arrows indicate a restorative force into bundles of length 10 − 100μm due to the addition keeping the base of the polymer approximately perpendicular of polyethylene glycol [12]. Many of these bundles at- to the binding surface. tached at one end to a fixed boundary forming dense arrays. When exposed to a solution containing clusters of kinesin and ATP, sustained metachronal wave behav- provides further evidence to support our proposed expla- ior between MT bundles (similar to that displayed by nation. cilia and flagella) was observed. MT bundles were con- strained to move between two glass slides. It is surpris- The general mechanism proposed is quite similar to the ing that a system with such few ingredients could develop model used to describe and simulate cytoplasmic stream- complex behavior that so closely resembles biological sys- ing in Drosophila oocytes, and the fact that it can be tems, which are made up from a much more complicated adapted as such is in many ways a testament to its pre- machinery. Proteomic analysis indicate that eukaryotic dictive power. A fair amount of attention has been paid cilia are composed of many hundreds of proteins [13]. in recent years to the understanding of how metachronal Some important details of this in vitro system are still waves form in such arrays [16–19]. However, such models unclear, most notably whether the MTs in this experi- often rely on assumptions about individual MT (or cilia) ment are unipolar or of mixed polarity. Opposite polarity beat patterns and/or on phenomenology. The model we MTs will move past each other, causing separation into propose makes no such assumptions (beyond some minor unipolar bundles [14, 15]. We present analytical and nu- simplifications), relying on first-principles fluid mechan- merical arguments for unipolarity in S-IV. The surprising ics calculations. This is important, as it is not clear why mechanism for the motion of unipolar bundles described one would want additionally to impose oscillatory be- here, has not previously been given [1, 2], and we believe havior on individual MTs given the lack of a well defined that the agreement between our model and experiments internal structure. arXiv:1806.06993v1 [q-bio.SC] 19 Jun 2018 2 We now present a model for the simulation of the Polymers also feel hydrodynamic forces. As the force Sanchez et al. system. A similar method has been from the kinesin causes the polymers to buckle, we begin used successfully to simulate cytoplasmic streaming in to see complex motion. Each monomer acts as a point Drosophila oocytes[20], and is based on theoretical work force (stokeslet) in the surrounding fluid. This force, that completed several decades ago regarding the calculation a monomer exerts on the fluid, is simply the sum of all of of Stokes flows created by a point force (stokeslet) near the other forces on the monomer: because the Reynolds no-slip boundaries[21, 22]. A conceptual explanation of number is nearly zero, there are no inertial terms, mean- this mechanism is given below, and further details re- ing the force is transferred perfectly from the monomer to garding theory and implementation are given in supple- the fluid. As this is a Stokes flow, the flow contributions mentary materials S-II and S-III. from all stokeslets add linearly, and we can (in principle) calculate the flow everywhere. However, we only need An illustration of how MT bundles are simulated is to calculate the fluid velocity at points with monomers. given in Fig. 1. Each MT bundle is modeled as a chain Therefore, the evolution can be calculated via a pairwise of monomers (i.e. polymer) which are held an approxi- sum over all monomers (see the supplemental materials mately fixed distance from one another by a spring force. S-II. The base of each polymer is anchored to a single point, We also assume all polymer motion is two dimensional and the polymer at the base is kept roughly perpendic- with a constant value of z, which is physically sensi- ular to the anchoring surface. Let the polymer be de- ble when considering the geometry of the Sanchez et al. scribed by the curve r(s), where r(0) is the location of experiments. In this experiment, MT bundles were ob- the polymer base, and s is the arc length. We give the served between glass slides, with a height H , of approx- polymer a stiffness by implementing an energetic cost of imately 10μm, creating a narrow channel for which fluid bending proportional to curvature squared, which implies 4 4 can flow. For this reason, we adopt a two dimensional a local force at s proportional to d r/ds . Additionally, geometry. In addition, the no-slip boundaries of the monomers feel a “buckling” force due to the drag from the walking kinesin F = −f dr/ds, which is parallel plates have a large impact on the hydrodynamic forces kin k to the polymer and toward the polymer base. f will de- between monomers[21, 22], which we give explicitly in the pend linearly on the speed of the kinesin and the solvent supplemental materials S-II. Other close-range contact viscosity. This force continually adds energy to the sys- forces were also used (repulsion from anchoring surface, tem (making it active), and has been shown to be a good monomer-monomer repulsion), and these are explained representation of the average drag force due to kinesin in the supplementary materials S-III. walking along the microtubule away from the polymer We can now address at the qualitative level the mech- base [20]. anism by which we propose the metachronal waves ob- served by Sanchez et al. form. As kinesin walk away from This kind of model for a single chain was first em- the polymer bases, the polymers will tend to buckle. If a ployed to understand glide assay dynamics in two di- polymer is isolated, this buckling will lead to corkscrew mensions [23]. In three dimensions, periodic waves de- motion or periodic waves[20]. When placed in an array, velop whose dynamics have been analyzed in detail [20], however, nearby polymers will exert hydrodynamic forces and related theoretical work has recently also been per- on one another that tend to synchronize their motion. If formed [24]. However, scaling can be used to get the these hydrodynamic forces are sufficiently strong, this relevant length and timescales [23]. The average radius can cause a transition from disordered motion to aligned of curvature depends on the strength of the buckling MTs and correlated motion. force f , and the elastic constant of a filament charac- Despite the fact that this model was developed to ex- terizing its stiffness k . The radius of curvature over stiff plain and simulate cytoplasmic streaming, its mechanism quite a wide range of parameters can be shown to be 1/3 can be easily adapted for related biological phenomena. R = (k /(βf )) , where β ≈ 0.05. Likewise, the stiff k Indeed, when the conditions of the Sanchez et al. ex- angular frequency is ω = f /(νR), where ν is the hydro- periment are simulated in the same way, we observe dynamic drag coefficient per unit length. Although there metachronal waves. It is not clear if this is formally is a fairly large experimental uncertainty in parameters a transition or a more continuous crossover effect, but used to model a Drosophila oocyte, this model finds quite the results found make strong predictions that should be good agreement with the experimental time and length scales. R was predicted to be 25 − 54μm, close to the testable experimentally. In the following, we present the 16.3± 2.2μm observed. Likewise, the time scale was pre- results of these simulations and discuss the required con- dicted to be 203− 1094s, which is in the observed range ditions for metachronal wave formation. of 370 ± 42s. It is interesting that the length and time Videos of select simulations are included in the Sup- scales observed by Sanchez et al. are also quite close to plementary Materials. Fig. 2 shows some still frames these numbers, and that the frequency of biological cilia of simulated arrays demonstrating metachronal wave be- beating is often three orders of magnitude higher than havior in both the planar and circular geometries. this. We characterize the behavior of each system using the 3 for three different values of k . There is an overall oseen strengthening of the metachronal behavior as k is oseen increased from 0.1 to 0.2. The sign of the slope reflects the initial conditions of the system. Long lived waves travel predominantly in a single direction over long times scales resulting in a slope of the crests of the correlation function that can either be positive or negative. Similar crests are seen in the analysis of the real experimental data [1]. With this circular geometry, the correlation function must be periodic, which is why it rises again when i becomes large. The polymer stiffness k also has an interesting ef- stiff fect on metachronal wave formation. Fig. 4 shows the correlation functions for k = 5.0, 10.0, and 20.0 stiff in a planar geometry. While Figs. 4(a-b) are quali- tatively similar, we do see an apparent decrease in the metachronal wavelength. Figs. 4(c-d) show that if the polymer is made too stiff, no metachronal behavior is observed at all. In general, planar geometry appears to cause more coherence in the motion of the different bun- dles, and the correlation function is dominated by motion (a) at the longest lengths and time scales. The distance between plates, H , has a considerable effect on the dynamics as well. Longer range, more co- herent motion is observed when H is larger, and short range, less coherent motion when H is small. See Fig. 5. (b) This is to be expected due to the strong screening effect FIG. 2. Simulated metachronal wave formation for 128- that these boundary conditions impose. Smaller H re- polymer arrays in (a) circular and (b) planar geometries. In duces the hydrodynamic coupling, causing a decrease in both cases, k = 0.1, k = 10.0, H = 1. oseen stiff coherence. When comparing these results to those of Sanchez et al., we find that the basic features agree. The videos in- correlation function for the chain ends x(i, t), cluded in the supplemental materials qualitatively mimic C (Δi, Δt) = hΔx(i + Δi, t + Δt)Δx(i, t)i, (1) the experimental videos, and the experimental correla- tion analysis agrees quite well with the simulations. More where importantly, this agreement between theory and exper- iment was reached from first principles. We only use a Δx(i, t) = x(i, t)−hx(i, t)i. handful of forces in our simulations, and each force has a physical justification for being used. The average is performed over all chain indices i, and time t, after a period of equilibration. Figs. 3, 4, and There are potential shortcomings of this model that 5 show correlation functions for planar and a circular may result in some differences between experiment and geometries (for the circular geometry, the polar angle θ theory. The first is that the experiments observe bundles is the position variable rather than x). In the follow- of microtubules that taper away from their base. The ing, we will discuss these and examine how the system hydrodynamics are not expected to be uniform along the responds to changes in the strength of the interaction length of a chain. In addition these bundles will, for short tensor, k , k , and height H . It should be noted enough times, behave like rigid material, but for longer oseen stiff that changes in the viscosity or kinesin velocity and den- times, because they are connected through walking ki- sity (that affect f ), can be absorbed into a rescaling of nesin molecules, will behave more as individual mictro- time, and of k . tubules with a greatly reduced elastic constant. On the stiff k , has a dramatic effect on the type of wave behav- time scales of the motion, we expect to be in the latter oseen ior seen, or whether it is observed at all. This strength regime. However the details of the hydrodynamics and is a function of the hydrodynamic effects of kinesin walk- elasticity in these bundles is still not understood experi- ing along microtubules, and will depend on their density mentally. In fact, as we mentioned earlier, the polarity of and speed, as explained in detail in Ref. [20]. Fig. 3 individual MT’s is not known experimentally, and argu- shows the correlation results of three 128-polymer simu- ments for their unipolarity are given in the supplemen- lations in the same circular geometry shown in Fig. 2(a) tary information, S-IV. But still, the basic mechanism of 4 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 3. Full correlation functions for circular geometry with H = 1 and k = 10, with k = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 (a-c, stiff oseen respectively). The correlation function at Δi = 0 for all of these values of k are shown in (d). oseen (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 4. Full correlation functions for planar geometry with H = 1 and k = 0.1, with k = 5.0, 10.0, and 20.0 (a-c, oseen stiff respectively). The correlation function at Δi = 0 for all of these values of k are shown in (d). stiff dynamic buckling due to kinesin drag, and metachronal close (∼ H ) to the anchoring plane. However, because of waves being generated by hydrodynamic coupling, is ro- the screening effects of the plates, this should not alter bust over a wide parameter range, so we believe that the behavior at distances large compared to the plate sep- these complications, aside from unipolarity, will not al- aration. We have tested for this by adding image charges ter the basics of our explanation. to the planar case, and found that their effects on corre- lations are small, as expected. At a more technical level, there are other things that may make a slight difference to the results here. The bun- In conclusion, we have developed a model for the spon- dles are constrained to move only in the xy-plane, and taneous formation of wavelike behavior in active polymer while it is true that MT motion is nearly 2-dimensional, arrays that only requires two ingredients: semi-flexible there is some room in the z−direction that MT bundles chains tethered to a surface, and motors walking from can occupy. Additionally, this model does not account their bases to their tips. The hydrodynamics in their for the fluid boundary condition at the anchoring surface. confined geometry gives rise to metachronal waves that This may introduce some errors if a monomer becomes appear remarkably similar to what is observed experi- 5 (a) (b) (c) (d) FIG. 5. Full correlation functions for circular geometry with k = 10, k = 0.2, and H = 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 (a-c, stiff oseen respectively). The correlation function at Δi = 0 for all of these values of H are shown in (d). mentally [1, 2]. There is no need to posit additional mech- [7] C. B. Lindemann and K. A. Lesich, J Cell Sci 123, 519 anisms that force individual bundles to oscillate. This (2010). [8] M. A. Sleigh, Int. Rev. Cytol. 25, 31 (1969). all happens as a consequence of Newton’s laws and fluid [9] M. A. Sleigh, ed., Cilia and Flagella (Academic Press, mechanics, allowing us to gain a better understanding of 1974). how metachronal waves form with considerable predic- [10] L. Gheber and Z. Priel, Biophys. J. 55, 183 (1989). tive power. As such, we have examined new parameter [11] S. Gueron, K. Levit-Gurevich, N. Liron, and J. J. Blum, spaces and have demonstrated boundaries between differ- Prot. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 6001 (1997). ent types of metachronal behavior and regimes in which [12] D. J. Needleman, M. A. Ojeda-Lopez, U. Raviv, K. Ew- no metachronal behavior exists. It would be of great in- ert, J. B. Jones, H. P. Miller, L. Wilson, and C. R. Safinya, Physical review letters 93, 198104 (2004). terest to test these predictions experimentally. Given the [13] G. J. Pazour, N. Agrin, J. Leszyk, and G. B. Witman, simplicity and robust nature of this mechanism, and the J Cell Biol 170, 103 (2005). ubiquity of microtubules and kinesin in cells, it gives one [14] K. Kruse and F. Julic ¨ her, Physical Review Letters 85, further impetus to look for other places in biology where 1778 (2000). this kind of behavior can be found. [15] T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters 90, 138102 (2003). J.M.D. thanks Bill Saxton, Itamar Kolvin, Alex Tayar, [16] M. C. Lagomarsino, P. Jona, and B. Bassetti, Phys. Rev. and Zvonimir Dogic for useful discussions. S.E.M. was E 68, 021908 (2003). partially supported by the ARCS Foundation. This work [17] B. Guirao and J.-F. Joanny, Biophysical journal 92, 1900 was also supported by the Foundational Questions Insti- (2007). tute <http://fqxi.org>. [18] J. Elgeti and G. Gompper, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 4470 (2013). [19] T. Niedermayer, B. Eckhardt, and P. Lenz, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 18, 037128 (2008). [20] C. E. Monteith, M. E. Brunner, I. Djagaeva, A. M. Bi- josh@ucsc.edu elecki, J. M. Deutsch, and W. M. Saxton, Biophys. J. [1] T. Sanchez, D. Welch, D. Nicastro, and Z. Dogic, Science 110, 2053 (2016). 333, 456 (2011). [21] J. R. Blake, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge [2] T. Sanchez and Z. Dogic, in Methods in enzymology, Vol. Philosophical Society 70, 303 (1971). 524 (Elsevier, 2013) pp. 205–224. [22] N. Liron and S. Mochon, Journal of Engineering Mathe- [3] B. A. Afzelius, J. Pathol. 204, 470 (2004). matics 10, 287 (1976). [4] Y. Okada, S. Takeda, Y. Tanaka, J., C. I. Belmonte, and [23] L. Bourdieu, T. Duke, M. Elowitz, D. Winkelmann, N. Hirokawa, Cell 121, 633 (2005). S. Leibler, and A. Libchaber, Physical Review Letters [5] C. J. Brokaw, Proceedings of the National Academy of 75, 176 (1995). Sciences 72, 3102 (1975). [24] G. De Canio, E. Lauga, and R. E. Goldstein, Journal of [6] S. Camalet, F. Julic ¨ her, and J. Prost, Physical Review The Royal Society Interface 14, 20170491 (2017). Letters 82, 1590 (1999). Supplementary materials to: Emergence of Metachronal Waves in Active Microtubule Arrays 1 2 1,∗ Stephen E Martin, Matthew E Brunner, and Joshua M Deutsch Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA Voltaic Inc. 2150 Shattuck Ave, #704 Berkeley, CA 94704 (Dated: June 20, 2018) josh@ucsc.edu arXiv:1806.06993v1 [q-bio.SC] 19 Jun 2018 2 I. SUPPLEMENTARY VIDEO LEGENDS Videos at https://sites.google.com/ucsc.edu/joshdeutsch/metachronal-videos?authuser=0 Supplementary video S1: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S2: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 0.1, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S3: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 0.2, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S4: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 0.5, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S5: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.2, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S6: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a circular geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.3, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S7: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 5. oseen stiff Supplementary video S8: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 10. oseen stiff Supplementary video S9: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 15. oseen stiff Supplementary video S10: 128 microtubule bundles (length 16) with kinesin walkers in a planar geometry in a fluid chamber with k = 0.1, chamber height H = 1.0, k = 20. oseen stiff Supplementary video S11: 2 microtubules of opposite polarities, green MT’s have minus ends on surface, and blue MT’s have plus ends on the surface. There are fixed boundary conditions on the surface. This shows a simulation for a set of parameters where the two microtubules move. This behavior was never found when there were more than 2 microtubules in a bundle. Supplementary video S12: Pillar of 9 microtubules of opposite polarities, green MT’s have minus ends on surface, and blue MT’s have plus ends on the surface. There are sliding boundary conditions on the surface. This shows a simulation in a regime with sufficiently weak attractive interactions, f = 1, where there is a twisting motion inside the pillar but then the minus microtubules suddenly slide off of the plus ones, finally lying close to parallel with the plane of attachment. 3 Figure S-1. Fluid speeds as a function of distance ρ from the stokeslet F = ˆı. Solid curves are calculated using the full interaction tensor (S-2) and dashed lines are the far-field approximation (S-3). (a) u (ρ) along the line y = 0; (b) u (ρ) along x x the line x = 0; (c) u (ρ) along the line y = x. II. THE QUASI-2D INTERACTION TENSOR The interaction tensor used in simulations is that of a stokeslet enclosed by two infinite parallel plates, as derived by Liron and Mochon[1]. In general, the interaction tensor G is defined as the relationship between the fluid flow u(r) and the stokeslet F which causes this flow: u(r) = F· G(r) (S-1) We assume the system is embedded in a viscous fluid with viscosity μ. For computational efficiency, we assume all monomers to be only in the xy-plane, with parallel plates at z = ±H/2. This reduces a three-dimensional problem to two dimensions, as (a) the stokeslet is located in the xy-plane, (b) the stokeslet’s direction has no z-component, and (c) we only concern ourselves with flows in the xy-plane (see Fig. S-2). For this arrangement, it can be shown from Liron and Mochon’s general result that the interaction tensor a displacement r (and ρ ≡ |r|) from a single stokeslet F at the origin reduces to 2 3 2 H ρ 1 ρ ρ 1 ρ 1 ρ r⊗ r G(r) = 4 S − I I + 4π S + I − I (S-2) 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 8πμρ H 2 H H 2 H 4 H ρ where X n 1 (−1) S ≡ h i 1/2 4 2 n=0 + n 1 ρ (−1) S ≡ h i 3/2 4π H 2 n=0 + n 2 ξ ρ tanh I ≡ ξJ ξ dξ 1 1 H sinh ξ − ξ 2 ξ ∞ h    i ρ ρ tanh 2 2 I ≡ ξ J ξ − J ξ dξ 2 0 2 H H sinh ξ − ξ Here, J is the Bessel function of the first kind. Because S and S do not converge rapidly as defined above, we also n 1 2 make use of the Poisson sums h i S = K π(2k + 1) 1 0 k=0 h i S = (2k + 1)K π(2k + 1) 2 1 k=0 4 F z = 0 Figure S-2. Illustration of the geometry for which interaction tensor is derived in II. While this is a three-dimensional system, we constrain polymers to the xy-plane. a→b b→a Figure S-3. Illustration of hydrodynamic forces between two example monomers in a planar polymer array. The green forces are the sum of non-hydrodynamic forces on the monomer (and by extension the force the monomer exerts on the surrounding ~ ~ ~ fluid). F and F are the hydrodynamic forces on monomer b due to F and the hydrodynamic force on monomer a due a→b b→a a to F , respectively. where K is the modified Bessel function of the second kind. In the far field, it can be shown that (S-2) approaches 3H r⊗ r G(r) ≈ − I− 2 (S-3) 2 2 32πμρ ρ Fig. S-1 shows plots of u(r) at selected locations, and compares the exact value from (S-2) to the far-field approxi- mation from (S-3). We can now make some conceptual observations regarding this interaction tensor and how it compares to the boundary-free Oseen tensor G : 1 r⊗ r G (r) = I + 8πμr r First, we immediately notice a 1/r dependence (rather than 1/ρ ). This means forces without boundaries tend to be more long-range, and boundaries result in long-range screening. Second, G is always positive, whereas this is not true for the interaction tensor used here. One key implication of this is that flows created by a stokeslet are often flowing opposite its direction (e.g. Fig. S-1b). Both of these qualities may enhance metachronal behavior in the confined system. Screening means that interactions between nearby polymers are most important, creating a “domino effect” from one polymer to the next rather than having motion more influenced by long-range interactions. The creation of opposing flows means (among other things) that if one polymer is moving toward the anchoring surface, it may exert a force on many of its neighboring polymers away from the anchoring surface. This encourages wavelike behavior rather than uniformity of beating motion. 5 III. SIMULATION METHODS The algorithm we implement is built on work that was used to simulate the mechanism behind cytoplasmic streaming in Drosophila oocytes [2], and many of the methods and equations below are explained in detail in these papers. This software simulates an array of active microtubules tethered to a plane that works as follows and is explained in further detail below. 1. After an array of polymers is initialized, forces on all monomers are summed (described below, also see Fig. 1 of main paper) and monomer position and velocity are updated using time step dt. 2. This motion initiates complex flow in the surrounding fluid. The fluid flow is not simulated directly, but the resulting hydrodynamic forces from this flow are calculated via an Oseen tensor with corrections by Blake[3]. This is illustrated in Fig. S-3. 3. Forces on each monomer are summed, and monomer position and velocity are updated accordingly. 4. Once updated, steps 2-3 are repeated. In the present work there were these differences: 1. N Microtubules are confined to the xy-plane, with polymer bases separated by a distance l tethered either to a flat plate at y = 0 or to a circular boundary. For all presented results, N = 128. The geometry of this is shown in Fig. S-2. 2. At the tethering point, a potential was added in order to keep the base monomer approximately orthogonal to the boundary. 3. Rather than the Blake correction to the Oseen tensor, we use the simplified Liron/Mochon interaction ten- sor described in supplemental Section II. We also investigated varying the hydrodynamic coupling parameter k ≡ 1/(8πμ). oseen Now we describe how the above was accomplished in more detail. Each polymer is composed of n = 16 monomers. The ith monomer position r is updated a using a fourth order Runge Kutte integration of the equation dr = u(r )− k (r − r ) (S-4) kin i−1 i+1 dt where dt is the time step (set to 0.003), k (set to 0.2) controls the strength of the kinesin force tangent to the kin polymer (F in Fig. 1), and u(r ) is the fluid velocity due to the motion of all other monomers as given by Equation kin S-1 and S-2 (which imparts the forces F in Fig. S-3): a→b u(r ) = F · G(r − r ) (S-5) j i j j6=i Here, F is the total force on the fluid due to the jth monomer. Because there are are no inertial effects when Re  1, any non-hydrodynamic force exerted on the monomer must be transferred to the fluid. In our case, F = T + C + Q , (S-6) j j j j where • T = k [(|r |− `) ˆr + (|r |− `) ˆr ] j spr j− j− j+ j+ with r ≡ r − r , is the spring force keeping monomer separation approximately constant. For our simula- j± j±1 j tions, k = 100 and ` = 1. In these simulations the separation between polymer bases defines above, l is equal spr to 4`. • C = k (2r − r − r ) j stiff i i+2 i−2 is the stiffness force which resists polymer bending. k is varied in our simulations, but typically 5 ≤ k ≤ stiff stiff • Q = P + B + W + H j j j j jk is the sum of miscellaneous conditional forces: 6 – P = k (r − hˆ) j pin j if (j mod n) = 1 is the force on the base monomer of each polymer chain keeping it pinned to the anchoring surface. For our simulations, we set k = 100 and h = 1. pin – B = k (r − r − `ˆ) j pin2 j j−1 if (j mod n) = 2 is the force on the second monomer in each polymer chain, keeping the base of each polymer approximately orthogonal to the anchoring surface (F in Fig. 1). For our simulations, we set k = 100. base base wall – W = k 1− ˆ j wall if y < d j wall is the repulsive force exerted by the anchoring plane on any monomer that gets close to the wall. For our simulations, we set d = 0.5 and k = 100. wall wall rep – H = k 1− (r − r ) jk rep j k |r −r | j k if |r − r | < d j k rep is the repulsive force between monomers that are very close to one another. For our simulations, we set d = 0.5 and k = 1. rep rep IV. ANALYSIS OF UNIPOLARITY The work of Sanchez et al. [4, 5] consists of a mixture of biotin-labeled kinesin-1 motors bound together to form clusters using multimeric streptavidin and taxol stabilized microtubules in a polyethylene-glycol solution with ATP. These form bundles of microtubules, some of which are adsorbed to air-water or air-glass interfaces, that point out from the interface forming a lawn of microtubule bundles. These bundles are flexible and show bending similar to what is seen in the simulations described here in both the time scales, length scales, and correlations between different bundles. The question that is not answered in the experimental work is the directionality of the microtubules inside a bundle. The microtubules forced into bundles by the polyethylene glycol (PEG) could be of mixed polarity so that some have their minus ends at the interface while others have their plus ends there. We will refer to microtubules with different orientations as having different “polarities”, minus-ends against the interface as “minus” and those with opposite polarity as “plus”. The problems with having a mixed polarity bundle are two fold. The first is that for a wide range of experimental parameters, we expect mixed polarity bundles to be unstable [6, 7]. The second problem is that it is not clear that mixed polarity bundles can give rise to the motion seen experimentally. We will analyze both problems below. A. Instability of mixed polarity bundles The first problem is that adjacent microtubules with different polarities will be linked by kinesin clusters that will apply equal and opposite forces to them. This will cause the minus microtubules to be pushed toward the interface, and the plus ones away from it. The forces from the kinesin act in parallel on a microtubule over its length which is of order 10μm. The forces that these cause can be competitive with depletion forces caused by the PEG as we will now see. A full analysis of this is not possible without more information about the details of the system such as the density of kinesin clusters and chain lengths of the PEG. However we can do a calculation to show that even with very modest assumptions concerning kinesin density, expulsion of plus microtubules will take place. Depletion forces exert an osmotic pressure on microtubules and filaments. Each polymer excludes a roughly spherical region of order its radius of gyration R . Entropic forces favor the separation of microtubules into bundles because less volume is excluded by the PEG. We will estimate the force acting on a single microtubule protruding from a bundle. PEG is depleted in a region of size R around the microtubule. The increase in free energy per unit area caused by this depletion is of order pR where the osmotic pressure is p = k Tρ, and ρ is the number of polymers g B per unit volume. The increase in free energy dF , in raising the microtubule by a height dz, is dF = (2πR dz)px. Here R is the microtubule radius. If we assume that the polymers are close-packed around the microtubule to get the maximum effect, then ρ = 1/(4πR /3). So the force needed to push the microtubule out of the tip of the bundle is f = dF/dz = (3/2)R k T/R . m B g 7 R ≈ 13nm and conservatively taking R = 1nm, which is quite small for PEG, f = 81pN The stall force of m g kinesin is approximately 5pN [8]. So only 16.2 kinesins are needed to overcome the depletion forces and expel this microtubule from the bundle. The minimum separation of kinesin on a microtubule is 8nm and there are 13 tracks around its circumference. Because kinesin has a strong affinity for microtubules we expect a high density of bound kinesin. Therefore 16 kinesins contributing to the force over a distance of 10μm is over three orders of magnitude less dense than the maximum density attainable. This suggests that for a wide range of parameters, the microtubule bundles will become unipolar with minus-ends against the interface. B. Model of mixed polarity bundles The second problem is that it is not clear that a mixed polarity bundle can give rise to the motion seen in experiment. Here we analyze this possibility by using simulation methods similar to what was used previously to understand molecular motor dynamics [9] We assume that the microtubules are inextensible and that opposite polarity microtubules apply forces in equal and opposite directions. We discuss the different forces separately. First there is an effective attractive interaction between microtubules independent of their polarities induced by the presence of PEG polymers. We choose a short range force so the monomers separated by a distance r within a range σ will feel an attractive force due to depletion forces as discussed above. To simplify the expressions we use a normalized unitless distance Δ ≡ r/σ . The force between any two monomers for Δ < 1 is taken to be 4 12 3 f = f Δ (1− Δ ) r (S-7) attr a where f is the strength of the attractive interaction. The reason for choosing this functional dependence on Δ was to produce a force that was close to constant for Δ < 0.6, and then drop smoothly to zero, so as to work well with the Runge Kutte algorithm. Second, we introduce an even shorter range repulsion between monomers that diverges at a hard core radius σ and goes to zero at σ : 1 1 f = f − r (S-8) rep r 2 2 2 2 r − σ σ − σ h h where f is the strength of the repulsive interaction. Third, we introduce an equal and opposite forces between monomers on opposite polarity microtubules that are within a distance σ . The direction of the force is as follows. We compute the tangents to both monomers as (r − r )/2. Then we choose the direction t, to be the average of these two tangents. The magnitude of the i+1 i−1 kinesin force is 12 3 f = f (1− Δ ) (S-9) kin k where f is similar the symbol used previously in the main text and denotes the magnitude of the kinesin force. These forces are added to the elastic forces, viscous drag, and tension that must be introduced to conserve link length and the equation of motion is iterated using a method for updating chains with constant link length [10, 11]. We also tried two separate kinds of boundary conditions. First, tethering the chains to fixed points on the surface which we will call “fixed” boundary conditions. Second, confining the chain ends to a two dimensional plane but letting the ends move within that plane, which we will call “sliding” boundary conditions. We tried a wide range of parameters, of different elastic constants, attractive interactions, number of microtubules, and boundary conditions. What we found is now summarized. For two chain bundles of opposite polarity we did find a set of parameters which showed movement of the bundle with: f = 10.0, σ = 2, σ = 1, f = 3, f = 0.2, k = 100, and chain length of 20, see supplemental move S11. r s h a k stiff For larger bundle sizes, e.g. 9 chains, we did not find anything similar to experiments. With fixed boundary conditions, and started as a pillar of parallel microtubules with slightly randomized directions, the chains would settle down to a pillar shape that would not change with time for sufficiently small attractive interactions f , but when this became greater than a certain value that depends on elastic constant and other parameters, it would suddenly collapse into a ball because this is more highly favored energetically. When we chose sliding boundary conditions, and for sufficiently weak attractive interactions, f = 1 there was a regime where there was twisting motion inside the pillar but then the minus microtubules would suddenly slide off of the plus ones, finally lying close to parallel with the plane of attachment, see supplemental movie S12. It therefore 8 appears that a two microtubule bundle moves because of a strong anisotropy in forces seen in cross sections. In larger bundles, the forces through the bundle are more homogeneous which acts to stabilize them. We conclude that by direct physical modeling of a mixed polarity bundle, it is not clear if there are any reasonable parameters which show motion similar to what is seen in the experiments of Sanchez et al [4, 5]. Note that the elastic constant of a microtubule in a bundle will depend strongly on the rate at which it is bent. For very short times, the bonds between different microtubules caused by kinesin binding will be fixed in position giving the bundle the elastic constant of a cylinder of radius R which is ∝ R . However the oscillations here take place on minute timescales. In that case the individual kinesin molecules have velocities of order 1μm/s so they unbind and move very far on this time scale. This allows neighboring microtubules to move relative to each other, to eliminate stress. Therefore on sufficiently long timescales, this reduces the elastic constant of a microtubule to that of one in isolation. [1] N. Liron and S. Mochon, Journal of Engineering Mathematics 10, 287 (1976). [2] C. E. Monteith, M. E. Brunner, I. Djagaeva, A. M. Bielecki, J. M. Deutsch, and W. M. Saxton, Biophys. J. 110, 2053 (2016). [3] J. R. Blake, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 70, 303 (1971). [4] T. Sanchez, D. Welch, D. Nicastro, and Z. Dogic, Science 333, 456 (2011). [5] T. Sanchez and Z. Dogic, in Methods in enzymology, Vol. 524 (Elsevier, 2013) pp. 205–224. [6] K. Kruse and F. Julic ¨ her, Physical Review Letters 85, 1778 (2000). [7] T. B. Liverpool and M. C. Marchetti, Physical Review Letters 90, 138102 (2003). [8] E. Meyh¨ ofer and J. Howard, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 92, 574 (1995). [9] J. M. Deutsch and S. E. Martin, Macromolecules 48, 6703 (2015). [10] J. Deutsch, Science 240, 922 (1988). [11] J. Deutsch and T. Madden, The Journal of Chemical Physics 90, 2476 (1989).

Journal

Condensed MatterarXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Jun 19, 2018

There are no references for this article.