Self-inhibiting percolation and viral spreading in epithelial tissue

  1. Xiaochan Xu
  2. Bjarke Frost Nielsen
  3. Kim Sneppen

  • Curated by eLife

    eLife logo

    eLife assessment

    This study presents a cellular automaton model to study the dynamics of virus-induced signalling and innate host defense against viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 in epithelial tissue. The data presented are convincing and represent a valuable contribution that would be of interest to researchers studying the dynamics of viral propogation. The significance of the study might be further elevated with more details on the reduction of expression data to the model rules discussed.

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 induces delayed type-I/III interferon production, allowing it to escape the early innate immune response. The delay has been attributed to a deficiency in the ability of cells to sense viral replication upon infection, which in turn hampers activation of the antiviral state in bystander cells. Here, we introduce a cellular automaton model to investigate the spatiotemporal spreading of viral infection as a function of virus and host-dependent parameters. The model suggests that the considerable person-to-person heterogeneity in SARS-CoV-2 infections is a consequence of high sensitivity to slight variations in biological parameters near a critical threshold. It further suggests that within-host viral proliferation can be curtailed by the presence of remarkably few cells that are primed for IFN production. Thus the observed heterogeneity in defense readiness of cells reflects a remarkably cost-efficient strategy for protection.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1101/2023.12.12.571279v2 on bioRxiv
  2. Version published to 10.7554/elife.94056 on eLife
  3. Version published to 10.7554/elife.94056.1 on eLife
  4. eLife

    eLife assessment

    This study presents a cellular automaton model to study the dynamics of virus-induced signalling and innate host defense against viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 in epithelial tissue. The data presented are convincing and represent a valuable contribution that would be of interest to researchers studying the dynamics of viral propogation. The significance of the study might be further elevated with more details on the reduction of expression data to the model rules discussed.

  5. eLife

    Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

    Summary:
    The manuscript ``Self-inhibiting percolation and viral spreading in epithelial tissue' describes a model based on 5-state cellular automata of development of an infection. The model is motivated and qualitatively justified by time-resolved measurements of expression levels of viral, interferon-producing, and antiviral genes. The model is set up in such a way that the crucial difference in outcomes (infection spreading vs. confinement) depends on the initial fraction of special virus-sensing cells. Those cells (denoted as 'type a') cannot be infected and do not support the propagation of infection, but rather inhibit it in a somewhat autocatalytic way. Presumably, such feedback makes the transition between two outcomes very sharp: a minor variation in concentration of ``a' cells results in qualitative change from one outcome to another. As in any percolation-like system, the transition between propagation and inhibition of infection goes through a critical state with all its attributes. A power-law distribution of the cluster size (corresponding to the fraction of infected cells) with a fairly universal exponent and a cutoff at the upper limit of this distribution.

    Strengths:
    The proposed model suggests an explanation for the apparent diversity of outcomes of viral infections such as COVID.

    Weaknesses:
    Those are not real points of weakness, though I think addressing them would substantially improve the manuscript.

    The key point in the manuscript is the reduction of actual biochemical processes to the NOVAa rules. I think more could be said about it, be it referring to a set of well-known connections between expression states of cells and their reaction to infection or justifying it as an educated guess.

    Another aspect where the manuscript could be improved would be to look a little beyond the strange and 'not-so-relevant for a biomedical audience' focus on the percolation critical state. While the presented calculation of the precise percolation threshold and the critical exponent confirm the numerical skills of the authors, the probability that an actual infected tissue is right at the threshold is negligible. So in addition to the critical properties, it would be interesting to learn about the system not exactly at the threshold: For example, how the speed of propagation of infection depends on subcritical p_a and what is the cluster size distribution for supercritical p_a.

  6. eLife

    Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

    Xu et al. introduce a cellular automaton model to investigate the spatiotemporal spreading of viral infection. In this study, the author first analyzes the single-cell RNA sequencing data from experiments and identifies four clusters of cells at 48 hours post-viral infection, including susceptible cells (O), infected cells (V), IFN-secreting cells (N), and antiviral cells (A). Next, a cellular automaton model (NOVAa model) is introduced by assuming the existence of a transient pre-antiviral state (a). The model consists of an LxL lattice; each site represents one cell. The cells change their state following the rules depending on the interaction of neighboring cells. The model introduces a key parameter, p_a, representing the fraction of pre-antiviral state cells. Cell apoptosis is omitted in the model. Model simulations show a threshold-like behavior of the final attack rate of the virus when p_a changes continuously. There is a critical value p_c, so that when p_a < p_c, infections typically spread to the entire system, while at a higher p_a > p_c, the propagation of the infected state is inhibited. Moreover, the radius R that quantifies the diffusion range of N cells may affect the critical value p_c; a larger R yields a smaller value of the critical value p_c. The structure of clusters is different for different values of R; greater R leads to a different microscopic structure with fewer A and N cells in the final state. Compared with the single-cell RNA seq data, which implies a low fraction of IFN-positive cells - around 1.7% - the model simulation suggests R=5. The authors also explored a simplified version of the model, the OVA model, with only three states. The OVA model also has an outbreak size. The OVA model shows dynamics similar to the NOVAa model. However, the change in microstructure as a function of the IFN range R observed in the NOVAa model is not observed in the OVA model.

    Data and model simulation mainly support the conclusions of this paper, but some weaknesses should be considered or clarified.

    1. In the automaton model, the authors introduce a parameter p_a, representing the fraction of pre-antiviral state cells. The authors wrote: ``The parameter p_a can also be understood as the probability that an O cell will switch to the N or A state when exposed to the virus of IFNs, respectively.' Nevertheless, biologically, the fraction of pre-antiviral state cells does not mean the same value as the probability that an O cell switches to the N or A state. Moreover, in the numerical scheme, the cell state changes according to the deterministic role N(O)=a and N(a)=A. Hence, the probability p_a did not apply to the model simulation. It may need to clarify the exact meaning of the parameter p_a.

    2. The current model is deterministic. However, biologically, considering the probabilistic model may be more realistic. Are the results valid when the probability update strategy is considered? By the probability model, the cells change their state randomly to the state of the neighbor cells. The probability of cell state changes may be relevant for the threshold of p_a. It is interesting to know how the random response of cells may affect the main results and the critical value of p_a.

    3. Figure 2 shows a critical value p_c = 27.8% following a simulation on a lattice with dimension L = 1000. However, it is unclear if dimension changes may affect the critical value.

  7. eLife

    Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

    Summary:
    This study considers how to model distinct host cell states that correspond to different stages of a viral infection: from naïve and susceptible cells to infected cells and a minority of important interferon-secreting cells that are the first line of defense against viral spread. The study first considers the distinct host cell states by analyzing previously published single-cell RNAseq data. Then an agent-based model on a square lattice is used to probe the dependence of the system on various parameters. Finally, a simplified version of the model is explored, and shown to have some similarity with the more complex model, yet lacks the dependence on the interferon range. By exploring these models one gains an intuitive understanding of the system, and the model may be used to generate hypotheses that could be tested experimentally, telling us "when to be surprised" if the biological system deviates from the model predictions.

    Strengths:
    - Clear presentation of the experimental findings and a clear logical progression from these experimental findings to the modeling.
    - The modeling results are easy to understand, revealing interesting behavior and percolation-like features.
    - The scaling results presented span several decades and are therefore compelling.
    - The results presented suggest several interesting directions for theoretical follow-up work, as well as possible experiments to probe the system (e.g. by stimulating or blocking IFN secretion).

    Weaknesses:
    - Since the "range" of IFN is an important parameter, it makes sense to consider lattice geometries other than the square lattice, which is somewhat pathological. Perhaps a hexagonal lattice would generalize better.

    - Tissues are typically three-dimensional, not two-dimensional. (Epithelium is an exception). It would be interesting to see how the modeling translates to the three-dimensional case. Percolation transitions are known to be very sensitive to the dimensionality of the system.

    - The fixed time-step of the agent-based modeling may introduce biases. I would consider simulating the system with Gillespie dynamics where the reaction rates depend on the ambient system parameters.

    - Single-cell RNAseq data typically involves data imputation due to the high sparsity of the measured gene expression. More information could be provided on this crucial data processing step since it may significantly alter the experimental findings.

    Justification of claims and conclusions:
    The claims and conclusions are well justified.

  8. Version published to 10.1101/2023.12.12.571279v1 on bioRxiv