defined by a chemoattractant and a stimulant
Pattern formation in biological systems through chemoattractant-cell interactions represents a fundamental mechanism underlying numerous developmental and physiological processes. This paper presents a comprehensive study of partial differential equation (PDE) models describing pattern formation dynamics, focusing on three-PDE system in one spatial dimension. We employ the Method of Lines (MOL) for numerical solutions and compare results with two other numerical approaches and machine learning approach. Our analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of both traditional numerical methods and modern ML techniques in capturing complex spatiotemporal patterns. The study reveals critical parameter regimes for pattern formation and provides insights into the underlying biological mechanisms. Simulation results show good agreement between numerical and ML solutions, with computational efficiency gains observed in the machine learning approach.
Pattern formation in biological systems is a ubiquitous phenomenon that underlies many critical processes, from embryonic development to wound healing and tumor growth. The interaction between cells and chemical signals, particularly chemoattractants and stimulants, plays a crucial role in organizing cellular behavior and generating complex spatiotemporal patterns.
Mathematical modeling of these phenomena typically involves systems of partial differential equations that capture the dynamics of cell density, chemical concentrations, and their mutual interactions. The complexity of these models arises from nonlinear coupling terms, diffusion processes, and reaction kinetics that operate across multiple spatial and temporal scales.
This study focuses on PDE models describing how cells interact with chemoattractants and stimulants in one-dimensional space. We investigate three-PDE system, starting from basic diffusion equations and progressively incorporating nonlinear terms that capture essential biological mechanisms such as chemotaxis, cell proliferation, and chemical degradation.
The mathematical modeling of biological pattern formation has evolved significantly since Turing's foundational work on reaction-diffusion systems. This review traces key developments from early chemotaxis models to contemporary machine learning approaches for PDE solutions.
The mathematical framework for pattern formation began with Turing's reaction-diffusion theory (Turing, 1952), which demonstrated how chemical interactions could spontaneously generate spatial patterns. This was extended by Keller and Segel's chemotaxis models (Keller & Segel, 1970) describing cell aggregation through self-produced chemoattractants.
Murray's comprehensive PDE frameworks (Murray, 2003) form the basis of the three-component system studied in this work (Chapter 2):
The Method of Lines (MOL) emerged as a cornerstone technique for solving these complex PDE systems (Schiesser, 1991). As implemented in Chapter 2, MOL discretizes spatial derivatives while maintaining temporal continuity:
Recent advances integrate deep learning with traditional PDE solvers:
These approaches offer mesh-free solutions and accelerated parameter exploration (Raissi et al., 2017; Li et al., 2020). Operator learning frameworks like FNO demonstrate particular promise for biological pattern prediction by learning mappings between function spaces.
Fourier Neural Operators (FNOs) provide discretization-invariant solutions for PDE systems across parameter regimes (Li et al., 2020).
PINNs embed PDE constraints directly into loss functions, enforcing physical consistency during training (Raissi et al., 2019).
Graph convolutional networks reinforce domain decomposition methods, improving scalability on complex geometries (Brandstetter et al., 2022).
Note: This work implements both traditional MOL approaches and modern ML techniques, demonstrating their complementary strengths in biological pattern simulation.
We developed a three-component system describing the interaction between cell density (u₁), chemoattractant concentration (u₂), and stimulant concentration (u₃) in one spatial dimension:
Operator | Cartesian Representation |
---|---|
\( \nabla \) | Gradient operator (div operating on a scalar)\[ \mathbf{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \mathbf{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y} + \mathbf{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \] |
\( \nabla\cdot \) | \[ \left( \mathbf{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x} + \mathbf{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial y} + \mathbf{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \right) \cdot \] |
\( \nabla\cdot\nabla = \nabla^2 \) | Laplacian operator (div operating on a vector)\[ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2} + \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} \] |
Note: \( \mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j}, \mathbf{k} \) are orthogonal Cartesian unit vectors with \( \mathbf{i} \cdot \mathbf{i} = 1 \) and \( \mathbf{i} \cdot \mathbf{j} = \mathbf{i} \cdot \mathbf{k} = 0 \).
Parameter | Interpretation |
---|---|
\( D_1, D_2, D_3 \) | Diffusivities for u₁, u₂, u₃ |
\( k_1, k_2 \) | Chemotactic sensitivity coefficients |
\( k_3 \) | Cell proliferation rate |
\( k_4 \) | Carrying capacity |
\( k_5 \) | Chemoattractant production rate |
\( k_6 \) | Chemoattractant-stimulant interaction rate |
\( k_7 \) | Stimulant production rate |
\( k_8 \) | Stimulant decay rate |
\( k_9 \) | Stimulant-chemoattractant interaction rate |
\( t \) | Time |
Zero-flux Neumann conditions:
We implemented three different approaches to solve our PDE system:
The Finite Difference Method approximates derivatives by differences over a grid of evenly spaced nodes. The PDEs are transformed into a coupled system of ODEs via second-order central differences for diffusion and advection, solved with implicit time stepping.
# Second derivative with Neumann BCs
def second_derivative(u, dx):
d2u = np.zeros_like(u)
d2u[1:-1] = (u[2:] - 2*u[1:-1] + u[:-2]) / dx**2
d2u[0] = (2*u[1] - 2*u[0]) / dx**2
d2u[-1] = (2*u[-2] - 2*u[-1]) / dx**2
return d2u
See full code.
The Finite Volume Method solves PDEs by discretizing the domain into control volumes and enforcing conservation laws over each volume. This transforms the PDE system into flux balance equations that preserve physical quantities.
\(x\) (cm) | \(u_1\) error (%) | \(u_2\) error (%) | \(u_3\) error (%) |
---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 0.07 | 2.99 | 0.02 |
0.4 | 0.25 | 2.77 | 0.12 |
0.8 | 0.59 | 1.61 | 0.17 |
Figure 1a: u₁ FVM Solution
Figure 1b: u₂ FVM Solution
Figure 1c: u₃ FVM Solution
Our ML-enhanced PDE solver implements the following workflow:
x (cm) | u₁ (cells/mL) | u₂ (M) | u₃ (M) |
---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 1.0296 × 10⁷ | 2.4961 × 10⁻⁶ | 3.4552 × 10⁻⁴ |
0.2 | 9.7859 × 10⁶ | 2.3936 × 10⁻⁶ | 3.3582 × 10⁻⁴ |
0.4 | 8.3396 × 10⁶ | 2.1425 × 10⁻⁶ | 3.1154 × 10⁻⁴ |
0.6 | 6.6273 × 10⁶ | 1.8362 × 10⁻⁶ | 2.8066 × 10⁻⁴ |
1.0 | 4.9208 × 10⁶ | 1.4863 × 10⁻⁶ | 2.4373 × 10⁻⁴ |
Figure: Spatiotemporal evolution of pattern formation
x (cm) | u₁ (cells/mL) | u₂ (M) | u₃ (M) |
---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 0.43 | 0.65 | 0.18 |
0.4 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 0.02 |
0.8 | 0.46 | 0.72 | 0.18 |
This section compares the accuracy of our three solution approaches against reference results from literature. Each table shows the maximum and minimum percentage errors for the three system variables (u₁: Cell Density, u₂: Chemoattractant, u₃: Stimulant) relative to established benchmark solutions.
Field | MAX Error (%) | MIN Error (%) |
---|---|---|
u₁ | 1.98 | 0.04 |
u₂ | 0.72 | 0.36 |
u₃ | 0.18 | 0.01 |
Field | MAX Error (%) | MIN Error (%) |
---|---|---|
u₁ | 0.59 | 0.07 |
u₂ | 3.11 | 1.61 |
u₃ | 0.17 | 0.02 |
Field | MAX Error (%) | MIN Error (%) |
---|---|---|
u₁ | 0.17 | 0.03 |
u₂ | 2.98 | 1.75 |
u₃ | 0.03 | 0.01 |
The table below compares the computational efficiency of the different solution approaches. Runtime is measured in seconds for the full simulation, with problem size quantified by the number of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) solved.
Metric | MOL | LEARNING-BASED | FVM | FDM |
---|---|---|---|---|
Runtime (sec) | 1.826 | 6.446 | 1.132 | 1.881 |
Problem Size (no. of ODEs) | 153 | 153 | 153 | 153 |
Time per Equation (s/equ) | 0.0119 | 0.0452 | 0.0074 | 0.0123 |
Function Evaluations | 1052 | 3717 | 945 | 1052 |
Implement h-refinement to dynamically increase spatial resolution in regions of steep gradients
Upgrade to 6th-order finite difference schemes to reduce discretization errors
Extend to higher dimensions to model realistic biological pattern formation
Introduce noise to model microenvironment variability and heterogeneity
Implement data-driven parameter calibration using neural ODE frameworks
Incorporate microscopy data via CNN encoders to generate biologically realistic initial conditions
Train Fourier Neural Operators to predict patterns without solving full PDEs
Implement Bayesian PINNs to estimate solution confidence intervals
Model tumor invasion patterns and metastasis formation
Simulate smart drug navigation through biological systems for targeted therapies
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to their course supervisor, Professor Muhammad Rushdi, for his invaluable guidance, encouragement, and support throughout this project, which was conducted as part of the Numerical Methods course at Cairo University.