Untwisting the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo

  1. Ryan Patrick Christensen  Is a corresponding author
  2. Alexandra Bokinsky
  3. Anthony Santella
  4. Yicong Wu
  5. Javier Marquina-Solis
  6. Min Guo
  7. Ismar Kovacevic
  8. Abhishek Kumar
  9. Peter W Winter
  10. Nicole Tashakkori
  11. Evan McCreedy
  12. Huafeng Liu
  13. Matthew McAuliffe
  14. William Mohler
  15. Daniel A Colon-Ramos
  16. Zhirong Bao
  17. Hari Shroff
  1. National Institutes of Health, United States
  2. Sloan-Kettering Institute, United States
  3. Yale University, United States
  4. Zhejiang University, China
  5. University of Connecticut Health Center, United States

Abstract

The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans possesses a simple embryonic nervous system comprising 222 neurons, a number small enough that the growth of each cell could be followed to provide a systems-level view of development. However, studies of single cell development have largely been conducted in fixed or pre-twitching live embryos, because of technical difficulties associated with embryo movement in late embryogenesis. We present open source untwisting and annotation software which allows the investigation of neurodevelopmental events in post-twitching embryos, and apply them to track the 3D positions of seam cells, neurons, and neurites in multiple elongating embryos. The detailed positional information we obtained enabled us to develop a composite model showing movement of these cells and neurites in an "average" worm embryo. The untwisting and cell tracking capability we demonstrate provides a foundation on which to catalog C. elegans neurodevelopment, allowing interrogation of developmental events in previously inaccessible periods of embryogenesis.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ryan Patrick Christensen

    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    ryan.christensen@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alexandra Bokinsky

    Center for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Anthony Santella

    Developmental Biology Program, Sloan-Kettering Institute, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Yicong Wu

    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Javier Marquina-Solis

    Program in Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, and Repair, Department of Cell Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Min Guo

    State Key Laboratory of Modern Optical Instrumentation, College of Optical Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ismar Kovacevic

    Developmental Biology Program, Sloan-Kettering Institute, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Abhishek Kumar

    Program in Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, and Repair, Department of Cell Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Peter W Winter

    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nicole Tashakkori

    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Evan McCreedy

    Center for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Huafeng Liu

    State Key Laboratory of Modern Optical Instrumentation, College of Optical Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Matthew McAuliffe

    Center for Information Technology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. William Mohler

    Department of Genetics and Developmental Biology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Daniel A Colon-Ramos

    Cell Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Zhirong Bao

    Developmental Biology Program, Sloan-Kettering Institute, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Hari Shroff

    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Oliver Hobert, Columbia University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: July 14, 2015
  2. Accepted: November 25, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 3, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 10, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 4,480
    views
  • 740
    downloads
  • 30
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Ryan Patrick Christensen
  2. Alexandra Bokinsky
  3. Anthony Santella
  4. Yicong Wu
  5. Javier Marquina-Solis
  6. Min Guo
  7. Ismar Kovacevic
  8. Abhishek Kumar
  9. Peter W Winter
  10. Nicole Tashakkori
  11. Evan McCreedy
  12. Huafeng Liu
  13. Matthew McAuliffe
  14. William Mohler
  15. Daniel A Colon-Ramos
  16. Zhirong Bao
  17. Hari Shroff
(2015)
Untwisting the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo
eLife 4:e10070.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10070

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10070

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin
    Research Article

    A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    Skander Kazdaghli, Iordanis Kerenidis ... Philip Teare
    Research Article

    Imputing data is a critical issue for machine learning practitioners, including in the life sciences domain, where missing clinical data is a typical situation and the reliability of the imputation is of great importance. Currently, there is no canonical approach for imputation of clinical data and widely used algorithms introduce variance in the downstream classification. Here we propose novel imputation methods based on determinantal point processes (DPP) that enhance popular techniques such as the multivariate imputation by chained equations and MissForest. Their advantages are twofold: improving the quality of the imputed data demonstrated by increased accuracy of the downstream classification and providing deterministic and reliable imputations that remove the variance from the classification results. We experimentally demonstrate the advantages of our methods by performing extensive imputations on synthetic and real clinical data. We also perform quantum hardware experiments by applying the quantum circuits for DPP sampling since such quantum algorithms provide a computational advantage with respect to classical ones. We demonstrate competitive results with up to 10 qubits for small-scale imputation tasks on a state-of-the-art IBM quantum processor. Our classical and quantum methods improve the effectiveness and robustness of clinical data prediction modeling by providing better and more reliable data imputations. These improvements can add significant value in settings demanding high precision, such as in pharmaceutical drug trials where our approach can provide higher confidence in the predictions made.