Skip to main content
. 2023 Jun 20;19(6):e1011080. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011080

Fig 4. Noise variation of cell periodicity.

Fig 4

a) Representative images of time lapse experiments. 100 cells were tracked for each condition and the population mean and standard deviation of cell cycle duration was determined. Once the septum (white arrow) is visible following cytokinesis, the cell cycle duration recording begins for both daughter cells (yellow and blue arrow). Both cells being cell cycle at Frame 2, and both daughter cells can be seen progressing through interphase in Frames 26–28. By the end of Frame 57, the first daughter cell completes the cell cycle and recording ends. The second daughter cell (yellow arrow) had a substantially longer cell cycle duration, which concluded at the end of Frame 84, thus demonstrating the inherent variability of cell cycle duration between identical cells within the population. b) Asynchronous cells were wither treated with 1 μg/mL of LPS or left untreated and cell cycle duration was recorded (n = 100). c) Values obtained from time lapse microscopy for cell cycle mean and standard deviation were used in our model to predict the impact on cell cycle desynchronization. The model revealed the LPS administration should result in an increased rate of cell cycle desynchronization d) Cell cycle phase distribution of LPS treated cells following cell cycle synchronization for 88 hours post release (n = 3). e) Normalized ASF scores for LPS-treated desynchronizing cells. The asynchronous population was not normalized in order to capture the overall linear trend (n = 3).