Integrative multicellular biological modeling: a case study of 3D epidermal development using GPU algorithms
 Scott Christley^{1, 3, 4}Email author,
 Briana Lee^{2, 4},
 Xing Dai^{2, 4} and
 Qing Nie^{1, 3, 4}Email author
https://doi.org/10.1186/175205094107
© Christley et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 28 January 2010
Accepted: 9 August 2010
Published: 9 August 2010
Abstract
Background
Simulation of sophisticated biological models requires considerable computational power. These models typically integrate together numerous biological phenomena such as spatiallyexplicit heterogeneous cells, cellcell interactions, cellenvironment interactions and intracellular gene networks. The recent advent of programming for graphical processing units (GPU) opens up the possibility of developing more integrative, detailed and predictive biological models while at the same time decreasing the computational cost to simulate those models.
Results
We construct a 3D model of epidermal development and provide a set of GPU algorithms that executes significantly faster than sequential central processing unit (CPU) code. We provide a parallel implementation of the subcellular element method for individual cells residing in a latticefree spatial environment. Each cell in our epidermal model includes an internal gene network, which integrates cellular interaction of Notch signaling together with environmental interaction of basement membrane adhesion, to specify cellular state and behaviors such as growth and division. We take a pedagogical approach to describing how modeling methods are efficiently implemented on the GPU including memory layout of data structures and functional decomposition. We discuss various programmatic issues and provide a set of design guidelines for GPU programming that are instructive to avoid common pitfalls as well as to extract performance from the GPU architecture.
Conclusions
We demonstrate that GPU algorithms represent a significant technological advance for the simulation of complex biological models. We further demonstrate with our epidermal model that the integration of multiple complex modeling methods for heterogeneous multicellular biological processes is both feasible and computationally tractable using this new technology. We hope that the provided algorithms and source code will be a starting point for modelers to develop their own GPU implementations, and encourage others to implement their modeling methods on the GPU and to make that code available to the wider community.
Keywords
Background
The increasing desire for more integrative and predictive computational models of biological phenomena is offset by the increased computational cost to perform in silico experiments with those models. A simulation that takes many hours or even days to execute tends to inhibit the exploratory nature of modeling just due to the limits of available time. This is exacerbated by the fact that these complex models can also have many additional parameters that must be analyzed to consider their role in the behavior of the model. It is for these reasons that considerable effort is put into technologies, methodologies and theoretical advances to speed up execution without sacrificing model accuracy. Mathematical biological models can be contrasted between continuum models that consider populations of homogeneous biological entities described by differential or integrodifferential equations versus discrete models with populations of individual and possibly heterogeneous entities. While continuum models can be more computationally efficient, the need for biological accuracy is encouraging the use of cellcentered and agentbased models with the realization that heterogeneous cell populations more accurately describe multicellular biological processes, e.g. organ development. This heterogeneity is expressed in many ways including cells with spatially explicit shapes that can change over time, cell movement, cell growth and division, cell adhesion, cellcell interactions, cellenvironment interactions and intracellular gene networks coupled to cellular behavior.
Example theoretical and methodological advances include coarsegraining, timescale separation, and dynamic agent compression. Coarsegraining derives exact or approximate equations for population level dynamics from individual agent interactions, however this approach is often limited to simple forms of interactions [1–3]. Timescale separation decomposes the model into subcomponents that operate on different time scales thus allowing the slower time scale subcomponents to be simulated less often. This separation might be performed due to prior knowledge about multiple scales in the system, but there are also attempts to determine this separation from the system dynamics [4, 5]. Dynamic agent compression aggregates sets of homogeneous agents into a container object which then acts for the agents as a whole [6, 7]. Despite these advances, most integrative multicellular biological models still require individual cells and their interactions to be simulated for accurate representation of the biological phenomena.
There is also work to take advantage of new computer technologies. Parallel and distributed computing using programming libraries such as OpenMP [8] and MPI [9] allow for computation to be spread across multiple machines. This architecture is looselycoupled parallel processing as the machines are connected through a highspeed network where machinetomachine communication across the network has a high latency associated with it. For example, a parallel implementation of the cellular Potts models uses MPI and a spatial decomposition across multiple machines [10]. Recently, two newer technologies are shifting the performance curve back to tightlycoupled parallel processing where computational units are colocated in hardware with fast communication channels and shared memory. The first technology is multicore CPUs where manufacturers place more computational units (cores) onto a single processor chip; considerable effort has been put into programming languages, environments and algorithms to allow for a smooth transition from a single sequential processor to multicore CPUs [11].
The other technology is graphical processing units (GPUs) which are the specialized processors that reside on video display adaptors and drive the graphical user interface of modern operating systems. Because these GPUs do not have to perform many of the generalized tasks that a CPU must perform, they have become highly optimized to perform tightlycoupled dataparallel processing with many, typically hundreds, of independent processor units and specialized memory addressing. GPU algorithms have been developed for many years for computational geometry tasks as part of graphics rendering, but it is only in the past few years where GPUs have been used for other tasks such as sequence analysis [12–14], machine learning [15] and molecular dynamics [16, 17]. All of the early implementations had to contend with the constraints and difficulties of the limited programming environment available on the GPU, however this has changed in just the past couple of years. New software toolkits like CUDA and OpenCL have greatly eased the complexity of GPU programming, but there can still be a significant learning curve to achieve peak performance and to scale to large problems.
A recent review describes research to implement a wide spectrum of methods used in systems biology on the GPU, and all of these methods have experienced some level of speedup [18]. Ackermann et al. automatically transform SBML models of biochemical systems into CUDA code to solve the ordinary differentiation equations (ODE) for the system, thus allowing many parameters for those models to be explored in parallel [19]. GPU implementation of the stochastic simulation algorithm can either allow many simulations to be performed in parallel [20] or can parallelize very large models [21], along with the ability to produce many random numbers in parallel [22, 23]. Agentbased modeling is one of the more sophisticated methods and has numerous implementation challenges on the GPU to handle dynamic agents and their interactions [24–27]. Of particular interest, the FLAME framework [28] for the GPU [25] allows agentbased models to be declaratively specified using the formal technique of Xmachines, and then the corresponding GPU simulation code is automatically generated. Much of this research focuses purely on the implementation of a single method without considering integration of multiple methods. All of the agentbased models implemented on the GPU strictly adhere to the rulebased representation for agent behaviors; though there has been recent work [29] to integrate FLAME with the ODE solver COPASI [30] but it is not implemented on the GPU.
In this article, we will show how to implement using GPU algorithms a number of sophisticated modeling techniques into an integrated biological model that executes orders of magnitude times faster then conventional CPU code. Specifically we provide a model of mammalian epidermal development that incorporates discrete spatiallyexplicit 3D biological cells that move, change shape, grow and divide. Each cell has an internal gene network that controls behaviors like cell growth and division, and the gene network is coupled to neighboring cellcell interactions and cellenvironment interactions. Furthermore, we provide a set of generic guidelines for GPU programming that when followed will allow modelers to take advantage of GPUs while avoiding many pitfalls associated with the architecture. In the following subsections, we review a number of methods used for modeling biological behaviors and provide some background about the epidermis.
Modeling Methods for Biological Behaviors
Cell Shape and Movement
For cellcentered approaches [31, 32], three fundamental representations are being used in computational modeling for cell shape: particle, discrete space and continuous space. The particle representation actually does not explicitly represent any cell shape at all but considers each cell to be a point particle. This is the typical assumption made by partial differential equation (PDE) models of large collections of cells where individual cell shapes do not play a role in the behavior of the tissue. Numerical computation of PDEs can achieve significant speedup on the GPU, but they have been discussed elsewhere [33, 34] so we will not consider this representation any further. Discrete space or lattice representations divide space into discrete units, then cells occupy one or more spatial units thus defining the spatial extent of the cell. This representation is used by the cellular Potts model [35–37], cellular automata and agentbased models [38–40]. Continuous space, latticefree or offlattice representations keep spatial positions as continuous values and then include additional data structures for each cell to describe its spatial extent. There are also agentbased models that use continuous spatial positions [41, 42], as well as a few other representations including the centerbased method [43, 44], the DelaunayObjectDynamics method [45], and the subcellular element method [46]. The centerbased method represents cells with a center position and a spherical or ellipsoidal shape that may be a rigid body or viscoelastic. The DelaunayObjectDynamics method uses a weighted Delaunay triangulation to subdivide space into a set of disjoint Voronoi cells, providing a polygon that defines the cell surface. The subcellular element method uses a collection of discrete particle elements in combination with intracellular spring forces to define a cell.
None of the modeling representations for cell shape completely account for all the complexities of true biological cells, so there are advantages and disadvantages for each depending upon what cell behaviors and interactions are to be modeled, as well as computational tradeoffs. The continuous space methods have a disadvantage over the discrete methods because cell neighborhoods are not defined at discrete lattice points, so interactions involving neighboring cells require a dynamic computation of the neighborhood that is computationally more expensive than an index lookup in a lattice. On the other hand, discrete space methods can have considerable memory requirements as each spatial unit uses up memory space even if a cell does not occupy that space, while the continuous methods only need to minimally store the positions of their discrete elements. However both representations can achieve speedup on a GPU if a significant portion of their calculations can be performed in parallel.
Cell movement and cell shape are generally modeled together. For both discrete and continuous spatial representations, the action of cell movement is similar with either the updating of lattice index values or spatial positions, respectively. Cell movement can be due to internal cell actions, external forces acting on the cell, or some combination of the two. Furthermore, cell movement is realized in different ways depending upon the modeling method being used. For example in the cellular Potts model, cell movement is not explicitly defined but occurs as an indirect result of the process of energy minimization. In contrast, the subcellular element method defines equations of motion, so forces acting on the elements of a cell are directly incorporated into those equations.
In this article, we are going to focus on continuous space methods and specifically the subcellular element method. The subcellular element method is one of the most computationally demanding methods and therefore serves as an excellent benchmark of what can be done with the latest technology. Furthermore, we are going to consider a full 3D spatial environment as this provides the most realistic scenario for studying epidermal development. To our knowledge, this is the first reported attempt to parallelize the subcellular element method.
Cell Adhesion
Cell adhesion is the process by which adhesion molecules, which are present on a cell's membrane, bind to another cell, the extracellular matrix or some surface. Cell adhesion has many important functions such as maintaining a cell's spatial position, providing structural integrity to a multicellular tissue, creating barriers or tight junctions to prevent movement of fluid between cells, and transmitting environmental signals into the cell. The binding strength of adhesion molecules can vary greatly depending upon the type of molecule and its adhering partner. It is wellknown that differential adhesion, whereby two cell types having different adhesive binding strengths between cells of the same type versus cells of different type, can cause cells to physically sort themselves into two distinct populations [47]. When the cellular Potts model was introduced, it was shown to reproduce this behavior [36].
Most modeling methods do not explicitly represent individual adhesion molecules but instead use an aggregate binding strength that is proportional to the cell surface. For example with the cellular Potts model, the number of lattice boundaries shared between two cells is counted and included as a term in the model's energy function. The number of shared lattice boundaries can be used as an absolute count, which can provide larger cells with different adhesive characteristics versus smaller cells, or the number can be normalized by the total cell surface, which can represent a uniform partitioning of some internal cellular resource across the complete cell surface. For continuous space methods, there is no lattice to be counted so a neighborhood calculation needs to be performed. The subcellular element method does this by calculating distances between elements of one cell and another, then incorporating an adhesive force term into the equations of motion for those cellular elements. Similar to the lattice methods, the adhesion strength can be an absolute calculation or normalized by the total cell surface or number of neighbors. A nice feature of the subcellular element method is that elements can have a type associated with them, thus allowing force terms to apply to some element types of the cell but not to others. A typical use of this feature might be to induce polarity within a cell based upon an orientation produced by the adhesion of a subset of elements, or to represent that only a part of the cell's surface area is adhesive.
Cell Division and Growth
Cell division or mitosis is a complicated biological process involving the duplication of the genome and concluding with the separation of the mother cell into two daughter cells. For many models, the specifics of cell division are not important to the study but the act of division and the resulting growth of the cell population may be very important, especially if the time scale of interest extends across numerous cell divisions. For the subcellular element method, Newman [46] suggests that cell growth can be implemented by adding new elements to the cell over time. If more realistic physical dynamics are desired for the mitotic process, physical constraints can be imposed on some of the elements, for example by defining the spindle axis in the cell and then using it to construct a plane of separation for the two daughter cells. The standard mode for the cellular Potts model is to define a target cell volume as part of the energy function while division is a matter of subdividing the discrete number of spatial units among the two daughter cells.
Intracellular Gene Network
When employing a cellcentered or agentbased modeling approach, many of the internal details of individual cells can be abstracted away, and representation of a cell's state and associated behaviors is then implemented with state automata [35, 48] or axiomatic rules [49, 50]. However as molecular biology provides increasing detail about the genes and gene regulations involved in specific cellular behavior, there have been attempts to incorporate these gene networks within individual cells to explicitly drive their behavior and implicitly define their state [51–53]. These models inherently become multiscale as both the spatial and temporal interactions need to be coupled between the cell and intracellular levels. Computational techniques to simulate gene networks include deterministic approaches as represented by a system of coupled ordinary differential equations [54–56] or stochastic approaches that utilize some form of the stochastic simulation algorithm [57–59]. Stochastic algorithms are used when the number of molecules of the biochemical species is small enough such that the stochastic effects play a role in the dynamics of the system; otherwise the deterministic algorithms are preferred as they are computationally more efficient. In this article, we will implement our gene networks using ordinary differential equations (ODEs); however there is research that suggests that stochastic simulations can benefit greatly from GPU implementations as well [20, 21].
ODE representation of gene regulatory networks still requires a specific functional form to be chosen for the regulatory interaction. Linear ODEs are commonly used when attempting to infer the network from expression data [60–62]. While linear ODEs are simpler to analyze, they lack the ability to express the more sophisticated behaviors we desire such as cooperativity, thresholds and saturation, so nonlinear ODEs are preferred. For nonlinear ODEs, the two most common representations are Hilltype functions [54, 63] and thermodynamic models [64, 65]. Thermodynamic models are useful when there is existing knowledge about the promoter structure for the gene allowing binding affinities of transcription factors to DNA as well as combinatorial control to be incorporated. Hilltype functions abstract away the regulatory details and provide a general form for activation or inhibition. We will use Hilltype functions for our gene regulatory networks, however the exact representation used is more of a modeling question and has little effect on the GPU implementation.
Biological Background
The mammalian epidermis is a tough, resilient protective tissue composed of multiple cell layers that is essential for keeping out harmful microorganisms while also keeping essential fluids inside the organism. Epidermal development proceeds from a single layer of multipotent surface epithelial cells during midgestation, to a stratified epidermis consisting of multiple cell types at birth, and finally to a continually selfrenewing homeostasis in the mature adult epidermis [66–68]. Both the single layer in the embryonic epidermis and the innermost layer, namely the basal layer, of the stratified epidermis are securely attached to a basement membrane, and are treated as identical populations in this study for simplicity. There are no blood vessels in the epidermis so all nutrients must be transported through diffusion or other mechanisms from the cells in the dermis residing on the other side of the basement membrane. Proliferating cells in the singlelayered embryonic epidermis divide symmetrically in the plane parallel to the basement membrane, producing additional cells that attach to the basement membrane, continue to proliferate and increase the overall surface area of the epidermis during embryonic growth [69]. Later in development, basal cells start dividing asymmetrically, in the plane perpendicular to the basement membrane, with one resulting daughter cell maintaining basement membrane contact while the other daughter cell leaves the basement membrane to differentiate and form the suprabasal layers of the epidermis [69]. Finally, the adult stratified epidermis is characterized by a homeostatic process where selfrenewing stem cells residing in the basal layer proliferate to replace interior cells while exterior cells are continuously lost to the outside environment.
The epidermis is an advantageous tissue for experimental study due to its accessibility as well as its ubiquity throughout nature. It is also an important tissue for studying how stem cells maintain proliferation and selfrenewal over the lifetime of the organism, and for better understanding how errors in those processes can lead to cancer and other diseases. However it is a complicated tissue for computational modeling because it entails a full spectrum of modeling methods to be integrated together into a comprehensive system. The epidermis is a 3D spatial tissue with multiple cell types of differing shapes, behaviors and physical characteristics. There are extensive cellcell and cellenvironment interactions to maintain the structural and functional integrity of the tissue but also to respond to environmental hazards such as wounds and infections. Cells of different types across multiple layers are undergoing various behaviors of growth, division, differentiation and death that must be maintained in proper balance for the health of the epidermis as a whole. Due to the complexity, many models of epidermal development have focused on specific topics such as wound healing [70, 71], pathogenesis [72, 73], proliferation [74, 75], barrier function [76, 77] and homeostasis [42, 78].
In this article, our goal is not to provide a complete validated model of epidermal development. Instead we use it as a case study for integrative multicellular biological modeling and demonstrate that such models can be efficiently computed using new technological advances such as GPUs. We hope in the future to use our model for the discovery and prediction of underlying mechanisms of epidermal development but for now we focus on the technical aspects of implementing such models in GPU algorithms.
Results and Discussion
This section is divided into three parts. In the first, we define an integrated model of epidermal development that includes numerous methods, and this model will serve as a case study demonstrating the use of parallel technology for simulation. In the second part, we describe a set of dataparallel algorithms to implement the model of epidermal development on GPUs. We also discuss issues of memory layout and utilization in conjunction with the algorithms. We hope that these algorithms can serve as code templates for modelers implementing their own models, and we further provide source code as Additional file 1 to this article. Lastly, we demonstrate the speedup and scalability that can be achieved using our GPU algorithms, and we show some results from simulations of our epidermis model.
Model of Epidermal Development
Cell Shape and Movement
Parameters for Subcellular Element Method in Epidermal Model
Parameter  Value  Description 

U_{0}  0.3  Intracellular force V_{ intra }and basement adhesion V_{ bm } 
ξ_{1}  0.1  Intracellular force V_{ intra }and basement adhesion V_{ bm } 
W_{0}  0.12  Intracellular force V_{ intra }and basement adhesion V_{ bm } 
ξ_{2}  0.36  Intracellular force V_{ intra }and basement adhesion V_{ bm } 
U_{0}  0.3  Intercellular force V_{ inter } 
ξ_{1}  0.05  Intercellular force V_{ inter } 
W_{0}  0.12  Intercellular force V_{ inter } 
ξ_{2}  0.24  Intercellular force V_{ inter } 
Intracellular Gene Network
Parameters for Intracellular Gene Network of Epidermal Model
Parameter  Value  Description 

k_{a}  0.0003  Notch (N)/Delta (D) binding rate 
k_{d}  0.12  Bound complex (B) unbinding rate 
d_{B}  0.19  Bound complex (B) decay rate 
a_{BN}  0.01  Bound complex (B) regulation of Notch (N) 
b_{BN}  1  Bound complex (B) regulation of Notch (N) 
c_{BN}  1  Bound complex (B) regulation of Notch (N) 
h_{BN}  2  Bound complex (B) regulation of Notch (N) 
b_{ON}  1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of Notch (N) 
c_{ON}  0.5  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of Notch (N) 
h_{ON}  2  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of Notch (N) 
d_{N}  0.03  Notch (N) decay rate 
a_{ND}  0.01  Notch (N) regulation of Delta (D) 
b_{ND}  1  Notch (N) regulation of Delta (D) 
c_{ND}  10  Notch (N) regulation of Delta (D) 
h_{ND}  2  Notch (N) regulation of Delta (D) 
d_{D}  0.006  Delta (D) decay rate 
a_{VO}  0.1  Ovol1 (O_{1}) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
b_{VO}  2  Ovol1 (O_{1}) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
c_{VO}  1  Ovol1 (O_{1}) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
h_{VO}  2  Ovol1 (O_{1}) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
b_{GO}  1  TGFβ (G) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
c_{GO}  1  TGFβ (G) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
h_{GO}  1  TGFβ (G) regulation of Ovol2 (O_{2}) 
d_{O}  1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) decay rate 
b_{OV}  2  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of Ovol1 (O_{1}) 
c_{OV}  1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of Ovol1 (O_{1}) 
h_{OV}  2  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of Ovol1 (O_{1}) 
b_{AV}  1  Basement adhesion (A) regulation of Ovol1 (O_{1}) 
c_{AV}  1  Basement adhesion (A) regulation of Ovol1 (O_{1}) 
h_{AV}  1  Basement adhesion (A) regulation of Ovol1 (O_{1}) 
d_{V}  1  Ovol1 (O_{1}) decay rate 
a_{OM}  0.1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of cMyc (M) 
b_{OM}  1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of cMyc (M) 
c_{OM}  1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of cMyc (M) 
h_{OM}  1  Ovol2 (O_{2}) regulation of cMyc (M) 
d_{M}  1  cMyc (M) decay rate 
Cell Growth and Division
Cell growth and division are handled outside of the GPU in the CPU code. Cells with a low Delta expression, implying that it is in a cellular state with low Ovol1 expression and high Ovol2 expression, indicative of stem cells in the basal layer, undergo growth by adding a new subcellular element every 2000 time steps of the simulation. Adding the new element is a simple matter of increasing the number of elements for that cell then providing an initial spatial position for that new element. We currently put that new element at the cell center from which it can subsequently move to a more appropriate place based upon the forces acting on it.
Once a cell reaches forty subcellular elements then it undergoes division. Cell division is implemented by splitting the forty elements in half, leaving twenty with one daughter cell and twenty in another daughter cell. The spatial positions of the elements are not changed as the subsequent motion will push the two cells apart and adjust their shapes accordingly. One daughter cell is attached to the basement membrane; the other daughter cells is not given subcellular element types for basement membrane adhesion so is free to move away from the basement membrane to become a suprabasal cell and form additional layers of the epidermis. The concentrations of the intracellular gene network products are divided in half between the two daughter cells during division. The nonattaching daughter cell can come under the effect of environmental TGFβ, thus switching the cellular state to high Ovol1 expression and low Ovol2 expression, and enabling Notch signaling to occur between neighboring cells. Dependent upon Notch signaling, some suprabasal cells may still grow and divide.
GPU Implementation
The primary GPU toolkit currently in use is CUDA [88], which is provided by Nvidia specifically for their graphics cards. Recently, the open standard OpenCL toolkit [89] is provided with Apple's Mac OS X (10.6) Snow Leopard operating system. OpenCL is a more general toolkit for dataparallel programming versus CUDA because it can be used to target both GPUs and multicore CPUs, and it can be used across a variety of video cards from different vendors. The code we provide will be based on CUDA but it should translate to OpenCL fairly easily as the programming paradigm is very similar.
GPUs are separate devices with their own processors and memory, and do not have direct access to the CPU or CPU's memory. There is a specialized communication pathway for transferring data back and forth between CPU memory and GPU memory. This pathway has a relatively slow bandwidth capability compared to direct access of memory, so it is important to minimize that communication as much as possible when designing GPU algorithms. The typical GPU program has a similar structure to a CPU program and is composed of three main parts as illustrated below:

Initialization
 1.
Allocate and initialize model data structures in CPU memory.
 2.
Initiate connection to GPU device.
 3.
Allocate GPU memory.
 4.
Copy data from CPU memory to GPU memory.
 1.

Execution
 1.
Call GPU kernel functions.
 2.
Occasionally copy data between CPU and GPU memory.
 1.

Cleanup
 1.
Free GPU memory.
 2.
Free CPU memory.
 3.
Shutdown connection to GPU device.
 1.
Because the GPU is a separate device, when the GPU is executing, the CPU is free to perform other computation. More advanced programs can utilize the CPU to concurrently perform tasks while the GPU is running like reading/writing data to disk or pre and postprocessing of data; however for simplicity of presentation in our algorithms we will simply have the CPU wait for the GPU to finish its calculations. Achieving maximum performance out of GPU algorithms can require some subtle programming tricks and investigating all of these issues is beyond the scope of this article. However we will provide some standard guidelines to follow in the context of the modeling methods that will help obtain significant performance improvements, without needing any sophisticated programming.
Subcellular Element Method
We will gradually build up the model implementation in parts, adding new features as we go along. The first mechanism to be implemented is the subcellular element method which defines the cells' spatial positions, shapes and movements. Simulating the equations requires picking a numerical scheme to solve the equations over time. Newman [46] used Euler's method but we found we needed to decrease the δt in order to maintain numerical stability for some potential functions, therefore we have used the 2^{nd}order RungeKutta scheme for all of our algorithms. 2^{nd}order RungeKutta requires additional computation and memory because a half timestep intermediate calculation is required, with the previous timestep and the half timestep values used to solve for the next δt.
Each subcellular element is independent of the other elements, so a parallel algorithm can calculate the motion equation for each element simultaneously then update the position vectors with their next time step value for all the elements in one step. Therefore we need a data structure to hold the spatial positions for each element and a kernel function that computes the motion equation for a single element. The data structure we will use is a 2D matrix for each spatial coordinate, giving us three matrices for our 3D model, where one dimension of the matrix is the number of cells and the other dimension is the number of subcellular elements.
One limitation of GPU programming is that there is no capability to dynamically allocate memory within the kernel functions executing on the GPU, instead all GPU memory must be allocated beforehand within CPU code and pointers to the GPU memory passed to the kernel functions. This leads to our first guideline for GPU programming.

Guideline 1: Avoid pointerfollowing data structures such as linked lists and adjacency lists commonly used in CPU code to manage data, e.g. list of cells, which changes in size during the simulation. Use fixed size data structures such as arrays and matrices even if some of the entries would be empty or unused. Such fixed size data structures make it easier to ensure a consistent memory access pattern for kernel functions allowing for greatest throughput.
On the other hand, some algorithms or data are more properly expressed in structures such as trees or graphs. This does not mean these algorithms cannot be used on the GPU, but the traditional pointerfollowing data structures need to be replaced with arraybased representations of those structures along with additional processing such as parallel prefixsum primitives provided by the CUDPP library [90] to access the data as well as to maintain the data structure.
Given this guideline, we allocate a 2D matrix with the number of columns equal to the maximum number of cells in our simulation and the number of rows equal to the maximum number of elements that any single cell will have. Because cells can have differing number of elements, and there is no simple way to use the coordinate value to indicate a valid element, we also allocate a 1D matrix of size equal to the maximum number of cells that holds the number of elements for each cell. Even though we specify a maximum number for cells and elements, this does not mean that maximum must be fixed. It is possible for the program to reallocate memory with a new maximum size then copy the old data to the new memory, however it must do this in CPU code and essentially reinitialize the GPU with the new data structures.
Appendix Algorithm 1 shows an initial attempt for a dataparallel implementation of the subcellular element method. It is composed of three functions, SEM that allocates memory and executes the kernel function and two kernel functions for the twostep calculation of the 2^{nd}order RungeKutta, though we show just one of the kernel functions for brevity as they are very similar to each other. The initial lines of the SEM function allocate GPU memory and copy the CPU data to the GPU. We assume that the CPU memory was allocated elsewhere and initialized with initial conditions for the simulation, and the pointers are passed as function parameters. The kernel functions are executed within a loop on the GPU for the two steps of the RungeKutta scheme and an update of the position vectors for the next time step. Lastly the GPU data is copied back into CPU memory after the kernel functions have been executed for the desired number of time steps.
The physical processing threads of the GPU can be organized into 1D, 2D or 3D array blocks that are tiled together into a processing grid, which can define a significantly larger number of virtual parallel processors. For example, the Nvidia GTX 285 video card supports 512 physical processing threads but they can tiled together into a grid of over four billion total array blocks thus providing one trillion virtual parallel processors. Typically the virtual processors are organized according to the data structure being operated upon because a unique identifier number is assigned to each thread that can be used to determine a unique index number into the data structure. Our spatial coordinates are organized in 2D matrices, so we define a 2D block of 16 × 16 threads tiled together into a grid with dimensions based upon the maximum number of cells and elements. Note that this construction of blocks tiled into grids is specific to the CUDA toolkit. OpenCL is more general in that it just requires the number of desired virtual processors, specified as a 1D, 2D or 3D array, and OpenCL maps them appropriately to the underlying available hardware, which can vary in the number of physical threads available and the maximum number of virtual processors.
The first two lines of the kernel function in Appendix Algorithm 1 (sem_kernel_F1) shows how the identifier number for the processor thread is translated into a cell number and an element number that will be used as index values for the 2D matrices. The processing threads are organized according to the maximum number of cells and elements, so the next two lines of the kernel function checks that the numbers are within the actual number of cells and elements for that cell, and if not then the kernel function returns immediately. It is important to have bound checks such as these in all kernel functions, both to prevent useless computation but more critically to prevent outofbounds memory writes. The configuration bounds of the processing threads may not align exactly with the data structure bounds, and there is no memory bound protections on GPUs, so such outofbounds memory writes can easily overwrite other data. The remaining code iterates through the elements of the same cell and calculates the intracellular force potentials, then it iterates through the elements of other cells and calculates the intercellular force potentials. Finally, it calculates the adhesion force and combines them together to update the spatial position of the element.
Appendix Algorithm 1 corresponds to the naïve O(N^{ 2 }M^{ 2 }) algorithm where N is the number of cells and M is the number of elements. This algorithm actually performs well and provides a significant improvement over Newman's time (see the Testing section for complete timing results), but the algorithm does not provide the level of scalability that we desire. As the number of cells increase, the quadratic nature of the algorithms starts to dominate, much of the computation is wasted because most elements are too far apart from each other to exert any significant force; it is really only the nearby elements that matter. Sophisticated methods and data structures have been utilized in CPU code to identify nearby elements. Newman uses a sector technique that maintains a lookup table of the list of elements located within a discrete partitioning of space, elements then just need to perform calculations with elements in the neighboring sectors.
One may think that implementing such sophisticated data structures in the GPU is necessary to achieve greater speedups, but in fact that ends up being counterproductive. We implemented Newman's sector method on the GPU and found it to actually go slower than CPU code (data not shown). For one, it tends to violate Guideline 1 that says to use simple fixedsized data structures, but it also greatly complicates the kernel function, which leads to our second guideline.

Guideline 2: Simpler kernels execute faster. Break apart complicated kernel functions into simpler kernels using memory to hold intermediate values. Avoid nested loops, especially when the loop bounds are variable. Compilers can do a better job of optimizing simpler kernels, and simple loops can be unrolled and/or instructions reordered to maximize coalesced memory access.
On the other hand, too many overly simple kernels can actually perform worse than a single complicated kernel because of the additional overhead imposed by launching more kernels, so the opposite extreme should be avoided as well. It is a good idea to modularize your code into functions when it is feasible; the accompanying source code has examples for how some operations like distance and boundary condition calculations are put into functions. Functions on the GPU are inlined into kernels during compilation, so they do not incur the stack and execution time as in CPU code. The resultant benefit is kernels can be constructed by combining function calls together, and kernels can be more easily adjusted by adding or removing functions.
Appendix Algorithm 2 is the result when we split up the intercellular potential calculation into two simpler calculations. First we calculate a center point for a cell from the positions of all the cell's elements. Second when calculating the intercellular potential, we use a cell's center point to determine if the cell is too far away (as defined by some cutoff value) then skip that cell completely. While in the worstcase scenario this can be as expensive as Appendix Algorithm 1, typically a cell only has a few nearby neighbors making its complexity O(N^{ 2 } + N^{ 2 }M). With N parallel threads for the cell center calculation and NM parallel threads for SEM, this new algorithm is essentially linear with O(N) complexity. The Testing section shows the algorithm performs very well with simulations of 5000 cells each with 20 elements executing on the order of minutes, instead of hours as Newman predicts with his CPU code [46].
Boundary Conditions
Biological modeling papers typically mention the boundary conditions they assume while describing the model, but less frequently is there discussion about the implications those boundary conditions have on the computational implementation of the model. Boundary conditions can be either periodic, noflux, or noboundary. Periodic boundary conditions are used when the model represents just a portion of a larger tissue, and mirroring of the model allows objects near the boundary to perceive that the system continues beyond the boundary and thus is larger then it really is. Noflux boundary conditions act as a barrier that prevents the passage of any objects past the boundary, and this might reflect a physically imposed boundary such as the edge of a petri dish or a biological boundary such as the edge of the tissue. Sometimes noflux boundaries might be considered leaky in that they allow oneway passage of objects across the boundary, essentially acting as a sink or source. Noboundary conditions imply that there is no boundary allowing the domain to increase in size, or there may truly be a boundary but the objects in the model never reach it so it seems nonexistent.
There is an interesting dichotomy in that periodic boundary conditions have a simple implementation for lattice models while noboundary conditions have a more complicated implementation. In contrast, latticefree models have a simple implementation for noboundary conditions and a more complicated implementation for periodic boundary conditions. For noflux boundary conditions, there is a simple implementation for both lattice and latticefree models. The contrast between the two models is due to the spatial representation. For lattice models, the spatial domain is defined by the extent of the underlying lattice that typically has an underlying memory data structure of the same size, so expanding the spatial domain as with noboundary conditions requires that memory data structure to be increased, which is an expensive operation. On the other hand, a periodic boundary requires just a simple calculation of an index value based upon the current size of the lattice. For latticefree models, there is no explicit representation of the spatial domain encoded in the position vectors of objects, so they are free to change values without constraint under noboundary conditions. However, periodic boundary conditions requires a mirror of the model to be presented on the other side of boundary with those mirror objects being included in all spatiallybased calculations.
The algorithms we presented for the subcellular element method in the previous section are for noboundary conditions, however we want periodic boundary conditions for our model of epidermal development because it is just a small part of the larger epidermis. Specifically, only the two horizontal planes have periodic boundaries while the vertical plane has a noflux condition for the bottom with the basement membrane and noboundary for the top. This means we require eight mirrors of the model, the four sides and the four corners, so we have eight additional calculations required for each subcellular element. We do not show the algorithm for implementing periodic boundary conditions, as the tedious calculations are lengthy but straightforward, but the accompanying source code can be consulted for details. In the Testing section we provide timing information for both noboundary and periodic boundary conditions. Periodic boundary conditions are slower as expected, but not nearly as slow as the theoretical 9 × based on the number of additional calculations, in large part because many unnecessary calculations are avoided due to the distance cutoff.
Intracellular Gene Network
Because each cell has its own intracellular gene network with the corresponding set of concentration values for the various molecular species and interactions, the ODE calculations for each cell can be performed in parallel. However in our epidermal model, cells are coupled with their neighbors through Notch signaling so the calculations across cells need to be synchronized in time for correctness. We reuse the cell center calculation from Appendix Algorithm 2 for determining a cell's neighbors, and according to Guideline 2 we use a separate kernel function to accumulate neighbor values for each cell and save them in memory. We allocate a set of 1D arrays of size equal to the maximum number of cells to hold the accumulated neighbor values. Furthermore, we allocate a 2D array with column size equal to the maximum number of cells and row size equal to the number of species (seven for our model) to hold the concentration values for the ODEs. Because the parameters are the same for all cells and do not change, a 1D constant array is allocated for them. Access to readonly constant memory is nearly as fast as register access, so it is much better for holding parameters values than global read/write GPU memory, but it is limited in size. For example, the GTX 285 has 64 k bytes of constant memory capable of holding 16 k floating point values, which is more than sufficient for parameters shared among all cells. However if heterogeneous cells are desired, each with a different set of parameter values, then the constant memory may not be big enough for large simulations.
Appendix Algorithm 3 shows how the ODEs are calculated for each cell, again using the 2^{nd}order RungeKutta numerical scheme, thus giving us four functions. The SEM function, as before, allocates GPU memory, copies CPU data to the GPU then calls the kernel functions for the ODEs. One kernel function accumulates the neighbor values, while the other two kernel functions perform the two steps of the 2^{nd}order RungeKutta though we show just one of these functions for space considerations.
While Appendix Algorithm 3 works well for the small intracellular gene network in our epidermal model, it will not scale up to ODEs containing hundreds or thousands of equations. The reason for this is not immediately obvious. Looking at Appendix Algorithm 3, it seems perfectly reasonable to keep adding a few additional lines of code for each ODE equation; even though the kernel function may get long, the calculations are simple and straightforward. Eventually though, the GPU will run out of registers.
The underlying reason is that the compilers for GPU code, nvcc in CUDA for example, optimizes code for doing memory writes and aggressively uses registers to hold intermediate values. Specifically memory writes such as saving the final calculation for an ODE equation might be deferred until later so that writes can be performed which best utilizes the memory bandwidth. This is all legal so long as this reordering of instructions doesn't change the program semantics, and such techniques are used heavily by CPUs to keep their pipelines full and their cache hit rates high. The difficulty is that there is no stack on GPUs, so these pending memory write values are stored in registers, adding more ODE equations increases register usage until eventually register overflow occurs. Overflowed registers trigger failsafe operation on the GPU by putting the data into global GPU memory, which greatly disrupts the intended optimizations and causes the GPU code to run extremely slow. Furthermore, the compiler cannot account for the register overflow situation during compilation of the source code because it does not know how many processing threads will be running concurrently. If register overflow occurs, one can decrease the number of concurrent processing threads, but this reduces parallelism which eventually defeats the speedup advantage of the GPU. This leads to our next guideline.

Guideline 3: Local variables and registers are a limited and precious resource shared among all concurrent threads. Organize your code to use few local variables and reuse those variables when possible. Achieve greatest GPU occupancy by maximizing the number of concurrent threads while minimizing the register usage of each thread without exceeding the total available registers.
This guideline is an extension of Guideline 2 which suggests simpler kernels, as a more complex kernel will tend to use more registers. For the calculation of a large set of ODEs, the single kernel function that calculates all equations would be split into multiple kernel functions where each calculates only a small number of ODE equations. Unfortunately achieving optimal GPU performance is not such a straightforward affair as just writing simple kernels. A better performance metric is to consider GPU occupancy. GPU occupancy is defined by the combination of the number of threads, the number of registers used by each thread and the amount of shared memory used by each thread. Maximizing occupancy entails writing kernel code and executing the kernel in a configuration that maximizes the number of threads while minimizing the number of registers and amount of shared memory used by each thread. CUDA comes with a profiler application that can provide various performance statistics helpful in optimizing GPU code, and we present some results from the CUDA profiler for Appendix Algorithm 3 in the Testing section.

Guideline 4: Organize data structures in global memory such that concurrent threads access contiguous sequential memory locations. This access pattern to global memory will help maximize coalescence. Consider using the other memory types available such as shared, texture or constant memory, as they can be significantly faster than global memory.
Memory coalescence is when simultaneous accesses to global memory by threads can be combined together into fewer memory transactions. By maximizing memory coalescence, global memory bandwidth is used most efficiently. However GPUs have multiple types of memory, while in our code we only use constant and global memory. These other memory types such as shared, texture and constant memory are limited in size and functionality, but they are faster than global memory for read operations and thus can provide additional speed improvements. Use of different GPU memory types may require optimizing for different access patterns, e.g. shared memory needs to minimize bank conflicts.
The 2D array in Appendix Algorithm 3, which holds the concentration values for the ODEs, is specifically designed so that the columns are the cells while the rows are the different species. This is because each thread performs the ODE calculations for each cell in parallel, so the concurrent kernel functions will access sequential memory locations. If the 2D array was transposed such that the columns are the different species while the rows are the cells, then concurrent threads no longer access sequential memory locations and memory coalescence is compromised. We have performed experiments (data not shown) that indicate a 23 × speed difference can be incurred just due to this array orientation.
Testing
Execution Time of Algorithms by Cell Population Sizes
Method  128 cells  250 cells  500 cells  1000 cells  5000 cells 

Movement  
Newman  180s  
No boundary  16s  33s  80s  218s  Kernel limit 
Periodic boundary  43s  85s  263s  793s  Kernel limit 
Center, No boundary  10s  20s  33s  50s  550s 
Center, Periodic boundary  26s  48s  79s  125s  944s 
Movement, Gene Network  
No boundary  18s  38s  86s  241s  Kernel limit 
Periodic boundary  46s  87s  286s  811s  Kernel limit 
Center, No boundary  13s  24s  42s  72s  630s 
Center, Periodic boundary  29s  51s  88s  146s  1038s 
Full Model  
Center, No boundary  18m19s  41m59s  93m38s  239m34s  
Final cell count  623  1159  2377  4735  
Center, Periodic boundary  61m14s  151m25s  286m15s  573m55s  
Final cell count  582  1059  2286  4585 
For the movement model using the center point implementation, Table 3 shows that our GPU algorithm for 128 cells is 18 × faster than Newman's CPU algorithm which he ran on a 2 Ghz PC [46]. The speedup could be considered even greater as Newman used a single step Euler scheme while we used a twostep RungeKutta scheme. As the number of cells is increased, especially starting at 500 cells, the naïve implementation starts to perform poorly until it exceeds the kernel runtime limit at 5000 cells while the center point implementation scales well allowing 5000 cells to be simulated in under 10 minutes for noboundary conditions. Inclusion of the intracellular gene network adds a small amount to the total execution time indicating that the subcellular element method dominates the computation.
The execution time for the full model takes longer as we run for over 40 × more iterations, but the results indicate even scaling across the initial cell population sizes as well as the increase of the cell population during the simulation. We did not run simulations for the initial cell population size of 5000 as this would entail final cell counts of almost 30000. While simulations for large cell populations do take a long time to run, they actually become feasible using the GPU algorithms; sequential CPU code could take numerous days to run the same simulation. Even more significant is that the simulations for smaller initial cell populations, values that are reasonable for studying epidermal development, can be executed in a couple hours or less. Periodic boundary conditions add a significant amount of time to these longer running simulations, so additional optimization is worth investigating.
CUDA Profiler Results for Kernels in Movement/Gene Network Model
Kernel  %GPU time  Registers  Occupancy  %Divergent Branches 

skin_moveKernel_F1  44.85%  35  0.25  0.85% 
skin_moveKernel_F2  44.83%  32  0.5  0.85% 
skin_neighbor_kernel  8.76%  20  0.125  0% 
skin_center_kernel  0.42%  19  0.125  0.56% 
skin_kernel_F1  0.34%  28  0.125  0.64% 
skin_kernel_F2  0.34%  28  0.125  0.64% 
Conclusions
The purpose of this article has been to explore the feasibility of using the technology capabilities of GPUs to model complex, integrative multicellular biological phenomena. As a case study, we constructed a 3D model of epidermal development incorporating cell shape, movement and adhesion using the subcellular element method, cell growth and division, and an intracellular gene network within each cell coupled to cellcell and cellenvironment interactions. We implemented the epidermal model in GPU algorithms, and in the process we discussed various programmatic issues and provided a set of design guidelines that we hope will be instructive to other modelers, both to avoid common pitfalls as well as to exploit the GPU for performance gain.
What we have not explored are the issues of multiscale modeling. For our epidermal model, we have simulated the cell shape and movement actions on the same time scale as the intracellular gene network. In reality, it is more likely to assume that the cell shape and movement actions operate on a much longer time scale than the gene network, thus allowing a time scale separation. This might be implemented, as is commonly done in agentbased models [38], through nested loops where the gene network operates in the innermost fast loop while the cell actions operate in the outermost slow loop. This should result in some significant savings in execution time as the subcellular element method dominates the computation in our epidermal model.
While we have focused on the subcellular element method for the representation of cells, the DelaunayObjectDynamics method [45] can also potentially take great advantage of GPUs due to its use of Voronoi cells. Voronoi tessellation is a wellstudied topic in computational geometry with many GPU algorithms [91, 92], so use of these algorithms might allow an even greater number of cells to be modeled. What needs more investigation is how well stochastic modeling methods can utilize GPU hardware. Markov chain based methods such as the cellular Potts model alter the probability distribution of the whole system when a state change occur, so individual cells cannot act in parallel without taking the statistical correlations into account.
Despite the obvious speed advantages of GPUs for dataparallel programming, they have some definite limitations compared to other parallel architectures. Most notably is that GPUs have essentially no synchronization or communication capability between concurrent threads. Algorithms where threads communicate intermediate results to other threads cannot be directly used. Though some GPUs do offer a simplistic blocklevel synchronization, it is restricted to a subset of threads (based upon grid/block decomposition) so algorithms have to be specially designed with that constraint, and even then it is a code barrier synchronization and has no communication capabilities. Another limitation is the lack of semaphore or locking primitives for shared writable memory, so threads have no mechanism to coordinate memory writes and prevent one thread from overwriting another. More recent GPUs provide atomic write functions, while this does not provide the full capability of locking, it does allow lockfree data structures to be considered. GPUs also have strict memory limitations. The amount of memory available on GPUs is much less than for CPUs; the Nvidia GTX 285 has 1 GB which is plenty sufficient for our model, but GPUs lack virtual memory capability so the available memory is a hard upper limit and has to be used wisely.
We have demonstrated that GPU algorithms can be used to great advantage to speedup the execution time of integrative multicellular biological models. There are further improvements that can be made to our GPU code. For example, we only use constant and global memory, so using shared memory can greatly speedup memory access. This would have the most benefit in the kernels for the subcellular element method as they are the most computationally expensive, however the code can become more complicated and requires careful design to use effectively. Also some of our kernels do not maximize GPU occupancy as well as they could, so we can further finetune these kernels to either use more concurrent threads or reduce the number of registers being used. We hope in the future to continue developing our epidermal model and use it to investigate putative underlying mechanisms responsible for the processes of stratification and homeostasis as well as the role that environmental and cellular interactions play in stem cell maintenance and proliferation.
Appendix
The following algorithms are provided in sufficient detail so the various parameters and GPUrelated functions calls can be examined, however many details such as variable declarations, parameter definitions, error checking, utility functions, etc. have been eliminated for brevity. The full source code is provided as Additional file 1. Also as we go from one algorithm to the next, adding new functionality along the way, we only show the new code while leaving just comments for the previous code.
Algorithm 1
void SEM(int numOfCells, int maxCells, int *elements, int maxElements,
float *hostX, float *hostY, float *hostZ, float *hostType,
float *hostParameters, float dt, float timeSteps)
{
//Allocate device memory
//cells and elements
cudaMalloc(&numOfElements, maxCells * sizeof(int));
cudaMallocPitch(&elementType, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(int), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&X, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&X_F1, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&X_F2, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&Y, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&Y_F1, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&Y_F2, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&Z, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&Z_F1, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
cudaMallocPitch(&Z_F2, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements);
//Copy host memory to device memory
//spatial positions
cudaMemcpy(numOfElements, elements, maxCells * sizeof(int),
cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy2D(elementType, pitch, hostType, maxCells * sizeof(int),
maxCells * sizeof(int), maxElements, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy2D(X, pitch, hostX, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy2D(Y, pitch, hostY, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
cudaMemcpy2D(Z, pitch, hostZ, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//parameters
cudaMemcpyToSymbol(skin_parameters, hostParameters, 100 * sizeof(float), 0,
cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//execute kernel
for (t = 0; t < timeSteps; ++t) {
//movement kernels
sem_kernel_F1 < < < blocksPerGrid, threadsPerBlock > > > (numOfElements, X, X_F1,
X_F2, Y, Y_F1, Y_F2, Z, Z_F1, Z_F2, elementType,
pitch/sizeof(float), numOfCells, maxCells, maxElements, dt);
sem_kernel_F2 < < < blocksPerGrid, threadsPerBlock > > > (numOfElements, X, X_F1,
X_F2, Y, Y_F1, Y_F2, Z, Z_F1, Z_F2, elementType,
pitch/sizeof(float), numOfCells, maxCells, maxElements, dt);
cudaMemcpy2D(X, pitch, X_F2, pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxElements, cudaMemcpyDeviceToDevice);
cudaMemcpy2D(Y, pitch, Y_F2, pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxElements, cudaMemcpyDeviceToDevice);
cudaMemcpy2D(Z, pitch, Z_F2, pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxElements, cudaMemcpyDeviceToDevice);
}
//Copy result to host memory
cudaMemcpy2D(hostX, maxCells * sizeof(float), X, pitch,
maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaMemcpy2D(hostY, maxCells * sizeof(float), Y, pitch,
maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
cudaMemcpy2D(hostZ, maxCells * sizeof(float), Z, pitch,
maxCells * sizeof(float), maxElements, cudaMemcpyDeviceToHost);
}
__global__ void
sem_kernel_F1(int *numOfElements, float *X, float *X_F1, float *X_F2, float *Y,
float *Y_F1, float *Y_F2, float *Z, float *Z_F1, float *Z_F2,
int *elementType, size_t pitch, int numOfCells, int maxCells,
int maxElements, float dt)
{
int cellNum = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int elemNum = blockIdx.y * blockDim.y + threadIdx.y;
if (cellNum > = numOfCells) return;
if (elemNum > = numOfElements[cellNum]) return;
//intracellular
float intraX = 0.0;
float intraY = 0.0;
float intraZ = 0.0;
for (k = 0; k < numOfElements[cellNum]; ++k) {
if (k == elemNum) continue;
r = dist(X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], X[k*pitch+cellNum],
Y[k*pitch+cellNum], Z[k*pitch+cellNum]);
V = MORSE(r, INTRA_U0, INTRA_ETA0, INTRA_U1, INTRA_ETA1);
intraX += V * (X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  X[k*pitch+cellNum]);
intraY += V * (Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  Y[k*pitch+cellNum]);
intraZ += V * (Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  Z[k*pitch+cellNum]);
#if PERIODIC_BOUNDARY
intracellular_mirror(elemNum, cellNum, pitch, k, &intraX, &intraY,
&intraZ, X, Y, Z);
#endif
}
//intercellular
float interX = 0.0;
float interY = 0.0;
float interZ = 0.0;
for (j = 0; j < numOfCells; ++j) {
if (j == cellNum) continue;
for (k = 0; k < numOfElements[j]; ++k) {
r = dist(X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
X[k*pitch+j], Y[k*pitch+j], Z[k*pitch+j]);
if (r <= INTER_DIST) {
V = P_MORSE(r, INTER_U0, INTER_ETA0, INTER_U1, INTER_ETA1);
interX += V * (X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  X[k*pitch+j]);
interY += V * (Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  Y[k*pitch+j]);
interZ += V * (Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  Z[k*pitch+j]);
}
#if PERIODIC_BOUNDARY
intercellular_mirror(elemNum, cellNum, pitch, k, j,
&interX, &interY, &interZ, X, Y, Z);
#endif
}
}
//basement membrane
if (elementType[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] == 1) {
r = dist(X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], 0);
V = MORSE(r, INTRA_U0, INTRA_ETA0, INTRA_U1, INTRA_ETA1);
interZ += V * (Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  0);
}
//update
X_F1[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] = X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]
+ 0.5 * dt * (intraX + interX);
Y_F1[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] = Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]
+ 0.5 * dt * (intraY + interY);
Z_F1[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] = Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]
+ 0.5 * dt * (intraZ + interZ);
}
Algorithm 2
void SEM(int numOfCells, int maxCells, int *elements, int maxElements,
float *hostX, float *hostY, float *hostZ, float *hostType,
float *hostParameters, float dt, float timeSteps)
{
//Allocate device memory
//cells and elements ..
//cell centers
cudaMalloc(&cellCenterX, maxCells * sizeof(float));
cudaMalloc(&cellCenterY, maxCells * sizeof(float));
cudaMalloc(&cellCenterZ, maxCells * sizeof(float));
//Copy host memory to device memory
//spatial positions ..
//parameters ..
//execute kernel
for (t = 0; t < timeSteps; ++t) {
//movement kernels
skin_center_kernel < < < blocksPerGrid1 D,threadsPerBlock1D > > > (numOfElements,
X, Y, Z, elementType, cellCenterX, cellCenterY,
cellCenterZ, pitch/sizeof(float), numOfCells,
maxCells, maxElements);
sem_kernel_F1 < < < blocksPerGrid, threadsPerBlock > > > (numOfElements, X, X_F1,
X_F2, Y, Y_F1, Y_F2, Z, Z_F1, Z_F2, elementType,
pitch/sizeof(float), numOfCells, maxCells, maxElements, dt);
sem_kernel_F2 < < < blocksPerGrid, threadsPerBlock > > > (numOfElements, X, X_F1,
X_F2, Y, Y_F1, Y_F2, Z, Z_F1, Z_F2, elementType,
pitch/sizeof(float), numOfCells, maxCells, maxElements, dt);
}
//Copy result to host memory ..
}
__global__ void
skin_center_kernel(int *numOfElements, float *X, float *Y, float *Z,
int *elementType, float *cellCenterX, float *cellCenterY,
float *cellCenterZ, size_t pitch,
int numOfCells, int maxCells, int maxElements, float dt)
{
int cellNum = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int elemNum;
if (cellNum > = numOfCells) return;
float cX = 0.0;
float cY = 0.0;
float cZ = 0.0;
float minX, maxX;
float minY, maxY;
minX = X[cellNum];
maxX = X[cellNum];
minY = Y[cellNum];
maxY = Y[cellNum];
for (elemNum = 0; elemNum < numOfElements[cellNum]; ++elemNum) {
cX += X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
cY += Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
cZ += Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
if (X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] < minX) minX = X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
if (X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] > maxX) maxX = X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
if (Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] < minY) minY = Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
if (Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] > maxY) maxY = Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
}
cX = cX/(float)numOfElements[cellNum];
cY = cY/(float)numOfElements[cellNum];
cZ = cZ/(float)numOfElements[cellNum];
//handle special case when cell is split across periodic boundary
if ((maxX  minX) > (BOUNDARY_X/2)) {
cX = 0;
for (elemNum = 0; elemNum < numOfElements[cellNum]; ++elemNum) {
if (X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] > (BOUNDARY_X/2))
cX += X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  BOUNDARY_X;
else
cX += X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
}
cX = cX/(float)numOfElements[cellNum];
if (cX < 0) cX += BOUNDARY_X;
}
if ((maxY  minY) > (BOUNDARY_Y/2)) {
cY = 0;
for (elemNum = 0; elemNum < numOfElements[cellNum]; ++elemNum) {
if (Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum] > (BOUNDARY_Y/2))
cY += Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  BOUNDARY_Y;
else
cY += Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum];
}
cY = cY/(float)numOfElements[cellNum];
if (cY < 0) cY += BOUNDARY_Y;
}
cellCenterX[cellNum] = cX;
cellCenterY[cellNum] = cY;
cellCenterZ[cellNum] = cZ;
}
__global__ void
sem_kernel_F1(int *numOfElements, float *X, float *X_F1, float *X_F2, float *Y,
float *Y_F1, float *Y_F2, float *Z, float *Z_F1, float *Z_F2,
float *cX, float *cY, float *cZ,
int *elementType, size_t pitch, int numOfCells, int maxCells,
int maxElements, float dt)
{
int cellNum = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int elemNum = blockIdx.y * blockDim.y + threadIdx.y;
if (cellNum > = numOfCells) return;
if (elemNum > = numOfElements[cellNum]) return;
//intracellular ..
//intercellular
float interX = 0.0;
float interY = 0.0;
float interZ = 0.0;
for (j = 0; j < numOfCells; ++j) {
if (j == cellNum) continue;
//check if cell centers are close enough
r = dist(cX[cellNum], cY[cellNum], cZ[cellNum], cX[j], cY[j], cZ[j]);
if (r > INTER_DIST) continue;
for (k = 0; k < numOfElements[j]; ++k) {
r = dist(X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum], Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum],
X[k*pitch+j], Y[k*pitch+j], Z[k*pitch+j]);
if (r <= INTER_DIST) {
V = P_MORSE(r, INTER_U0, INTER_ETA0, INTER_U1, INTER_ETA1);
interX += V * (X[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  X[k*pitch+j]);
interY += V * (Y[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  Y[k*pitch+j]);
interZ += V * (Z[elemNum*pitch+cellNum]  Z[k*pitch+j]);
}
#if PERIODIC_BOUNDARY
intercellular_mirror(elemNum, cellNum, pitch, k, j,
&interX, &interY, &interZ, X, Y, Z);
#endif
}
}
//basement membrane ..
//update ..
}
Algorithm 3
void SEM(int numOfCells, int maxCells, int *elements, int maxElements,
float *hostX, float *hostY, float *hostZ, float *hostType,
float *hostParameters, int numOfSpecies, float *speciesData,
float dt, float timeSteps)
{
//Allocate device memory
//cells and elements ..
//cell centers ..
//intracellular gene network
cudaMalloc(&neighborNum, maxCells * sizeof(float));
cudaMallocPitch(&sData, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), numOfSpecies);
cudaMallocPitch(&sData_F1, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), numOfSpecies);
cudaMallocPitch(&sData_F2, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float), numOfSpecies);
cudaMallocPitch(&neighborData, &pitch, maxCells * sizeof(float),
numOfSpecies);
//Copy host memory to device memory ..
//spatial positions ..
//parameters ..
//intracellular gene network
cudaMemcpy2D(sData, pitch, speciesData, maxCells * sizeof(float),
maxCells * sizeof(float), numOfSpecies, cudaMemcpyHostToDevice);
//execute kernel
for (t = 0; t < timeSteps; ++t) {
//movement kernels ..
//gene network kernels
skin_neighbor_kernel < < < blocksPerGrid1 D,threadsPerBlock1D > > > (numOfElements,
cellCenterX, cellCenterY, cellCenterZ, elementType,
neighborNum, pitch/sizeof(float),
sData, sData_F1, sData_F2, neighborData, numOfCells,
maxCells, maxElements);
skin_kernel_F1 < < < blocksPerGrid1 D,threadsPerBlock1D > > > (numOfElements,
X, Y, Z, elementType, neighborNum, pitch/sizeof(float),
sData, sData_F1, sData_F2, neighborData,
numOfCells, maxCells, maxElements, dt);
skin_kernel_F2 < < < blocksPerGrid1 D,threadsPerBlock1D > > > (numOfElements,
X, Y, Z, elementType, neighborNum, pitch/sizeof(float),
sData, sData_F1, sData_F2, neighborData,
numOfCells, maxCells, maxElements, dt);
}
//Copy result to host memory ..
}
__global__ void
skin_neighbor_kernel(int *numOfElements, float *cellCenterX,
float *cellCenterY, float *cellCenterZ, int *elementType,
int *neighborNum, size_t pitch,
float *speciesData, float *speciesData_F1,
float *speciesData_F2, float *neighborData,
int numOfCells, int maxCells, int maxElements)
{
int cellNum = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
int j;
if (cellNum > = numOfCells) return;
//totals from neighbors
float neighbor_NOTCH = 0.0;
float neighbor_DELTA = 0.0;
float neighbor_BOUND = 0.0;
int numOfNeighbors = 0;
for (j = 0; j < numOfCells; ++j) {
if (j == cellNum) continue;
if (distance_check(cellCenterX[cellNum], cellCenterY[cellNum],
cellCenterZ[cellNum], cellCenterX[j],
cellCenterY[j], cellCenterZ[j],
S_XY_TOT, NEIGHBOR_DIST) != S_NONE) {
++numOfNeighbors;
neighbor_NOTCH += speciesData[NOTCH_species*pitch+j];
neighbor_DELTA += speciesData[DELTA_species*pitch+j];
neighbor_BOUND += speciesData[BOUND_species*pitch+j];
}
}
neighborNum[cellNum] = numOfNeighbors;
neighborData[NOTCH_species*pitch+cellNum] = neighbor_NOTCH;
neighborData[DELTA_species*pitch+cellNum] = neighbor_DELTA;
neighborData[BOUND_species*pitch+cellNum] = neighbor_BOUND;
}
__global__ void
skin_kernel_F1(int *numOfElements, float *X, float *Y, float *Z,
int *elementType, int *neighborNum, size_t pitch,
float *speciesData, float *speciesData_F1,
float *speciesData_F2, float *neighborData,
int numOfCells, int maxCells, int maxElements, float dt)
{
int cellNum = blockIdx.x * blockDim.x + threadIdx.x;
if (cellNum > = numOfCells) return;
float interactionValue, F1_val;
//calculate F1
float NOTCH_val = speciesData[NOTCH_species*pitch+cellNum];
float DELTA_val = speciesData[DELTA_species*pitch+cellNum];
float BOUND_val = speciesData[BOUND_species*pitch+cellNum];
float BMA_val = speciesData[BMA_species*pitch+cellNum];
float OVOL1_val = speciesData[OVOL1_species*pitch+cellNum];
float OVOL2_val = speciesData[OVOL2_species*pitch+cellNum];
float CMYC_val = speciesData[CMYC_species*pitch+cellNum];
//averages from neighbors
float neighbor_NOTCH = 0.0;
float neighbor_DELTA = 0.0;
float neighbor_BOUND = 0.0;
int numOfNeighbors = 0;
neighbor_NOTCH = neighborData[NOTCH_species*pitch+cellNum];
neighbor_DELTA = neighborData[DELTA_species*pitch+cellNum];
neighbor_BOUND = neighborData[BOUND_species*pitch+cellNum];
numOfNeighbors = neighborNum[cellNum];
if (numOfNeighbors != 0) {
neighbor_NOTCH = neighbor_NOTCH/(float)numOfNeighbors;
neighbor_DELTA = neighbor_DELTA/(float)numOfNeighbors;
neighbor_BOUND = neighbor_BOUND/(float)numOfNeighbors;
}
//NOTCH
interactionValue = HILL(BOUND_val, NOTCH_pmin_BOUND, NOTCH_pmax_BOUND,
NOTCH_c_BOUND, NOTCH_h_BOUND);
interactionValue *= HILL(OVOL2_val, NOTCH_pmin_OVOL2, NOTCH_pmax_OVOL2,
NOTCH_c_OVOL2, NOTCH_h_OVOL2);
F1_val = NOTCH_val + 0.5 * dt * ((KA) * NOTCH_val * neighbor_DELTA
+ KD * BOUND_val  DF * NOTCH_val
+ interactionValue);
if (F1_val < 0.0) F1_val = 0;
speciesData_F1[NOTCH_species*pitch+cellNum] = F1_val;
//DELTA
interactionValue = HILL(NOTCH_val, DELTA_pmin_BOUND, DELTA_pmax_BOUND,
DELTA_c_BOUND, DELTA_h_BOUND);
F1_val = DELTA_val + 0.5 * dt * ((KA) * DELTA_val * neighbor_NOTCH
+ KD * neighbor_BOUND  DA * DELTA_val
+ interactionValue);
if (F1_val < 0.0) F1_val = 0;
speciesData_F1[DELTA_species*pitch+cellNum] = F1_val;
//BOUND RECEPTOR
F1_val = BOUND_val + 0.5 * dt * (KA * NOTCH_val * neighbor_DELTA
 KD * BOUND_val  KI * BOUND_val);
if (F1_val < 0.0) F1_val = 0;
speciesData_F1[BOUND_species*pitch+cellNum] = F1_val;
//Basement Membrane Adhesion
speciesData_F1[BMA_species*pitch+cellNum] =
speciesData[BMA_species*pitch+cellNum];
//OVOL1
interactionValue = HILL(OVOL2_val, OVOL1_pmin_OVOL2, OVOL1_pmax_OVOL2,
OVOL1_c_OVOL2, OVOL1_h_OVOL2);
interactionValue *= HILL(BMA_val, OVOL1_pmin_BMA, OVOL1_pmax_BMA,
OVOL1_c_BMA, OVOL1_h_BMA);
F1_val = OVOL1_val + 0.5 * dt * (interactionValue  OVOL1_decay * OVOL1_val);
if (F1_val < 0.0) F1_val = 0;
speciesData_F1[OVOL1_species*pitch+cellNum] = F1_val;
//OVOL2
interactionValue = HILL(OVOL1_val, OVOL2_pmin_OVOL1, OVOL2_pmax_OVOL1,
OVOL2_c_OVOL1, OVOL2_h_OVOL1);
interactionValue *= HILL(0.4, 0.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0);//TGFbeta
F1_val = OVOL2_val + 0.5 * dt * (interactionValue  OVOL2_decay * OVOL2_val);
if (F1_val < 0.0) F1_val = 0;
speciesData_F1[OVOL2_species*pitch+cellNum] = F1_val;
//CMYC
interactionValue = HILL(OVOL2_val, CMYC_pmin_OVOL2, CMYC_pmax_OVOL2,
CMYC_c_OVOL2, CMYC_h_OVOL2);
F1_val = CMYC_val + 0.5 * dt * (interactionValue  CMYC_decay * CMYC_val);
if (F1_val < 0.0) F1_val = 0;
speciesData_F1[CMYC_species*pitch+cellNum] = F1_val;
}
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work is partially supported by NIH grants R01GM75309, R01GM67247, R01AR47320, K02AR51482, P50GM76516 and NSF grant DMS0917492.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Alber M, Chen N, Glimm T, Lushnikov PM: Multiscale dynamics of biological cells with chemotactic interactions: from a discrete stochastic model to a continuous description. Physical review E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics. 2006, 73: 051901 10.1103/PhysRevE.73.051901View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Drasdo D: Coarse graining in simulated cell populations. Adv Complex Syst. 2005, 8: 319363. 10.1142/S0219525905000440.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Erban R, Othmer H: From signal transduction to spatial pattern formation in Ecoli: A paradigm for multiscale modeling in biology. Multiscale Model Sim. 2005, 3: 362394. 10.1137/040603565.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Salis H, Kaznessis YN: An equationfree probabilistic steadystate approximation: dynamic application to the stochastic simulation of biochemical reaction networks. The Journal of chemical physics. 2005, 123: 214106 10.1063/1.2131050View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Qiao L, Erban R, Kelley CT, Kevrekidis IG: Spatially distributed stochastic systems: Equationfree and equationassisted preconditioned computations. The Journal of chemical physics. 2006, 125: 204108 10.1063/1.2372492View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wendel S, Dibble C: Dynamic Agent Compression. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 2007, 10: 9Google Scholar
 Stage A, Crookston N, Monserud R: An aggregation algorithm for increasing the efficiency of populationmodels. Ecol Model. 1993, 68: 257271. 10.1016/03043800(93)90021J.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 OpenMP., http://www.openmp.org
 Gropp W, Lusk E, Doss N, Skjellum A: A highperformance, portable implementation of the MPI message passing interface standard. Parallel Comput. 1996, 22: 789828. 10.1016/01678191(96)000245.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chen N, Glazier JA, Izaguirre JA, Alber MS: A parallel implementation of the Cellular Potts Model for simulation of cellbased morphogenesis. Comput Phys Commun. 2007, 176: 670681. 10.1016/j.cpc.2007.03.007PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Asanovic K, Bodik R, Catanzaro BC, Gebis JJ, Husbands P, Keutzer K, Patterson DA, Plishker WL, Shalf J, Williams SW, Yelick KA: The Landscape of Parallel Computing Research: A View from Berkeley. 2006, EECS Department, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
 Manavski SA, Valle G: CUDA compatible GPU cards as efficient hardware accelerators for SmithWaterman sequence alignment. BMC Bioinformatics. 2008, 9 (Suppl 2): S10 10.1186/147121059S2S10PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schatz MC, Trapnell C, Delcher AL, Varshney A: Highthroughput sequence alignment using Graphics Processing Units. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8: 474 10.1186/147121058474PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chen C, Schmidt B, Weiguo L, MüllerWittig W: GPUMEME: Using Graphics Hardware to Accelerate Motif Finding in DNA Sequences. Proceedings of the Third IAPR International Conference on Pattern Recognition in Bioinformatics. 2008, 448459.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Raina R, Madhavan A, Ng A: Largescale deep unsupervised learning using graphics processors. ICML '09: Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning. 2009Google Scholar
 Stone JE, Phillips JC, Freddolino PL, Hardy DJ, Trabuco LG, Schulten K: Accelerating molecular modeling applications with graphics processors. J Comput Chem. 2007, 28: 26182640. 10.1002/jcc.20829View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Friedrichs MS, Eastman P, Vaidyanathan V, Houston M, Legrand S, Beberg AL, Ensign DL, Bruns CM, Pande VS: Accelerating molecular dynamic simulation on graphics processing units. J Comput Chem. 2009, 30: 864872. 10.1002/jcc.21209PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Dematté L, Prandi D: GPU computing for systems biology. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2010, 11: 323333. 10.1093/bib/bbq006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ackermann J, Baecher P, Franzel T, Goesele M, Hamacher K: MassivelyParallel Simulation of Biochemical Systems. Proceedings of Massively Parallel Computational Biology on GPUs. 2009, Lübeck, GermanyGoogle Scholar
 Li H, Petzold L: Efficient parallelization of stochastic simulation algorithm for chemically reacting systems on the graphics processing unit. International Journal of High Performance Computing Applications. 2009, 127.Google Scholar
 TapiaValenzuela JJ, D'Souza RM: Scaling the Gillespie stochastic simulation algorithm using dataparallel architectures. SwarmFest. Santa Fe, NM. 2009Google Scholar
 Langdon WB: A fast high quality pseudo random number generator for nVidia CUDA. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference Companion on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference: Late Breaking Papers. 2009, Montreal, Québec, Canada: ACMGoogle Scholar
 Mersenne Twister for Graphic Processors (MGMT)., http://www.math.sci.hiroshimau.ac.jp/~mmat/MT/MTGP/
 D'Souza RM, Lysenko M, Marino S, Kirschner D: Dataparallel algorithms for agentbased model simulation of tuberculosis on graphics processing units. SpringSim '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Sprint Simulation Multiconference. 2009, 112. San Diego, CA: Society for Computer Simulation InternationalGoogle Scholar
 Richmond P, Walker D, Coakley S, Romano D: High performance cellular level agentbased simulation with FLAME for the GPU. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2010, 11: 334347. 10.1093/bib/bbp073View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lysenko M, D'Souza RM: A Framework for Megascale Agent Based Model Simulations on Graphics Processing Units. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation. 2008, 11: 10Google Scholar
 D'Souza RM, Lysenko M, Rahmani K: Sugarscape on Steroids: Simulating Over a Million Agents at Interactive Rates. Proceedings of the Agent 2007 Conference. Chicago, IL. 2007Google Scholar
 FLAME., http://www.flame.ac.uk/
 Adra S, Sun T, MacNeil S, Holcombe M, Smallwood R: Development of a three dimensional multiscale computational model of the human epidermis. PLoS ONE. 2010, 5: e8511 10.1371/journal.pone.0008511PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Copasi., http://www.copasi.org
 Merks RMH, Glazier JA: A cellcentered approach to developmental biology. Physica A. 2005, 352: 113130. 10.1016/j.physa.2004.12.028.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Walker DC, Southgate J: The virtual cella candidate coordinator for 'middleout' modelling of biological systems. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2009, 10: 450461. 10.1093/bib/bbp010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sanderson A, Meyer M, Kirby R, Johnson C: A framework for exploring numerical solutions of advectionreactiondiffusion equations using a GPUbased approach. Comput Visual Sci. 2009, 12: 155170. 10.1007/s0079100800860.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Scarle S: Implications of the Turing completeness of reactiondiffusion models, informed by GPGPU simulations on an XBox 360: cardiac arrhythmias, reentry and the Halting problem. Computational biology and chemistry. 2009, 33: 253260. 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2009.05.001View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cickovski T, Huang C, Chaturvedi R, Glimm T, Hentschel H, Alber M, Glazier J, Newman S, Izaguirre J: A framework for threedimensional simulation of morphogenesis. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. 2005, 2: 273288. 10.1109/TCBB.2005.46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Glazier JA, Graner F: Simulation of the differential adhesion driven rearrangement of biological cells. Physical review E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics. 1993, 47: 21282154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Graner F, Glazier J: Simulation of biological cell sorting using a twodimensional extended Potts model. Physical Review Letters. 1992, 69: 20132016. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2013View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Christley S, Zhu X, Newman SA, Alber MS: Multiscale agentbased simulation for chondrogenic pattern formation in vitro. Cybernet Syst. 2007, 38: 707727. 10.1080/01969720701534125.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Christley S, Alber MS, Newman SA: Patterns of mesenchymal condensation in a multiscale, discrete stochastic model. PLoS Comput Biol. 2007, 3: e76 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030076PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 An G: In silico experiments of existing and hypothetical cytokinediyected clinical trials using agentbased modeling. Crit Care Med. 2004, 32: 20502060. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000139707.13729.7DView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Walker DC, Southgate J, Hill G, Holcombe M, Hose DR, Wood SM, Mac Neil S, Smallwood RH: The epitheliome: agentbased modelling of the social behaviour of cells. BioSystems. 2004, 76: 89100. 10.1016/j.biosystems.2004.05.025View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Schaller G, MeyerHermann M: A modelling approach towards epidermal homoeostasis control. J Theor Biol. 2007, 247: 554573. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.03.023View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Drasdo D, Kree R, McCaskill J: Monte Carlo approach to tissuecell populations. Physical review E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics. 1995, 52: 66356657.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Palsson E: A threedimensional model of cell movement in multicellular systems. Future Gener Comp Sy. 2001, 17: 835852. 10.1016/S0167739X(00)000625.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 MeyerHermann M: DelaunayObjectDynamics: cell mechanics with a 3D kinetic and dynamic weighted Delaunaytriangulation. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2008, 81: 373399. full_textView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Newman T: Modeling multicellular systems using subcellular elements. Math Biosci Eng. 2005, 2: 613624.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Armstrong PB: Cell sorting out: the selfassembly of tissues in vitro. Crit Rev Biochem Mol Biol. 1989, 24: 119149. 10.3109/10409238909086396View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Casal A, Sumen C, Reddy TE, Alber MS, Lee PP: Agentbased modeling of the context dependency in T cell recognition. J Theor Biol. 2005, 236: 376391. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.03.019View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kim SHJ, Park S, Mostov K, Debnath J, Hunt CA: Computational investigation of epithelial cell dynamic phenotype in vitro. Theoretical biology & medical modelling. 2009, 6: 8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Engelberg JA, Ropella GEP, Hunt CA: Essential operating principles for tumor spheroid growth. BMC systems biology. 2008, 2: 110 10.1186/175205092110PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Peirce S, Skalak T, Papin J: Multiscale biosystems integration: Coupling intracellular network analysis with tissuepatterning simulations. IBM Journal of Research and Development. 2006, 50: 601615. 10.1147/rd.506.0601.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Xu Z, Chen N, Kamocka MM, Rosen ED, Alber M: A multiscale model of thrombus development. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface/the Royal Society. 2008, 5: 705722. 10.1098/rsif.2007.1202PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Santoni D, Pedicini M, Castiglione F: Implementation of a regulatory gene network to simulate the TH1/2 differentiation in an agentbased model of hypersensitivity reactions. Bioinformatics. 2008, 24: 13741380. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn135View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 de Jong H: Modeling and simulation of genetic regulatory systems: a literature review. J Comput Biol. 2002, 9: 67103. 10.1089/10665270252833208View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gilbert D, Fuss H, Gu X, Orton R, Robinson S, Vyshemirsky V, Kurth MJ, Downes CS, Dubitzky W: Computational methodologies for modelling, analysis and simulation of signalling networks. Brief Bioinformatics. 2006, 7: 339353. 10.1093/bib/bbl043View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Aldridge BB, Burke JM, Lauffenburger DA, Sorger PK: Physicochemical modelling of cell signalling pathways. Nat Cell Biol. 2006, 8: 11951203. 10.1038/ncb1497View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gillespie D: Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J Phys ChemUs. 1977, 81: 23402361. 10.1021/j100540a008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gillespie DT: Stochastic simulation of chemical kinetics. Annual review of physical chemistry. 2007, 58: 3555. 10.1146/annurev.physchem.58.032806.104637View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pahle J: Biochemical simulations: stochastic, approximate stochastic and hybrid approaches. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2009, 10: 5364. 10.1093/bib/bbn050PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bansal M, Gatta GD, di Bernardo D: Inference of gene regulatory networks and compound mode of action from time course gene expression profiles. Bioinformatics. 2006, 22: 815822. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gustafsson M, Hornquist M, Lombardi A: Constructing and analyzing a largescale genetogene regulatory network Lassoconstrained inference and biological validation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. 2005, 2: 254261. 10.1109/TCBB.2005.35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Christley S, Nie Q, Xie X: Incorporating existing network information into gene network inference. PLoS ONE. 2009, 4: e6799 10.1371/journal.pone.0006799PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mendes P, Sha W, Ye K: Artificial gene networks for objective comparison of analysis algorithms. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19 (Suppl 2): ii122129.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Buchler NE, Gerland U, Hwa T: On schemes of combinatorial transcription logic. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 51365141. 10.1073/pnas.0930314100PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bintu L, Buchler NE, Garcia HG, Gerland U, Hwa T, Kondev J, Phillips R: Transcriptional regulation by the numbers: models. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2005, 15: 116124. 10.1016/j.gde.2005.02.007PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Fuchs E, Raghavan S: Getting under the skin of epidermal morphogenesis. Nat Rev Genet. 2002, 3: 199209. 10.1038/nrg758View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Fuchs E: Scratching the surface of skin development. Nature. 2007, 445: 834842. 10.1038/nature05659PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Candi E, Schmidt R, Melino G: The cornified envelope: a model of cell death in the skin. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005, 6: 328340. 10.1038/nrm1619View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lechler T, Fuchs E: Asymmetric cell divisions promote stratification and differentiation of mammalian skin. Nature. 2005, 437: 275280. 10.1038/nature03922PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wearing HJ, Sherratt JA: Keratinocyte growth factor signalling: a mathematical model of dermalepidermal interaction in epidermal wound healing. Mathematical biosciences. 2000, 165: 4162. 10.1016/S00255564(00)000080View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cai AQ, Landman KA, Hughes BD: Multiscale modeling of a woundhealing cell migration assay. J Theor Biol. 2007, 245: 576594. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.10.024View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grabe N, Neuber K: Simulating psoriasis by altering transit amplifying cells. Bioinformatics. 2007, 23: 13091312. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm042View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Laptev MV, Nikulin NK: Synchronization of oscillations of proliferation of keratinocytes in psoriatic skin by external periodic force: a mathematical model. J Theor Biol. 2005, 235: 485494. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.02.002View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Patel AB, Gibson WT, Gibson MC, Nagpal R: Modeling and inferring cleavage patterns in proliferating epithelia. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009, 5: e1000412 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000412PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Savill NJ, Sherratt JA: Control of epidermal stem cell clusters by Notchmediated lateral induction. Dev Biol. 2003, 258: 141153. 10.1016/S00121606(03)001076View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Naegel A, Heisig M, Wittum G: A comparison of two and threedimensional models for the simulation of the permeability of human stratum corneum. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009, 72: 332338. 10.1016/j.ejpb.2008.11.009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Das C, Noro MG, Olmsted PD: Simulation studies of stratum corneum lipid mixtures. Biophys J. 2009, 97: 19411951. 10.1016/j.bpj.2009.06.054PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Grabe N, Neuber K: A multicellular systems biology model predicts epidermal morphology, kinetics and Ca2+ flow. Bioinformatics. 2005, 21: 35413547. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti585View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Parkinson EK: Defective responses of transformed keratinocytes to terminal differentiation stimuli. Their role in epidermal tumour promotion by phorbol esters and by deep skin wounding. Br J Cancer. 1985, 52: 479493.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Li AG, Koster MI, Wang XJ: Roles of TGFbeta signaling in epidermal/appendage development. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. 2003, 14: 99111. 10.1016/S13596101(03)000054View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gardner TS, Cantor CR, Collins JJ: Construction of a genetic toggle switch in Escherichia coli. Nature. 2000, 403: 339342. 10.1038/35002131View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nair M, Teng A, Bilanchone V, Agrawal A, Li B, Dai X: Ovol1 regulates the growth arrest of embryonic epidermal progenitor cells and represses cmyc transcription. J Cell Biol. 2006, 173: 253264. 10.1083/jcb.200508196PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Teng A, Nair M, Wells J, Segre JA, Dai X: Straindependent perinatal lethality of Ovol1deficient mice and identification of Ovol2 as a downstream target of Ovol1 in skin epidermis. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2007, 1772: 8995.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wells J, Lee B, Cai A, Karapetyan A, Lee W, Rugg E, Sinha S, Nie Q, Dai X: Ovol2 suppresses cell cycling and terminal differentiation of keratinocytes by directly repressing cMyc and Notch1. J Biol Chem. 2009, 284: 2912529135. 10.1074/jbc.M109.008847PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Meir E, von Dassow G, Munro E, Odell GM: Robustness, flexibility, and the role of lateral inhibition in the neurogenic network. Curr Biol. 2002, 12: 778786. 10.1016/S09609822(02)008394View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wearing HJ, Owen MR, Sherratt JA: Mathematical modelling of juxtacrine patterning. Bull Math Biol. 2000, 62: 293320. 10.1006/bulm.1999.0152View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Owen MR, Sherratt JA: Mathematical modelling of juxtacrine cell signalling. Mathematical biosciences. 1998, 153: 125150. 10.1016/S00255564(98)100342View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Nvidia CUDA., http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home.html
 OpenCL., http://www.khronos.org/opencl/
 CUDPP., http://gpgpu.org/developer/cudpp
 Hoff K, Keyser J, Lin M, Manocha D, Culver T: Fast computation of generalized Voronoi diagrams using graphics hardware. SIGGRAPH '99: Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. 1999Google Scholar
 Vasconcelos CN, Sa A, Carvalho PC, Gattass M: Lloyd's Algorithm on GPU. LNCS 5358. 2008, 953964.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.