4.7 Article

Phase-field modeling of the dynamics of multicomponent vesicles: Spinodal decomposition, coarsening, budding, and fission

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.79.031926

关键词

bending; biomechanics; biomembranes; finite element analysis; nonlinear equations; spinodal decomposition

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DMS-0612878]
  2. National Institutes of Health [P50GM76516]
  3. Center of Excellence in Systems Biology at the University of California, Irvine
  4. German Science Foundation [Vo899/6-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We develop a thermodynamically consistent phase-field model to simulate the dynamics of multicomponent vesicles. The model accounts for bending stiffness, spontaneous curvature, excess (surface) energy, and a line tension between the coexisting surface phases. Our approach is similar to that recently used by Wang and Du [J. Math. Biol. 56, 347 (2008)] with a key difference. Here, we concentrate on the dynamic evolution and solve the surface mass conservation equation explicitly; this equation was not considered by Wang and Du. The resulting fourth-order strongly coupled system of nonlinear nonlocal equations are solved numerically using an adaptive finite element numerical method. Although the system is valid for three dimensions, we limit our studies here to two dimensions where the vesicle is a curve. Differences between the spontaneous curvatures and the bending rigidities of the surface phases are found numerically to lead to the formation of buds, asymmetric vesicle shapes and vesicle fission even in two dimensions. In addition, simulations of configurations far from equilibrium indicate that phase separation via spinodal decomposition and coarsening not only affect the vesicle shape but also that the vesicle shape affects the phase separation dynamics, especially the coarsening and may lead to lower energy states than might be achieved by evolving initially phase-separated configurations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据