Figure 4.

Figure 4.

(A–F) Adult phenotype of the set of fish used to deduce S-iridophore interactions. (A) WT fish, (B) shady (shd), (C) nacre(nac), (D) pfeffer (pfe), (E) nac;pfe, (F) shd;pfe. (G) A representation of all the interactions implemented in the model. See Supplementary files 4 and 5 for a detailed justification of the rates and interaction types, respectively. See Supplementary file 6 for a detailed justification of all parameters. The direction of the arrow/inhibition sign indicates which cell is acting on which. For example in assumption 13, the blue arrow from melanophore to xanthophore indicates that melanophores attract (green background) xanthophores. The purple inhibition arrow indicates that the xanthophores repel melanophores. OR statements in assumptions 15–18 are logical OR statements. For example, conditons 15 and 16 indicate that a dense S-iridophore may become loose if there are melanophores in the short range OR, there are no xanthophores in the short range AND many xanthophores in the long range. (H) A visualisation of measurements HAA and SL. (I) Plots of SL versus days post-fertilisation (dpf) for 40 model realisations. Each coloured line is a single realisation. Black squares are SL versus days post-fertilisation extracted from Parichy et al., 2009 in real fish given in Supplementary file 3. Red diamonds are the mean SL versus days post-fertilisation from 40 simulations. (J) Plots of SL (mm) versus HAA (mm) for 40 model realisations. Each coloured line is a single realisation. Black squares are SL versus HAA extracted from Parichy et al., 2009 given in Supplementary file 3. Red diamonds are the mean HAA versus SL from 40 simulations. Error bars are one standard deviation. The model agrees well with the data in both cases. Images (A–F) reproduced from Frohnhöfer et al., 2013 and licensed under CC-BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).