Readme.txt for figures_csv

The archive files contain the data used to generate figures in the paper
An Image-Based Model of Fluid Flow Through Lymph Nodes
Laura J Cooper, James P Heppell, Geraldine F Clough, Bharathram Ganapathisubrami, Tiina Roose
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology, submitted 2015

The corresponding figure legends from the paper are as follows:

Fig. 3 Comparison of efferent flow rate and afferent pressure for three different meshes for each node. The finest mesh is 1, the coarsest mesh is 4. The dotted lines shows the experimental measurement accuracy and the dashed lines show ± 1 standard deviation, based on the experimental data from four nodes with efferent lymphatic pressure 0 from Adair and Guyton (1985). The solid black line shows the result from the finest mesh. A) Efferent lymphatic flow for WT node, B) Afferent pressure for WT node, C) Efferent lymphatic flow for PLT node, D) Afferent pressure for PLT node.

Fig. 5 Comparison of WT model results for case where Δπ≥973 Pa, circles, to experimental data of four nodes, lines. Error bars show one standard deviation. A) Compares afferent pressure to efferent pressure. There is a good agreement with the experimental data B) Compares efferent flow rate to efferent pressure. The gradient of the model results is too shallow.

Fig. 6 Comparison of WT model results for case where Δπ≥0 Pa, circles, to experimental data of four nodes, lines. Error bars show one standard deviation. A) Compares afferent pressure to efferent pressure. B) Compares efferent flow rate to efferent pressure. Both graphs show good agreement to the experimental data. Green dots show model results.

Fig. 7 Comparison of PLT model results for case where Δπ≥0 Pa, circles, to experimental data of four nodes, lines. Error bars show one standard deviation. A) Compares afferent pressure to efferent pressure. B) Compares efferent flow rate to efferent pressure. Both graphs show good agreement to the experimental data. Green dots show model results. 

Fig. 10 Flux percentage difference for WT node. Comparison of the flux percentage difference though different annuli (shown in images below graph) through central 2D plane of lymph node. Values are normalised to constant results for comparison, hence all constant values are 0.

Fig. 11 Flux percentage difference for PLT node. Comparison of the flux percentage difference though different annuli (shown in images below graph) through central 2D plane of lymph node. Values are normalised to constant results for comparison, hence all constant values are 0.

Fig. 12 Comparison of WT model results for case where Δπ≥0 Pa and the permeability is related to the greyscale with the maximum gradient. The circles show the model results and the lines the experimental data. Error bars show one standard deviation. A) Compares afferent pressure to efferent pressure. B) Compares efferent flow rate to efferent pressure. Note that efferent flow rate is lower for the maximum gradient compared to the constant gradient.