
Citation: Natalia Y. Kovalskaya, Eleanor E. Herndon, Juli A. Foster-Frey, David M. Donovan, Rosemarie W. Hammond. Antimicrobial activity of bacteriophage derived triple fusion protein against Staphylococcus aureus[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(2): 158-175. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.2.158
[1] | Masoud Saade, Samiran Ghosh, Malay Banerjee, Vitaly Volpert . An epidemic model with time delays determined by the infectivity and disease durations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(7): 12864-12888. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023574 |
[2] | Sarita Bugalia, Jai Prakash Tripathi, Hao Wang . Mathematical modeling of intervention and low medical resource availability with delays: Applications to COVID-19 outbreaks in Spain and Italy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5865-5920. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021295 |
[3] | Mostafa Adimy, Abdennasser Chekroun, Claudia Pio Ferreira . Global dynamics of a differential-difference system: a case of Kermack-McKendrick SIR model with age-structured protection phase. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(2): 1329-1354. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020067 |
[4] | Dongmei Li, Bing Chai, Weihua Liu, Panpan Wen, Ruixue Zhang . Qualitative analysis of a class of SISM epidemic model influenced by media publicity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5727-5751. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020308 |
[5] | Lin Zhao, Zhi-Cheng Wang, Liang Zhang . Threshold dynamics of a time periodic and two–group epidemic model with distributed delay. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(5&6): 1535-1563. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017080 |
[6] | J. Amador, D. Armesto, A. Gómez-Corral . Extreme values in SIR epidemic models with two strains and cross-immunity. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 1992-2022. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019098 |
[7] | Edoardo Beretta, Dimitri Breda . An SEIR epidemic model with constant latency time and infectious period. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2011, 8(4): 931-952. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2011.8.931 |
[8] | Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Rabiu Musa, Jude D. Kong . A generalized distributed delay model of COVID-19: An endemic model with immunity waning. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5379-5412. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023249 |
[9] | Majid Jaberi-Douraki, Seyed M. Moghadas . Optimal control of vaccination dynamics during an influenza epidemic. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2014, 11(5): 1045-1063. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2014.11.1045 |
[10] | Kenji Itao, Fumiya Omata, Yoshitaka Nishikawa, Tetsuro Oda, Toshiharu Sasaki, Cherri Zhang, John Solomon Maninang, Takayuki Yamaguchi . Threshold phenomena with respect to the initiation of depopulation in a simple model of foot-and-mouth disease. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5931-5946. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019297 |
Mathematical modeling plays a crucial role in comprehending the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases, predicting the future trajectory of outbreaks, and assessing strategies for epidemic control [1]. Its significance has been underscored by successive epidemics of viral infections, such as HIV since the 1980s [2,3], the SARS epidemic in 2002–2003 [4,5], H5N1 influenza in 2005 [6,7], H1N1 in 2009 [8,9], Ebola in 2014 [10,11], and the recent COVID-19 pandemic [12,13].
Following the classical SIR (susceptible-infected-recovered) model developed by Kermack and McKendrick after the Spanish flu epidemic [14], several notable advancements have been made in epidemiological modeling. These advancements include the development of multi-compartment models [15,16,17,18,19], models incorporating either time-varying or non-linear disease transmission rates [20,21], multi-patch models [22,23], and multi-group models that consider the effect of disease and population heterogeneity [24]. Additionally, there are epidemic models that incorporate vaccinations and other control measures [25,26,27,28,29,30]. Moreover, spatio-temporal models have been employed to describe the random movement of individuals and the spatial distribution of infections [31,32]. In [33], the authors investigated a model that integrated asymptomatic and dead-infective subpopulations, along with vaccination, antiviral treatment controls, and impulsive culling actions. Reference [34] is devoted to multiple pathogen interactions in disease transmission with a susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS) model for each pathogen. For a comprehensive review of the literature, monographs [35,36] and review articles in [37,38] are available.
Time delays related to infection latency, disease duration and immunity waning directly influence disease transmission dynamics, response strategies, and the overall control of infectious outbreaks [39,40,41,42]. Despite advancements, limited research has been conducted on the impact of time delays in recovery and death rates within epidemiological models. In [43], the authors introduced a compartmental epidemiological model that incorporated distributed recovery and death rates. Under certain assumptions, this model can be reduced to the conventional SIR model. However, in most cases, the dynamics of the epidemic progression in this new model exhibit notable distinctions. To determine the distributed recovery and death rates, the authors evaluated COVID-19 data. By validating the model with epidemiological data from various countries, it demonstrated an improved agreement with the data compared to the SIR model. Furthermore, the authors estimated the time-dependent disease transmission rate. In [44], the authors utilized the average disease duration as the delay parameter to introduce a time delay in the recovery and death rates. The distributed model was discussed, and a delay model was derived. Epidemic characterization of the delay model was obtained. A numerical comparison was conducted among the distributed model, delay model, and conventional SIR model. Additionally, a method to estimate the disease duration using real disease incidence data was presented. The authors validated the delay model using epidemiological data from the COVID-19 epidemic and discussed the main outcomes and epidemiological implications of the proposed model. Moreover, apart from [44], the model proposed in [45] incorporated the infectivity period and disease duration instead of the incubation period, and did not include mandatory quarantine. This model considered the presence of exposed individuals and incorporated two time delays, namely the infectivity and disease duration.
In this study, we investigate epidemic models of either two viruses or viral strains. In the first model, we consider the presence of two viral strains, assuming that individuals recovered from either strain developed immunity to both strains. In the second model, we explore the scenario where individuals who have recovered from the first strain can be infected by the second strain, and similarly, individuals who have recovered from the second strain can be infected by the first strain. Here, we use the aforementioned modeling approach, based on distributed and point-wise delays in recovery and death rates.
The paper is structured as follows. In the first part, we introduce the model with distributed recovery and death rates in the presence of cross-immunity. We thoroughly examine the positiveness of solutions. Next, we reduce the distributed model to a conventional ODE model. Subsequently, we derive the delay model from the distributed model. Additionally, we determine the characteristics of epidemic progression for the delay model. Moreover, this structure is followed for the model without cross-immunity. The main outcomes of the proposed models and their epidemiological implications are discussed in the concluding section.
The recovery and death rates of infected individuals are influenced by the time elapsed since the onset of the disease. In this section, we will develop a model that takes the number of newly infected individuals and their time-dependent recovery and death rates into account [45]. We will examine various characteristics of this model and demonstrate that the conventional SIR model can be derived from the model under certain assumptions [43,44,45].
The following compartments of the total population $ N $ are considered:
● $ S(t) $ - susceptible individuals. They are not infected and can contract the disease.
● $ I_1(t) $ - infected of the first viral strain. They are infectious and can transmit disease.
● $ I_2(t) $ - infected of the second viral strain. They are infectious and can transmit disease.
● $ R_1(t) $ - recovered from the first viral strain. They have recovered from the infection and are no longer infected. They are immune to both strains.
● $ R_2(t) $ - recovered from the second viral strain. They have recovered from the infection and are no longer infected. They are immune to both strains.
● $ D_1(t) $ - deceased from the first viral strain.
● $ D_2(t) $ - deceased from the second viral strain.
We will use the following parameters and functions:
● The transmission rate of the first viral strain is denoted as $ \beta_1 $, while the transmission rate of the second viral strain is denoted as $ \beta_2 $.
● As a function of time since infection $ \eta $, the recovery rate of individuals infected with the first viral strain is represented by $ r_1(\eta) $. Similarly, as a function of time since infection $ \eta $, the recovery rate of individuals infected with the second viral strain, is represented by $ r_2(\eta) $.
● As a function of time since infection $ \eta $, the mortality rate of the first viral strain is denoted as $ d_1(\eta) $. Likewise, the mortality rate of the second viral strain is represented by $ d_2(\eta) $.
● The number of newly infected individuals by the first viral strain and the second viral strain, denoted as $ J_1(t) $ and $ J_2(t) $, respectively, is determined by the relations $ J_1(t) = (\beta_1SI_1)/N $ and $ J_2(t) = (\beta_2SI_2)/N $, respectively.
● The total number of individuals who have recovered from the first viral strain and the second viral strain at time $ t $ is represented by $ \int_{0}^{t} r_1(t - \eta) J_1(\eta) d\eta $ and $ \int_{0}^{t} r_2(t - \eta) J_2(\eta) d\eta $, respectively.
● The total number of individuals who have died from the first viral strain and the second viral strain at time $ t $ is represented by $ \int_{0}^{t} d_1(t - \eta) J_1(\eta) d\eta $ and $ \int_{0}^{t} d_2(t - \eta) J_2(\eta) d\eta $, respectively.
The two-strain model with distributed recovery and death rates has the following form:
$ dSdt=−J1(t)−J2(t), $
|
(2.1) |
$ dI1dt=J1(t)−∫t0r1(t−η)J1(η)dη−∫t0d1(t−η)J1(η)dη, $
|
(2.2) |
$ dI2dt=J2(t)−∫t0r2(t−η)J2(η)dη−∫t0d2(t−η)J2(η)dη, $
|
(2.3) |
$ dR1dt=∫t0r1(t−η)J1(η)dη, $
|
(2.4) |
$ dR2dt=∫t0r2(t−η)J2(η)dη, $
|
(2.5) |
$ dD1dt=∫t0d1(t−η)J1(η)dη, $
|
(2.6) |
$ dD2dt=∫t0d2(t−η)J2(η)dη. $
|
(2.7) |
The system is subject to the following initial condition:
$ S(0)=S0>0, I1(0)=I1,0>0, I2(0)=I2,0>0, R1(0)=R2(0)=D1(0)=D2(0)=0, $
|
(2.8) |
where $ I_{1, 0} $ and $ I_{2, 0} $ are sufficiently small as compared to $ N $. We suppose that the total population is constant :
$ N=S(t)+I1(t)+I2(t)+R1(t)+R2(t)+D1(t)+D2(t). $
|
(2.9) |
We establish the positiveness of the solution to this problem on a time interval $ t \in [0, T) $, where $ T \in (0, +\infty) $. We assume that the recovery and death rates satisfy the following inequalities:
$ ∫t0η(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))dη≤1, $
|
(2.10) |
$ ∫t0η(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))dη≤1, $
|
(2.11) |
for any $ \eta\geq 0 $ and $ t_0 > \eta $. These assumptions dictate that the number of recoveries and deaths on a given time interval cannot exceed the whole population.
Lemma 1. If conditions (2.10) and (2.11) are satisfied, then any solution of systems (2.1)–(2.7) with the initial condition (2.8) satisfies the inequality $ 0\leq X\leq N $, where
$ X\in\{S(t),I_1(t),I_2(t),R_1(t),R_2(t),D_1(t),D_2(t)\}. $ |
Proof. From Eq (2.1), we observe that if there exists a time $ t_{*} > 0 $ such that $ S(t_{*}) = 0 $, then $ \frac{dS}{dt}|_{t = t_{*}} = 0 $. This implies that $ S(t) \geq 0 $ for $ t > 0 $. By examining Eqs (2.4)–(2.7), we can deduce that $ R_1(t) $, $ R_2(t) $, $ D_1(t) $, and $ D_2(t) $ also remain positive for all values of $ t\geq 0 $. At $ t = 0 $, we have $ J_1(0) = {\beta_1S_0I_{1, 0}}/{N} > 0 $ and $ J_2(0) = {\beta_2S_0I_{2, 0}}/{N} > 0 $. Let $ t_0 > 0 $ be such that $ J_1(t) $ and $ J_2(t) $ remain non-negative for $ 0 \leq t < t_0 $. Next, we have the following:
$ I1(t0)=∫t00J1(t)dt−R1(t0)−D1(t0),I2(t0)=∫t00J2(t)dt−R2(t0)−D2(t0). $
|
Integrating Eqs (2.4)–(2.7) with respect to $ t $ from $ 0 $ to $ t_0 $, and taking into account the initial conditions given in (2.8), we obtain the following:
$ R1(t0)+D1(t0)=∫t00(∫t0(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))J1(η)dη)dt,R2(t0)+D2(t0)=∫t00(∫t0(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))J2(η)dη)dt. $
|
Changing the order of integration and taking the inequalities (2.10) and (2.11) into account, we discover the following:
$ R1(t0)+D1(t0)=∫t00(∫t0η(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))dt)J1(η)dη≤∫t00J1(η)dη, $
|
(2.12) |
$ R2(t0)+D2(t0)=∫t00(∫t0η(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))dt)J2(η)dη≤∫t00J2(η)dη. $
|
(2.13) |
It follows from inequalities (2.12) and (2.13) that $ I_1(t_0) $ and $ I_2(t_0) $ are non-negative. Consequently, $ J_1(t_0) $ and $ J_2(t_0) $ are also non-negative. This implies that $ I_1(t) $, $ I_2(t) $, $ J_1(t) $, and $ J_2(t) $ remain non-negative for all $ t \geq 0 $. Furthermore, we have the relation (2.9). Hence, any solution to the system lies within the range of $ 0 $ and $ N $, there by ensuring the non-negativity of the solution.
In this section, we show how models (2.1)–(2.7) can be reduced to the conventional ODE model. We consider the recovery and death rates in the following form:
$ r1(t)={r1,0 , 0≤t<τ10 , t>τ1, d1(t)={d1,0 , 0≤t<τ10 , t>τ1, $
|
(2.14) |
$ r2(t)={r2,0 , 0≤t<τ20 , t>τ2, d2(t)={d2,0 , 0≤t<τ20 , t>τ2. $
|
(2.15) |
The disease durations $ \tau_1 $ and $ \tau_2 $ and the parameters $ r_{1, 0} $, $ r_{2, 0} $, $ d_{1, 0} $ and $ d_{2, 0} $ are positive constants. By substituting these functions into Eqs (2.4)–(2.7), we obtain the following expressions:
$ dR1dt=r1,0∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη, dD1dt=d1,0∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη, $
|
(2.16) |
$ dR2dt=r2,0∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη, dD2dt=d2,0∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη. $
|
(2.17) |
By integrating Eq (2.16) from $ t-\tau_1 $ to $ t $ and Eq (2.17) from $ t-\tau_2 $ to $ t $, we obtain the following:
$ R1(t)−R1(t−τ1)=r1,0∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds, $
|
(2.18) |
$ D1(t)−D1(t−τ1)=d1,0∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds, $
|
(2.19) |
$ R2(t)−R2(t−τ2)=r2,0∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds, $
|
(2.20) |
$ D2(t)−D2(t−τ2)=d2,0∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds. $
|
(2.21) |
Therefore,
$ I1(t)=∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη−(R1(t)−R1(t−τ1))−(D1(t)−D1(t−τ1)), $
|
(2.22) |
$ I2(t)=∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη−(R2(t)−R2(t−τ1))−(D2(t)−D2(t−τ1)). $
|
(2.23) |
We note that $ (R_1(t) - R_1(t-\tau_1)) $ and $ (D_1(t) - D_1(t-\tau_1)) $ correspond to the number of individuals who have recovered and died from the first viral strain during the time interval $ (t-\tau_1, t) $, respectively. Similarly, $ (R_2(t) - R_2(t-\tau_2)) $ and $ (D_2(t) - D_2(t-\tau_2)) $ represent the number of individuals who have recovered and died from the second viral strain during the time interval $ (t-\tau_2, t) $, respectively. From Eqs (2.18)–(2.21), we have the following:
$ I1(t)=∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη−(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds, $
|
(2.24) |
$ I2(t)=∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη−(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds. $
|
(2.25) |
Now, from (2.22)–(2.25),
$ dI1dt=β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη=β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)[I1(t)+(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds],dI2dt=β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη=β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)[I2(t)+(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds]. $
|
Under the assumption that $ (r_{1, 0}+d_{1, 0}) $ and $ (r_{2, 0}+d_{2, 0}) $ are sufficiently small, we can disregard the terms involving $ (r_{1, 0}+d_{1, 0})^2 $ and $ (r_{2, 0}+d_{2, 0})^2 $. Consequently, we obtain the following:
$ dI1dt≃β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)I1,dI2dt≃β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)I2. $
|
In this case, the system represented by Eqs (2.1)–(2.7) is simplified to the following conventional ODE model:
$ dSdt=−β1SNI1−β2SNI2,dI1dt=β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)I1,dI2dt=β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)I2,dR1dt=r1,0I1, dR2dt=r2,0I2,dD1dt=d1,0I1, dD2dt=d2,0I2. $
|
Therefore, assuming that the recovery and death rates have uniform distributions as given in Eqs (2.14) and (2.15), and that they are sufficiently small, we can reduce models (2.1)–(2.7) to the ODE model. However, it is important to note that, in general, these assumptions may not hold, and we can consider different distributions for recovery and death rates.
Let us recall that the duration of the first disease is denoted by $ \tau_1 $, and the duration of the second disease by $ \tau_2 $. Additionally, suppose that individuals $ J_1(t-\tau_1) $ and $ J_2(t-\tau_2) $ infected at time $ t-\tau_1 $ and $ t-\tau_2 $, respectively, either recover or die at time $ t $ with certain probabilities. This assumption corresponds to the following choices for the functions $ r_1(t-\eta) $, $ r_2(t-\eta) $, $ d_1(t-\eta) $, and $ d_2(t-\eta) $:
$ r_1(t-\tau_1) = r_{1,0}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_1), \ \,r_2(t-\tau_2) = r_{2,0}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_2), $ |
$ \,d_1(t-\tau_1) = d_{1,0}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_1), \ \,d_2(t-\tau_2) = d_{2,0}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_2) , $ |
where $ r_{1, 0} $, $ r_{2, 0} $, $ d_{1, 0} $, $ d_{2, 0} $ are constants, $ r_{1, 0} +d_{1, 0} = 1 $ and $ r_{2, 0} +d_{2, 0} = 1 $, and $ \delta $ is the Dirac delta-function. Then,
$ \dfrac{dR_1}{dt} = \int_{0}^{t}r_1(t-\eta)J_1(\eta)d\eta = r_{1,0}\int_{0}^{t}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_1)J_1(\eta)d\eta = r_{1,0}J_1(t-\tau_1) , $ |
$ \dfrac{dR_2}{dt} = \int_{0}^{t}r_2(t-\eta)J_2(\eta)d\eta = r_{2,0}\int_{0}^{t}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_2)J_2(\eta)d\eta = r_{2,0}J_2(t-\tau_2) , $ |
$ \dfrac{dD_1}{dt} = \int_{0}^{t}d_1(t-\eta)J_1(\eta)d\eta = d_{1,0}\int_{0}^{t}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_1)J_1(\eta)d\eta = d_{1,0}J_1(t-\tau_1) , $ |
$ \dfrac{dD_2}{dt} = \int_{0}^{t}d_2(t-\eta)J_2(\eta)d\eta = d_{2,0}\int_{0}^{t}\delta(t-\eta-\tau_2)J_2(\eta)d\eta = d_{2,0}J_2(t-\tau_2) . $ |
Therefore, the systems (2.1)–(2.7) are reduced to the following delay model:
$ dSdt=−J1(t)−J2(t), $
|
(3.1) |
$ dIidt=Ji(t)−Ji(t−τi),i=1,2, $
|
(3.2) |
$ dRidt=ri,0Ji(t−τi),i=1,2, $
|
(3.3) |
$ dDidt=di,0Ji(t−τi),i=1,2 $
|
(3.4) |
with $ J_1(t) = J_2(t) = 0 $ for $ t < 0 $.
Let us consider Eq (3.2) for the infected compartments:
$ dIidt=βiS(t)Ii(t)N−βiS(t−τi)Ii(t−τi)N, i=1,2. $
|
(3.5) |
To determine the basic reproduction numbers $ \mathcal{R}_{01} $ and $ \mathcal{R}_{02} $. We set $ S(t) = S(t-\tau_1) = S(t-\tau_2) = S_0 $ since the number of susceptible individuals is close to its initial condition in the beginning of the epidemic. Then, according to (3.5), we have
$ dIidt=βiS0N(Ii(t)−Ii(t−τi)), i=1,2. $
|
Substituting $ I_i(t) = I_{0i} e^{\lambda_it} $, $ i = 1, 2 $, we have for $ i = 1, 2 $
$ λi=βiS0N(1−e−λiτi). $
|
(3.6) |
Let
$ Gi(λi)=βiS0N(1−e−λiτi). $
|
It is evident that Eq (3.6) have solutions (i.e., $ \lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = 0 $) and a non-zero solution, the sign of which is determined by $ G_i'(0) $. Denote
$ R0i=G′i(0)=βiS0τiN. $
|
Let $ \mathcal R_{01} > 1 $ and $ \mathcal R_{02} > 1 $. This means that $ G_1^{'}(0) > 1 $ and $ G_2^{'}(0) > 1 $. We see that $ G_1(\lambda_1) $ and $ G_2(\lambda_2) $ are increasing functions of $ \lambda_1 $ and $ \lambda_2 $, respectively, with $ G_1(\lambda_1)\to \frac{\beta_1S_0}{N} $ as $ \lambda_1\to \infty $ and $ G_2(\lambda_2)\to \frac{\beta_2S_0}{N} $ as $ \lambda_2\to\infty $. This implies that Eq (3.6) has positive solutions, (i.e., there exist $ \lambda_1^{*} > 0 $ and $ \lambda_2^{*} > 0 $ such that $ G_i(\lambda_i^{*}) = \lambda_i^{*} $, $ i = 1, 2 $).
If $ G_i^{'}(0) < 1 $, then
$ Gi′(λi)=βiS0τiNe−λiτi<1, $
|
for all $ \lambda_1\geq 0 $ and $ \lambda_2\geq 0 $. Hence, there is no positive solution to the equation $ G_i(\lambda_i) = \lambda_i $, $ i = 1, 2 $. Consequently, the basic reproduction numbers can be expressed as follows:
$ \mathcal R_{0i} = \frac{\beta_iS_0\tau_i}{N}, \ \ \ i = 1,2. $ |
Next, we aim to estimate the final size of the susceptible compartment $ S_{\infty} = \lim\limits_{t\to \infty} S(t) $. Integrating (3.2), we obtain the following:
$ I1(t)=∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη,I2(t)=∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη. $
|
From (3.1), we obtain the following:
$ dS(t)dt=−β1S(t)N∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη−β2S(t)N∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη. $
|
Then, integrating from $ 0 $ to $ \infty $, we obtain the following:
$ ln(S0S∞)=β1N∫∞0(∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη)dt+β2N∫∞0(∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη)dt. $
|
Changing the order of integration, we obtain the following:
$ ln(S0S∞)=β1N[∫0−τ1(∫η+τ10J1(η)dt)dη+∫∞0(∫η+τ1ηJ1(η)dt)dη]+β2N[∫0−τ2(∫η+τ20J2(η)dt)dη+∫∞0(∫η+τ2ηJ2(η)dt)dη].=β1N[∫0−τ1(η+τ1)J1(η)dη+∫∞0τ1J1(η)dη]+β2N[∫0−τ2(η+τ2)J2(η)dη+∫∞0τ2J2(η)dη]. $
|
Now, integrating (3.1) from $ 0 $ to $ \infty $, we obtain the following:
$ ∫∞0(J1(η)+J2(η))dη=S0−S∞. $
|
Since $ J_1(t) = 0 $ for all $ t\in [-\tau_1, 0] $ and $ J_2(t) = 0 $ for all $ t\in [-\tau_2, 0] $, then
$ ln(S0S∞)=β1N∫∞0τ1J1(η)dη+β2N∫∞0τ2J2(η)dη≤max(β1τ1S0N,β2τ2S0N)1S0∫∞0(J1(η)+J2(η))dη. $
|
Thus, we obtain an upper bound for the final size:
$ ln(S0S∞)≤max(R01,R02)(1−S∞S0). $
|
In the same way, we obtain a lower bound for the final size:
$ ln(S0S∞)≥min(R01,R02)(1−S∞S0) $
|
Hence, we obtain a two-sided estimate for $ S_\infty $:
$ min(R01,R02)(1−S∞S0)≤ln(S0S∞)≤max(R01,R02)(1−S∞S0). $
|
(3.7) |
Let us recall that in the case of a single strain, there is an equation for $ S_\infty $ instead of the inequalities.
For the delay models (3.1)–(3.4), we compare the maximum of infected by each virus. We chose the following values for the parameters: $ N = 10^4 $, $ I_{1, 0} = I_{2, 0} = 1 $, $ \beta_2 = 0.2 $, $ r_{1, 0} = 0.7 $, $ r_{2, 0} = 0.6 $, $ d_{1, 0} = 0.3 $, $ d_{2, 0} = 0.4 $, $ \tau_1 = 15.7 $ and $ \tau_2 = 17.7 $.
Figure 1 shows the number of infected individuals in time for each strain. In the first case, when $ \mathcal{R}_{01} > \mathcal{R}_{02} $, the maximum of infected individuals is higher for the first strain. In the other case, when $ \mathcal{R}_{01} < \mathcal{R}_{02} $, we obtain the same result. Therefore, the domination of the strains is not uniquely determined by the basic reproduction numbers but rather by the individual parameters.
Next, we choose the following values for the parameters: $ N = 10^4 $, $ I_{1, 0} = I_{2, 0} = 1 $, $ r_{1, 0} = 0.7 $, $ r_{2, 0} = 0.6 $, $ d_{1, 0} = 0.3 $, $ d_{2, 0} = 0.4 $, $ \tau_1 = 15.7 $ and $ \tau_2 = 17.7 $, and vary the values of $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $ in the interval $ [0.1, 0.5] $. Figures 2–4 display the dependence of the maximal number of infected $ I_{1m} $ and $ I_{2m} $, the time to the maximal number of infected for the first and the second virus and the total number of infected of the two virus of the models (3.1)–(3.4) on $ \beta_1 $, $ \beta_2 $.
Figure 2(a) shows when the transmission rate, $ \beta_2 $, is fixed and the evolution of the epidemic peak is examined in relation to variations in $ \beta_1 $. As $ \beta_1 $ increases, the epidemic peak corresponding to the first virus also increases; for the second virus, the epidemic peak gradually decreases, and the number of individuals infected by the second virus decreases.
In other words, when comparing the impact of the first and second virus by modifying the transmission rate of the first virus, while keeping the transmission rate of the second epidemic constant, we observe that the first virus becomes more prevalent and reaches a higher epidemic peak as the transmission rate increases. On the other hand, the second virus is gradually eliminated, and its epidemic peak decreases as the transmission rate of the first virus increases.
It is interesting to note that in Figure 2(b), when $ \beta_1 $ is fixed and $ \beta_2 $ varies, we observe the opposite phenomenon. As $ \beta_2 $ increases, the epidemic peak corresponding to the second virus also increases; while for the first virus, the epidemic peak gradually decreases. The last two graphs (c) and (d) present the variation of the epidemic peak for both viruses in relation to $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $. These observations underscore the importance of the transmission rate in the spread of epidemics and how different values of $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $ can influence the evolution of different epidemics.
The relationship between the timing of the epidemic peak and $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $ can be complex. For $ \beta_1 > \beta_2 $, if the two viruses infect the same number of individuals, then the first strain reaches the maximum faster than the other. Additionally, if the difference between $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $ is large, then we can expect that the difference between $ t_{1m} $ and $ t_{2m} $ is also large, though this is not the case here. If $ \beta_1 > \beta_2 $, the first strain infects more individuals to reach the maximum though it is faster, and the second strain infects less individuals to reach the maximum, though it is slower. Therefore, if $ \beta_1 $ is very large compared to $ \beta_2 $, this does not imply that $ t_{1m} $ will be very large compared to $ t_{2m} $. As a result, the difference between the transmission rates does not strongly influence the peak time. Thus, $ t_{1m} $ is either equal or very close to $ t_{2m} $ (see Figure 3).
In terms of the dependence on $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $ for the number of individuals affected by the first and second viruses, we can observe a similar phenomenon as seen in the epidemic peak (see Figure 4). As $ \beta_1 $ increases, the number of individuals affected by the first virus tends to increase. This indicates that a higher transmission rate for the first virus leads to a larger population being infected by it compared to a larger population affected by the first virus. On the other hand, as $ \beta_1 $ increases, the number of individuals affected by the second virus gradually decreases. This suggests that the second virus experiences a decline in its transmission and a lower number of individuals become infected by it.
Similarly, when $ \beta_2 $ is varied while keeping $ \beta_1 $ constant, higher values of $ \beta_2 $ can lead to an increase in the number of individuals affected by the second virus; alternatively, the number of individuals affected by the first virus may decrease.
Finally, we estimate the inequality terms of (3.7). Let
$ S_l = \min(\mathcal{R}_{01},\mathcal{R}_{02}) \bigg(1-\frac{S_\infty}{S_0}\bigg),\; \; S_m = \ln\bigg(\dfrac{S_0}{S_\infty}\bigg),\; \; S_u = \max(\mathcal{R}_{01},\mathcal{R}_{02}) \bigg(1-\frac{S_\infty}{S_0}\bigg). $ |
In Figure 5, we can see that the graph of $ S_m $ is very close to the graph of $ S_u $. This result suggests the following conjecture:
$ \ln\bigg(\dfrac{S_0}{S_\infty}\bigg)\simeq\max(\mathcal{R}_{01},\mathcal{R}_{02}) \bigg(1-\frac{S_\infty}{S_0}\bigg). $ |
In this section, we study a similar model assuming that individuals who have recovered from the first viral strain can be infected by the second viral strain, and individuals who have recovered from the second viral strain can be infected by the first viral strain.
Let $ J_{12}(t) = ({\epsilon_1\beta_2I_2R_1})/{N} $ represent the number of individuals who have previously recovered from the first viral strain and are newly infected with the second viral strain. Similarly, $ J_{21}(t) = ({\epsilon_2\beta_1I_1R_2})/{N} $ represents the number of individuals who have previously recovered from the second viral strain and are newly infected with the first viral strain, where $ \epsilon_1 $ and $ \epsilon_2 $ are constants that indicate the level of cross-immunity. For $ \epsilon_1 = \epsilon_2 = 0 $, there is complete cross-immunity. For $ \epsilon_1 = $ $ \epsilon_2 = 1 $, there is the absence of cross-immunity. In this modified system, we introduce additional variables to account for individuals who have recovered from one strain and are subsequently infected with the other strain. Let us define the following variables:
● $ I_{12}(t) $ - infected with the first viral strain initially and later infected with the second viral strain.
● $ I_{21}(t) $ - infected with the second viral strain initially and later infected with the first viral strain.
● $ R_{12}(t) $ - recovered from the first viral strain initially and later infected with the second viral strain, becoming immune to both strains.
● $ R_{21}(t) $ - recovered from the second viral strain initially and later infected with the first viral strain, becoming immune to both strains.
● $ D_{12}(t) $ - recovered from the first viral strain initially and later die due to the second viral strain.
● $ D_{21}(t) $ - recovered from the second viral strain initially and later die due to the first viral strain.
The individuals that are recovered and infected at time $ t - \eta $ with the first viral strain and the second viral strain are represented by $ J_{21}(t - \eta) $ and $ J_{12}(t - \eta) $, respectively. With these additional variables, the system can be expressed as follows, using the same notations as in the second section :
$ dSdt=−J1(t)−J2(t), $
|
(5.1) |
$ dI1dt=J1(t)−∫t0r1(t−η)J1(η)dη−∫t0d1(t−η)J1(η)dη, $
|
(5.2) |
$ dI2dt=J2(t)−∫t0r2(t−η)J2(η)dη−∫t0d2(t−η)J2(η)dη, $
|
(5.3) |
$ dR1dt=∫t0r1(t−η)J1(η)dη−J12(t), $
|
(5.4) |
$ dR2dt=∫t0r2(t−η)J2(η)dη−J21(t), $
|
(5.5) |
$ dI12dt=J12(t)−∫t0r2(t−η)J12(η)dη−∫t0d2(t−η)J12(η)dη, $
|
(5.6) |
$ dI21dt=J21(t)−∫t0r1(t−η)J21(η)dη−∫t0d1(t−η)J21(η)dη, $
|
(5.7) |
$ dR12dt=∫t0r2(t−η)J12(η)dη, $
|
(5.8) |
$ dR21dt=∫t0r1(t−η)J21(η)dη, $
|
(5.9) |
$ dD1dt=∫t0d1(t−η)J1(η)dη, $
|
(5.10) |
$ dD2dt=∫t0d2(t−η)J2(η)dη, $
|
(5.11) |
$ dD12dt=∫t0d2(t−η)J12(η)dη, $
|
(5.12) |
$ dD21dt=∫t0d1(t−η)J21(η)dη. $
|
(5.13) |
The system is subject to the following initial condition:
$ S(0)=S0>0, I1(0)=I1,0>0, I2(0)=I2,0>0, R1(0)=R2(0)=I12(0)=I21(0)=R12(0)=R21(0)=D1(0)=D2(0)=D12(0)=D21(0)=0, $
|
(5.14) |
where $ I_{1, 0} $ and $ I_{2, 0} $ are sufficiently small as compared to $ N $. We assume that the total population is constant :
$ N=S(t)+I1(t)+I2(t)+R1(t)+R2(t)+I12(t)+I21(t)+R12(t)+R21(t)+D1(t)+D2(t)+D12(t)+D21(t). $
|
(5.15) |
We prove the positivity of the solution to this problem on a time interval $ [0, T) $ where $ T\in (0, +\infty) $. We make the assumption that the recovery and death rates satisfy the inequalities (2.10) and (2.11).
Lemma 2. If conditions (2.10) and (2.11) are satisfied, then any solution of systems (5.1)–(5.13) with the initial condition (5.14) satisfies the inequality $ 0\leq X \leq N $, where
$ X\in \{S(t),I_1(t),I_2(t),R_1(t),R_2(t),I_{12}(t),I_{21}(t),R_{12}(t),R_{21}(t),D_1(t), D_2(t),D_{12}(t),D_{21}(t)\}. $ |
Proof. From Eq (5.1), we can observe that if there exists a $ t_{*} > 0 $ such that $ S(t_{*}) = 0 $, then $ \frac{dS}{dt}\big|_{t = t_{*}} = 0 $. This implies that $ S(t)\geq0 $ for $ t > 0 $. Furthermore, based on Eqs (5.4), (5.5), and (5.8)–(5.13), we can conclude that $ R_1(t) $, $ R_2(t) $, $ R_{12}(t) $, $ R_{21}(t) $, $ D_1(t) $, $ D_2(t) $, $ D_{12}(t) $, and $ D_{21}(t) $ also remain positive for all values of $ t $. At $ t = 0 $, we have $ J_1(0) = {\beta_1S_0I_{1, 0}}/{N} > 0 $, $ J_2(0) = {\beta_2S_0I_{2, 0}}/{N} > 0 $ and $ J_{12}(0) = J_{21}(0) = 0 $. Suppose $ t_0 > 0 $ be such that $ J_1(t) $, $ J_2(t) $, $ J_{12}(t) $, $ J_{21}(t) $ remain non-negative for $ 0 \leq t < t_0 $. Next, we have the following:
$ I1(t0)=∫t00J1(t)dt−R1(t0)−D1(t0)−∫t00J12(t)dt,I2(t0)=∫t00J2(t)dt−R2(t0)−D2(t0)−∫t00J21(t)dt. $
|
By integrating (5.4), (5.5), (5.10) and (5.11) with respect to $ t $ from $ 0 $ to $ t_0 $, and using the initial conditions given in (5.14), obtain the following:
$ R1(t0)+D1(t0)=∫t00(∫t0(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))J1(η)dη)dt−∫t00J12(t)dt,R2(t0)+D2(t0)=∫t00(∫t0(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))J2(η)dη)dt−∫t00J21(t)dt. $
|
Changing the order of integration and using the inequalities (2.10) and (2.11), we observe the following:
$ R1(t0)+D1(t0)=∫t00(∫t0η(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))dt)J1(η)dη−∫t00J12(t)dt≤∫t00J1(η)dη−∫t00J12(t)dt, $
|
(5.16) |
$ R2(t0)+D2(t0)=∫t00(∫t0η(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))dt)J2(η)dη−∫t00J21(t)dt≤∫t00J2(η)dη−∫t00J21(t)dt. $
|
(5.17) |
It follows from the inequalities (5.16) and (5.17) that $ I_1(t_0) $ and $ I_2(t_0) $ are both non-negative. Consequently, $ J_1(t_0) $, $ J_2(t_0) $, $ J_{12}(t_0) $ and $ J_{21}(t_0) $ are also non-negative. Thus, we have shown that $ I_1(t) $, $ I_2(t) $, $ J_1(t) $, $ J_2(t) $, $ J_{12}(t) $ and $ J_{21}(t) $ remain non-negative for all $ t \geq 0 $. On the other hand, we have the following:
$ I12(t0)=∫t00J12(t)dt−R12(t0)−D12(t0),I21(t0)=∫t00J21(t)dt−R21(t0)−D21(t0). $
|
By integrating (5.8), (5.9), (5.12) and (5.13) with respect to $ t $ from $ 0 $ to $ t_0 $ and using the initial conditions (5.14), we obtain the following:
$ R12(t0)+D12(t0)=∫t00(∫t0(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))J12(η)dη)dt,R21(t0)+D21(t0)=∫t00(∫t0(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))J21(η)dη)dt. $
|
Changing the order of integration and using inequalities (2.10) and (2.11), we observe the following:
$ R12(t0)+D12(t0)=∫t00(∫t0η(r2(t−η)+d2(t−η))dt)J12(η)dη≤∫t00J12(η)dη, $
|
(5.18) |
$ R21(t0)+D21(t0)=∫t00(∫t0η(r1(t−η)+d1(t−η))dt)J21(η)dη≤∫t00J21(η)dη. $
|
(5.19) |
It follows from the inequalities (5.18) and (5.19) that $ I_{12}(t_0) $ and $ I_{21}(t_0) $ are both non-negative. Consequently, $ I_{12}(t) $ and $ I_{21}(t) $ remain non-negative for all $ t \geq 0 $. Furthermore, we have (5.15). Thus, any solution of system (5.1)–(5.13) lies between $ 0 $ and $ N $, thereby ensuring the non-negativity of the solution. $ \Box $
In this section, we demonstrate that models (5.1)–(5.13) can be reduced to a conventional ODE model under certain assumptions. Let us assume that the recovery and death rates are given by the following functions :
$ r1(t)={r1,0 , 0≤t<τ10 , t>τ1, d1(t)={d1,0 , 0≤t<τ10 , t>τ1, $
|
(5.20) |
$ r2(t)={r2,0 , 0≤t<τ20 , t>τ2, d2(t)={d2,0 , 0≤t<τ20 , t>τ2, $
|
(5.21) |
The disease durations $ \tau_1, \tau_2 > 0 $ and the parameters $ r_{1, 0} $, $ r_{2, 0} $, $ d_{1, 0} $ and $ d_{2, 0} $ are positive constants. By substituting these functions in (5.4), (5.5) and (5.8)–(5.13), we obtain the following:
$ dR1dt=r1,0∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη−J12(t), dD1dt=d1,0∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη, $
|
(5.22) |
$ dR2dt=r2,0∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη−J21(t), dD2dt=d2,0∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη, $
|
(5.23) |
$ dR12dt=r2,0∫tt−τ2J12(η)dη, dD12dt=d2,0∫tt−τ2J12(η)dη, $
|
(5.24) |
$ dR21dt=r1,0∫tt−τ1J21(η)dη, dD21dt=d1,0∫tt−τ1J21(η)dη. $
|
(5.25) |
By integrating Eqs (5.22) and (5.25) from $ t-\tau_1 $ to $ t $, and Eqs (5.23) and (5.24) from $ t-\tau_2 $ to $ t $, we obtain the following:
$ R1(t)−R1(t−τ1)=r1,0∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds−∫tt−τ1J12(η)dη, $
|
(5.26) |
$ D1(t)−D1(t−τ1)=d1,0∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.27) |
$ R2(t)−R2(t−τ2)=r2,0∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds−∫tt−τ2J21(η)dη, $
|
(5.28) |
$ D2(t)−D2(t−τ2)=d2,0∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.29) |
$ R21(t)−R21(t−τ1)=r1,0∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J21(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.30) |
$ D21(t)−D21(t−τ1)=d1,0∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J21(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.31) |
$ R12(t)−R12(t−τ2)=r2,0∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J12(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.32) |
$ D12(t)−D12(t−τ2)=d2,0∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J12(η)dη)ds. $
|
(5.33) |
Thus,
$ I1(t)=∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη−(R1(t)−R1(t−τ1))+∫tt−τ1J12(η)dη−(D1(t)−D1(t−τ1)), $
|
(5.34) |
$ I2(t)=∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη−(R2(t)−R2(t−τ2))+∫tt−τ2J21(η)dη−(D2(t)−D2(t−τ2)), $
|
(5.35) |
$ I21(t)=∫tt−τ1J21(η)dη−(R21(t)−R21(t−τ1))−(D21(t)−D21(t−τ1)), $
|
(5.36) |
$ I12(t)=∫tt−τ2J12(η)dη−(R12(t)−R12(t−τ2))−(D12(t)−D12(t−τ2)), $
|
(5.37) |
where $ (R_1(t)-R_1(t-\tau_1)) $ and $ (D_1(t)-D_1(t-\tau_1)) $ represent the number of individuals who have recovered and died from the first viral strain during the time interval $ (t-\tau_1, t) $, respectively. Similarly, $ (R_2(t)-R_2(t-\tau_2)) $ and $ (D_2(t)-D_2(t-\tau_2)) $ represent the number of individuals who have recovered and died from the second viral strain during the time interval $ (t-\tau_2, t) $, respectively. Moreover, the expressions $ (R_{21}(t)-R_{21}(t-\tau_1)) $, $ (R_{12}(t)-R_{12}(t-\tau_2)) $, $ (D_{21}(t)-D_{21}(t-\tau_1)) $, and $ (D_{12}(t)-D_{12}(t-\tau_2)) $ characterize the difference in the number of recovered and died individuals for two viral strains at different time intervals. Hence, from (5.26)–(5.33), we have the following:
$ I1(t)=∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη−(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.38) |
$ I2(t)=∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη−(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.39) |
$ I21(t)=∫tt−τ1J21(η)dη−(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J21(η)dη)ds, $
|
(5.40) |
$ I12(t)=∫tt−τ2J12(η)dη−(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J12(η)dη)ds. $
|
(5.41) |
Now, from (5.38)–(5.41),
$ dI1dt=β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1J1(η)dη=β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)[I1(t)+(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J1(η)dη)ds], $
|
(5.42) |
$ dI2dt=β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη=β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)[I2(t)+(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J2(η)dη)ds], $
|
(5.43) |
$ dI21dt=ϵ2β1R2NI1−(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1J21(η)dη=ϵ2β1R2NI1−(r1,0+d1,0)[I21(t)+(r1,0+d1,0)∫tt−τ1(∫ss−τ1J21(η)dη)ds], $
|
(5.44) |
$ dI12dt=ϵ1β2R1NI2−(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2J2(η)dη=ϵ1β2R1NI2−(r2,0+d2,0)[I12(t)+(r2,0+d2,0)∫tt−τ2(∫ss−τ2J12(η)dη)ds]. $
|
(5.45) |
Assuming that $ (r_{1, 0}+d_{1, 0}) $ and $ (r_{2, 0}+d_{2, 0}) $ are small enough, we neglect the terms involving $ (r_{1, 0}+d_{1, 0})^2 $ and $ (r_{2, 0}+d_{2, 0})^2 $. Hence, we obtain the following:
$ dI1dt≃β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)I1, $
|
(5.46) |
$ dI2dt≃β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)I2, $
|
(5.47) |
$ dI21dt≃ϵ2β1R2NI1−(r1,0+d1,0)I21, $
|
(5.48) |
$ dI12dt≃ϵ1β2R1NI2−(r2,0+d2,0)I12. $
|
(5.49) |
In this case, systems (5.1)–(5.13) is reduced to the following conventional ODE model:
$ dSdt=−β1SNI1−β2SNI2,dI1dt=β1SNI1−(r1,0+d1,0)I1,dI2dt=β2SNI2−(r2,0+d2,0)I2,dR1dt=r1,0I1−ϵ1β2R1NI2,dR2dt=r2,0I2−ϵ2β1R2NI1,dI21dt=ϵ2β1R2NI1−(r1,0+d1,0)I21,dI12dt=ϵ1β2R1NI2−(r2,0+d2,0)I12,dR21dt=r1,0I21, dR12dt=r2,0I12,dD1dt=d1,0I1, dD2dt=d2,0I2, dD21dt=d1,0I21, dD12dt=d2,0I12. $
|
Therefore, if we assume that the recovery and death rates described in Eqs (5.20) and (5.21) follow uniform distributions and are sufficiently small, we can reduce the model given by Eqs (5.1)–(5.13) to the ODE model. However, in general, these assumptions may not hold. Another approximation of recovery and death rate distributions is considered in the next section.
Let us recall that the duration of the first and the second disease are denoted by $ \tau_1 $ and $ \tau_2 $, respectively. Furthermore, suppose that individuals $ J_1(t-\tau_1) $ and $ J_{21}(t-\tau_1) $ infected at time $ t-\tau_1 $ and individuals $ J_2(t-\tau_2) $ and $ J_{12}(t-\tau_2) $ infected at time $ t-\tau_2 $, either recover or die at time $ t $ with certain probabilities. This assumption corresponds to the following choice of the functions $ r_1(t-\eta) $, $ r_2(t-\eta) $, $ d_1(t-\eta) $ and $ d_2(t-\eta) $:
$ r1(t−τ1)=r1,0δ(t−η−τ1), r2(t−τ2)=r2,0δ(t−η−τ2),d1(t−τ1)=d1,0δ(t−η−τ1), d2(t−τ2)=d2,0δ(t−η−τ2), $
|
where $ r_{1, 0} $, $ r_{2, 0} $, $ d_{1, 0} $, $ d_{2, 0} $ are constants, $ r_{1, 0} +d_{1, 0} = 1 $ and $ r_{2, 0} +d_{2, 0} = 1 $, and $ \delta $ is the Dirac delta-function. Then
$ dR1dt=∫t0r1(t−η)J1(η)dη−J12(t)=r1,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ1)J1(η)dη−J12(t)=r1,0J1(t−τ1)−J12(t),dR2dt=∫t0r2(t−η)J2(η)dη−J21(t)=r2,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ2)J2(η)dη−J21(t)=r2,0J2(t−τ2)−J21(t),dR12dt=∫t0r2(t−η)J12(η)dη=r2,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ2)J12(η)dη=r2,0J12(t−τ2),dR21dt=∫t0r1(t−η)J21(η)dη=r1,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ1)J21(η)dη=r1,0J21(t−τ1),dD1dt=∫t0d1(t−η)J1(η)dη=d1,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ1)J1(η)dη=d1,0J1(t−τ1),dD2dt=∫t0d2(t−η)J2(η)dη=d2,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ2)J2(η)dη=d2,0J2(t−τ2),dD12dt=∫t0d2(t−η)J12(η)dη=d2,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ2)J12(η)dη=d2,0J12(t−τ2),dD21dt=∫t0d1(t−η)J21(η)dη=d1,0∫t0δ(t−η−τ1)J21(η)dη=d1,0J21(t−τ1). $
|
Therefore, systems (5.1)–(5.13) is reduced to the following delay model:
$ dSdt=−J1(t)−J2(t), $
|
(6.1) |
$ dIidt=Ji(t)−Ji(t−τi),i=1,2, $
|
(6.2) |
$ dRidt=ri,0Ji(t−τi)−Jij(t),i,j=1,2,j≠i, $
|
(6.3) |
$ dIijdt=Jij(t)−Jij(t−τj),i,j=1,2,j≠i, $
|
(6.4) |
$ dRijdt=rj,0Jij(t−τj),i,j=1,2,j≠i, $
|
(6.5) |
$ dDidt=di,0Ji(t−τi),i=1,2, $
|
(6.6) |
$ dDijdt=dj,0Jij(t−τj),i,j=1,2,j≠i $
|
(6.7) |
with $ J_1(t) = J_2(t) = J_{12}(t) = J_{21}(t) = 0 $ for $ t < 0 $.
Using the arguments similar to those in Subsections 3.2 and 3.3, it can be demonstrated that the basic reproduction numbers can be expressed as follows:
$ \mathcal R_{0i} = \frac{\beta_iS_0\tau_i}{N}, \ \ \ i = 1,2. $ |
Additionally, we obtain a two-sided estimate for $ S_\infty $:
$ min(R01,R02)(1−S∞S0)≤ln(S0S∞)≤max(R01,R02)(1−S∞S0). $
|
Using the Figure 5, we obtain the following:
$ \ln\bigg(\dfrac{S_0}{S_\infty}\bigg)\simeq \max(\mathcal{R}_{01},\mathcal{R}_{02}) \bigg(1-\frac{S_\infty}{S_0}\bigg). $ |
For the delay models (6.1)–(6.7), we compare the maximum number of infected individuals and the timing of this peak, as well as the total number of infected individuals caused by each virus. We choose the following values for the parameters: population size $ N = 10^4 $, initial infections $ I_{1, 0} = I_{2, 0} = 1 $, delays $ \tau_1 = 15.7 $ and $ \tau_2 = 17.7 $, and transmission rates $ \beta_1 = 0.25 $, $ \beta_2 = 0.2 $ and the constants $ r_{1, 0} = 0.7 $, $ r_{2, 0} = 0.6 $, $ d_{1, 0} = 0.3 $, $ d_{2, 0} = 0.4 $. Additionally, we set $ \epsilon_1 = 0.8 $ and $ \epsilon_2 = 1 $.
In the first infection, where $ \beta_1 > \beta_2 $, Figure 6 shows that the maximal number of infected individuals during the first strain is higher than the maximal number of infected individuals observed during the second strain. In the second infection, it is worth noting that the maximum value of $ I_{21} $ is lower than the maximum value of $ I_{12} $ where, in this case, the maximum depends on the parameters $ \beta_1 $, $ \beta_2 $, $ \epsilon_1 $, $ \epsilon_2 $, $ r_{1, 0} $ and $ r_{2, 0} $.
The maximum number of infected individuals behaves similarly to a single strain scenario, where the maximum is determined by the strain with the larger transmission rate (i.e, $ (I_1+I_{21})_m > (I_2+I_{12})_m $). Furthermore, with regards to the timing of the maximum, the difference between the transmission rates does not strongly influence on the peak time. Thus, $ t_{1m} $ is very close to $ t_{2m} $.
Next, let us consider another set of parameters - $ N = 10^4 $, $ I_{1, 0} = I_{2, 0} = 1 $, $ r_{1, 0} = 0.7 $, $ r_{2, 0} = 0.6 $, $ d_{1, 0} = 0.3 $, $ d_{2, 0} = 0.4 $, $ \tau_1 = 15.7 $, $ \tau_2 = 17.7 $ - and vary the values of $ \beta_1 $ and $ \beta_2 $ within the range of $ [0.1, 0.5] $. During the first infection with a fixed transmission rate $ \beta_2 $ ($ \beta_2 < \beta_1 $), increasing the transmission rate $ \beta_1 $ causes the total number of individuals infected by the first strain ($ R_{1f}+D_{1f} $) to approach the entire population $ N $, while the total number of individuals infected by the second strain ($ R_{2f}+D_{2f} $) diminishes significantly, nearly reaching zero. Conversely, with a fixed transmission rate $ \beta_1 $ ($ \beta_1 < \beta_2 $), by increasing the transmission rate $ \beta_2 $, the total number of individuals infected by the second strain ($ R_{2f}+D_{2f} $) approaches the entire population $ N $, while the total number of individuals infected by the first strain ($ R_{1f}+D_{1f} $) decreases significantly, nearly reaching zero. Notably, $ 70% $ of those infected by the first strain and $ 60% $ of those infected by the second strain have recovered.
In the second infection, by increasing the transmission rate $ \beta_1 $ ($ \beta_2 < \beta_1 $), the total number of individuals infected by the second strain ($ R_{12f}+D_{12f} $) approaches $ 70% $ of the total population $ N $, while the total number of individuals infected by the first strain ($ R_{21f}+D_{21f} $) approaches a very small value close to zero. On the other hand, increasing the transmission rate $ \beta_2 $ ($ \beta_1 < \beta_2 $) causes the total number of individuals infected by the first strain ($ R_{21f}+D_{21f} $) to approach $ 60% $ of the total population $ N $, while the total number of individuals infected by the second strain ($ R_{12f}+D_{12f} $) approaches a very small value close to zero.
Consequently, if $ \beta_1 $ is increased, then the number of individuals affected by the first virus ($ R_{1f}+D_{1f}+R_{21f}+D_{21f} $) also increases. This indicates that a higher transmission rate for the first virus leads to a larger proportion of the population being infected by it.
Conversely, with an increase in $ \beta_1 $, the number of individuals affected by the second virus ($ R_{2f}+D_{2f}+R_{12f}+D_{12f} $) gradually decreases. This suggests that the transmission of the second virus diminishes, thereby resulting in a lower number of individuals becoming infected by it.
Similarly, when $ \beta_2 $ is changed while keeping $ \beta_1 $ constant, increasing $ \beta_2 $ can lead to a higher number of individuals being affected by the second virus, while the number of individuals affected by the first virus may decrease. Note that the total number of infected individuals exceeds the total population because there are individuals who have been infected by both strain.
In this paper we introduced two epidemiological models, each of which described the dynamics of the dual viral strain SIRD model with distributed recovery and death rates to track the impact of multiple strains variants during an epidemic. In the first model, some individuals may be infected by the first strain and others by the second strain. Furthermore, individuals who have recovered from either strain develop immunity to both strains. In the second model, we explored the scenario where individuals who have recovered from the first strain can be infected by the second strain, and similarly, individuals who have recovered from the second strain can be infected by the first strain.
The proposed distributed delay models, represented by integro-differential equations, offer a more accurate description of epidemic dynamics. However, these models are relatively complex and require knowledge of distributed recovery and death rates, which may not be readily available in the literature. To compensate this disadvantage of the distributed models, we derived two simplified models from each model to address different limiting cases. In the first case, assuming that the recovery and death rates are uniformly distributed, we obtained a conventional compartmental ODE model. In the second case, considering the recovery and death rate distributions as delta-function, we obtained a novel delay model that has not been previously explored in the epidemiological literature. As mentioned in [43,44,45], since distributed recovery and death rates are commonly described by a Gamma-distribution, approximating them with a delta-function can provide a more accurate representation, especially in capturing the dynamics during the initial phase of infection. The point-wise delay models, based on the duration of the disease and known recovery and death rates, provide a simple and biologically meaningful representation of epidemics.
For these delay model we determined the reproduction numbers for each strain $ \mathcal{R}_{0j}, \ \ j = 1, 2 $. We employed these delay models to perform a numerical comparison of the maximum number of infected individuals, the peak timing and the total number of infected cases by each virus. This analysis was conducted by utilizing the final size of the recovered and deceased individuals. The transmission rates of the diseases played a crucial role in determining these outcomes, as they significantly influenced the dynamics of the epidemics being studied.
We compared the two models with and without cross-immunity. The maximum number of infected individuals in the model without cross-immunity was higher than in the other model because there were individuals who had been infected with both viruses. The timing of the maximum was either equal or very close between the two models. In the model without cross-immunity, the total number of infected individuals surpassed the total population because some individuals could be infected by both strains simultaneously. As a consequence, the number of infected individuals would be higher compared to the total number of infected individuals in the other model (with cross-immunity). As result, cross-immunity between the two viruses can significantly reduce their global spread. Individuals already immunized against one of the viruses would decrease the total number of cases of diseases caused by these pathogens. If a large part of the population acquires this cross-immunity, it would limit the spread of viruses and minimize their impact on public health. In the absence of cross-immunity, the spread of both viruses would accelerate, potentially leading to serious co-infections and increasing the burden on healthcare systems. Therefore, it is crucial to understand and promote cross-immunity to better prevent and control these viral diseases.
Comparing our results with the data, we used the example of Omicron and Delta variants in COVID-19, where Omicron exhibited a higher transmission rate. In [46], the authors showed that the duration of encounters played a crucial role in modeling and significantly impacted disease progression and the competition between variants, where the faster spreading strain dominated over the slower strain. Reference [12] reports that Omicron rapidly spread across France and displayed higher fitness compared to Delta. Additionally, reference [13] estimated that the total number of individuals infected by Omicron exceeds the total number of those infected by Delta. All of these works confirm our result that the rate of transmission is crucial in which strain dominates the other. In general, the strain with a higher transmission rate (Omicron) tends to have a higher maximum number of infected individuals and a higher total number of infected individuals compared to the other strain (Delta).
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
The authors express their gratitude to the referees for careful reading and valuable comments which led to an important improvement of the original version of this work. This work has been supported by PHC (Partenariat Hubert Curien) FRANCE-MAGHREB project having the code number 22MAG22–47518WK. V.V was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (megagrant agreement No. 075-15-2022-1115).
[1] |
Tong S, Davis J, Eichenberger E, et al. (2015) Staphylococcus aureus infections: epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and management. Clin Microbiol Rev 28: 603–661. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00134-14
![]() |
[2] | Kadariya J, Smith T, Thapaliya D (2014) Staphylococcus aureus and staphylococcal food-borne disease: an ongoing challenge in public health. BioMed Res Int 2014: 1–9. |
[3] |
Hennekinne J, Buyder M, Dragacci S (2012) Staphylococcus aureus and its food poisoning toxins: characterization and outbreak investigation. FEMS Microbial Rev 36: 815–836. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2011.00311.x
![]() |
[4] | Altamirano F, Barr J (2019) Phage therapy in the postantibiotic era. Clin Microbiol Rev 32: e00066–18. |
[5] |
Furfaro L, Payne M, Chang B (2018) Bacteriophage therapy: clinical trials and regulatory hurdles. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 8: 1–7. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00001
![]() |
[6] |
Lin D, Koskella B, Lin H (2017) Phage therapy: an alternative to antibiotics in the age of multi-drug resistance. World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther 8: 162–173. doi: 10.4292/wjgpt.v8.i3.162
![]() |
[7] |
Liu J, Wang N, Liu Y, et al. (2018) The antimicrobial spectrum of lysozyme broadened by reductive modifications. Poult Sci 97: 3992–3999. doi: 10.3382/ps/pey245
![]() |
[8] |
Massschalck B, Michiels C (2003) Antimicrobial properties of lysozyme in relation to foodborne vegetative bacteria. Crit Rev Microbiol 29: 191–214. doi: 10.1080/713610448
![]() |
[9] | Jagielska E, Chojnacka O, Sabała I (2016) LytM fusion with SH3b-like domain expands its activity to physiological conditions. Microb Drug Resist 22: 561–469. |
[10] |
Tossavainen H, Raulinaitis V, Kauppinen L, et al. (2018) Structural and functional insights into Lysostaphin-substrate interaction. Front Mol Biosci 5: 1–14. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2018.00001
![]() |
[11] | Channabasappa S, Durgaiah M, Chikkamadaiah R, et al. (2018) Efficacy of novel antistaphylococcal ectolysin P128 in a rat model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Antimicrob Agents and Chemother 62: 1–10. |
[12] | Cooper C, Mirzael M, Nilsson A (2016) Adapting drug approval pathways for bacteriophage-based therapeutics. Front Microbiol 7: 1–15. |
[13] | Kashani H, Schmelcher M, Sabzalipoor H, et al. (2018) Recombinant endolysins as potential therapeutics against antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: current status of research and novel delivery strategies. Clin Microbiol Rev 31: e00071–17. |
[14] | Love M, Bhandari D, Dobson R, et al. (2018) Potential for bacteriophage endolysins to supplement or replace antibiotics in food production and clinical care. Antibiotics 7: 1–25. |
[15] |
Desbois A, Coote P (2011) Bacteriocidal synergy of Lysostaphin in combination with antimicrobial peptides. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30: 1015–1021. doi: 10.1007/s10096-011-1188-z
![]() |
[16] |
Graham S, Coote P (2007) Potent, synergistic inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus upon exposure to a combination of the endopeptidase Lysostaphin and the cationic peptide ranalexin. J Antimicrob Chemother 59: 759–762. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkl539
![]() |
[17] |
Hjelm L, Nilvebrant J, Nygren P, et al. (2019) Lysis staphylococcal cells by modular lysin domains linked via a non-covalent barnase-barstar interaction bridge. Front Microbiol 10: 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00001
![]() |
[18] | Nair S, Desai S, Poonacha N, et al. (2016) Antibiofilm activity and synergistic inhibition of S. aureus biofilms by bactericidal protein P128 in combination with antibiotics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60: 7280–7289. |
[19] |
Schmelcher M, Donovan D, Loessner M (2012) Bacteriophage endolysins as novel antimicrobials. Future Microbiol 7: 1147–1171. doi: 10.2217/fmb.12.97
![]() |
[20] |
Roach D, Donovan D (2015) Antimicrobial bacteriophage-derived proteins and therapeutic applications. Bacteriophage 5: e1062590. doi: 10.1080/21597081.2015.1062590
![]() |
[21] |
Vázquez R, García E, García P (2018) Phage lysins for fighting bacterial respiratory infections: a new generation of antimicrobials. Front Immunol 9: 1–12. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00001
![]() |
[22] |
Briers Y, Walmagh M, Grymonprez B, et al. (2014) Art-175 is a highly efficient antibacterial against multidrug-resistant strains and persisters of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 58: 3774–3784. doi: 10.1128/AAC.02668-14
![]() |
[23] |
Larpin Y, Oechslin F, Moreillon P. et al. (2018) In vitro characterization of PlyE146, a novel hage lysin that targets Gram-negative bacteria. PLoS ONE 13: e0192507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192507
![]() |
[24] | Matamp N, Bhat S (2019) Phage endolysins as potential antimicrobials against multidrug resistant Vibrio alginolyticus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus: current status of research and challenges ahead. Microorganisms 7: 1–11. |
[25] |
Gerstmans H, Rodríguez-Rubio L, Lavigne R, et al. (2016) From endolysins to Artilysin®s: novel enzyme-based approaches to kill drug-resistant bacteria. Biochem Soc Trans 44: 123–128. doi: 10.1042/BST20150192
![]() |
[26] | Pastagia M, Euler C, Chahales P, et al. (2011) A novel chimeric lysin shows superiority to mupirocin for skin decolonization of methicillin-resistant and -sensitive staphylococcus aureus strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55, 738–744. |
[27] |
Rodríguez-Rubio L, Martínez B, Rodríguez A, et al. (2013) The phage lytic proteins from the Staphylococcus aureus bacteriophage vB_SauS-phiIPLA88 display multiple active catalytic domains and do not trigger staphylococcal resistance. PLoS One 8: e64671. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064671
![]() |
[28] |
Becker S, Roach D, Chauhan V, et al. (2016) Triple-acting lytic enzyme treatment of drug-resistant and intracellular Staphylococcus aureus. Sci Rep 6: 1–10. doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0001-8
![]() |
[29] |
Donovan D, Foster-Frey J (2008) LambdaSa2 prophage endolysin requires Cpl-7-binding domains and amidase-5domain for antimicrobial lysis of streptococci. FEMS Microbiol Lett 287: 22–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01287.x
![]() |
[30] |
Abaev I, Foster-Frey J, Korobova O, et al. (2013) Staphylococcal Phage 2638A endolysin is lytic for Staphylococcus aureus and harbors an inter-lytic-domain secondary translational start site. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97: 3449–3456. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4252-4
![]() |
[31] |
Yang X, Li C, Lou R, et al. (2007) In vitro activity of recombinant lysostaphin against Staphylococcus aureus isolates from hospitals in Beijing. China J Med Microbiol 56: 71–76. doi: 10.1099/jmm.0.46788-0
![]() |
[32] |
Pritchard D, Dong S, Kirk M, et al. (2007) LambdaSa1 and LambdaSa2 prophage lysins of Streptococcus agalactiae. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 7150–7154. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01783-07
![]() |
[33] |
Lim H-S, Vaira A, Domier L, et al. (2010) Efficiency of VIGS and gene expression in a novel bipartite potexvirus vector delivery system as a function of strength of TGB1 silencing suppression. Virology 402: 149–163. doi: 10.1016/j.virol.2010.03.022
![]() |
[34] |
Peyret H, Lomonossoff G (2013) The pEAQ vector series: the easy and quick way to produce recombinant proteins in plants. Plant Mol Biol 83: 51–58. doi: 10.1007/s11103-013-0036-1
![]() |
[35] |
Kovalskaya N, Zhao Y, Hammond R (2011) Antibacterial and antifungal activity of a snakin-defensin hybrid protein expressed in tobacco and potato plants. The Open Plant Sci J 5: 29–42. doi: 10.2174/1874294701105010029
![]() |
[36] |
Kovalskaya N, Hammond RW (2009) Expression and functional characterization of the plant antimicrobial snakin-1 and defensin recombinant proteins. Protein Expr Purif 63: 12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.pep.2008.08.013
![]() |
[37] |
Sainsbury F, Thuenemann E, Lomonossoff G. (2009) pEAQ: versatile expression vectors for easy and quick transient expression of heterologous proteins in plants. Plant Biotechnol J 7: 682–693. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2009.00434.x
![]() |
[38] |
Scholthof H, Scholthof K-B, Jackson A (1996) Plant virus gene vectors for transient expression of foreign proteins in plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol 34: 299–323. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.34.1.299
![]() |
[39] |
Al-Hawash A, Zhang X, Ma F (2017) Strategies of codon optimization for high-level heterologous protein expression in microbial expression systems. Gene Reports 9: 46–53. doi: 10.1016/j.genrep.2017.08.006
![]() |
[40] |
Inouye S, Sahara-Miura Y, Sato J, et al. (2015) Codon optimization of genes for efficient protein expression in mammalian cells by selection of only preferred human codons. Protein Expr Purif 109: 47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.pep.2015.02.002
![]() |
[41] |
Khalili M, Soleyman M, Baazm M, et al. (2015) High-level expression and purification of soluble bioactive recombinant human heparin-binding epidermal growth factor in Escherichia coli. Cell Biol Int 39: 858–864. doi: 10.1002/cbin.10454
![]() |
[42] | Woo J, Liu Y, Mathias A, et al. (2002) Gene optimization is necessary to express a bivalent anti-human anti-T cell immunotoxin in Pichia pastoris. Protein Expr Purif 25: 270–282. |
[43] | Kuta D, Tripathi L (2005) Agrobacterium-induced hypersensitive necrotic reaction in plant cells: a resistance response against Agrobacterium-mediated DNA transfer. Afr J Biotechnol 4: 752–757. |
[44] | Chen Q, Lai H, Hurtado J, et al. (2013) Agroinfiltration as an effective and scalable strategy of gene delivery for production of pharmaceutical proteins. Adv Tech Biol Med 1: 1–21. |
[45] |
Kovalskaya N, Foster-Frey J, Donovan D, et al. (2016) Antimicrobial activity of bacteriophages endolysin produced in Nicotiana benthamiana plants. J Microbiol Biotechnol 26: 160–170. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1505.05060
![]() |
[46] |
Grӓslund S, Nordlund P, Weigelt J, et al. (2008) Protein production and purification. Nature Methods 5: 135–146. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.202
![]() |
[47] |
Vera A, González-Montalbán N, Aris A, et al. (2007) The conformational quality of insoluble recombinant proteins is enhanced at low growth temperatures. Biotechnol Bioeng 96: 1101–1106. doi: 10.1002/bit.21218
![]() |
[48] |
Desai P, Shrivastava N, Padh H (2010) Production of heterologous proteins in plants: strategies for optimal expression. Biotechnolo Adv 28: 427–435. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.01.005
![]() |
[49] |
Dirisala V, Nair R, Srirama K, et al. (2017) Recombinant pharmaceutical protein production in plants: unraveling the therapeutic potential of molecular pharming. Acta Physiol Plant 39: 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s11738-016-2300-x
![]() |
[50] | Rosano G, Ceccarelli E (2014) Recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli: advances and challenges. Front Microbiol 5: 1–17. |
![]() |
![]() |
1. | Masoud Saade, Samiran Ghosh, Malay Banerjee, Vitaly Volpert, Delay epidemic models determined by latency, infection, and immunity duration, 2024, 370, 00255564, 109155, 10.1016/j.mbs.2024.109155 | |
2. | Ali Moussaoui, Mohammed Meziane, On the date of the epidemic peak, 2024, 21, 1551-0018, 2835, 10.3934/mbe.2024126 | |
3. | Ali Moussaoui, Vitaly Volpert, The impact of immune cell interactions on virus quasi-species formation, 2024, 21, 1551-0018, 7530, 10.3934/mbe.2024331 | |
4. | Masoud Saade, Samiran Ghosh, Malay Banerjee, Vitaly Volpert, Dynamics of delay epidemic model with periodic transmission rate, 2025, 138, 0307904X, 115802, 10.1016/j.apm.2024.115802 | |
5. | V. Volpert, From SIR to delay models in epidemiology, 2025, 52, 15710645, 49, 10.1016/j.plrev.2024.11.018 | |
6. | Muhammad Tashfeen, Fazal Dayan, Muhammad Aziz ur Rehman, Thabet Abdeljawad, Aiman Mukheimer, Boundedness and Positivity Preserving Numerical Analysis of a Fuzzy-Parameterized Delayed Model for Foot and Mouth Disease Dynamics, 2024, 141, 1526-1506, 2527, 10.32604/cmes.2024.056269 |