
In this study we investigate computationally tumour-oncolytic virus (OV) interactions that take place within a heterogeneous extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM is viewed as a mixture of two constitutive phases, namely a fibre phase and a non-fibre phase. The multiscale mathematical model presented here focuses on the nonlocal cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions, and how these interactions might be impacted by the infection of cancer cells with the OV. At macroscale we track the kinetics of cancer cells, virus particles and the ECM. At microscale we track (i) the degradation of ECM by matrix degrading enzymes (MDEs) produced by cancer cells, which further influences the movement of tumour boundary; (ii) the re-arrangement of the microfibres that influences the re-arrangement of macrofibres (i.e., fibres at macroscale). With the help of this new multiscale model, we investigate two questions: (i) whether the infected cancer cell fluxes are the result of local or non-local advection in response to ECM density; and (ii) what is the effect of ECM fibres on the the spatial spread of oncolytic viruses and the outcome of oncolytic virotherapy.
Citation: Abdulhamed Alsisi, Raluca Eftimie, Dumitru Trucu. Nonlocal multiscale modelling of tumour-oncolytic viruses interactions within a heterogeneous fibrous/non-fibrous extracellular matrix[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 6157-6185. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022288
[1] | Abdulhamed Alsisi, Raluca Eftimie, Dumitru Trucu . Non-local multiscale approach for the impact of go or grow hypothesis on tumour-viruses interactions. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5252-5284. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021267 |
[2] | Nada Almuallem, Dumitru Trucu, Raluca Eftimie . Oncolytic viral therapies and the delicate balance between virus-macrophage-tumour interactions: A mathematical approach. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(1): 764-799. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021041 |
[3] | Marcello Delitala, Tommaso Lorenzi . Emergence of spatial patterns in a mathematical model for the co-culture dynamics of epithelial-like and mesenchymal-like cells. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2017, 14(1): 79-93. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2017006 |
[4] | Taeyong Lee, Adrianne L. Jenner, Peter S. Kim, Jeehyun Lee . Application of control theory in a delayed-infection and immune-evading oncolytic virotherapy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2361-2383. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020126 |
[5] | Marco Scianna, Luigi Preziosi, Katarina Wolf . A Cellular Potts model simulating cell migration on and in matrix environments. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(1): 235-261. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.235 |
[6] | Baba Issa Camara, Houda Mokrani, Evans K. Afenya . Mathematical modeling of glioma therapy using oncolytic viruses. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(3): 565-578. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.565 |
[7] | Joseph Malinzi, Rachid Ouifki, Amina Eladdadi, Delfim F. M. Torres, K. A. Jane White . Enhancement of chemotherapy using oncolytic virotherapy: Mathematical and optimal control analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(6): 1435-1463. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018066 |
[8] | O. E. Adebayo, S. Urcun, G. Rolin, S. P. A. Bordas, D. Trucu, R. Eftimie . Mathematical investigation of normal and abnormal wound healing dynamics: local and non-local models. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17446-17498. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023776 |
[9] | Maher Alwuthaynani, Raluca Eftimie, Dumitru Trucu . Inverse problem approaches for mutation laws in heterogeneous tumours with local and nonlocal dynamics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 3720-3747. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022171 |
[10] | Gianluca D'Antonio, Paul Macklin, Luigi Preziosi . An agent-based model for elasto-plastic mechanical interactions between cells, basement membrane and extracellular matrix. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2013, 10(1): 75-101. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.75 |
In this study we investigate computationally tumour-oncolytic virus (OV) interactions that take place within a heterogeneous extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM is viewed as a mixture of two constitutive phases, namely a fibre phase and a non-fibre phase. The multiscale mathematical model presented here focuses on the nonlocal cell-cell and cell-ECM interactions, and how these interactions might be impacted by the infection of cancer cells with the OV. At macroscale we track the kinetics of cancer cells, virus particles and the ECM. At microscale we track (i) the degradation of ECM by matrix degrading enzymes (MDEs) produced by cancer cells, which further influences the movement of tumour boundary; (ii) the re-arrangement of the microfibres that influences the re-arrangement of macrofibres (i.e., fibres at macroscale). With the help of this new multiscale model, we investigate two questions: (i) whether the infected cancer cell fluxes are the result of local or non-local advection in response to ECM density; and (ii) what is the effect of ECM fibres on the the spatial spread of oncolytic viruses and the outcome of oncolytic virotherapy.
Cancer invasion is a complex multiscale phenomenon that relies on the structure and composition of the extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM is an important biological structure that serves as a platform for cellular communication, as well as providing support to surrounding cells and tissues, transducing mechanical signals, and functioning as adhesive substrate [1]. This matrix is a highly dynamic structure that controls most fundamental behaviours of cells: from proliferation, to adhesion, migration, differentiation and apoptosis [2]. These processes are controlled through the interactions of cells with the components of the ECM: collagen, proteoglycans, elastin and cell-binding glycoproteins [2]. The matrix components are continuously deposited, degraded or modified, and thus the ECM is continuously undergoing remodelling. This remodelling process (which involves matrix degrading enzymes that can be secreted by the cancer cells and normal cells) impacts also the evolution of cancer invasion. A fundamental process in the invasive potential of cancer cells is the cell-ECM adhesion (through adhesion molecules such as integrins) [3]. In addition, the collective movement of cancer cells is the result of cell-cell adhesion (through adhesion molecules such as E-cadherins) [3]. Understanding these cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesion processes is important not only for our understanding of the evolution of cancer and its invasion of the surrounding tissue, but also for our understanding of the efficacy of various anti-cancer therapies.
An emerging effective anti-cancer treatment is the oncolytic virotherapy (OV-therapy). The effectiveness of this treatment lies on viruses selectively infecting and destroying malignant cancer cells without harming the surrounding healthy cells; see [4,5,6,7]. The structure and composition of the ECM influences the effectiveness of the OV-therapies, since the ECM components can form a physical barrier that traps the viral particles [8]. In particular, experimental studies have shown that the collagen fibres play a very important role in inhibiting viral spread [8].
Due to the complexity of the tumour microenvironment, which makes it difficult to understand the interactions between the different components of this environment, mathematical models have been used over the last few decades to answer various questions about these interactions. The great majority of these models are single-scale models, which focus on spatial tumour invasion [9,10,11], on tumour oncolytic therapies [12,13,14,15,16,17,18], or both [19,20,21,22,23]. More recently, various multi-scale mathematical models have been derived to reproduce and investigate biological processes that take place at different spatial scales [24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. For example, [30] introduced a multi-scale moving boundary model for cancer invasion, which focused on the local interactions between cancer cells and the ECM, via matrix degrading enzymes (MDEs) that act at the micro-scale level of the invading tumour boundary. This study was further extended in [31] by considering also the non-local cell-cell and cell-ECM adhesive interactions. This study also considered a heterogeneous ECM population formed of fibres and non-fibrous sub-populations, and investigated the role of fibres (and their re-arrangement at macro-scale and micro-scale) in the evolution of a tumour population. Other local and nonlocal multiscale models were used in [24,25,26,27] to investigate the interactions between oncolytic viruses and cancer cells.
In this study, we develop further the non-local multiscale approach for modelling cancer-OV interactions introduced in [24] (and which focused on the role of cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesive interactions on the spread of OV throughout solid tumours) by combining it with the heterogeneous ECM approach proposed in [31], to investigate these tumour-ECM-OV interactions in fibrous ECM; see Figure 1.
In Section 2 we describe the new multiscale mathematical model. In Section 3 we describe the numerical approach used to discretise the macroscale and microscale equations, while in Section 4 we present the results of the numerical simulations. We conclude in Section 5 with a summary and discussion of the results.
The multiscale moving boundary model used here is based on the two-scale (tissue scale-macro-scale, and cell scale-micro-scale) moving boundary framework introduced in [30] and recently applied to nonlocal cell-cell interactions in the context of oncolytic viral therapies [24]. Furthermore, in here we explore the dynamic interaction between an invading solid tumour, OV, and a two-component ECM (which was first introduced by [31]). This complex dynamic is captured by two interconnected multiscale systems that share the same macro-scale cancer dynamics at the tissue-scale. However, at cell-scale we use two distinct micro-scale dynamics for fibre rearrangement and for cancer invasion boundary, both being linked to the macro-dynamics through two double feedback loops, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Let us denote by Y⊂R2 the macro-scale domain representing the maximal environmental tissue square that we consider in this study. Also, let us denote by Ω(t)⊂Y the spatial support of the growing tumour within the macro-scale domain, at a time t∈[0,T]. Let c(x,t) and i(x,t), ∀(x,t)∈Ω(t)×[0,T], represent the spatio-temporal densities of the uninfected cancer cells and the infected cancer cells, respectively. Finally, let v(x,t) and e(x,t), ∀(x,t)∈Y×[0,T], represent the spatial-temporal densities of the oncolytic virus and the cumulative extracellular matrix, respectively. The later is defined as
e(x,t)=E(x,t)+F(x,t), |
where F(x,t) denotes the macroscale spatial distribution of the fibre ECM, which accounts for all significant ECM fibres such as collagen fibres or fibronectin fibrils, and E(x,t) denotes the spatial distribution of the non-fibre ECM, which includes all the other non-fibre components of the ECM, i.e., elastin, laminins, fibroblasts, etc. At any spatio-temporal node (x,t)∈Y×[0,T], the macroscale dynamics for ECM is described by the following equations:
∂E∂t=−E(αcc+αii)+μ2E(1−ρ((s))), | (2.1) |
∂F∂t=−F(αcFc+αiFi), | (2.2) |
where αc,αi,αcF,αiF>0 are the ECM degradation rates caused by cancer cells subpopulations c and i, respectively. Further, μ2>0 is a fixed remodelling rate. The fibre micro-dynamics will be discussed in details in Section 2.2. Defining s the tumour-ECM vector,
s(x,t)=(c(x,t),i(x,t),e(x,t))T, |
then the volume fraction of space occupied by the tumour and the ECM is given as
ρ(x,t)≡ρ(s(x,t)):=νee(x,t)+νc(c(x,t)+i(x,t)), | (2.3) |
where νe represents the fraction of physical space occupied by the ECM and νc is the fraction of physical space occupied collectively by all cancer subpopulations.
In this study tumour dynamics consists of three main components: motility, proliferation, and death. Moreover, we describe the spatial fluxes for both cancer cells (c,i) by a combination of a linear diffusion term caused by cells' random walk and a directed migration term due to cell-cell and cell-ECM adhesion. Here we investigate directed cell migration from two perspectives: local migration and non-local migration as a result to cell adhesion [32,33,34,35,36,37]. Therefore, the dynamics of the uninfected cancer cells subpopulation is given by:
∂c∂t=∇⋅[Dc∇c−cAc(t,x,s,θf)]+μ1c(1−ρ(s))−ϱcv, | (2.4) |
where Dc>0 is a constant diffusion coefficient, μ1>0 is a constant proliferation coefficient, ϱ>0 is a constant rate at which the uninfected cancer population diminishes due to infection by the oncolytic virus v, while Ac(t,x,s,θf) is a non-local spatial flux term that describes the cells adhesion process that causes cancer cells to move in a directed manner. In references [24,25] the authors studied the effects of cell adhesion process on cancer-OV interaction, by focusing on cell-cell adhesion and cell-ECM-non-fibres substrate. Here we adopt the modelling concept proposed by [31], to consider the essential role performed by the cell-fibres adhesive interaction. Denoting the cell-cell adhesion function by:
Tc(x+y,t)=Sccc(x+y,t)+Scii(x+y,t), | (2.5) |
where Scc>0 and Sci>0 are the strengths of cell-cell adhesion and cross adhesion bonds, respectively that are formed between cancer cells distributed at x and cells at x+y. Since the cell-cell adhesion strength Scc,Sci is dependent on the quantity of intercellular Ca2+ ions available within the ECM [38,39]. We adopt a similar approach as in [31] to compute cell-cell adhesion strength, and extend it to determine cross cell-cell adhesion strength as follows:
S⋅⋅(E)=Smax⋅⋅exp(1−11−(1−E(x,t))2), | (2.6) |
where S⋅⋅∈{Scc,Sci,Sic,Sii} with Smax⋅⋅∈{Smaxcc,Smaxci,Smaxic,Smaxii} respectively. Smax⋅⋅ is fixed and represent the maximum strength of cell-cell adhesive junctions. Within a sensing radius R>0 at time t>0, the non-local adhesive flux is defined as follows:
Ac(t,x,s ,θf)=1R∫ B(0,R)K(‖y‖2)(1−ρ(s ))+( n(y)[Tc(x+y,t)+S ceE(x+y,t)]+¯ n(y,θf(x+y,t)) ScFF(x+y,t))χΩ(t)(x+y,t)dy, | (2.7) |
where B(0,R):={z∈R2:|z|≤R} is a closed ball centred at origin and of radius R, called here the sensing region. Sce is a constant that describes the cell-ECM adhesion strength. ScF is a constant that describes the cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength. χΩ(t)(⋅) is the characteristic function of Ω(t), and (1−ρ(s))+:=max{(1−ρ(s)),0} is a threshold term to avoid local overcrowding, and n(y) denotes the unit radial vector giving by:
n(y):={y‖y‖2ify∈B(0,R)∖{(0,0)},(0,0)otherwise, | (2.8) |
with ∥⋅∥2 representing the usual Euclidean norm. ˉn(y,θf(x+y,t)) is the unit vector that is dependent on the fibre orientations, defined as follows:
ˉn(y,θf(x+y,t)):={y+θf(x+y,t)‖y+θf(x+y,t)‖2ify∈B(0,R)∖{−θf(x+y,t)},(0,0)otherwise, | (2.9) |
where θf(x+y,t) is the orientation of the fibres at macro-scale, this was first introduced by [31]. This orientation is derived by the micro-scale mass distribution of micro-fibres f(.,t), in the sense that affects the cell-ECM adhesion and characterises the ECM fibres distributed at the macro-scale location x∈Y namely F(x,t); for detailed mathematical formulas see Section 2.2. Note that F(x+y,t) describes the influence of fibres distributed at x+y on the adhesion of cells at location x (with adhesion strength ScF); see Figure 2 for more details. Furthermore, the radially symmetric kernel K(⋅):[0,R]→[0,1] explores the dependence of the strengths of the established cell adhesion junctions on the radial distance from the centre of the sensing region x to ζ∈B(x,R):=x+B(0,R). Since these adhesion junction strengths are assumed to decrease as the distance r:=∥x−ζ∥2 increases, K therefore is taken here of the form
K(r):=32πR2(1−r2R). | (2.10) |
By summing up the radially distributed adhesive interactions between the cells at x, and the cells and ECM at x+y within y∈B(x,R), the term 1R that appears in the front of the expression (2.7) is simply an interaction range normalisation factor.
Next, we focus on the infected cancer cell subpopulation i(x,t) that emerges within this dynamics due to infections by the OV. We denote by φi(s) the effect of the cell adhesion processes that take place either locally (through adhesive interactions between infected cancer cells and ECM, as tumour cells exercise haptotactic movement towards higher levels of ECM), or non-locally (where both cell-cell and cell-ECM adhesive interactions are accounted for within an appropriate cell sensing region). Mathematically, this can be formalised as
φi(s):={ηi∇⋅(i∇e),localhaptotacticinteractionsbetweeninfectedcancercellsandECM,∇⋅(iAi(⋅,⋅,s(⋅,⋅))),non−localcell−cellsandcell−ECMinteractionsonacellsensingregion, | (2.11) |
where ηi is a constant haptotactic rate associated to i, while Ai(⋅,⋅,s(⋅,⋅)) is a non-local spatial flux term defined as in Eq (2.7). We define Ti(x+y,t) as follows
Ti(x+y,t)=Sicc(x+y,t)+Siii(x+y,t), | (2.12) |
where Sic and Sii are are the strengths of infected cell-cell adhesion and cross adhesion bonds, and are dependent on ECM as defined in Eq (2.6). Then, Ai(⋅,⋅,s(⋅,⋅)) becomes
Ai(t,x,s,θf)=1R∫B(0,R)K(‖y‖2)(1−ρ(s))+(n(y)[Ti(x+y,t)+SieE(x+y,t)]+ˉn(y,θf(x+y,t))SiFF(x+y,t))χΩ(t)(x+y,t)dy, | (2.13) |
where Sie is a constant describing the cell-ECM adhesion strength and SiF is a constant describing the cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength. Thus, the spatio-temporal dynamics of the infected cancer cell subpopulation is governed by the following equation
∂i∂t=DiΔi−φi(s)+ϱcv−δii. | (2.14) |
Here Di>0 is a constant random motility coefficient, and φi(s) represents the directed migration induced by the cell-adhesion processes that corresponds to i and is described in Eq (2.10) Further, the infected population expands at a rate ϱ due to new infections occurring among the uninfected cells, and dies at rate δi>0.
Next, for the oncolytic virus spatio-temporal dynamics, we adopt here a similar reasoning as in [24,25], and assume that the OV motion is described by a random movement that is biased by a "haptotactic-like" spatial transport towards higher ECM levels. Thus, the dynamics of the oncolytic virus is governed by
∂v∂t=DvΔv−ηv∇⋅(v∇e)+bi−ϱcv−δvv. | (2.15) |
Here Dv>0 is a constant random motility coefficient, ηv>0 is a constant haptotactic coefficient, b>0 is a viral replication rate within infected cancer cells, and δv>0 is the viral death rate.
Finally, the coupled interacting tumour-OV macro-dynamics is governed by Eqs (2.4)–(2.15) in the presence of initial conditions
c(x,0)=c0(x),i(x,0)=i0(x),v(x,0)=v0(x),∀x∈Ω(0), | (2.16) |
while assuming zero-flux boundary conditions at the moving tumour interface ∂Ω(t).
The cancer cells macro-dynamics cause the fibres to undergo a microscopic rearrangement process in addition to the macroscale fibre degradation mentioned in Eq (2.2). We start by defining the micro-fibre domain as σY(x):=x+σY,∀x∈Y with scale size σ>0 following [31], in which the fibre ECM rearrangement occurs reflecting on fibre macroscale orientation as illustrated in Figure 2. At any macroscale point x∈Ω(t), the ECM-fibre phase is described by a macroscale vector field θf(x,t), which gives us the amount of fibres distributed at (x,t) and their macroscopic fibres orientation computed by the revolving barycentral orientation θf,σY(x)(x,t) generated by the microscopic mass distribution of microfibres f(⋅,t) within the micro-domain σY(x). Based on the approach introduced by [31], the macroscale fibre orientation θf(x,t) is defined as follows:
θf(x,t)=1λ(σY(x))∫σY(x)f(z,t)dz⋅θf,σY(x)(x,t)‖θf,σY(x)(x,t)‖2, | (2.17) |
where λ(⋅) is the usual Lebesgue measure, ‖⋅‖2 represents the usual Euclidean norm, and
θf,σY(x)(x,t)=∫σY(x)f(z,t)(z−x)dz∫σY(x)f(z,t)dz, | (2.18) |
is the naturally generated revolving barycentral orientation θf,δY(x)(x,t) associated with σY(x) and given by the Bochner-mean-value of the position vectors function σY(x)∋z↦z−x∈RN with respect to the density measure f(x,t)λ(⋅). The macroscopic mean-value fibre representation at any (x,t) is then given by the Euclidean magnitude of θf(x,t), namely,
F(x,t):=‖θf(x,t)‖2. | (2.19) |
At any time t and at any spatial location x∈Y, the cancer cells realign the micro-fibres through a microscopic rearrangement process in each micro-domain σY(x) that is triggered by the combined macroscale spatial flux of both cancer cell subpopulations as follows:
F(x,t):=Fc(x,t)+Fi(x,t) |
where
Fc(x,t):=Dc∇c(x,t)−c(x,t)Ac(x,t,s(⋅,t),θf(⋅,t)) | (2.20) |
Fi(x,t):=Di∇i(x,t)−φi(s), | (2.21) |
where ¯φi(s) denotes here the spatial flux triggered by the interactions between the infected cancer cell population and the surrounding cells and ECM, and is given by
¯φi(s):={i∇e,localhaptotacticinteractionsbetweeni(⋅,⋅)ande(⋅,⋅)iAi(x,t,s(⋅,t),θf(⋅,t)),fornonlocaladhesioninteractionsbetweeni(⋅,⋅)andc(⋅,⋅)ande(⋅,⋅). | (2.22) |
For simplicity, denoting the total cancer cell population by ctotal(x,t)=c(x,t)+i(x,t). The combined flux F(x,t) acts upon the micro-scale distribution f(z,t),∀z∈σY(x) in accordance to the magnitude that the total mass of cancer cells has relative to the combined mass of cells and fibres at (x,t), which is given by the weight
ω(x,t)=ctotal(x,t)ctotal(x,t)+F(x,t). | (2.23) |
At the same time, the total spatial flux of cancer cells F(x,t) is balanced in a weighted manner by the orientation θf(x,t) of the existing distribution of fibres at (x,t) that is appropriately magnified by a weight that accounts for the magnitude of fibres versus the combined mass of cells and fibres at (x,t) and is given by (1−ω(x,t)). As a consequence, the micro-scale distribution of micro-fibres f(z,t),∀z∈σY(x) is therefore acted upon uniformly by the resultant force given by the following rearrangement vector-valued function
r(σY(x),t):=ω(x,t)F(x,t)+(1−ω(x,t))θf(x,t). | (2.24) |
In this context, a mass distribution of the micro-fibres f(z,t) on σY(x) is exercised under the influence of this rearrangement vector r(σY(x),t), resulting in spatial relocation of micro-fibres on both σY(x) and its neighbouring micro-domains. Indeed, under the incidence of r(σY(x),t), a certain fraction of the micro-fibres positioned at a given z∈σY(x) get transported at new micro-scale position z∗, given by
z∗:=z+νσY(x)(z,t), | (2.25) |
where νσY(x)(z,t) is the emerging relocation vector:
νσY(x)(z,t)=(xdir(z)+r(σY(x),t))⋅f(z,t)(fmax−f(z,t))f∗(z,t)+‖r(σY(x))−xdir(z)‖2⋅χ{f(⋅,t)>0}(z). | (2.26) |
Here, xdir(z)=→xz is the barycentric position vector pointing to z in σY(x) see Figure 3, fmax represents the maximum level of fibres that could reside at the micro-location z∈σY at any given time, and f∗:=f(z,t)/fmax is the local micro-fibres saturation fraction. Finally, the relocation magnitude in the direction xdir(z)+r(σY(x),t) is simultaneously mediated by the ability of micro-fibres to dislocate (which is exercised when these are not at the maximum level) and is attenuated by the level of the micro-fibres mass fraction f∗ at z in conjunction with the barycentric position defect quantified here by ‖r(σY(x))−xdir(z)‖2. Therefore, provided that micro-fibres levels at z are not at their maximum level fmax a micro-fibres mass transport from z to the location z∗ is exercised, while lower levels of micro-fibres saturations at z combined with a better flux alignment provided by a smaller position defect result in a relocation of the micro-fibres mass in direction (xdir(z)+r(σY(x),t)) at a greater distance. Finally, this transport occur provided that a enough room is available at position z. This being is naturally mediated through the movement probability
Pmove:=max(0,fmax−f(z∗,t)fmax), | (2.27) |
that quantifies the capacity that is still available at z∗, and enables only the amount f(z,t)Pmove of micro-fibres to be transported to the new location and the rest f(z,t)(1−Pmove) remain at their location.
In addition to the fibres micro-dynamics that occurs in the bulk of the tumour, a second type of tumour micro-dynamics is generated by the cell scale activity of the matrix degrading enzymes (MDEs) along the tumour invasive edge [40,41]. Indeed, secreted by the cancer cell population from the outer proliferating rim of the tumour, the MDEs are transported across the tumour interface within a cell-scale (micro-scale) neighbourhood of the tumour boundary in the peritumoural region, where they cause degradation to the ECM distribution that they meet, giving rise to further tumour progression. To capture this process mathematically, we adopt here a similar approach to the one developed in [30], whereby the entire cross-interface MDEs transport micro-process along ∂Ω(t) is decomposed into a union of boundary micro-processes that take place on a appropriately constructed covering bundle {ϵY}ϵY∈Pϵ(t) of ϵ−size overlapping micro-domains ϵY, whose union form the cell scale neighbourhood Nϵ(∂Ω(t)), i.e.,
Nϵ(∂Ω(t)):=⋃ϵY∈P(t)ϵY |
where the entire enzymatic process and its consequences are explored. Thus, to explore the MDEs enzymatic activity over a small time range Δt>0, denoting by m(y,τ) the micro-scale density of MDEs at the micro-scale spatio-temporal location (y,τ)∈ϵY×[0,Δt], we have that a micro-scale source of MDEs GϵY:ϵY×[0,Δt]→[0,∞) is induced naturally as a collective contribution of the cancer cells that are within a small distance ρ>0 from each y∈ϵY, and so this can be formalised mathematically as
GϵY(z,τ)={∫B(z,ρ)∩Ω(t0)γcc(x,t0+τ)+γii(x,t0+τ)dxλ(B(z,ρ)∩Ω(t0)),z∈ϵY∩Ω(t0),0,otherwise, | (2.28) |
Here λ(⋅) is the standard Lebesgue measure on RN, and B(z,r):={x∈Y:‖z−x‖∞≤ρ} is the small active tumour region closed to the tumour interface where the cancer cells collectively contribute to the creation of the source of MDEs at z∈ϵY over the time interval ([t0,t0+Δt]. Finally, and γc>0, γi>0 represent constant MDEs secretion contributions of the uninfected and infected cancer cells, respectively. Finally, in the presence of the MDEs source GϵY(z,τ), the MDES are assumed here to exercise a diffusive transport within the entire micro-domain ϵY, which is mathematically formulated through the following reaction-diffusion equation
∂m∂τ=DmΔm+GϵY(z,τ),z∈ϵY,τ∈[0,Δt]. | (2.29) |
Furthermore, as no memory of pre-existing distributions of MDEs are assumed for the enzymatic process, and no molecular transfer is assumed across the boundaries of ϵY, the proteolytic boundary micro-dynamics (2.29) that takes place on each ϵY is assumed to take place with null initial conditions and flux-zero boundary conditions, i.e.,
m(z,0)=0,nϵY⋅∇m|∂ϵY=0, | (2.30) |
where nϵY is the usual outward unit normal direction on ∂ϵY.
Finally, the pattern of ECM degradation within the peritumoural region of the microscale neighbourhood Neϵ(∂Ω(t)) will correspond to the pattern of significant MDEs transport within each micro-domain ϵY. In this context, following the multiscale mathematical modelling approach developed in [30], we obtain the law for the macro-scale boundary movement, which is specified in terms of direction and displacement magnitude for the spatial relocation of the tumour interface ϵY∩ΩY for each boundary micro-domain. By determining the law of macro-scale tumour boundary movement, the MDEs micro-dynamics occurring along the tumour interface influences directly the tumour macro-dynamics, completing this way a bottom-up feedback from micro- to macro-scale, contributing significantly to the invasion and spread of tumour within the surrounding tissue [30,42].
In summary, the multiscale moving boundary model that we obtained for the tumour-OV-ECM interactions (see Figure 2 for an illustrative sketch) consists of the following parts:
thetumour−OV−ECMmacro−dynamics:∂c∂t=∇⋅[Dc∇c−cAc(t,x,s,θf)]+μ1c(1−ρ(s))−ϱcv, | (2.31a) |
∂i∂t=DiΔi−φi(s)+ϱcv−δii, | (2.31b) |
∂E∂t=−E(αcc+αii)+μ2E(1−ρ((s))), | (2.31c) |
∂F∂t=−F(αcFc+αiFi), | (2.31d) |
∂v∂t=DvΔv−ηv∇⋅(v∇e)+bi−ϱcv−δvv, | (2.31e) |
micro-dynamics of fibres triggered by the macro-scale-induced rearrangement flux
r(σY(x),t):=ω(x,t)F(x,t)+(1−ω(x,t))θf(x,t) | (2.31f) |
inducedoneachσYbythetotalcellfluxF(x,t),withω(x,t):=ctotal(x,t)ctotal(x,t)+F(x,t) | (2.31g) |
the MDEs boundarymicro-dynamics:
∂m∂τ=DmΔm+GϵY(z,τ) | (2.31h) |
The macro-dynamics and the two micro-dynamics are connected through two double feedback loops:
● a tumour bulk top-down link by which the macro-scale cell flux triggers the micro-scale fibres rearrangement
● a bottom-up fibres link by which the micro-scale distribution of fibres naturally induces a spatial orientation that alters the tumour macro-dynamics
● a leading edge top-down link through which the tumour macro-dynamics induces a micro-scale MDEs molecular source in the cell-scale neighbourhood of ∂Ω(t)
● a bottom-up link through which the MDEs micro-dynamics induces the law for macro-scale tumour boundary movement.
The numerical approach and computational implementation of the novel multiscale moving boundary model proposed in this work builds directly on the multiscale moving boundary computational framework initially introduced by [30] and further expanded in [24,25,31], and so while for full details we defer the reader to these references, in the following we will give a brief summary of this approach.
Macro-scale numerical approach For all the computational simulations we consider the macro-scale tissue domain Y:=[0,4]×[0,4], and we discretise this with a uniform grid Yd:={(x1i,x2j)}i,j=1…N, with N=[4/h]+1, of spatial step size Δx=Δy:=h, with h>0. Correspondingly, the discretised version of the evolving spatial tumour support is denoted by Ωd(t) (i.e., Ωd(t)=Yd∩Ω(t)), with ∂Ωd(t) standing for the evolving tumour boundary. In brief, for the approximation of the macro-scale dynamics on the evolving tumour domain Ωd(t), we used a method of lines type approach as proposed initially in [30], with the specific off-grid-type approximation for the cell-adhesion fluxes Ac(⋅,⋅,⋅,⋅) and the novel non-local time-marching scheme that were proposed and developed in [31], and adapted here to our particular context of cancer-OV interacting dynamics. Finally, as detailed in [30], the discrete domain Ωd(t) of the progressing tumour is appropriately evolved with additional spatial nodes corresponding to the new locations reached by the invading cancer which are determined by the MDEs micro-dynamics that takes place within a micro-scale neighbourhood of the tumour interface (of micro-scale radius ϵ>0, see [30,42] for complete details).
Approximating the two micro-dynamic processes that occur simultaneously In this model we have two types of micro-scale processes that link to the same macro-dynamics, namely the MDEs boundary micro-dynamics at the leading edge of the tumour and fibre micro-dynamics. Thus, for the MDEs boundary micro-dynamics part, proceeding as detailed in [30], the boundary MDEs micro-dynamics is approximated involving central finite differences for the spatial operators on each micro-domain ϵY, with a backward Euler time marching scheme. Finally, for the fibres micro-dynamics and their rearrangements, the implementation follows closely the modelling details given in Section 2.2. Thus, for that part, considering the fibres micro-scale taking place on square micro-domains σY that have their vertices at the dual mesh nodes (i.e., the barycentres of each square pixels formed by the macro-scale grid nodes), we proceed with the evaluation of the spatial flux operators and rearrangement vectors as well as the final numerical inference of the emerging spatial fibres orientation, as detailed in [31].
Our simulations of the multiscale model explore two distinct scenarios regarding the directed migration of infected cancer cell subpopulation: local and non-local migration at macro-scale (see Eq (2.31b)). Specifically, we consider the following cases:
(1) Local advective flux for the infected cancer cells: in Eq (2.31b) we have φi(s)=ηi∇⋅(i∇e), and thus the macro-dynamics takes the following form:
∂c∂t=∇⋅[Dc∇c−cAc(t,x,s,θf)]+μ1c(1−ρ(s))−ϱcv, | (3.1a) |
∂i∂t=DiΔi−ηi∇⋅(i∇e)+ϱcv−δii, | (3.1b) |
∂E∂t=−E(αcc+αii)+μ2E(1−ρ((s))), | (3.1c) |
∂F∂t=−F(αcFc+αiFi), | (3.1d) |
∂v∂t=DvΔv−ηv∇⋅(v∇e)+bi−ϱcv−δvv. | (3.1e) |
Since ¯φi(s)=i∇e, the macroscale spatial flux for Fi in Eq (2.21) becomes
Fi(x,t):=Di∇i(x,t)−i∇e. | (3.2) |
The numerical results for this case are shown in Figures 6–8.
(2) Nonlocal advective flux for the infected cancer cells: in Eq (2.31b) we have φi(u)=∇⋅(iAi(⋅,⋅,s(⋅,⋅))), and thus the macro-dynamics take the following form:
∂c∂t=∇⋅[Dc∇c−cAc(t,x,s,θf)]+μ1c(1−ρ(s))−ϱcv, | (3.3a) |
∂i∂t=∇⋅[Di∇i−iAi(t,x,s,θf)]+ϱcv−δii, | (3.3b) |
∂E∂t=−E(αcc+αii)+μ2E(1−ρ((s))), | (3.3c) |
∂F∂t=−F(αcFc+αiFi), | (3.3d) |
∂v∂t=DvΔv−ηv∇⋅(v∇e)+bi−ϱcv−δvv, | (3.3e) |
Since ¯φi(s)=iAi(x,t,s(⋅,t),θf(⋅,t)), the macroscale spatial flux for Fi in Eq (2.21) becomes
Fi(x,t):=Di∇i(x,t)−iAi(x,t,s(⋅,t),θf(⋅,t)), | (3.4) |
The numerical results for this case are shown in Figures 9–11.
Finally, in all our numerical experiments we choose to avoid simple overcrowding by imposing the regime that the cumulated sum of the total volume of cells and ECM to be always kept below 1. This is obtained by taking unitary volume fractions for each of the involved tissue constituents, i.e., νc=νe=1, as indicated in Table 1, which obviously leads to a simplified formula for the volume of occupied space, namely: ρ(s(x,t)):=e(x,t)+c(x,t)+i(x,t).
Param. | Value | Description | Reference |
Dc | 0.00035 | Uninfected cancer cell diffusion coefficient | [11] |
Di | 0.0054 | Infected cancer cell diffusion coefficient | [46] |
Dv | 0.0036 | Constant diffusion coefficient for OV | [46] |
ηi | 0.0285 | Infected migrating cancer cell haptotaxis coefficient | [26] |
ηv | 0.0285 | OV haptotaxis coefficient | [24] |
μ1 | 0.5 | Proliferation rate for uninfected migrating cancer cells | [37] |
Scc | 0.1 | Maximum rate of cell-cell adhesion strength | [10] |
Sii | 0.1 | Maximum rate of cell-cell adhesion strength | [25] |
Sci | 0 | Maximum rate of cell-cell cross adhesion strength | Estimated |
Sic | 0 | Maximum rate of cell-cell cross adhesion strength | Estimated |
Sce | 0.5 | Rate of Cell-ECM adhesion strength | [47] |
Sie | 0.5 | Rate of Cell-ECM adhesion strength | [25] |
ScF | 0.2 | Rate of Cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength | [31] |
SiF | 0.2 | Rate of Cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength | Estimated |
αc | 0.15 | ECM degradation rate by uninfected cancer cells | [26] |
αim | 0.075 | ECM degradation rate by infected cancer cells | [26] |
αcF | 0.75 | Macroscopic fibre degradation rate by c cells | Estimated |
αiF | 0.75 | Macroscopic fibre degradation rate by i cells | Estimated |
μ2 | 0 | Remodelling term coefficient | [31] |
ϱ | 0.079 | Infection rate of c cells by OV | [26] |
δi | 0.05 | Death rate of infected cancer cells | [46] |
b | 20 | Replicating rate of OVs in infected cancer cells c | [46] |
δv | 0.025 | Death rate of OV | [46] |
νe | 1 | The fraction of physical space occupied by the ECM | [31] |
νc | 1 | The fraction of physical space occupied by cancer cells | [31] |
γc | 1 | MDEssecretionratebyuninfectedcancercell | [48] |
γi | 1.5 | MDEs secretion rate by infected cancer cell | [48] |
Dm | 0.0025 | MDE diffusion coefficient | [49] |
RF | 20%:80% | The ratio of fibres and non-fibres components of ECM | [31] |
The initial condition for the uninfected cancer cell population, c(x,0) is chosen to describe a small localised pre-existing tumour aggregation. This is given by
c0(x)=0.5(exp(−‖x−(2,2)‖222h)−exp(−3.0625))(χB((2,2),0.5−γ)∗ψγ),∀x∈Y, | (3.5) |
whose plot is shown in Figure 4(a). Here ψγ:RN→R+ is the usual standard mollifier of radius γ<<Δx3 given by
ψγ(x):=1γNψ(xγ), | (3.6) |
with the smooth compact support function ψ given by
ψ(x):={exp1‖x‖22−1if‖x‖2<1,0otherwise. | (3.7) |
We assume no infection at this stage, i.e. zero infected cancer cells (i(x,0)):
i0(x)=0,∀x∈Y. | (3.8) |
Motivated by several biological works underscoring the importance of the highly heterogeneous character of the fibrous microenvironment where tumours develop [43,44,45], we adopt the following in silico initial conditions the two-phase ECM considered in this modelling. Specifically, the initial condition for the non-fibre ECM density, E(x,0), is given by an arbitrarily chosen heterogeneous pattern described by the following equations (as in [31])
E(x,0)=12min{h(ζ1(x),ζ2(x)),1−c0p(x)}, | (3.9) |
and is shown in Figure 4(c). Here, we have
h(ζ1(x),ζ2(x)):=12+14sin(ξζ1(x)ζ2(x))3⋅sin(ξζ2(x)ζ1(x)),(ζ1(x),ζ2(x)):=13(x+32)∈[0,1]2,∀x∈Y,andξ=7π. | (3.10) |
Furthermore, the initial condition for one micro-scale fibre domain σY(x) is shown in Figure 4(d), and it is repeated for all macro-scale locations. To determine the density of the fibres at any macro-point x, we integrate the corresponding fibre-micro domain σY(x). Due to visibility reason, we avoid presenting the pattern of the microscale fibres on the macroscale. For the baseline simulations presented here, we choose the ratio of fibres to non-fibres components of ECM at 20%:80%.
Finally, the initial condition for the OV population (v(x,0)) is chosen to describe one single injection in the middle of the tumour aggregation, as in [24,25]:
v0(x)=Φ(x)⋅θ(v), | (3.11) |
where
Φ(x)=18(exp(−‖x−(2,2)‖222h)−exp(−1.6625)),andθ(v)={1ifΦ(x)>5×10−5,0otherwise, | (3.12) |
which is smoothed out on the frontier of the viral density support Γv:=∂{x∈Y|v0(x)>0}.
The numerical results shown in this section are computed using the parameter values listed in Table 1, which we refer to as 'baseline parameters' for ease of reference. Whenever we change these parameters, we clearly specify the new values we use for the simulations.
We start in Section 4.1 by investigating numerically the impact of fibre-ECM local approach for the infected cancer cells i used to describe the cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesion flux on cancer-OV interaction. Then, in Section 4.2, we investigate the impact of varying the amount of fibres in the ECM (RF). Next, in Section 4.3 we increase the cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength for some of the cases studied in the previous sections. In Section 4.4 we investigate numerically the impact of fibre-ECM non-local approach for the infected cancer cells i used to describe the cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesion flux on cancer-OV interaction and comparing it to a variety of distinct adhesion strengths. In section 4.5 we investigate the impact of increasing the amount of fibre in ECM for the non-local system. Finally, in Section 4.6 we investigate the impact of different cross cell-cell adhesion strengths.
In Figures 5 and 6 we present the numerical simulations obtained for the system (3.1), with the baseline parameters in Table 1, under the assumption that the directed movement of infected cancer cells is described by a local flux term. While Figure 5 shows a time-series progression of the spatial distributions of uninfected cancer cells, infected cancer cells, and oncolytic virus, Figure 6 shows the spatial distribution of all macroscopic variables only at final simulation time 75Δt. Figure 6 includes also the distributions of non-fibre ECM and full ECM, which, due to lack of visible differences between the two, will be omitted in the next figures, and only results of the oriented fibre-ECM field will be shown in the next sections.
In Figure 7 we show simulations of system (3.1) using the parameters in Table 1, when we vary the ratio RF of fibres and non-fibres components of ECM. In Figure 7(a) (first column) we consider RF=30%:70%, in Figure 7(b) (second column) we consider RF=35%:65%, and in Figure 7(c) (third column) we consider RF=40%:60%. We note that as we increase the ratio RF, the amount of fibres increases forcing the uninfected cancer cells to migrate away from the centre of the domain, where they were initially located. This also leads to higher OV and overall lower tumour spread.
In Figure 8 we show simulations of system (3.1) for the parameters in Table 1, but with different RF and different cell-fibre ECM adhesion strengths. In Figure 8(a) (first column) we consider RF=20%:80%, in Figure 8(b) (second column) we consider RF=30%:70%, and in Figure 8(c) (third column) we consider RF=40%:60%. Moreover, in all these sub-panels we take ScF=0.5 (compared to ScF=0.2 in Figure 7). We note that increasing cell-fibre ECM adhesion strength leads to spatial pockets of very high cancer density (i.e., maxc(x,75Δt)=1 in Figure 8(c), versus maxc(x,75Δt)=0.55 in Figure 7), and even a better spatial cancer spread.
In this section we investigate numerically not only the impact of non-local advection fluxes for the infected cancer cells, but also the effect of varying the cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesion strengths. In Figure 9(a) we show the baseline dynamics of the system (3.3) (i.e., dynamics obtained with the baseline parameters in Table 1). In Figure 9(b) we keep most of the parameter the same, with the exception of ScF=SiF=0.3. In Figure 9(c) we keep again most of the parameter the same, with the exception of Sie=0.001. In this case we note that varying the strengths of nonlocal cell-fibre interactions for the uninfected or infected cells does not have a significant impact on tumour structure.
In Figure 10 we investigate numerically the effect of increasing the amount of fibres in the ECM from RF=20%:80% (the baseline case shown in Figure 9(a)) to RF=30%:70% (here) and varying cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesion strengths. More precisely, in sub-panels (a) we have Scc=0.1, Sce=0.5, while in sub-panels (b) we have Scc=0.05, Sce=0.001. The simulation results do not show significant differences between the two cases. However, if we compare these results in Figure 10(a) (nonlocal advection of infected cells) with those in Figure 7(a) (local advection for infected cells) we observe that accounting explicitly for nonlocal interactions leads to a better spread of cancer cells along the ECM fibres (so the cancer cells "sense" better the direction of the fibres).
Finally, in Figure 11, we investigate numerically the effect of varying the cross adhesion strengths. In sub-panels (a) we assume that the cell-cell adhesion strengths for uninfected cancer cells (Scc and Sci) are lower than the cell-cell adhesion strengths for infected cancer cells (Sic and Sii). In sub-panels (b) we make the reversed assumption: the cell-cell adhesion strengths for the uninfected cells are higher than for the infected cells. We see that in this second case the tumour spreads faster through the domain (spread which is helped also by a stronger Sce=0.5, compared to case (a) where Sce=0.001).
In this study we extended a nonlocal multi-scale moving boundary model proposed in [24] for oncolytic virotherapies, by considering cancer cell interactions with a heterogeneous ECM formed of fibrous and non-fibrous components. With the help of this model, we investigated numerically the impact of assumptions of local vs. non-local interactions between the infected cancer cells and uninfected cells and/or ECM. (It is known that the ECM and its components constitute a physical barrier in the spread of OVs [8], but it is not clear what are the interactions between the infected cancer cells and the environment, i.e., other cells and ECM.)
The numerical simulations showed that for the case of local advection of infected cells (see Figures 7 and 8), the ratio RF of fibre versus non-fibre components of the ECM combined with the strength of cell-fibre ECM adhesion played an important role in the extent of spatial spread of tumour cells. In particular, very large RF ratios seemed to cause an accumulation of OVs at particular positions in space (see Figures 7(a)–8(c), where tumours exhibited less spatial spread for large RF). Larger RF ratios also led to a more pronounced tumour cell movement along the ECM fibres. This pronounced directional movement of cancer cells along the fibres could be obtained also for lower RF ratios, but by considering explicit non-local interactions for the advection of infected cells (see Figure 10(a) versus Figure 7(a)). In this case, the spread of the virus inside tumour seemed to depend on the strength of cell-cell interactions, with larger Scc causing higher viral accumulation at specific positions in space (Figure 11(b)). The nonlocal interactions between the infected cells and the environment (i.e., other cells and ECM components) played an important role in tumour and viral spatial spread only when the magnitude of these interactions was very high (see Figure 11(a)).
All these numerical results suggested that for complex multi-scale biological problems it is difficult to discern between the different biological mechanisms behind the infected cells distribution (i.e., viral infection patterns), and directional versus omni-directional invasion of infected and non-infected tumour cells into the surrounding tissue. This uncertainty is also because many model parameters (and parameter ranges) used for the simulations were unknown and were estimated (i.e., "guessed").
The parametrisation of these types of multi-scale moving-boundary models, to make them more quantitatively relevant, is an open problem which involves different aspects. First, multi-scale data is not always available, and when such data exists it is the result of multiple experiments performed in different conditions for different biological systems and therefore it might not be at all relevant. Second, to apply the results to clinically-relevant situations one needs to perform an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis---which again, is an open problem for such multi-scale moving-boundary models. To make some progress with this issue, one needs to have multi-scale data from one single experimental setting, parametrise the model using this data, and then make further computational predictions that could be tested experimentally.
This work can be further generalised to investigate various aspects of the interactions between oncolytic virus particles and the tumour microenvironment: from the importance of combining OV therapies with other classical therapies such as chemotherapies, to the investigation of go or grow hypothesis within a two-phase heterogeneous ECM.
The first author would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the Saudi Arabian Cultural Bureau in the UK on behalf of Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
T. Rozario, D. W. DeSimone, The extracellular matrix in development and morphogenesis: a dynamic view, Dev. Biol., 341 (2010), 126–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.10.026 doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.10.026
![]() |
[2] |
B. Yue, Biology of the extracellular matrix: an overview, J. Galucoma, 23 (2015), S20–S23. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000108 doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000108
![]() |
[3] |
V. Gkretsi, T. Stylianopoulos, Cell adhesion and matrix stiffness: coordinating cancer cell invasion and metastasis, Front. Oncol., 8 (2018), 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00145 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00145
![]() |
[4] | C. Fountzilas, S. Patel, D. Mahalingam, Review: oncolytic virotherapy, updates and future directions, Oncotarget, 8 (2017), 102617–102639. |
[5] |
H. L. Kaufman, F. J. Kohlhapp, A. Zloza, Oncolytic viruses: a new class of immunotherapy drugs, Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 14 (2015), 642–662. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4663 doi: 10.1038/nrd4663
![]() |
[6] |
J. Pol, G. Kroemer, L. Galluzzi, First oncolytic virus approved for melanoma immunotherapy, Oncoimmunology, 5 (2016), e1115641. https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2015.1115641 doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2015.1115641
![]() |
[7] |
S. J. Russell, K. W. Peng, J. C. Bell, Oncolytic virotherapy, Nat. Biotechnol., 30 (2012), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2287 doi: 10.1038/nbt.2287
![]() |
[8] |
J. Wojton, B. Kaur, Impact of tumor microenvironment on oncolytic viral therapy, Cytokine Growth Factor Rev., 21 (2010), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cytogfr.2010.02.014 doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2010.02.014
![]() |
[9] |
N. J. Armstrong, K. J. Painter, J. A. Sherratt, A continuum approach to modelling cell-cell adhesion, J. Theor. Biol., 243 (2006), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.05.030 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.05.030
![]() |
[10] |
A. Gerisch, M. A. Chaplain, Mathematical modelling of cancer cell invasion of tissue: local and non-local models and the effect of adhesion, J. Theor. Biol., 250 (2008), 684–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.10.026 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.10.026
![]() |
[11] |
P. Domschke, D. Trucu, A. Gerisch, M. A. J. Chaplain, Mathematical modelling of cancer invasion: implications of cell adhesion variability for tumour infiltrative growth patterns, J. Theor. Biol., 361 (2014), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.07.010
![]() |
[12] |
J. J. Crivelli, J. Földes, P. S. Kim, J. R. Wares, A mathematical model for cell cycle-specific cancer virotherapy, J. Biol. Dyn., 6 (2012), 104–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513758.2011.613486 doi: 10.1080/17513758.2011.613486
![]() |
[13] |
R. Eftimie, J. Dushoff, B. W. Bridle, J. L. Bramson, D. J. Earn, Multi-stability and multi-instability phenomena in a mathematical model of tumor-immune-virus interactions, Bull. Math. Biol., 73 (2011), 2932–2961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-011-9653-5 doi: 10.1007/s11538-011-9653-5
![]() |
[14] |
R. Eftimie, C. K. MacNamara, J. Dushoff, J. L. Bramson, D. J. Earn, Bifurcations and chaotic dynamics in a tumour-immune-virus system, Math. Model. Nat. Phenom., 11 (2016), 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1051/mmnp/201611505 doi: 10.1051/mmnp/201611505
![]() |
[15] |
J. L. Gevertz, J. R. Wares, Developing a minimally structured mathematical model of cancer treatment with oncolytic viruses and dendritic cell injections, Comput. Math. Methods Med., 2018 (2018), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8760371 doi: 10.1155/2018/8760371
![]() |
[16] | J. P. W. Heidbuechel, D. Abate-Daga, C. E. Engeland, H. Enderling, Mathematical modeling of oncolytic virotherapy, in Oncolytic Viruses, Humana, New York, (2020), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-9794-7_21 |
[17] | M. A. Nowak, R. M. May, Virus Dynamics: Mathematical Principles of Immunology and Virology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. |
[18] |
D. Wodarz, Computational modeling approaches to the dynamics of oncolytic viruses, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med., 8 (2016), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsbm.1332 doi: 10.1002/wsbm.1332
![]() |
[19] |
D. R. Berg, C. P. Offord, I. Kemler, M. K. Ennis, L. Chang, G. Paulik, et al., In vitro and in silico multidimensional modeling of oncolytic tumor virotherapy dynamics, PLOS Comput. Biol., 15 (2019), e1006773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006773 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006773
![]() |
[20] |
K. Jacobsen, S. S. Pilyugin, Analysis of a mathematical model for tumor therapy with a fusogenic oncolytic virus, Math. Biosci., 270 (2015), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2015.02.009 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2015.02.009
![]() |
[21] |
J. Malinzi, P. Sibanda, H. Mambili-Mamboundou, Analysis of virotherapy in solid tumor invasion, Math. Biosci., 263 (2015), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2015.01.015 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2015.01.015
![]() |
[22] |
Y. Tao, M. Winkler, Global classical solutions to a doubly haptotactic cross-diffusion system modeling oncolytic virotherapy, J. Differ. Equation, 268 (2020), 4973–4997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jde.2019.10.046 doi: 10.1016/j.jde.2019.10.046
![]() |
[23] |
D. Wodarz, A. Hofacre, J. W. Lau, Z. Sun, H. Fan, N. L. Komarova, Complex spatial dynamics of oncolytic viruses in vitro: mathematical and experimental approaches, PLoS Comput. Biol., 8 (2012), e1002547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002547 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002547
![]() |
[24] |
A. Alsisi, R. Eftimie, D. Trucu, Non-local multiscale approaches for tumour-oncolytic viruses interactions, Math. Appl. Sci. Eng., 1 (2020), 249–273. https://doi.org/10.5206/mase/10773 doi: 10.5206/mase/10773
![]() |
[25] |
A. Alsisi, R. Eftimie, D. Trucu, Non-local multiscale approach for the impact of go or grow hypothesis on tumour-viruses interactions, Math. Biosci. Eng., 18 (2021), 5252–5284. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021267 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021267
![]() |
[26] |
T. Alzahrani, R. Eftimie, D. Trucu, Multiscale modelling of cancer response to oncolytic viral therapy, Math. Biosci., 310 (2019), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2018.12.018 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2018.12.018
![]() |
[27] |
T. Alzahrani, R. Eftimie, D. Trucu, Multiscale moving boundary modelling of cancer interactions with a fusogenic oncolytic virus: the impact of syncytia dynamics, Math. Biosci., 323 (2020), 108296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2019.108296 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2019.108296
![]() |
[28] |
L. R. Paiva, C. Binny, S. C. Ferreira, M. L. Martins, A Multiscale mathematical model for oncolytic virotherapy, Cancer Res., 69 (2009), 1205–1211. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2173 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2173
![]() |
[29] |
L. R. Paiva, H. S. Silva, S. C. Ferreira, M. L. Martins, Multiscale model for the effects of adaptive immunity suppression on the viral therapy of cancer, Phys. Biol., 10 (2013), 025005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/10/2/025005 doi: 10.1088/1478-3975/10/2/025005
![]() |
[30] |
D. Trucu, P. Lin, M. A. J. Chaplain, Y. Wang, A multiscale moving boundary model arising in cancer invasion, Multiscale Model. Simul., 11 (2013), 309–335. https://doi.org/10.1137/110839011 doi: 10.1137/110839011
![]() |
[31] |
R. Shuttleworth, D. Trucu, Multiscale modelling of fibres dynamics and cell adhesion within moving boundary cancer invasion, Bull. Math. Biol., 81 (2019), 2176–2219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-019-00598-w doi: 10.1007/s11538-019-00598-w
![]() |
[32] |
N. Bhagavathula, A. W. Hanosh, K. C. Nerusu, H. Appelman, S. Chakrabarty, J. Varani, Regulation of E-cadherin and β-catenin by Ca2+ in colon carcinoma is dependent on calcium-sensing receptor expression and function, Int. J. Cancer, 121 (2007), 1455–1462. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22858 doi: 10.1002/ijc.22858
![]() |
[33] |
U. Cavallaro, G. Christofori, Cell adhesion in tumor invasion and metastasis: loss of the glue is not enough, Biochim. Biophys. Acta Rev. Cancer, 1552 (2001), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-419X(01)00038-5 doi: 10.1016/S0304-419X(01)00038-5
![]() |
[34] |
J. D. Humphries, A. Byron, M. J. Humphries, Integrin ligands at a glance, J. Cell Sci., 119 (2006), 3901–3903. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.03098 doi: 10.1242/jcs.03098
![]() |
[35] |
K. S. Ko, P. D. Arora, V. Bhide, A. Chen, C. A. McCulloch, Cell-cell adhesion in human fibroblasts requires calcium signaling, J. Cell Sci., 114 (2001), 1155–1167. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.114.6.1155 doi: 10.1242/jcs.114.6.1155
![]() |
[36] |
B. P. L. Wijnhoven, W. N. M. Dinjens, M. Pignatelli, E-cadherin-catenin cell-cell adhesion complex and human cancer, Br. J. Surg., 87 (2000), 992–1005. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01513.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01513.x
![]() |
[37] |
M. Chaplain, G. Lolas, Mathematical modelling of cancer invasion of tissue: dynamic heterogeneity, Networks Heterog. Media, 1 (2006), 399–439. https://doi.org/10.3934/nhm.2006.1.399 doi: 10.3934/nhm.2006.1.399
![]() |
[38] |
Z. Gu, F. Liu, E. A. Tonkova, S. Y. Lee, D. J. Tschumperlin, M. B. Brenner, Soft matrix is a natural stimulator for cellular invasiveness, Mol. Biol. Cell, 25 (2014), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.e13-05-0260 doi: 10.1091/mbc.e13-05-0260
![]() |
[39] |
A. M. Hofer, S. Curci, M. A. Doble, E. M. Brown, D. I. Soybel, Intercellular communication mediated by the extracellular calcium-sensing receptor, Nat. Cell Biol., 2 (2000), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/35017020 doi: 10.1038/35017020
![]() |
[40] |
D. Hanahan, R. A. Weinberg, Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation, Cell, 144 (2011), 646–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
![]() |
[41] | R. A. Weinberg, The Biology of Cancer, Garland Science, New York, 2006. |
[42] | D. Trucu, P. Domschke, A. Gerisch. M. Chaplain, Multiscale computational modelling and analysis of cancer invasion, in Mathematical Models and Methods for Living Systems (eds. L. Preziosi, M. A. J. Chaplain and A. Pugliese), Springer, Cham, (2016), 275–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42679-2_5 |
[43] |
F. Sabeh, R. Shimizu-Hirota, S. J. Weiss, Protease-dependent versus -independent cancer cell invasion programs: three-dimensional amoeboid movement revisited, J. Cell Biol., 185 (2009), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200807195 doi: 10.1083/jcb.200807195
![]() |
[44] |
K. Wolf, S. Alexander, V. Schacht, L. M. Coussens, U. H. von Andrian, J. van Rheenen, et al., Collagen-based cell migration models in vitro and in vivo, Semin. Cell Dev. Biol., 20 (2009), 931–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.08.005 doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.08.005
![]() |
[45] |
K. Wolf, Y. I. Wu, Y. Liu, J. Geiger, E. Tam, C. Overall, et al., Multi-step pericellular proteolysis controls the transition from individual to collective cancer cell invasion, Nat. Cell Biol., 9 (2007), 893–904. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1616 doi: 10.1038/ncb1616
![]() |
[46] |
B. I. Camara, H. Mokrani, E. Afenya, Mathematical modeling of glioma therapy using oncolytic viruses, Math. Biosci. Eng., 10 (2013), 565–578. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2013.10.565 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2013.10.565
![]() |
[47] |
K. J. Painter, N. J. Armstrong, J. A. Sherratt, The impact of adhesion on cellular invasion processes in cancer and development, J. Theor. Biol., 264 (2010), 1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.03.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.03.033
![]() |
[48] |
R. Shuttleworth, D. Trucu, Multiscale dynamics of a heterotypic cancer cell population within a fibrous extracellular matrix, J. Theor. Biol., 486 (2020), 110040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2019.110040 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2019.110040
![]() |
[49] |
L. Peng, D. Trucu, P. Lin, A. Thompson, M. A. Chaplain, A multiscale mathematical model of tumour invasive growth, Bull. Math. Biol., 79 (2017), 389–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-016-0237-2 doi: 10.1007/s11538-016-0237-2
![]() |
1. | Karan Buntval, Hana M. Dobrovolny, Modeling of oncolytic viruses in a heterogeneous cell population to predict spread into non-cancerous cells, 2023, 165, 00104825, 107362, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107362 | |
2. | Donggu Lee, Aurelio A. de los Reyes V, Yangjin Kim, Optimal strategies of oncolytic virus-bortezomib therapy via the apoptotic, necroptotic, and oncolysis signaling network, 2024, 21, 1551-0018, 3876, 10.3934/mbe.2024173 | |
3. | Salim I Khakoo, Jayajit Das, Using in silico models to predict lymphocyte activation and development in a data rich era, 2024, 14, 26671190, 100037, 10.1016/j.immuno.2024.100037 | |
4. | Hangyu Zhang, Yiqing Ren, Feiyu Wang, Xiaoxuan Tu, Zhou Tong, Lulu Liu, Yi Zheng, Peng Zhao, Jinlin Cheng, Jianwen Li, Weijia Fang, Xia Liu, The long-term effectiveness and mechanism of oncolytic virotherapy combined with anti-PD-L1 antibody in colorectal cancer patient, 2024, 31, 0929-1903, 1412, 10.1038/s41417-024-00807-2 | |
5. | Zhuo Yan, Zhengbo Zhang, Yanan Chen, Jianghua Xu, Jilong Wang, Zhangquan Wang, Enhancing cancer therapy: the integration of oncolytic virus therapy with diverse treatments, 2024, 24, 1475-2867, 10.1186/s12935-024-03424-z | |
6. | Hana M. Dobrovolny, How do viruses get around? A review of mathematical modeling of in-host viral transmission, 2025, 604, 00426822, 110444, 10.1016/j.virol.2025.110444 |
Param. | Value | Description | Reference |
Dc | 0.00035 | Uninfected cancer cell diffusion coefficient | [11] |
Di | 0.0054 | Infected cancer cell diffusion coefficient | [46] |
Dv | 0.0036 | Constant diffusion coefficient for OV | [46] |
ηi | 0.0285 | Infected migrating cancer cell haptotaxis coefficient | [26] |
ηv | 0.0285 | OV haptotaxis coefficient | [24] |
μ1 | 0.5 | Proliferation rate for uninfected migrating cancer cells | [37] |
Scc | 0.1 | Maximum rate of cell-cell adhesion strength | [10] |
Sii | 0.1 | Maximum rate of cell-cell adhesion strength | [25] |
Sci | 0 | Maximum rate of cell-cell cross adhesion strength | Estimated |
Sic | 0 | Maximum rate of cell-cell cross adhesion strength | Estimated |
Sce | 0.5 | Rate of Cell-ECM adhesion strength | [47] |
Sie | 0.5 | Rate of Cell-ECM adhesion strength | [25] |
ScF | 0.2 | Rate of Cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength | [31] |
SiF | 0.2 | Rate of Cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength | Estimated |
αc | 0.15 | ECM degradation rate by uninfected cancer cells | [26] |
αim | 0.075 | ECM degradation rate by infected cancer cells | [26] |
αcF | 0.75 | Macroscopic fibre degradation rate by c cells | Estimated |
αiF | 0.75 | Macroscopic fibre degradation rate by i cells | Estimated |
μ2 | 0 | Remodelling term coefficient | [31] |
ϱ | 0.079 | Infection rate of c cells by OV | [26] |
δi | 0.05 | Death rate of infected cancer cells | [46] |
b | 20 | Replicating rate of OVs in infected cancer cells c | [46] |
δv | 0.025 | Death rate of OV | [46] |
νe | 1 | The fraction of physical space occupied by the ECM | [31] |
νc | 1 | The fraction of physical space occupied by cancer cells | [31] |
γc | 1 | MDEssecretionratebyuninfectedcancercell | [48] |
γi | 1.5 | MDEs secretion rate by infected cancer cell | [48] |
Dm | 0.0025 | MDE diffusion coefficient | [49] |
RF | 20%:80% | The ratio of fibres and non-fibres components of ECM | [31] |
Param. | Value | Description | Reference |
Dc | 0.00035 | Uninfected cancer cell diffusion coefficient | [11] |
Di | 0.0054 | Infected cancer cell diffusion coefficient | [46] |
Dv | 0.0036 | Constant diffusion coefficient for OV | [46] |
ηi | 0.0285 | Infected migrating cancer cell haptotaxis coefficient | [26] |
ηv | 0.0285 | OV haptotaxis coefficient | [24] |
μ1 | 0.5 | Proliferation rate for uninfected migrating cancer cells | [37] |
Scc | 0.1 | Maximum rate of cell-cell adhesion strength | [10] |
Sii | 0.1 | Maximum rate of cell-cell adhesion strength | [25] |
Sci | 0 | Maximum rate of cell-cell cross adhesion strength | Estimated |
Sic | 0 | Maximum rate of cell-cell cross adhesion strength | Estimated |
Sce | 0.5 | Rate of Cell-ECM adhesion strength | [47] |
Sie | 0.5 | Rate of Cell-ECM adhesion strength | [25] |
ScF | 0.2 | Rate of Cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength | [31] |
SiF | 0.2 | Rate of Cell-fibre-ECM adhesion strength | Estimated |
αc | 0.15 | ECM degradation rate by uninfected cancer cells | [26] |
αim | 0.075 | ECM degradation rate by infected cancer cells | [26] |
αcF | 0.75 | Macroscopic fibre degradation rate by c cells | Estimated |
αiF | 0.75 | Macroscopic fibre degradation rate by i cells | Estimated |
μ2 | 0 | Remodelling term coefficient | [31] |
ϱ | 0.079 | Infection rate of c cells by OV | [26] |
δi | 0.05 | Death rate of infected cancer cells | [46] |
b | 20 | Replicating rate of OVs in infected cancer cells c | [46] |
δv | 0.025 | Death rate of OV | [46] |
νe | 1 | The fraction of physical space occupied by the ECM | [31] |
νc | 1 | The fraction of physical space occupied by cancer cells | [31] |
γc | 1 | MDEssecretionratebyuninfectedcancercell | [48] |
γi | 1.5 | MDEs secretion rate by infected cancer cell | [48] |
Dm | 0.0025 | MDE diffusion coefficient | [49] |
RF | 20%:80% | The ratio of fibres and non-fibres components of ECM | [31] |