Advertisement

Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 1141–1157 | Cite as

Modeling tumor growth with peridynamics

  • Emma Lejeune
  • Christian LinderEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Computational models of tumors have the potential to connect observations made on the cellular and the tissue scales. With cellular scale models, each cell can be treated as a discrete entity, while tissue scale models typically represent tumors as a continuum. Though the discrete approach often enables a more mechanistic and biologically driven description of cellular behavior, it is often computationally intractable on the tissue scale. Here, we adapt peridynamics, a theoretical and computational approach designed to unify the mechanics of discrete and continuous media, for the growth of biological materials. The result is a computational model for tumor growth that can represent either individual cells or the tissue as a whole. We take advantage of the flexibility provided by the peridynamic framework to implement a cell division mechanism, motivated by the fact that cell division is the mechanism driving tumor growth. This paper provides a general framework for implementing a new tumor growth modeling technique.

Keywords

Peridynamics Tumor growth Morphogenesis Cell division 

Mathematics Subject Classification

92C10 74L15 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-114747.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ambrosi D, Mollica F (2002) On the mechanics of a growing tumor. Int J Eng Sci 40:1297–1316MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrosi D, Preziosi L (2008) Cell adhesion mechanisms and stress relaxation in the mechanics of tumours. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 8(5):397–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrosi D, Ateshian G, Arruda E, Cowin S, Dumais J, Goriely A, Holzapfel G, Humphrey J, Kemkemer R, Kuhl E et al (2011) Perspectives on biological growth and remodeling. J Mech Phys Solids 59(4):863–883MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Ambrosi D, Preziosi L, Vitale G (2012) The interplay between stress and growth in solid tumors. Mech Res Commun 42:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Araujo RP, McElwain DLS (2004) A linear-elastic model of anisotropic tumour growth. Eur J Appl Math 15(3):365–384MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellomo N, Li NK, Maini PK (2008) On the foundations of cancer modelling: selected topics, speculations, and perspectives. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 18(4):593–646MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobaru F, Ha YD (2011) Adaptive refinement and multiscale modeling in 2D peridynamics. J Multiscale Comput Eng 9(6):635–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bobaru F, Yang M, Alves LF, Silling SA, Askari E, Xu J (2009) Convergence, adaptive refinement, and scaling in 1D peridynamics. Int J Numer Meth Eng 77(6):852–877CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Byrne H (2003) Modelling solid tumour growth using the theory of mixtures. Math Med Biol 20(4):341–366CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne H, Drasdo D (2008) Individual-based and continuum models of growing cell populations: a comparison. J Math Biol 58(4–5):657–687MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Clatz O, Sermesant M, Bondiau PY, Delingette H, Warfield SK, Malandain G, Ayache N (2005) Realistic simulation of the 3-D growth of brain tumors in MR images coupling diffusion with biomechanical deformation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 24(10):1334–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cristini V (2005) Morphologic instability and cancer invasion. Clin Cancer Res 11(19):6772–6779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cristini V, Lowengrub J, Nie Q (2002) Nonlinear simulation of tumor growth. J Math Biol 46:191–224MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Deisboeck TS, Wang Z, Macklin P, Cristini V (2011) Multiscale cancer modeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 13:127–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deng Q, Chen Y, Lee J (2008) An investigation of the microscopic mechanism of fracture and healing processes in cortical bone. Int J Damage Mech 18(5):491–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drasdo D, Höhme S (2005) A single-cell-based model of tumor growth in vitro: monolayers and spheroids. Phys Biol 2(3):133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drasdo D, Höhme S, Block M (2007) On the role of physics in the growth and pattern formation of multi-cellular systems: What can we learn from individual-cell based models? J Stat Phys 128(1–2):287–345MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Foster JT, Silling SA, Chen WW (2009) Viscoplasticity using peridynamics. Int J Numer Methods Eng 81:1242–1258zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Frieboes HB, Lowengrub JS, Wise S, Zheng X, Macklin P, Bearer EL, Cristini V (2007) Computer simulation of glioma growth and morphology. Neuroimage 37:S59–S70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gatenby R, Gawlinski E (1996) A reaction–diffusion model of cancer invasion. Cancer Res 56(24):5745–5753Google Scholar
  21. Gillies TE, Cabernard C (2011) Cell division orientation in animals. Curr Biol 21(15):R599–R609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helmlinger G, Netti PA, Lichtenbeld HC, Melder RJ, Jain RK (1997) Solid stress inhibits the growth of multicellular tumor spheroids. Nat Biotechnol 15:778–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilic B, Madenci E (2010a) An adaptive dynamic relaxation method for quasi-static simulations using the peridynamic theory. Theor Appl Fract Mech 53(3):194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilic B, Madenci E (2010b) Peridynamic theory for thermomechanical analysis. IEEE Trans Adv Packag 33(1):97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim Y, Stolarska MA, Othmer HG (2007) A hybrid model for tumor spheroid growth in vitro I: theoretical development and early results. Math Models Methods Appl Sci 17:1773–1798MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhl E, Maas R, Himpel G, Menzel A (2006) Computational modeling of arterial wall growth. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 6(5):321–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lejeune E, Javili A, Linder C (2016a) An algorithmic approach to multi-layer wrinkling. Extreme Mech Lett 7:10–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lejeune E, Javili A, Linder C (2016b) Understanding geometric instabilities in thin films via a multi-layer model. Soft Matter 12:806–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lejeune E, Javili A, Weickenmeier JE, Kuhl LC (2016c) Tri-layer wrinkling as a mechanism for anchoring center initiation in the developing cerebellum. Soft Matter 12:5613–5620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linder C, Tkachuk M, Miehe C (2011) A micromechanically motivated diffusion-based transient network model and its incorporation into finite rubber viscoelasticity. J Mech Phys Solids 59(10):2134–2156MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Littlewood D (2015) Roadmap for peridynamic software implementation. SAND Report, Aandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM and Livermore, CAGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Jin F, Chuang YL, Li X, Macklin P, Wise SM, Cristini V (2010) Nonlinear modelling of cancer: bridging the gap between cells and tumours. Nonlinearity 23:R1–R91MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Madenci E, Oterkus E (2014) Peridynamic theory and its applications. Springer, NewYorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell JA (2011) A nonlocal, ordinary, state-based plasticity model for peridynamics. SAND report 3166Google Scholar
  35. Norton KA, Wininger M, Bhanot G, Ganesan S, Barnard N, Shinbrot T (2010) A 2d mechanistic model of breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) morphology and progression. J Theor Biol 263(4):393–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poste G, Fidler I (1980) The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis. Nature 283(5743):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Preziosi L, Tosin A (2008) Multiphase modelling of tumour growth and extracellular matrix interaction: mathematical tools and applications. J Math Biol 58(4–5):625–656MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Ren H, Zhuang X, Cai Y, Rabczuk T (2016) Dual-horizon peridynamics. Int J Numer Meth Eng 108(12):1451–1476MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandersius SA, Newman TJ (2008) Modeling cell rheology with the subcellular element model. Phys Biol 5(1):015002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Silling S, Askari E (2005) A meshfree method based on the peridynamic model of solid mechanics. Comput Struct 83(17–18):1526–1535Google Scholar
  41. Silling SA (2000) Reformulation of elasticity theory for discontinuities and long-range forces. J Mech Phys Solids 48:175–209MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Silling SA, Lehoucq RB (2010) Peridynamic theory of solid mechanics. Adv Appl Mech 44:73–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Silling SA, Epton M, Weckner O, Xu J, Askari E (2007) Peridynamic states and constitutive modeling. J Elast 88(2):151–184MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. Stolarska MA, Kim Y, Othmer HG (2009) Multi-scale models of cell and tissue dynamics. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci 367(1902):3525–3553MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Timoshenko S (1925) Analysis of bi-metal thermostats. JOSA 11(3):233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang Z, Butner J, Kerketta R, Cristini V, Deisboeck TS (2015) Simulating cancer growth with multiscale agent-based modeling. Semin Cancer Biol 30:70–78Google Scholar
  47. Warren TL, Silling SA, Askari A, Weckner O, Epton MA, Xu J (2009) A non-ordinary state-based peridynamic method to model solid material deformation and fracture. Int J Solids Struct 46(5):1186–1195CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations