Abstract
This work deals with a fully parabolic chemotaxis model with nonlinear production and chemoattractant. The problem is formulated on a bounded domain and, depending on a specific interplay between the coefficients associated to such production and chemoattractant, we establish that the related initialboundary value problem has a unique classical solution which is uniformly bounded in time. To be precise, we study this zeroflux problem
where \(\Omega \) is a bounded and smooth domain of \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), for \(n\geq 2\), and \(f(u)\) and \(g(u)\) are reasonably regular functions generalizing, respectively, the prototypes \(f(u)=u^{\alpha }\) and \(g(u)=u^{l}\), with proper \(\alpha , l>0\). After having shown that any sufficiently smooth \(u(x,0)=u_{0}(x)\geq 0\) and \(v(x,0)=v_{0}(x)\geq 0\) produce a unique classical and nonnegative solution \((u,v)\) to problem (◊), which is defined on \(\Omega \times (0,T_{max})\) with \(T_{max}\) denoting the maximum time of existence, we establish that for any \(l\in (0,\frac{2}{n})\) and \(\frac{2}{n}\leq \alpha <1+\frac{1}{n}\frac{l}{2}\), \(T_{max}=\infty \) and \(u\) and \(v\) are actually uniformly bounded in time.
The paper is in line with the contribution by Horstmann and Winkler (J. Differ. Equ. 215(1):52–107, 2005) and, moreover, extends the result by Liu and Tao (Appl. Math. J. Chin. Univ. Ser. B 31(4):379–388, 2016). Indeed, in the first work it is proved that for \(g(u)=u\) the value \(\alpha =\frac{2}{n}\) represents the critical blowup exponent to the model, whereas in the second, for \(f(u)=u\), corresponding to \(\alpha =1\), boundedness of solutions is shown under the assumption \(0< l<\frac{2}{n}\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and Motivations
Most of this article is dedicated to the following Cauchy boundary problem
defined in a bounded and smooth domain \(\Omega \) of \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), with \(n\geq 2\), and formulated through some functions \(f=f(s)\) and \(g=g(s)\), sufficiently regular in their argument \(s\geq 0\), and further regular initial data \(u_{0}(x)\geq 0\) and \(v_{0}(x)\geq 0\). Additionally, the subscript \(\nu \) in \((\cdot )_{\nu }\) indicates the outward normal derivative on \(\partial \Omega \), whereas \(T_{max}\) the maximum time up to which solutions to the system are defined.
The two partial differential equations appearing above generalize
proposed in the pioneer papers by Keller and Segel ([10, 11]) to model the dynamics of populations (as for instance cells or bacteria), arising in mathematical biology. Precisely, by indicating with \(u = u(x, t)\) a certain particle density at the position \(x\) and at the time \(t\), the equations describe how the aggregation impact from the coupled cross term \(u \nabla v\), related to the chemical signal \(v=v(x,t)\) (initially distributed accordingly to the law \(v_{0}(x)=v(x,0)\), as in (1)), may contrast the natural diffusion (associated to the Laplacian operator, \(\Delta u\)) of the cells, organized at the initial time through the configuration \(u_{0}(x)=u(x,0)\). In particular, such an attractive impact might influence the motion of the cells so strongly even to lead the system to its chemotactic collapse (blowup at finite time with appearance of \(\delta \)formations for the particle density). In the literature there are many contributions dedicated to the comprehension of this phenomenon. In this regard, in [9, 18] the reader can find an extensive theory dealing with the existence and properties of global, uniformly bounded or blowup (local) solutions to the Cauchy problem associated to (2), and endowed with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions (exactly as in (1), and biologically modeling an impermeable domain), especially in terms of the initial mass of the particle distribution, i.e., \(m=\int _{\Omega }u_{0}(x)dx\). Indeed, the mass of the bacteria, preserved in time for this model, appears as a critical parameter (see, for instance, [5, 18, 25]); more exactly, for \(n\geq 2\), the value \(m_{c}=4\pi \) establishes that when \(m< m_{c}\) global in time solutions are expected, whereas when \(m>m_{c}\) blowup solutions may be detected.
The size of the initial distribution is not the only factor capable to influence the chemotactic behavior of the cells toward their selforganization. Other elements may also take sensitively part in this process; the impacts of the diffusion and/or of the chemoattractant, weaker or stronger (for instance, if in (2) the crossdiffusion term \(u\nabla v\) is replaced by \(\chi u \nabla v\), for some \(\chi >0\), then even for initial distribution \(u_{0}\) with subcritical mass, the system exhibits blowup at finite time whenever \(\chi \) increases), the presence of external sources affecting the cells’ density, or the law of the signal production from the chemical, dictated by the cells themselves: to a high (low) segregation corresponds a high disorganization (organization) in the motion of the particles. Herein we are interested in the analysis concerning the mutual interplay between the actions from the chemoattractant and the segregation rates. In such sense problem (1) is an example of chemotaxis model combining these aspects, exactly as specified: the chemosensitivity function \(f(u)\) describes how the population aggregates, through the interaction with the chemical, and directs its movement in the direction of the gradient of \(v\). In our problem \(f(u)\) generalizes \(u^{\alpha }\), for some \(\alpha \) even covering superlinear powers; as said, the larger \(\alpha \) the higher is the attraction between each cell, leading the system to undesired instabilities. On the other hand, the second equation indicates that the chemical signal is produced according to the law of \(g(u)\), which as well has as prototype \(u^{l}\), with \(l\) smaller than 1. Naturally, this has a segregation impact on the model weaker than the case with \(g(u)=u\), especially at large particle densities (see [6, 16, 17] an related references therein); as conceivable, the gathering phenomena of the original model are dampened and more smoothness to the system is supplied.
Before giving our precise objectives in respect of the analysis above developed, let us mention the result which, mainly, inspires and justifies this investigation: For \(g(u)=u\) and \(f(u)\cong u^{\alpha }\), it is shown that the value \(\alpha =\frac{2}{n}\) decides whether model (1) manifests or not blowup scenarios. Specifically, with \(n\geq 2\), for \(\alpha \in (0,\frac{2}{n})\) all solutions are global and uniformly bounded, whereas the same does not apply for \(\alpha >\frac{2}{n}\). In fact, (a) for \(\alpha >2\) and any \(n\geq 2\), (b) for \(\alpha \in (1,2)\), \(n\in \{2,3\}\) and technical assumptions on \(f\), (c) for \(\alpha \in (\frac{2}{n},1)\) and \(n\in \{2,3\}\) or (d) for \(\alpha \in (\frac{2}{n},\frac{2}{n2})\) and \(n\geq 4\) (also in this case combined with further assumptions on \(f\)), there are initial data \((u_{0},v_{0})\) leading to unbounded solutions (see [7]).
By continuing within the confines of Keller–Segel models with linear production, when the diffusion is not linear, i.e. \(\Delta u=\nabla \cdot \nabla u\) reads \(\nabla \cdot (D(u)\nabla u)\), for \(n\geq 2\) the asymptotic behavior of the ratio \(\frac{f(u)}{D(u)}\cong u^{\alpha }\) for large values of \(u\) indicates that if \(\alpha \in (0,\frac{2}{n})\) any \((u_{0},v_{0})\) produces uniformly bounded classical solutions to problem (1) (see [21]), whilst for \(\alpha >\frac{2}{n}\) blowup solutions either in finite or infinite time can be constructed, even for arbitrarily small initial data (see [26]). Moreover, the insight about the quantitative role of the diffusion of the cells on their evolution reads as follows: for \(D(u)\cong u^{m1}\) and \(f(u)\cong u^{\alpha }\), \(m,\alpha \in \mathbb{R}\), it is established in [1, 2] (for the fully parabolic case) and in [28] (for the simplified parabolicelliptic one; \(v_{t}=0\) in the second equation) that \(\alpha < m+\frac{2}{n}1\) is condition sufficient and necessary in order to ensure global existence and boundedness of solutions. (For completeness, we also refer to [14], where an estimate for the blowup time of unbounded solutions to the simplified model is derived.) Unlike the case where \(D(u)=1\) and \(f(u)=u\) where the critical mass \(m_{c}\) is \(n\)independent, the above criterion implies that the size of the initial mass may have no crucial role on the existence of global or localintime solutions to nonlinear diffusion chemotaxissystems. Conversely, the key factor is given by some specific interplay between the coefficients \(m,\alpha \) and the dimension \(n\); this is especially observed at high dimensions, for which a magnification of the diffusion parameter to compensate instability effects is required. A similar consideration, appropriately reinterpreted in that context, will be given below when the exponent associated to the nonlinear signal production is introduced.
Complementary, as far as nonlinear segregation chemotaxis models are concerned, when in problem (1) the case \(f(u)=u\) is considered, uniformly boundedness of all its solutions is proved in [13] for \(g(u)\cong u^{l}\), with \(0< l<\frac{2}{n}\). (We also mention [19] for an analysis of a related model with logistictype terms.) Moreover, by resorting to a simplified parabolicelliptic version in spatially radial contexts, for \(f(u)=u\) and the second equation reduced to \(0=\Delta v\mu (t)+g(u)\), with \(g(u)\cong u^{l}\) and \(\mu (t)=\frac{1}{\Omega }\int _{\Omega }g(u(\cdot ,t))\), it is known (see [27]) that the same conclusion on the boundedness continues valid for any \(n\geq 1\) and \(0< l<\frac{2}{n}\), whereas for \(l>\frac{2}{n}\) blowup phenomena may appear. (See also [23] for analyses concerning a chemotaxis model with signaldependent sensitivity and sublinear production.)
2 Presentation of the Main Result and Comparison with a Simplified Model. Plan of the Paper
2.1 Claim of the Main Result
In accordance to what discussed above, we wish to contribute to completion of a picture yet fragmentary in the literature by addressing situations concerning system (1) that, to our knowledge, are not yet studied. To this aim, from now on these assumptions, respectively identifying the actions associated to the chemoattractant and to the segregation of the chemical signal, are fixed:
and
In particular, with a specific view to what analyzed in the frame of [7], linear productions of the chemical may be sufficient to generate blowup solutions when the impact from the chemoattractant, favoring gatherings in the motion of the species, is superquadratic, in any dimension, superlinear and subquadratic, in low dimensions, and sublinear in higher. Thus the following question seems meaningful:

∘ May a sublinear signal segregation of the chemical enforce globability of solutions for superlinear chemosensitivitiy even in high dimensions?
Our result positively addresses this issue in the sense that independently of the initial data, by weakening in an inversely proportional way to the dimension the impact associated to the production rate of the chemical, the uniformintime boundedness of solutions to model (1) is ensured, even for superlinear thrusts from the chemoattractant.
What said is formally claimed in this
Theorem 2.1
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded and smooth domain of \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), with \(n \geq 2\). Moreover, let \(f\) and \(g\) fulfill (3) and (4), respectively, with \(l\in (0,\frac{2}{n})\) and \(\alpha \) satisfying
Then, for any nontrivial \((u_{0},v_{0})\in C^{0}(\bar{\Omega })\times C^{1}(\bar{\Omega })\), with \(u_{0}\geq 0\) and \(v_{0}\geq 0\) on \(\bar{\Omega }\), there exists a unique pair of nonnegative functions \((u,v)\in (C^{0}(\bar{\Omega }\times [0,\infty ))\cap C^{2,1}( \bar{\Omega }\times (0,\infty )))^{2}\) which solve problem (1) and satisfy for some \(C>0\)
Remark 1
We make these considerations:

For \(\alpha =1\) assumption (5) is simplified into \(l\in (0,\frac{2}{n})\). Subsequently, our analysis is an extension of that developed in [13], in the sense that Theorem 2.1 recovers [13, Theorem 1.1] when \(f(u)=u\) in problem (1).

From \(l\in (0,\frac{2}{n})\), the comparison with the limit linear signal production model for system (1), makes sense only in twodimensional settings; for \(l=1\) the upper bound in assumption (5) reads \(\alpha <1\), and Theorem 2.1 is consistent with [7, Theorem 4.1].

Since [7, Theorem 4.1] is applicable for any \(n\geq 2\) whenever \(\alpha <\frac{2}{n}\) and \(l=1\), a fortiori it holds true for \(l \in (0,\frac{2}{n})\); this is the sole reason why we consider in our analysis \(\alpha \geq \frac{2}{n}\).

Considering that for linear production and nonlinear diffusion (with parameter \(m\)) models we discussed that the condition for boundedness reads \(\alpha < m+\frac{2}{n}1\), from assumption (5) one can observe that the parameter \(l\) associated to the nonlinear segregation plays an opposite role with respect \(m\): given \(\alpha \), for high values of \(n\), smaller (larger) values of \(l\) (\(m\)) are needed to ensure globability and boundedness.
2.2 A View to the ParabolicElliptic Case
When the parabolicparabolic problem (1) is simplified into parabolicelliptic, with equation for the chemical replaced by \(0=\Delta vv+g(u)\), assumption (5) becomes sharper; precisely \(\frac{2}{n}\leq \alpha <1+\frac{2}{n}l\), which requires for compatibility only the restriction \(l\in (0,1)\). We highlights this aspect in Fig. 1, where we overlap the regions defined by the interplay between \(\alpha \) and \(l\) in both models; to be more precise, we also distinguish the zones with superlinear chemoattractant (\(\alpha >1\)) and sublinear chemoattractant (\(\alpha <1\)). (In the same figure we also spend some words for the blowup cases.) We understand that the observed gap between the range of parameters is not only justified by some technical reasons (see Remark 3 at the end of the paper, where few mathematical indications are given) but also by biological ones. Indeed, the fact that in the simplified version the values of \(v(\cdot , t)\) only depend on the values of \(u(\cdot , t)\) at the same time, is a strong modeling assumption. It corresponds to the situation where the signal responses to the concentration of the particles much faster than the organisms do to the signal; in particular, such difference in the relative adjustment of the bacteria and the chemoattractant makes that the last one reaches its equilibrium instantaneously.
2.3 Organization of the Paper
The rest of the paper is structured in this way. Section 3 is concerned with the local existence question of classical solutions to (1) and some of their properties. Some general inequalities are included in Sect. 4. They are mainly devoted to establish how to ensure globability and boundedness of local solutions using their boundedness in some proper Sobolev spaces; a key cornerstone in this direction is the procedure to fix the corresponding exponents of theses spaces (Sect. 4.2). Finally, the mentioned bound is derived in Sect. 5, which also includes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
3 Existence of LocalinTime Solutions and Main Properties
Let us dedicate to the existence of classical solutions to system (1). It is shown that such solutions are at least local and, additionally, satisfy some crucial estimates.
Lemma 3.1
(Local existence)
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded and smooth domain of \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), with \(n \geq 2\). Moreover, let \(f\) and \(g\) fulfill (3) and (4), respectively, with \(l\in (0,\frac{2}{n})\) and \(\alpha \) satisfying (5). Then, for any nontrivial \((u_{0},v_{0})\in C^{0}(\bar{\Omega })\times C^{1}(\bar{\Omega })\), with \(u_{0}\geq 0\) and \(v_{0}\geq 0\) on \(\bar{\Omega }\), there exist \(T_{max}\in (0,\infty ]\) and a unique pair of nonnegative functions \((u,v)\in (C^{0}(\bar{\Omega }\times [0,T_{max}))\cap C^{2,1}( \bar{\Omega }\times (0,T_{max})))^{2} \), such that this dichotomy criterion holds true:
In addition, the \(u\)component obeys the mass conservation property, i.e.
whilst for some \(c_{0}>0\) the \(v\)component is such that
Proof
We just mention that the conclusions concerning the localintime wellposedness as well as the dichotomy criterion (6), can be established by straightforward adaptations of widely used methods involving an appropriate fixed point framework and standard parabolic regularity theory; we can adequately cite [7, Theorem 3.1], for the case \(g(u)=u\), and [23, Lemma 3.1], for \(g\) as in our hypotheses. Moreover, comparison arguments apply to yield both \(u,v\geq 0\) in \(\Omega \times (0,T_{max})\).
On the other hand, the mass conservation property easily comes by integrating over \(\Omega \) the first equation of (1), in conjunction with the boundary and initial conditions.
Finally, the last claim is derived as follows. From the assumption \(0< l<\frac{2}{n}\), we can first of all fix \(\frac{n}{2}<\gamma <n\) complying with \(\gamma \leq \frac{1}{l}\). In this way, through the Hölder inequality, taking in mind (4) and the mass conservation property (7), we have
Henceforth, we can also pick \(\frac{1}{2}<\rho <1\) such that \(\zeta =1\rho \frac{n}{2}(\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{1}{n})>0\). Subsequently, since by means of the representation formula for \(v\) we have
with the aid of smoothing properties related to the Neumann heat semigroup \((e^{t \Delta })_{t \geq 0}\) (see Sect. 2 of [7] and Lemma 1.3 of [25]), we obtain for some \(\lambda _{1}>0\) and \(C_{S}>0\)
As a consequence, the introduction of the Gamma function \(\Gamma \) infers
which combined with bounds (9) and (10) conclude the proof. □
In the sequel of the paper with \((u,v)\) we will refer to the gained local classical solution to problem (1), and we might tacitly avoid to mention that such solution is produced by the initial data \((u_{0},v_{0})\).
4 Preliminaries: Inequalities and Parameters
With the local solution \((u,v)\) to problem (1) at disposal, its uniform boundedness on \((0,T_{max})\) is achieved when uniformintime bound for \(u\) in some \(L^{p}\)norm and for \(\nabla v^{2}\) in some \(L^{q}\)norm, with proper \(p\) and \(q\), is derived. This will be obtained by constructing an absorption inequality satisfied by the functional
In particular, the entire procedures requires, first, to adequately manipulate inequalities resulting by differentiating \(y(t)\) with respect to the time and, secondly, to figure out how to choose the parameters \(p\) and \(q\). In view of its decisive role, this second part will be discussed with some details after this subsection.
4.1 Some Algebraic and Functional Inequalities
This three coming lemmas will be used in the next logical steps. We start by considering a suitable version of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg interpolation inequality, commonly used to treat nonlinearities appearing in the diffusion and/or chemosensitivity terms (see [20, 22, 24]), and successively by recalling a particular boundary integral employed to deal with terms defined in nonconvex domains.
Lemma 4.1
(Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality)
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded and smooth domain of \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), with \(n\geq 1\), and \(0<\mathfrak{q}\leq \mathfrak{p} \leq \infty \) satisfying \(\frac{1}{2} \leq \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{\mathfrak{p}} \). Then, for \(a= \frac{\frac{1}{\mathfrak{q}}\frac{1}{\mathfrak{p}}}{\frac{1}{\mathfrak{q}}+\frac{1}{n}\frac{1}{2}} \), there exists \(C_{GN}=C_{GN}(\mathfrak{p},\mathfrak{q},\Omega )>0\) such that
Proof
See [12, Lemma 2.3]. □
Lemma 4.2
Let \(\Omega \) be a bounded and smooth domain of \(\mathbb{R}^{n}\), with \(n\geq 1\), and \(q \in [1, \infty )\). Then for any \(\eta >0\) there is \(C_{\eta }>0\) such that for any \(w \in C^{2}(\overline{\Omega })\) satisfying \(\frac{\partial w}{\partial \nu } = 0\) on \(\partial \Omega \), as well as \(\int _{\Omega }\nabla w\leq L_{0}\), for some \(L_{0}>0\), this inequality holds:
Proof
A more general proof can be found in [8, Propostion 3.2]. More precisely, by identically retracing the steps between expressions (3.7) and (3.9) in [8, Propostion 3.2], when the value of \(s\) therein (see (ii) in (3.2)) is as in our assumptions 1, we arrive at (3.10), so concluding by invoking Young’s inequality. (When \(\Omega \) is convex, the left hand side of the inequality is nonpositive; see [3, Appendix] and [21, Lemma 3.2].) □
Thanks to the next results (variants of Young’s inequality), products of powers will be estimated by suitable sums involving their bases and powers of sums controlled by sums of powers.
Lemma 4.3
Let \(a,b \geq 0\) and \(d_{1}, d_{2}>0\) such that \(d_{1} + d_{2} <1\). Then for all \(\epsilon >0\) there exists \(c>0\) such that
Moreover, for further \(d_{3}, d_{4}>0\), it is possible to find positive \(d_{5}\) and \(d\) such that
Proof
We show the first inequality, the proof of the second being similar. By applying Young’s inequality with conjugate exponents \(\frac{1}{d_{1}}\) and \(\frac{1}{1d_{1}}\), we obtain for any \(\epsilon _{1}>0\) and some \(c_{1}(\epsilon _{1})>0\) that
Moreover, due to \(\frac{d_{2}}{1d_{1}} <1\), a further application of the same inequality to the latter power provides for every positive \(\epsilon _{2}\) and proper \(c_{2}(\epsilon _{2})>0\) this relation: \(c_{1}(\epsilon _{1}) b^{\frac{d_{2}}{1d_{1}}} \leq \epsilon _{2} b + c_{2}(\epsilon _{2})\). By putting together the two inequalities and choosing \(\epsilon _{1} = \epsilon _{2}\), the first part of the lemma is concluded. All the details of the second inequality can be found in [15, Lemma 3.3]. □
4.2 The Right Procedure in Fixing the Parameters \(p\) and \(q\)
In this sequence of lemmas, we will verify that the mutual relation between the parameters \(\alpha \) in (3) and \(l\) in (4), i.e. relation (5), is such that the mentioned parameters \(p\) and \(q\) may be chosen in the appropriate way to make sure our general machinery work.
Lemma 4.4
For any \(n \in \mathbb{N}\), with \(n\geq 2\), let \(l\in (0,\frac{2}{n})\) and \(\alpha \) comply with assumption (5). Then there exist \(1<\theta <\frac{n}{n2}\) and \(\mu >\frac{n}{2}\) such that
Proof
We first point out that for \(n=2\), \(1<\theta <\frac{n}{n2}\) indicates that \(\theta \) might also be fixed large as we want; despite that, this is not the case, and we will take \(\theta \) always sufficiently close to 1.
Precisely, for \(n\geq 2\), \(1<\theta <\frac{n}{n2}\) implies that \(2n\theta +n^{2}n^{2}\theta >0\), and we can consider \(\theta >1\) small enough so to have \(n(\theta +12\alpha \theta )+2\theta >0\). Hence the function
is the difference of two positive terms. Now, from our assumptions
and the claim is proved by means of continuity arguments. □
Lemma 4.5
Let the hypotheses of Lemma 4.4be satisfied, and \(1<\theta <\frac{n}{n2}\) and \(\mu >\frac{n}{2}\) be therein fixed. Then there is \(q_{r}\in [1,\infty )\) such that for all \(q>q_{r}\) one has this compatibility relation:
Proof
Some easy computations show that for any \(n\geq 2\) the claim follows once it is established that for \(1<\theta <\frac{n}{n2}\) and \(\mu >\frac{n}{2}\) as in the hypotheses, and for
there are \(q\geq 1\) entailing
As we justify and explain it in Fig. 2, the above occurs whenever \(\mathcal{A}\mathcal{C}<0\).
□
Lemma 4.6
Let the hypotheses of Lemma 4.4be satisfied, and \(1<\theta <\frac{n}{n2}\) and \(\mu >\frac{n}{2}\) be therein fixed. Then there are \(p\in [1,\infty )\) and \(q\in [1,\infty )\) such that
belong to the interval \((0,1)\) and, additionally, imply that these other relations hold true:
Proof
For \(\theta \), \(\mu \), \(l\) and \(\alpha \) as in our hypotheses, the conjugate exponents \(\theta '\) and \(\mu '\) satisfy \(\theta ' > \frac{n}{2}\) and \(\mu '< \frac{n}{n2}\). Now, let \(p>\max \{2 + \frac{1}{\theta },\frac{2(n2)l\mu }{n}, \frac{2\theta (\alpha 1)(n2)}{n\theta (n2)}\}=p_{0}\) and \(q_{r}\) from Lemma 4.5, and note that any \(q>q_{r}\) is such that \((f_{1}(q),f_{2}(q))\) is not empty thanks to compatibility (13). Henceforth, in view of \(f'_{1}(q)>0\) and \(f_{2}'(q)>0\), we might enlarge \(q\) so to have \(f_{1}(q)< p_{0}< f_{2}(q)\) for some \(q>q_{r}\); subsequently, this procedure always allows us to consider \(p\) and \(q\) fulfilling
Our aim is to show that such restrictions suffice to prove the claim. Straightforward reasoning justify that some of the first relations in (16) imply \(a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}, \kappa _{1}, \kappa _{2} \in (0,1)\). The remaining two inequalities in (15) are, conversely, less direct. Indeed, if it can be immediately inferred that \(\frac{p2+2\alpha }{p}a_{1}+\frac{1}{q}a_{2}\) and \(\frac{2 l }{p}a_{3}+\frac{q1}{q}a_{4}\) are positive, the other bound requires tedious computations associated to \(f_{1}(q)\) and \(f_{2}(q)\). More exactly, algebraic rearrangements give
and
To see that expression (17) is negative, we notice from the constrains on \(p,q,\theta \) and \(\mu \) that the denominator is negative, so by imposing
we obtain
This, taking into account the negativity of \(n^{2}\theta n^{2}2n\theta \), is equivalent to find \(q\) such that
which is fulfilled by virtue of the choice on \(q\) and since the considered \(\theta \) complies with \(2n(\theta +12\alpha )+4\theta >0\). Subsequently, from (19) we have that
is satisfied for \(p\) and \(q\) as in (16).
Let us now turn our attention to (18). Unlike the previous case, we immediately see that the denominator is positive and, again by invoking (16), it holds that
□
Remark 2
Let us spend some words on how to treat the introduced parameters \(p\) and \(q\) in accordance with our overall purposes. This technical detail makes the analysis of the present work different and in some sense more thorough with respect those presented in many references above mentioned; therein, indeed, no undesired smallness assumption on \(p\), generally, appears. (Let us specify that bounds from above for \(p\) may limit the validity of certain results on Keller–Segeltype systems only to lowdimensional settings: for instance, the proof of both [23, Lemma 2.2] and [4, Lemma 4.6] requires \(p\in (1,2)\), and this in turn makes that the relative analyses are exclusively confined to twodimensional domains.)

(i)
Taking the “lower extremes” for \(q\) in \((q_{r},\infty )\) and for \(p\) in \((f_{1}(q),f_{2}(q))\), as specified in Lemma 4.6, might not be appropriate when dealing with other computations where they are involved. In particular, as we will perform in the last step toward the proof of Theorem 2.1, it could be necessary to enlarge each one of this values in order to ensure the validity of certain inequalities/inclusions. Despite that, we understand that some care is needed when this procedure has to be adopted; indeed, \(p\) cannot be taken large as we want independently by \(q\), but this is possible when the order \(f_{1}(q)< p< f_{2}(q)\) related to relation (13) is preserved. (This was already imposed in the same Lemma 4.6.)

(ii)
In support to the previous item, we point out that even though asymptotically we have
$$\begin{aligned} & \textstyle\begin{cases} \frac{p2+2\alpha }{p}a_{1}= \frac{n (\theta (2 \alpha +p2)1)}{\theta (n (p1)+2)}\nearrow 1 & \textrm{increasing with } \;p, \\ \frac{1}{q}a_{2}=\frac{n2 \theta '}{\theta ' (n2 (q+1))}\nearrow 0& \text{decreasing with } \;q, \end{cases}\displaystyle \quad \text{and} \quad \\ &\textstyle\begin{cases} \frac{2 l }{p}a_{3}=\frac{l (12 \mu ) n}{\mu (l (n2)n p)} \nearrow 0 & \textrm{decreasing with } \;p, \\ \frac{q1}{q}a_{4}=\frac{n2 \mu ' (q1)}{\mu ' (n2 (q+1))}\nearrow 1 & \text{increasing with } \;q, \end{cases}\displaystyle \end{aligned}$$this is not sufficient to ensure that there exists a couple \((p,q)\) for which both \(\frac{p2+2\alpha }{p}a_{1}+ \frac{1}{q}a_{2}<1\) and \(\frac{2 l }{p}a_{3}+ \frac{q1}{q}a_{4}<1\) are satisfied. Surely each one of this inequality holds true for two different couples, let’s say \((p_{0},q_{0})\) and \((p_{1},q_{1})\), but the identification of a single \((p,q)\) producing simultaneously those inequalities requires the extra condition \(p\in (f_{1}(q),f_{2}(q))\), intimately linked to the main assumption (5).
5 Deriving UniforminTime \(L^{p}\times L^{q}\)Bounds for \((u,\nabla v^{2})\). Proof of the Main Result
The coming lemma provides a uniformintime bound on \((0,T_{max})\) for \(u\) in \(L^{p}(\Omega )\) and for \(\nabla v^{2}\) in \(L^{q}(\Omega )\).
Lemma 5.1
Under the hypotheses of Lemma 3.1, we have the following conclusion: For some \(p \in (1,\infty )\) and \(q \in (1, \infty )\) there exists \(L>0\) such that
Proof
With \(\theta \), \(\mu \), \(p\) and \(q\) as in Lemma 4.6, the validity of all the computations along this lemma is justified.
As announced, let us differentiate with respect to the time \(y(t)\) defined in (11) and split the resulting derivations in three main steps, altogether yielding the proof. □
Estimating \(\frac{1}{p(p1)}\frac{d}{dt} \int _{\Omega } (u+1)^{p}\) on \((0,T_{max})\)
We take \(\frac{(u+1)}{p1}^{p1}\) as test function for the first equation in (1), so that by integrating by parts we obtain, also in view of the noflux boundary conditions, that
Through an application of Young’s inequality and (3), the latter term reads
and the second integral at the righthand side is estimated by the Hölder inequality so to have
Now (recall that \(p>22\alpha \) by virtue of (16)) we can apply Lemma 4.1 with \(\mathfrak{p}=\frac{2(p2+2\alpha )\theta }{p}\), \(\mathfrak{q}=\frac{2}{p}\) and, once the following inequality (used in the sequel without mentioning)
is also considered, we obtain for every \(t\in (0,T_{max})\)
where \(c_{1}>0\) depends on \(C_{GN}\), and with \(a_{1}\in (0,1)\) taken from Lemma 4.6. As a consequence, by observing that the mass conservation property (7) implies the boundedness of \((u+1)^{\frac{p}{2}}\) in \(L^{\infty }((0,T_{max}); L^{\frac{2}{p}}(\Omega ))\), from (25) we have that for some \(c_{2}>0\) and \(\beta _{1}\in (0,1)\) deduced from Lemma 4.6
In a similar way, we can again invoke the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality, with an evident choice of \(\mathfrak{p}\) and \(\mathfrak{q}\), to have for some \(c_{3}>0\) and \(a_{2}\in (0,1)\) as in Lemma 4.6
In particular, by exploiting (8), we entail that (taking in mind \(\gamma _{1}\in (0,1)\) from Lemma 4.6)
with some computable \(c_{4}>0\), also in terms of \(c_{0}\).
Subsequently, by collecting (23), (24) and adjusting the product between (26) and (27) by means of the Young inequality, relation (22) becomes
for all \(t\in (0,T_{max})\) and some \(c_{5}>0\).
Estimating \(\frac{1}{q} \frac{d}{dt}\int _{\Omega } \nabla v^{2q}\) on \((0,T_{max})\)
First, by applying the identity \(\Delta \nabla v^{2} = 2 \nabla v \cdot \nabla \Delta v + 2 D^{2}v^{2}\), we arrive for all \(x \in \Omega \) and \(t \in (0, T_{max})\) at
With such a relation in mind, by using \(\nabla v^{2q2}\) as test function, a differentiation of the second equation of problem (1) implies that on \((0,T_{max})\) this estimate holds:
Now, by relying on bound (8), some \(L_{0}>0\) providing \(\int _{\Omega }\nabla v\leq L_{0}\) exists; henceforth, an application of Lemma 4.2 allows us to find \(C_{\eta } > 0\) such that for some suitable \(\eta >0\) we have
By integrating by parts the latter integral above and using Young’s inequality, we get
where
due to the pointwise inequality \(\Delta v^{2} \leq n D^{2} v^{2}\). Henceforth, by exploiting (30) and recalling assumption (4), we can rephrase (29) as
where \(c_{6}\) is a positive constant depending also on \(K_{0}\). Let us now estimate the last integral in the previous bound. By employing the Hölder inequality, we first obtain the following estimate
whereas by relying on Lemma 4.1, we find a constant \(c_{7}>0\), depending on \(C_{GN}\), such that for \(a_{3} \in (0,1)\) from Lemma 4.6 we arrive at
On the other hand, by arguing as before, we infer for some \(c_{8}>0\), \(\beta _{2}\in (0,1)\) in Lemma 4.6 and by the finiteness of \(\(u+1)^{\frac{p}{2}}\_{L^{\frac{2l}{p}}(\Omega )}\) (immediately coming from (7) in view of \(0< l<\frac{2}{n}<1\))
(Let us note that in (33) we have intentionally applied the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality with exponent \(\mathfrak{q}=\frac{2l }{p}\) only for exhibiting reasons; indeed, the expression of ℬ in Lemma 4.5 appears more compact than the one that would be obtained by considering the optimal exponent \(\mathfrak{q}=\frac{2}{p}\). This does not preclude the sharpness of the assumption because, since \(\mu \) is taken indefinitely large, the exponent \(\mathfrak{p}\) has the control on \(a_{3}\), and not \(\mathfrak{q}\).)
At this point, by making use again of the Lemma 4.1, positive constants \(c_{9}\) and \(c_{10}\) imply
where, once more through Lemma 4.6, \(\gamma _{2}\in (0,1)\) and \(a_{4} \in (0,1)\).
Finally, by plugging relations (32), (34) and (35) into bound (31), a further application of Young’s inequality gives
\(c_{11}\) being a proper positive constant.
Combining Terms: The Absorptive Inequality on \((0,T_{max})\)
Adding the two contributions from (28) and (36) yields for some \(c_{12}>0\)
where accordingly to Lemma 4.6, the coefficients \(\beta _{1}+\gamma _{1}\in (0,1)\) and \(\beta _{2}+\gamma _{2}\in (0,1)\). Therefore we can apply the first inequality of Lemma 4.3 to (37) so to write for any \(\epsilon >0\) and some \(c(\epsilon )>0\) the above two products of powers as
If now we fix \(\epsilon >0\) and \(\eta >0\) so small to ensure that \(\tilde{c}=\frac{1}{p^{2}}\epsilon >0\) and \(\hat{c}=\frac{4(q1)}{3 q^{2}}\eta \epsilon >0\), a positive constant \(c_{13}\) producing
can be computed. Again by employing twice the Gagliardo–Nirenberg inequality, we have for \(\kappa _{1} \in (0,1)\) and \(\kappa _{2} \in (0,1)\) derived in Lemma 4.6, and suitable large \(c_{14}>0\), that these estimates hold true for all \(t\in (0,T_{max})\):
and
The already used mass conservation property and the boundedness of \(\lVert v(\cdot ,t)\rVert _{W^{1,n}(\Omega )}\), provide some positive constant \(c_{15}\) such that
and
Consequently, by collecting (39) and (40), we can rewrite (38) in the following way
with positive constants \(c_{16}, c_{17}\).
From all of the above, we invoke the second inequality in Lemma 4.3, so to see that the function \(y=y(t)\) satisfies this initial value problem
with suitable constants \(\kappa , c_{18}, c_{19}>0\). This leads to the conclusion for appropriate \(L>0\) since standard ODE comparison arguments give
□
With these gained bounds, we exploit a general boundedness result to quasilinear parabolic equations (see [21]) so to ensure uniformintime boundedness of the local solution \((u,v)\) to system (1).
Proof of Theorem 2.1
Let \((u,v)\) be the local classical solution to (1). Upon enlarging \(p\) and \(q\) accordingly to what said in item (i) of Remark 2, we can obtain that the term \(f(u)\nabla v\in L^{\infty }((0,T_{max});L^{q_{1}}(\Omega ))\), for some \(q_{1}>n+2\). So we conclude thanks to Lemma 5.1, [21, Lemma A.1] and the dichotomy criterion (6). □
Remark 3
(Some hints about the parabolicelliptic model)
Let us consider the equations
endowed with homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions, nontrivial initial data \(u(x,0)=u_{0}(x)\geq 0\), where \(f\) and \(g\) comply with assumptions in Theorem 2.1. Similarly to what already done, we have
This estimate is essentially the same than that derived in [27, \(\S \)4] so that, as therein, in order to take advantage from a combination of the Gagliardo–Nirenberg and Young’s inequalities, one has to impose \(\alpha 1+l<\frac{2}{n}\) (coinciding, exactly as discussed in Sect. 2.2, with the parabolicelliptic version of assumption (5)); consequently, the integral \(\frac{K K_{0}}{p+\alpha 1}\int _{\Omega } (u+1)^{p+\alpha +l1}\) can be suitably treated. Standard procedures, successively, provide that \(u\in L^{\infty }((0,T_{max});L^{p}(\Omega ))\) for arbitrarily large \(p>1\), and hence also \(g\in L^{\infty }((0,T_{max});L^{p}(\Omega ))\) for any \(l\in (0,1)\). Finally, elliptic regularity theory applied to the second equation in problem (41) infers uniform bound of \(\nabla v\), on \((0,T_{max})\), so that \(u\) and \(v\) are uniformly bounded for all \(t>0\).
We note that the necessary regularity of \(\nabla v\) is gained only by differentiating \(\int _{\Omega } (u+1)^{p}\), by using the initialboundary value problem (41) and, solely, the mass conservation property; neither an estimate like that in (8) is a priory needed nor the analysis of the term \(\int _{\Omega }\nabla v^{2q}\), involving the extra parameter \(q\), has to be developed.
References
Cieślak, T., Stinner, C.: Finitetime blowup and globalintime unbounded solutions to a parabolicparabolic quasilinear Keller–Segel system in higher dimensions. J. Differ. Equ. 252(10), 5832–5851 (2012)
Cieślak, T., Stinner, C.: New critical exponents in a fully parabolic quasilinear Keller–Segel system and applications to volume filling models. J. Differ. Equ. 258(6), 2080–2113 (2015)
Dal Passo, R., Garcke, H., Grün, G.: On a fourthorder degenerate parabolic equation: global entropy estimates, existence, and qualitative behavior of solutions. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 29(2), 321–342 (1998)
Fujie, K., Winkler, M., Yokota, T.: Blowup prevention by logistic sources in a parabolicelliptic Keller–Segel system with singular sensitivity. Nonlinear Anal. 109, 56–71 (2014)
Herrero, M.A., Velázquez, J.J.L.: A blowup mechanism for a chemotaxis model. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, Cl. Sci. (4) 24(4), 633–683 (1998), 1997
Hillen, T., Painter, K.J.: A user’s guide to PDE models for chemotaxis. J. Math. Biol. 58(1), 183–217 (2009)
Horstmann, D., Winkler, M.: Boundedness vs. blowup in a chemotaxis system. J. Differ. Equ. 215(1), 52–107 (2005)
Ishida, S., Seki, K., Yokota, T.: Boundedness in quasilinear Keller–Segel systems of parabolicparabolic type on nonconvex bounded domains. J. Differ. Equ. 256(8), 2993–3010 (2014)
Jäger, W., Luckhaus, S.: On explosions of solutions to a system of partial differential equations modelling chemotaxis. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 329(2), 819–824 (1992)
Keller, E.F., Segel, L.A.: Initiation of slime mold aggregation viewed as an instability. J. Theor. Biol. 26(3), 399–415 (1970)
Keller, E.F., Segel, L.A.: Model for chemotaxis. J. Theor. Biol. 30(2), 225–234 (1971)
Li, Y., Lankeit, J.: Boundedness in a chemotaxishaptotaxis model with nonlinear diffusion. Nonlinearity 29(5), 1564–1595 (2016)
Liu, Dm., Tao, Ys.: Boundedness in a chemotaxis system with nonlinear signal production. Appl. Math. J. Chin. Univ. Ser. B 31(4), 379–388 (2016)
Marras, M., Nishino, T., Viglialoro, G.: A refined criterion and lower bounds for the blowup time in a parabolicelliptic chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion. Nonlinear Anal. 195, 111725 (2020)
Marras, M., Viglialoro, G.: Boundedness in a fully parabolic chemotaxisconsumption system with nonlinear diffusion and sensitivity, and logistic source. Math. Nachr. 291(14–15), 2318–2333 (2018)
Murray, J.: Mathematical Biology I: An Introduction, vol. 17. Springer, New York (2002)
Myerscough, M.R., Maini, P.K., Painter, K.J.: Pattern formation in a generalized chemotactic model. Bull. Math. Biol. 60(1), 1–26 (1998)
Nagai, T.: Blowup of nonradial solutions to parabolicelliptic systems modeling chemotaxis in twodimensional domains. J. Inequal. Appl. 6(1), 37–55 (2001)
Nakaguchi, E., Osaki, K.: Global existence of solutions to an \(n\)dimensional parabolicparabolic system for chemotaxis with logistictype growth and superlinear production. Osaka J. Math. 55(1), 51–70 (2018)
Tao, Y., Wang, L., Wang, Z.A.: Largetime behavior of a parabolicparabolic chemotaxis model with logarithmic sensitivity in one dimension. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Ser. B 18(3), 821–845 (2013)
Tao, Y., Winkler, M.: Boundedness in a quasilinear parabolicparabolic Keller–Segel system with subcritical sensitivity. J. Differ. Equ. 252(1), 692–715 (2012)
Viglialoro, G.: Global in time and bounded solutions to a parabolicelliptic chemotaxis system with nonlinear diffusion and signaldependent sensitivity. Appl. Math. Optim. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00245019095750
Viglialoro, G., Woolley, T.E.: Solvability of a Keller–Segel system with signaldependent sensitivity and essentially sublinear production. Appl. Anal. 99(14), 2507–2525 (2020)
Wang, Q., Yang, J., Yu, F.: Boundedness in logistic Keller–Segel models with nonlinear diffusion and sensitivity functions. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 37(9), 5021–5036 (2017)
Winkler, M.: Aggregation vs. global diffusive behavior in the higherdimensional Keller–Segel model. J. Differ. Equ. 248(12), 2889–2905 (2010)
Winkler, M.: Does a ‘volumefilling effect’ always prevent chemotactic collapse? Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 33(1), 12–24 (2010)
Winkler, M.: A critical blowup exponent in a chemotaxis system with nonlinear signal production. Nonlinearity 31(5), 2031–2056 (2018)
Winkler, M., Djie, K.C.: Boundedness and finitetime collapse in a chemotaxis system with volumefilling effect. Nonlinear Anal. 72(2), 1044–1064 (2010)
Acknowledgements
The authors are members of the Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM) and are partially supported by the research project Evolutive and stationary Partial Differential Equations with a focus on biomathematics, funded by Fondazione di Sardegna (2019). GV is also partially supported by MIUR (Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research) Prin 2017 Nonlinear Differential Problems via Variational, Topological and Setvalued Methods (Grant Number: 2017AYM8XW).
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Cagliari within the CRUICARE Agreement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Frassu, S., Viglialoro, G. Boundedness for a Fully Parabolic Keller–Segel Model with Sublinear Segregation and Superlinear Aggregation. Acta Appl Math 171, 19 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440021003866
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440021003866