Abstract
In this paper, we investigate how natural killer (NK) cell recruitment to the tumor microenvironment (TME) affects oncolytic virotherapy. NK cells play a major role against viral infections. They are, however, known to induce early viral clearance of oncolytic viruses, which hinders the overall efficacy of oncolytic virotherapy. Here, we formulate and analyze a simple mathematical model of the dynamics of the tumor, OV and NK cells using currently available preclinical information. The aim of this study is to characterize conditions under which the synergistic balance between OV-induced NK responses and required viral cytopathicity may or may not result in a successful treatment. In this study, we found that NK cell recruitment to the TME must take place neither too early nor too late in the course of OV infection so that treatment will be successful. NK cell responses are most influential at either early (partly because of rapid response of NK cells to viral infections or antigens) or later (partly because of antitumoral ability of NK cells) stages of oncolytic virotherapy. The model also predicts that: (a) an NK cell response augments oncolytic virotherapy only if viral cytopathicity is weak; (b) the recruitment of NK cells modulates tumor growth; and (c) the depletion of activated NK cells within the TME enhances the probability of tumor escape in oncolytic virotherapy. Taken together, our model results demonstrate that OV infection is crucial, not just to cytoreduce tumor burden, but also to induce the stronger NK cell response necessary to achieve complete or at least partial tumor remission. Furthermore, our modeling framework supports combination therapies involving NK cells and OV which are currently used in oncolytic immunovirotherapy to treat several cancer types.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- NK:
-
Natural killer
- OV:
-
Oncolytic virus
- ICD:
-
Immunogenic cell death
- TME:
-
Tumor microenvironment
- PAMPs:
-
Pathogen-associated molecular patterns
- DAMPs:
-
Damage-associated molecular patterns
- ODE:
-
Ordinary differential equations
- \(\mathcal {R}_{0}\) :
-
Basic reproductive number
- LHS:
-
Latin hypercube sampling
- PRCC:
-
Partial rank correlation coefficients
References
Achard C, Boisgerault N, Delaunay T, Tangy F, Grégoire M, Fonteneau JF (2015) Induction of immunogenic tumor cell death by attenuated oncolytic measles virus. J Clin Cell Immunol 6:291
Aghi M, Martuza RL (2005) Oncolytic viral therapies-the clinical experience. Oncogene 24(52):7802–7816
Alkayyal AA, Tai LH, Kennedy MA, de Souza CT, Zhang J, Lefebvre C et al (2017) NK-cell recruitment is necessary for eradication of peritoneal carcinomatosis with an IL\(12\)-expressing Maraba virus cellular vaccine. Cancer Immunol Res 5(3):211–221
Almuallem N, Trucu D, Eftimie R (2021) Oncolytic viral therapies and the delicate balance between virus-macrophage-tumour interactions: a mathematical approach. Math Biosci Eng 18(1):764–799
Alvarez-Breckenridge CA, Yu J, Kaur B, Caligiuri MA, Chiocca EA (2012a) Deciphering the multifaceted relationship between oncolytic viruses and natural killer cells. Adv Virol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/702839
Alvarez-Breckenridge CA, Yu J, Price R, Wojton J, Pradarelli J, Mao H et al (2012b) NK cells impede glioblastoma virotherapy through NKp30 and NKp46 natural cytotoxicity receptors. Nat Med 18(12):1827–1834
Bailey K, Kirk A, Naik S, Nace R, Steele MB, Suksanpaisan L et al (2013) Mathematical model for radial expansion and conflation of intratumoral infectious centers predicts curative oncolytic virotherapy parameters. PLoS ONE 8:e73759
Bajzer Ž, Carr T, Josić K, Russell SJ, Dingli D (2008) Modeling of cancer virotherapy with recombinant measles viruses. J Theor Biol 252(1):109–122
Barish S, Ochs MF, Sontag ED, Gevertz JL (2017) Evaluating optimal therapy robustness by virtual expansion of a sample population, with a case study in cancer immunotherapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(31):E6277–E6286
Ben-Shmuel A, Biber G, Barda-Saad M (2020) Unleashing natural killer cells in the tumor microenvironment-the next generation of immunotherapy? Front Immunol 11:275
Bhat R, Rommelaere J (2015) Emerging role of Natural killer cells in oncolytic virotherapy. ImmunoTargets Therapy 4:65–77
Bisheshar SK, Ruitera EJD, Devrieseb LA, Willemsa SM (2020) The prognostic role of NK cells and their ligands in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncoimmunology 9(1):e1747345
Blue CE, Spiller OB, Blackbourn DJ (2004) The relevance of complement to virus biology. Virology 319(2):176–184
Bommareddy PK, Zloza A, Rabkin SD, Kaufman HL (2019) Oncolytic virus immunotherapy induces immunogenic cell death and overcomes STING deficiency in melanoma. OncoImmunology 8(1):e1591875
Breitbach CJ, Paterson JM, Lemay CG, Falls TJ, McGuire A, Parato KA et al (2007) Targeted inflammation during oncolytic virus therapy severely compromises tumor blood flow. Mol Therapy 15(9):1686–1693
Carr J (1981) Applications of centre manifold theory, applied mathematics sciences, 35th edn. Springer, New York
Cassidy T, Craig M (2019) Optimal individualized combination immunotherapy/oncolytic virotherapy determined through in silico clinical trials improves late stage melanoma patient outcomes. bioRxiv, p 585711
Cerwenka A, Lanier LL (2016) Natural killer cell memory in infection, inflammation and cancer. Nat Rev Immunol 16(2):112–123
Chen X, Han J, Chu J, Zhang L, Zhang J, Chen C et al (2016) A combinational therapy of EGFR-CAR NK cells and oncolytic herpes simplex virus 1 for breast cancer brain metastases. Oncotarget 19(7):27764
Choi JW, Lee JS, Kim SW, Yun CO (2012a) Evolution of oncolytic adenovirus for cancer treatment. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 64(8):720–729
Choi KJ, Zhang SN, Choi IK, Kim JS, Yun CO (2012b) Strengthening of antitumor immune memory and prevention of thymic atrophy mediated by adenovirus expressing IL-\(12\) and GM-CSF. Gene Therapy 19:711–723
Choi JW, Lee YS, Yun CO, Kim SW (2015) Polymeric oncolytic adenovirus for cancer gene therapy. J Control Release 219:181–191
Davola ME, Mossman KL (2019) Oncolytic viruses: how “lytic’’ must they be for therapeutic efficacy? Oncoimmunology 8(6):e1596006
de Matos AL, Franco LS, McFadden G (2020) Oncolytic viruses and the immune system: the dynamic duo. Mol Therapy Methods Clin Dev 17:349–358
de Pillis L, Radunskaya A (2003) A mathematical model of immune response to tumor invasion. In: Bathe KJ (ed) Computational fluid and solid mechanics. Elsevier, Hoboken, pp 1661–1668
de Pillis LG, Gu W, Radunskaya AE (2006) Mixed immunotherapy and chemotherapy of tumours: modeling, applications and biological interpretations. J Theor Biol 238(4):841–862
de Pillis LG, Caldwell T, Sarapata E, Williams H (2013) Mathematical modeling of the regulatory T cell effects on renal cell carcinoma treatment. Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Ser 18(4):915–943
den Driessche PV, Watmough J (2002) Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission. Math Biosci 180(1):29–48
Diaz RM, Galivo F, Kottke T, Wongthida P, Qiao J, Thompson J et al (2007) Oncolytic immunovirotherapy for melanoma using vesicular stomatitis virus. Cancer Res 67(6):2840–2848
Diekmann O, van Giles S, Lunel S (1995) Delay equations. Springer, New York
Dingli D, Cascino MD, Josić K, Russell SJ, Bajzer Ž (2006) Mathematical modeling of cancer radiovirotherapy. Math Biosci 199(1):55–78
Donnelly OG, Errington-Mais F, Steele L, Hadac E, Jennings V, Scott K et al (2013) Measles virus causes immunogenic cell death in human melanoma. Gene Therapy 20(1):7–15
Dritschel H, Waters SL, Roller A, Byrne HM (2018) A mathematical model of cytotoxic and helper T cell interactions in a tumour microenvironment. Lett Biomath 5(sup1):S36–S68
Eftimie R, Eftimie G (2018) Tumour-associated macrophages and oncolytic virotherapies: a mathematical investigation into a complex dynamics. Lett Biomath 5(sup1):S6–S35
Eftimie R, Eftimie G (2019) Investigating macrophages plasticity following tumour-immune interactions during oncolytic therapies. Acta Biotheoretica 67(4):321–359
Eftimie R, Hamam H (2017) Modelling and investigation of the CD\(4{+}\) T cells: macrophages paradox in melanoma immunotherapies. J Theor Biol 420:82–104
Eissa IR, Bustos-Villalobos I, Ichinose T, Matsumura S, Naoe Y, Miyajima N et al (2018) The current status and future prospects of oncolytic viruses in clinical trials against melanoma, glioma, pancreatic, and breast cancers. Cancers 10(10):356
Elsedawy NB, Nace RA, Russell SJ, Schulze AJ (2020) Oncolytic activity of targeted picornaviruses formulated as synthetic infectious RNA. Mol Therapy Oncolytics 17:484–495
El-Shemi AG, Ashshi AM, Na Y, Li Y, Basalamah M, Al-Allaf FA et al (2016) Combined therapy with oncolytic adenoviruses encoding TRAIL and IL-12 genes markedly suppressed human hepatocellular carcinoma both in vitro and in an orthotopic transplanted mouse model. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 35(1):74
El-Shemi AG, Ashshi AM, Oh E, Jung BK, Basalamah M, Alsaegh A et al (2018) Efficacy of combining ING\(4\) and TRAIL genes in cancer-targeting gene virotherapy strategy: first evidence in preclinical hepatocellular carcinoma. Gene Therapy 25(1):54
Ennis MK, Hu C, Naik SK, Hallak LK, Peng KW, Russell SJ et al (2010) Mutations in the stalk region of the measles virus hemagglutinin inhibit syncytium formation but not virus entry. J Virol 84(20):10913–10917
Everts B, van der Poel HG (2005) Replication-selective oncolytic viruses in the treatment of cancer. Cancer Gene Therapy 12(2):141–161
Farnault L, Sanchez C, Baier C, Treut TL, Costello RT (2012) Hematological malignancies escape from NK cell innate immune surveillance: mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Clin Dev Immunol 2012:1–8
Ferreira TB, Alves PM, Gonçalves DG, Carrondo M (2005) Effect of MOI and medium composition on adenovirus infection kinetics. In: Godia F, Fussenegger M (eds) Animal cell technology meets genomics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 329–332
Filley AC, Dey M (2017) Immune system, friend or foe of oncolytic virotherapy? Front Oncol 7:106
Fionda C, Stabile H, Molfetta R, Soriani A, Bernardini G, Zingoni A et al (2018) Translating the anti-myeloma activity of Natural Killer cells into clinical application. Cancer Treat Rev 70:255–264
Freeman BE, Rauè HP, Hill AB, Slifka MK (2015) Cytokine-mediated activation of NK cells during viral infection. J Virol 89(15):7922–7931
Freund-Brown J, Chirino L, Kambayashi T (2018) Strategies to enhance NK cell function for the treatment of tumors and infections. Crit Rev Immunol 38(2):105–130
Friberg S, Mattson S (1997) On the growth rates of human malignant tumors: implications for medical decision making. J Surg Oncol 65(4):284–297
Friedman A, Lai X (2018) Combination therapy for cancer with oncolytic virus and checkpoint nhibitor: a mathematical model. PLoS ONE 13(2):e0192449
Friedman A, Tian JP, Fulci G, Chiocca EA, Wang J (2006) Glioma virotherapy: effects of innate immune suppression and increased viral replication capacity. Cancer Res 66(4):2314–2319
Gao J, Zhang W, Ehrhardt A (2020) Expanding the spectrum of adenoviral vectors for cancer therapy. Cancers 12(5):1139
Gatenby RA (2009) A change of strategy in the war on cancer. Nature 459(7246):508
Gauthier L, Morel A, Anceriz N, Rossi B, Blanchard-Alvarez A, Grondin G et al (2019) Multifunctional natural killer cell engagers targeting NKp\(46\) trigger protective tumor immunity. Cell 177(7):1701–1713
Gesundheit B, Ben-David E, Posen Y, Ellis R, Wollmann G, Schneider EM et al (2020) Effective treatment of glioblastoma multiforme with oncolytic virotherapy: a case-series. Front Oncol 10:702
Gross C, Hansch D, Gastpar R, Multhoff G (2003) Interaction of heat shock protein \(70\) peptide with NK cells involves the NK receptor CD\(94\). Biol Chem 384(2):267–279
Gujar SA, Pan D, Marcato P, Garant KA, Lee PWK (2011) Oncolytic virus-initiated protective immunity against prostate cancer. Mol Therapy 19(4):797–804
Gujar S, Pol JG, Kim Y, Lee PW, Kroemer G (2018) Antitumor benefits of antiviral immunity: an underappreciated aspect of oncolytic virotherapies. Trends Immunol 39:209–221
Guo ZS, Liu Z, Bartlett DL (2014) Oncolytic immunotherapy: dying the right way is a key to eliciting potent antitumor immunity. Front Oncol 4:74
Guo Y, Niu B, Tian JP (2019) Backward Hopf bifurcation in a mathematical model for oncolytic virotherapy with the infection delay and innate immune effects. J Biol Dyn 13(1):733–748
Hansen TF, Nederby L, Zedan AH, Mejlholm I, Henriksen JR, Steffensen KD et al (2019) Correlation between natural killer cell activity and treatment effect in patients with disseminated Cancer. Transl Oncol 12(7):968–972
Harrington K, Freeman DJ, Kelly B, Harper J, Soria JC (2019) Optimizing oncolytic virotherapy in cancer treatment. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18(9):689–706
Harris AL (2002) Hypoxia: a key regulatory factor in tumour growth. Nat Rev Cancer 2(1):38–47
Heidbuechel JPW, Abate-Daga D, Engeland CE, Enderling H (2020) Mathematical modeling of oncolytic virotherapy. In: Viruses Oncolytic (ed) Methods Mol Biol. Springer, New York, pp 301–320
Hu W, Wang G, Huang D, Sui M, Xu Y (2019) Cancer immunotherapy based on natural killer cells: current progress and new opportunities. Front Immunol 10:1205
Iannello A, Raulet DH (2014) Immunosurveillance of senescent cancer cells by natural killer cells. Oncoimmunology 3(2):e27616
Iannello A, Thompson TW, Ardolino M, Marcus A, Raulet DH (2016) Immunosurveillance and immunotherapy of tumors by innate immune cells. Curr Opin Immunol 38:52–58
Jacobsen K, Russell L, Kaur B, Friedman A (2015) Effects of CCN1 and macrophage content on glioma virotherapy: a mathematical model. Bull Math Biol 77(6):1–29
Jenner AL, Yun CO, Yoon A, Coster ACF, Kim PS (2018) Modelling combined virotherapy and immunotherapy: strengthening the antitumour immune response mediated by IL-\(12\) and GM-CSF expression. Lett Biomath 5(sup1):S99–S116
Jenner AL, Kim PS, Frascoli F (2019) Oncolytic virotherapy for tumours following a Gompertz growth law. J Theor Biol 480:129–140
Jost S, Altfeld M (2013) Control of human viral infections by natural killer cells. Annu Rev Immunol 31:163–194
Jung MY, Offord CP, Ennis MK, Kemler I, Neuhauser C, Dingli D (2018) In vivo estimation of oncolytic virus populations within tumors. Cancer Res 78(20):5992–6000
Kemler I, Ennis MK, Neuhauser CM, Dingli D (2019) In vivo imaging of oncolytic measles virus propagation with single-cell resolution. Mol Therapy Oncolytics 12:68–78
Kim E, Kim JH, Shin HY, Lee H, Yang JM, Kim J et al (2003) Ad-mTERT-\(\Delta \)19, a conditional replication-competent adenovirus driven by the human telomerase promoter, selectively replicates in and elicits cytopathic effect in a cancer cell-specific manner. Hum Gene Therapy 14(15):1415–1428
Kim HS, Kim-Schulze S, Kim DW, Kaufman HL (2009) Host lymphodepletion enhances the therapeutic activity of an oncolytic vaccinia virus expressing \(4-1\)BB ligand. Cancer Res 69(21):8516–8525
Kim PS, Crivelli JJ, Choi IK, Yun CO, Wares JR (2015) Quantitative impact of immunomodulation versus oncolysis with cytokine-expressing virus therapeutics. Math Biosci Eng 12(4):841–858
Kim Y, Yoo JY, Lee TJ, Liu J, Yu J, Caligiuri MA et al (2018) Complex role of NK cells in regulation of oncolytic virus-bortezomib therapy. PNAS 115(19):4927–4932
Klose C, Berchtold S, Schmidt M, Beil J, Smirnow I, Venturelli S et al (2019) Biological treatment of pediatric sarcomas by combined virotherapy and NK cell therapy. BMC Cancer 9:1172
Kuznetsov VA, Makalkin IA, Taylor MA, Perelson AS (1994) Nonlinear dynamics of immunogenic tumors: parameter estimation and global bifurcation analysis. Bull Math Biol 56(2):295–321
Kwon OJ, Kang E, Kim S, Yun CO (2011) Viral genome DNA/lipoplexes elicit in situ oncolytic viral replication and potent antitumor efficacy via systemic delivery. J Control Release 155(2):317–325
Langers I, Renoux VM, Thiry M, Delvenne P, Jacobs N (2012) Natural killer cells: role in local tumor growth and metastasis. Biol Targets Therapy 6:73
Lee YS, Kim JH, Choi KJ, Choi IK, Kim H, Choea S (2006) Enhanced antitumor effect of oncolytic adenovirus expressing interleukin-\(12\) and B\(7-1\) in an immunocompetent murine model. Clin Cancer Res 12(19):5859–5868
Lemay CG, Rintoul JL, Kus A, Paterson JM, Garcia V, Falls TJ et al (2012) Harnessing oncolytic virus-mediated antitumor immunity in an infected cell vaccine. Mol Therapy 20(9):1791–1799
Leung EYL, Ennis DP, Kennedy PR, Hansell C, Dowson S, Farquharson M et al (2020) NK cells augment oncolytic adenovirus cytotoxicity in ovarian cancer. Mol Therapy Oncolytics 16:289–301
Li Y, Sun R (2018) Tumor immunotherapy: new aspects of natural killer cells. Chin J Cancer Res 30(2):173
Li X, Wang P, Li H, Du X, Liu M, Huang Q et al (2017) The efficacy of oncolytic adenovirus is mediated by T cell responses against virus and tumor in Syrian hamster model. Clin Cancer Res 23(1):239–249
Liu W, Dai E, Liu Z, Ma C, Guo ZS, Bartlett DL (2020) In Situ therapeutic cancer vaccination with an oncolytic virus expressing Membrane-Tethered IL-\(2\). Mol Therapy Oncolytics 17:350–360
Liu S, Galat V, Galat Y, Kyung Y, Lee A, Wainwright D et al (2021) NK cell-based cancer immunotherapy: from basic biology to clinical development. J Hematol Oncol 14(1):1–17
Macnamara C, Eftimie R (2015) Memory versus effector immune responses in oncolytic virotherapies. J Theor Biol 377:1–9
Mahasa KJ, Ouifki R, Eladdadi A, de Pillis L (2016) Mathematical model of tumor-immune surveillance. J Theor Biol 404:312–330
Mahasa KJ, Eladdadi A, de Pillis L, Ouifki R (2017) Oncolytic potency and reduced virus tumor-specificity in oncolytic virotherapy. A mathematical modelling approach. PLoS ONE 12(9):e0184347
Mahasa KJ, de Pillis L, Ouifki R, Eladdadi A, Maini P, Yoon AR et al (2020) Mesenchymal stem cells used as carrier cells of oncolytic adenovirus results in enhanced oncolytic virotherapy. Sci Rep 10(1):1–13
Makaryan SZ, Finley SD (2020) Enhancing network activation in Natural Killer cells: predictions from in silico modeling. Integr Biol 12(5):109–121
Marchini A, Scott EM, Rommelaere J (2016) Overcoming barriers in oncolytic virotherapy with HDAC inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade. Viruses 8(1):9
Marchini A, Daeffler L, Pozdeev VI, Angelova A, Rommelaere J (2019) Immune conversion of tumor microenvironment by oncolytic viruses: the protoparvovirus H-\(1\)PV case study. Front Immunol 10:1848
Marcus A, Gowen BG, Thompson TW, Iannello A, Ardolino M, Deng W et al (2014) Recognition of tumors by the innate immune system and natural killer cells. Adv Immunol 122:91–128
Marino S, Hogue IB, Ray CJ, Kirschner DE (2008) A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology. J Theor Biol 254(1):178–196
Marotel M, Hasim MS, Hagerman A, Ardolino M (2020) The two-faces of NK cells in oncolytic virotherapy. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 56:59–68
Martin NT, Bell JC (2018) Oncolytic virus combination therapy: killing one bird with two stones. Mol Therapy 26(6):1414–1422
Martin NT, Wrede C, Niemann J, Brooks J, Schwarzer D, Kühnel F et al (2012) Combined therapy with cytokine-induced killer cells and oncolytic adenovirus expressing IL-\(12\) induce enhanced antitumor activity in liver tumor model. PLoS ONE 7(9):e44802
Meerani S, Yao Y (2010) Oncolytic viruses in cancer therapy. Eur J Sci Res 40(1):156–171
Miyamoto S, Inoue H, Nakamura T, Yamada M, Sakamoto C, Urata Y et al (2012) Coxsackievirus B\(3\) is an oncolytic virus with immunostimulatory properties that is active against lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res 72(10):2609–2621
Naik JD, Twelves CJ, Selby PJ, Vile RG, Chester JD (2011) Immune recruitment and therapeutic synergy: keys to optimizing oncolytic viral therapy? Clin Cancer Res 17(13):4214–4224
Navarro AG, Björklund AT, Chekenya M (2015) Therapeutic potential and challenge of natural killer cells in treatment of solid tumors. Front Immunol 6:202
Nguyen A, Ho L, Wan Y (2014) Chemotherapy and oncolytic virotherapy: advanced tactics in the war against cancer. Front Oncol 4:145
Ogbomo H, Zemp FJ, Lun X, Zhang J, Stack D, Rahman MM et al (2013) Myxoma virus infection promotes NK lysis of malignant gliomas in vitro and in vivo. PLoS ONE 8(6):e66825
Oh S, Lee JH, Kwack K, Choi SW (2019) Natural killer cell therapy: a new treatment paradigm for solid tumors. Cancers 11(10):1534
Paiva LR, Binny C, Ferreira SC, Martins ML (2009) A multiscale mathematical model for oncolytic virotherapy. Cancer Res 69(3):1205–1211
Paust S, von Andrian UH (2011) Natural killer cell memory. Nat Immunol 12(6):500–508
Phan TA, Tian JP (2017) The role of the innate immune system in oncolytic virotherapy. Comput Math Methods Med
Prestwich RJ, Harrington KJ, Pandha HS, Vile RG, Melcher AA, Errington F (2008) Oncolytic viruses: a novel form of immunotherapy. Exp Rev Anticancer Therapy 8(10):1581–1588
Prestwich RJ, Errington F, Diaz RM, Pandha HS, Harrington KJ, Melcher AA et al (2009) The case of oncolytic viruses versus the immune system: waiting on the judgment of Solomon. Hum Gene Therapy 20(10):1119–1132
Pucar D, Hricak H, Shukla-Dave A, Kuroiwa K, Drobnjak M, Eastham J et al (2007) Clinically significant prostate cancer local recurrence after radiation therapy occurs at the site of primary tumor: magnetic resonance imaging and step-section pathology evidence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 69(1):62–69
Rodriguez-Brenes IA, Hofacre A, Fan H, Wodarz D (2017) Complex dynamics of virus spread from low infection multiplicities: implications for the spread of oncolytic viruses. PLOS Comput Biol 13(5):e1005241
Russell SJ, Peng KW, Bell JC (2012) Oncolytic virotherapy. Nat Biotechnol 30(7):658–670
Russell L, Peng KW, Russell SJ, Diaz RM (2019) Oncolytic viruses: priming time for cancer immunotherapy. BioDrugs 33:485–501
Samson A, Bentham MJ, Scott K, Nuovo G, Bloy A, Appleton E et al (2018) Oncolytic reovirus as a combined antiviral and anti-tumour agent for the treatment of liver cancer. Gut 67(3):562–573
Schatzman M (2002) Numerical analysis: a mathematical introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shi T, Song X, Wang Y, Liu F, Wei J (2020) Combining oncolytic viruses with cancer immunotherapy: establishing a new generation of cancer treatment. Front Immunol 11:683
Sobol PT, Boudreau JE, Stephenson K, Wan Y, Lichty BD, Mossman KL (2011) Adaptive antiviral immunity is a determinant of the therapeutic success of oncolytic virotherapy. Mol Therapy 19(2):335–344
Somma SD, Iannuzzi CA, Passaro C, Forte IM, Iannone R, Gigantino V et al (2019) The oncolytic virus \(dl922-947\) triggers immunogenic cell death in mesothelioma and reduces xenograft growth. Front Oncol 9:564
Storey KM, Lawler SE, Jackson TL (2020) Modeling oncolytic viral therapy, immune checkpoint inhibition, and the complex dynamics of innate and adaptive immunity in glioblastoma treatment. Front Physiol 11:151
Tisoncik JR, Korth MJ, Simmons CP, Farrar J, Martin TR, Katze MG (2012) Into the eye of the cytokine storm. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 6(1):16–32
Tsygvintsev A, Marino S, Kirschner DE (2012) A mathematical model of gene therapy for the treatment of cancer, in mathematical models and methods in biomedicine. Springer, Berlin
Vähä-Koskela M, Hinkkanen A (2014) Tumor restrictions to oncolytic virus. Biomedicines 2(2):163–194
Vähä-Koskela MJV, Heikkilä JE, Hinkkanen AE (2007) Oncolytic viruses in cancer therapy. Cancer Lett 254(2):178–216
Valle ASD, Anel A, Naval J, Marzo I (2019) Immunogenic cell death and immunotherapy of multiple myeloma. Front Cell Dev Biol 7:50
van Vloten JP, Workenhe ST, Wootton SK, Mossman KL, Bridle BW (2018) Critical interactions between immunogenic cancer cell death, oncolytic viruses, and the immune system define the rational design of combination immunotherapies. J Immunol 200(2):450–458
Vivier E, Tomasello E, Baratin M, Walzer T, Ugolini S (2008) Functions of natural killer cells. Nat Immunol 9(5):503–510
Vivier E, Ugolini S, Blaise D, Chabannon C, Brossay L (2012) Targeting natural killer cells and natural killer T cells in cancer. Nat Rev Immunol 12(4):239–252
Waggoner SN, Reighard SD, Gyurova IE, Cranert SA, Mahl SE, Karmele EP et al (2016) Roles of natural killer cells in antiviral immunity. Curr Opin Virol 16:15–23
Walker R, Enderling H (2016) From concept to clinic: mathematically informed immunotherapy. Curr Probl Cancer 40(1):68–83
Wang F, Lau JKC, Yu J (2020) The role of natural killer cell in gastrointestinal cancer: killer or helper. Oncogene 40:717–730
Watzl C, Sternberg-Simon M, Urlaub D, Mehr R (2012) Understanding natural killer cell regulation by mathematical approaches. Front Immunol 3:359
Wodarz D (2001) Viruses as antitumor weapons: defining conditions for tumor remission. Cancer Res 61(8):3501–3507
Wodarz D (2013) Computational modeling approaches to studying the dynamics of oncolytic viruses. Math Biosci Eng 10(3):939–957
Wodarz D, Sierro S, Klenerman P (2007) Dynamics of killer T cell inflation in viral infections. J R Soc Interface 4(14):533–543
Wodarz D, Hofacre A, Lau JW, Sun Z, Fan H, Komarova NL (2012) Complex spatial dynamics of oncolytic viruses in vitro: mathematical and experimental approaches. PLoS Comput Biol 8(6):e1002547
Workenhe ST, Mossman KL (2014) Oncolytic virotherapy and immunogenic cancer cell death: sharpening the sword for improved cancer treatment strategies. Mol Therapy 22(2):251–256
Workenhe ST, Simmons G, Pol JG, Lichty BD, Halford WP, Mossman KL (2014) Immunogenic HSV-mediated oncolysis shapes the antitumor immune response and contributes to therapeutic efficacy. Mol Therapy 22(1):123–131
Yoo JY, Jaime-Ramirez AC, Bolyard C, Dai H, Nallanagulagari T, Wojton J et al (2016) Bortezomib treatment sensitizes oncolytic HSV-\(1\)-treated tumors to NK cell immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 22(21):5265–5276
Yoon AR, Hong J, Li Y, Shin HC, Lee H, Kim HS et al (2019) Mesenchymal stem cell-mediated delivery of an oncolytic adenovirus enhances antitumor efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res 79(17):4503–4514
Zhang Q, Liu F (2020) Advances and potential pitfalls of oncolytic viruses expressing immunomodulatory transgene therapy for malignant gliomas. Cell Death Dis 11(6):1–11
Zhang KJ, Zhang J, Wu YM, Qian J, Liua XJ, Yan LC et al (2012) Complete eradication of hepatomas using an oncolytic adenovirus containing AFP promoter controlling E\(1\)A and an E\(1\)B deletion to drive IL-\(24\) expression. Cancer Gene Therapy 19(9):619–629
Zhang J, Tai LH, Ilkow CS, Alkayyal AA, Ananth AA, de Souza CT et al (2014) Maraba MG1 virus enhances natural killer cell function via conventional dendritic cells to reduce postoperative metastatic disease. Mol Therapy 22(1):1320–1332
Zi Z (2011) Sensitivity analysis approaches applied to systems biology models. IET Syst Biol 5(6):336–346
Zurakowski R, Wodarz D (2007) Model-driven approaches for in vitro combination therapy using ONYX-O\(15\) replicating oncolytic adenovirus. J Theor Biol 245(1):1–8
Acknowledgements
NSS, KJM and RO acknowledge the support from the DST/NRF SARChI Chair in Mathematical Models and Methods in Biosciences and Bioengineering at the University of Pretoria during the 2019 October Workshop on Trends in Modeling and Analysis in Life Sciences, where the ideas and design of this study were conceived. LdeP thanks Harvey Mudd College for supporting a sabbatical leave that allowed her to engage in this research. All authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their extraordinary in-depth reviews and insightful suggestions that helped to improve the quality of this manuscript.
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.
Appendices
Well-Posedness
The proposed model in this study describes the temporal evolution of cells and virus populations, and therefore, the cell concentrations should remain nonnegative and bounded. Here, we establish the well-posedness of the immune-free submodel (Eqs. (3.1.1)–(3.1.3)) and its proofs. We should emphasize that the nonnegativity and boundedness of the immunocompetent model directly follow from the same type arguments presented herein, and hence, we shall omit their proofs. We also provide a brief outline for extending the solutions to our immunocompetent system (see Eqs. (2.1.1)–(2.1.4)). Note that when solving for one state variable, for simplicity, other state variables appearing in the equation are treated as constants.
Theorem A.1
Well-Posedness
-
(i)
(nonnegativity of solutions) Given that the nonnegative initial conditions \((T_{u0}> 0, T_{i0}> 0, V_0 > 0)\), the corresponding solutions \((T_{u}(t), T_{i}(t), V(t))\) will remain nonnegative for all \(t \in [0, \infty )\).
-
(ii)
(boundedness of solutions and invariant region) The model system is bounded and the invariant region is given by \({\varvec{\Omega }}_{\mathbf{V}} = \{(T_{u}, T_{i}, V) \in \mathbb {R}_{+}^3 \mid \ 0 \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}T_{u} \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}\theta _{T},\ 0 \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}T_{i} \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}\frac{1}{\delta } \beta T_{u} V,\ 0 \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}V \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}\frac{1}{\gamma }(\mu _{v}(t) + b T_{i})\}\). Moreover, the domain \({\varvec{\Omega }}_{\mathbf{V}}\) is positively invariant for the model and therefore biologically meaningful for the cell concentrations and regarded as a “global” domain. The corresponding dimensionless system, Eqs. (3.2.6)–(3.2.8), is valid under the following positively invariant domain: \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V1}} = \{(T_{u}, T_{i}, V) \in \mathbb {R}_{+}^3 \mid \ T_{u} \ge 0,\ T_{i} \ge 0,\ 0 \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}T_{u} + T_{i} \hbox {\,\,\char 054\,\,}1,\ V \ge 0\}.\)
-
(iii)
(existence and uniqueness) For any nonnegative initial values of the model state variables, a solution to the model exists and is unique in the positively invariant domain \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V}}\) for all time \(t > 0\).
1.1 (i) Nonnegativity of Solutions
Proof
Considering Eq. (3.1.1), we have a Bernoulli differential equation. We now rewrite Eq. (3.1.1) as \(\frac{\mathrm{d}T_{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} = \alpha T_{u} - \frac{\alpha T_{u}^2}{\theta _{T}} - \frac{\alpha T_{u} T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \beta T_{u} V = \left( \alpha - \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \beta V\right) T_{u} - \frac{\alpha T_{u}^2}{\theta _{T}}.\) Thus, the Bernoulli standard form of Eq. (3.1.1) is \(\frac{\mathrm{d}T_{u}}{\mathrm{d}t} + \left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) T_{u} = -\frac{\alpha T_{u}^2}{\theta _{T}}\).
Here, \(n = 2\), \(P(t) = \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \), \(Q(t) = -\frac{\alpha }{\theta _{T}}\). The integrating factor is \(I(t) = e^{\int {(1 - 2)\left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) }dt} = e^{ - \left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) t}. \) The solution is therefore given by: \(T_{u}^{-1} = e^{\left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) t}\left[ \int {(-1)\left( -\frac{\alpha }{\theta _{T}}\right) e^{ - \left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) t}}dt + c\right] = e^{\left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) t}\left[ \frac{\alpha }{\theta _{T}}\int {e^{ - \left( \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha \right) t}}dt + c\right] = e^{nt}\left[ -\frac{\alpha }{\theta _{T} n} e^{-nt} + c\right] ,\quad \text {where} \quad n = \beta V + \frac{\alpha T_{i}}{\theta _{T}} - \alpha = -\frac{\alpha }{\theta _{T} n} + ce^{nt}. \)
At \(t = 0\), \(T_{u} = T_{u0}\), solving for c we obtain \(c = T_{u0} + \frac{\alpha }{\theta _{T} n}\). Now substituting c in the equation for \(T_{u}^{-1}\) above, we get \(T_{u}^{-1} = \frac{(\theta _{T} n T_{u0} + \alpha )e^{nt} - \alpha }{\theta _{T} n}\), and thus,
Considering Eq. (3.1.2), we have a first-order ODE which can easily be written as \(\frac{\mathrm{d}T_{i}}{\mathrm{d}t} + \delta T_{i} = \beta T_{u} V\). Using the following integrating factor \(I(t) = e^{\int {\delta }dt} = e^{\delta t},\) and solving we get, \(T_{i} = \frac{1}{\delta } \beta T_{u} V + ce^{-\delta t}.\) At \(t = 0\), \(T_{i}(t) = 0\), solving for c we obtain \(c = -\frac{1}{\delta } \beta T_{u} V. \) Substituting c in the equation of \(T_{i}\) above, we get \(T_{i} = \frac{1}{\delta } \beta T_{u} V - \frac{1}{\delta } \beta T_{u} V e^{-\delta t} = \frac{1}{\delta } \beta T_{u} V \left( 1 - e^{-\delta t}\right) > 0.\)
Similarly, considering Eq. (3.1.3), we have a first-order ODE which can be rewritten as \(\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}t} + \gamma V = \mu _{v}(t) + b T_{i}\). The integrating factor is given by \(I(t) = e^{\int {\gamma }dt} = e^{\gamma t},\) which is used to solve for \(V = \frac{1}{\gamma }\left( \mu _{v}(t) + b T_{i}\right) + ce^{-\gamma t}.\) At \(t = 0\), \(V(t) = 0\), solving for c we obtain \(c = -\frac{1}{\gamma }(\mu _{v}(t) + b T_{i}).\) Substituting c in the equation of V above, we get \(V = \frac{1}{\gamma }(\mu _{v}(t) + b T_{i})(1 - e^{-\gamma t}) > 0.\)
1.2 (ii) Boundedness of Solutions and Invariant Region
In this section, we discuss the boundedness of the solutions of our model.
For the uninfected population, Eq. (3.1.1) can be rewritten as
From which we have
Integrating the left-hand side of Eq. (A.2.1) using partial fractions, we have
Comparing coefficients and solving for A and B, we get \(A = \frac{1}{\theta _{T}}\) and \(B = \frac{1}{\theta _{T}}\). So
Integrating the above yields
So, the integral for Eq. (A.2.1) is
At \(t = 0\), \(T_{u} = T_{u0}\)
so
Taking the limit supremum on both sides, we have
Now, considering the infected tumor cell population, rewriting Eq. (3.1.2) leads to
which is now in first order linear standard form and its solution is given by
Taking limits on both sides of the above equation,
For the virus population, Eq. (3.1.3) can be rewritten as
which gives rise to the solution
Taking limits on both sides of the above equation,
We can therefore conclude that the system above is bounded and the invariant region is given by
Note that \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V}}\) is a positively invariant domain for the system (Eqs. (3.1.1)–(3.1.3)). Moreover, notice also that \(0 \le T_{u}(t) + T_{i}(t) \le \theta _{T}\) for \(t > 0\). This shows that the total tumor burden \(T_{u}(t) + T_{i}(t)\) cannot exceed the carrying capacity \(\theta _{T}\). This proof is analogous to the proof in Appendix A of Dingli et al. (2006). \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V}}\) is also a biologically feasible region for the state variables. Hence, we shall also regard this region as a “global” domain.
1.3 (iii) Existence and Uniqueness of Solutions
Proof
Since the right-hand side of system is \(\mathbf {C}^{1}\) (class of continuously differentiable functions) satisfies the properties of locally Lipschitz functions, then the existence and uniqueness of solutions of the system are ascertained by the Cauchy–Lipschitz theorem (Diekmann et al. 1995; Schatzman 2002).
For the immunocompetent model (see Eqs. (2.1.1)–(2.1.4)), it is not difficult to establish that the solutions will remain nonnegative for \(t\ge 0\) since \(\frac{\mathrm{d}N}{\mathrm{d}t} \ge 0\) whenever \(N(t) = 0\) and \(N(t) \ge 0\), Also it can easily be verified that N is bounded by \(0 \le N \le \frac{s_N}{d}\). Thus, we define the invariant region for the system (Eqs. (2.1.1)–(2.1.4)) as
Hence, the existence and uniqueness of solutions theorem for our immunocompetent model are preserved. Note that the right-hand side of our immunocompetent system is \(\mathbf {C}^{1}\) on \(\mathbb {R}_{+}^4\).
Stability Theorems of the Steady State \({\mathbf {SS}}_{\mathbf{1}}\)
1.1 Proof of Theorem 2 (Local Stability)
Proof
We note that \(s_{1} = -r <0\) and \(s_{2} = \frac{1}{2}(-\omega _{v} - 1 - \sqrt{\left( \omega _{v}-1\right) ^2 + 4\lambda _{v}\rho }) < 0\), for all nonnegative parameter values, and \(s_{3} = \frac{1}{2}(-\omega _{v} - 1 + \sqrt{\left( \omega _{v}-1\right) ^2 + 4\lambda _{v}\rho })\) can either be negative, positive and zero. If \(\sqrt{\left( \omega _{v}-1\right) ^2 + 4\lambda _{v}\rho } < 1 + \omega _{v}\), then \(s_{3} < 0\). Since \(1 + \omega _{v}\) is positive, then it follows that \((\omega _{v}-1)^2 + 4\lambda _{v}\rho < (1+\omega _{v})^2\), which is equivalent to \(\rho < \frac{\omega _{v}}{\lambda _{v}}\). Thus, when \(\rho < \frac{\omega _{v}}{\lambda _{v}}\), all three eigenvalues (\(s_{1}, s_{2}\) and \(s_{3}\)) are negative. Hence, \(\mathbf {SS_{1}}\) is locally asymptotically stable. Equivalently, since \(P(s)= s^{3} + \left( r + \omega _{v} + 1\right) s^{2} + \left( - \lambda _{v} \rho + r \omega _{v} + r + \omega _{v}\right) s - r \lambda _{v} \rho + r \omega _{v} = s^{3}+a_{2}s^{2}+a_{1}s+a_{0}=0\), where \(a_{2}=\omega _{v}+r+1, \ a_{1}=\omega _{v}r+r+\omega _{v}-\rho \lambda _{v}, \ a_{0}=\omega _{v}r-\lambda _{v}\rho r\), we notice that \(a_{2}>0\) and that if \(\mathcal {R}_{0}<1\) then \(a_{1}>0,a_{0}>0\) and \(a_{1}a_{2}-a_{0}>0\). Hence, by the Routh–Hurwitz criterion (Zi 2011; Harris 2002), we deduce that \(\mathbf {SS_{1}}\) is locally asymptotically stable. Similarly, whenever \(\rho > \frac{\omega _{v}}{\lambda _{v}}\), then \(\sqrt{\left( \omega _{v}-1\right) ^2 + 4\lambda _{v}\rho } > 1+\omega _{v}\). This implies that \(s_{3} > 0\). Hence, \(\mathbf {SS_{1}}\) is unstable.
1.2 Proof of Theorem 3 (Global Stability)
Before we provide a detailed proof of this theorem, note that given the positively invariant domain \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V1}}\), the steady-state solution \(\mathbf {SS_{1}}\) should be globally asymptotically stable in the whole domain \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V}}\). To prove this, we first construct a Lyapunov function based on a specified range of the parameter \(\rho \). We simplify the model by the translating the state variables as follows: \(T_{u} = 1 - \hat{T}_{u},\ T_{i} = \hat{T}_{i}\), and \(V = \hat{V}\). For notation convenience, we drop the hats over the state variables and have the following system:
and the invariant domain \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V1}}\) is translated to
Now we give the proof of Theorem 3:
Proof
Given the nonnegative initial conditions \((T_{u0},T_{i0},V_{0})\) in \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V2}}\), then by Theorem A.1 and A.3, the corresponding solutions of the dimensionless state variable satisfy \(0 \le T_{u}(t) \le 1,\ 0 \le T_{i}(t) \le 1,\) and \(V(t) \ge 0\). It suffices to show that if \(T_{i}(t)\) and V(t) approach zero, then \(T_{u}(t)\) also approaches zero. When \(0< \rho < 1\), we define a Lyapunov function
Using Theorem A.1, it is easy to check that \(G\left( T_{u},T_{i},V\right) > 0\). The orbital derivative is given by
Since \(\rho < \frac{\omega _{v}}{\lambda _{v}}\), which means, \(\lambda _{v}\rho - \omega _{v} < 0\), and \(0< \rho < 1\), implies that \(\rho - 1 < 0\), then it follows that \(\dot{G}\left( T_{u},T_{i},V\right) < 0\). Therefore, using this Lyapunov function, we have \(T_{i}(t) \rightarrow 0\) and \(V(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow +\infty \) when \(\rho < \frac{\omega _{v}}{\lambda _{v}}\).
Now, we show that \(T_{u}(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow +\infty \) too. From Eq. (B.2.1), we have
Solving for \(T_{u}\), we obtain
Taking the limit on both sides, we have
Thus, we notice that \(T_{u}(t) \rightarrow 0\) as \(t \rightarrow +\infty \). Hence, given an initial condition in the domain \(\varvec{\Omega }_{\mathbf{V2}}\), then \(T_{u}(t),\ T_{i}(t)\) and V(t) all approach the origin as \(t \rightarrow +\infty \). Therefore, \(\mathbf {SS_{1}}\) is a global attractor for the system (3.2.6-3.2.8).
1.3 Proof of Theorem 4 (Threshold Local Stability)
Proof
We use a center manifold theorem to reduce the system (B.2.1–B.2.3) to its local center manifold. First, we segregate the system into two parts, the part with zero eigenvalue and the one with negative eigenvalues. Considering the linear part of system (B.2.1–B.2.3), then the corresponding matrix is
The eigenvalues and corresponding eigenvectors of L are
Let \(T = \left( V_{1},V_{2},V_{3}\right) \) be the transformation matrix and let \(Y = \left( T_{u},T_{i},V\right) ^{\text {T}}\), then we can write the system (B.2.1–B.2.3) into a reduced system
where \(N = \left( rT_{u}^2-rT_{u}T_{i}-\lambda _{v}T_{u}V,- \lambda _{v}T_{u}V,0\right) ^{\text {T}}\). Now let \(Y = TX\), then we have
where the diagonal matrix \(T^{-1}LT\) is define as
and \(T_{u} = x_{1} + (\rho \lambda _{v}-r)x_{2} + \lambda _{v}(r+1)x_{3}\), \(T_{i} = (1+\rho \lambda _{v}-r)x_{2} + r\lambda _{v}x_{3}\), and
\(V = -\rho (1+\rho \lambda _{v}-r)x_{2} + rx_{3}\). Now considering the last term, \(T^{-1}N\), in Eq. (B.3.2), and let \(T^{-1}N = \left( n_{1},n_{2},n_{3}\right) ^{\text {T}}\), then expressing \(n_{i},\ i=1,2,3\) in terms of \(x_{i}\), we have
where the coefficients \(A_{ij}, B_{ij}\) and \(C_{ij},\ i,j = 1,2,3\) can be easily determined. Then, the transformed system can now be written as
where
It is easy to verify that the matrix B has negative eigenvalues and A has zero eigenvalue. It can also be easy checked that each \(n_{i},\ i = 1, 2, 3\), is a \(C^{2}\) differentiable function, \(n_{i}(0,0,0) = 0\) and \(Dn_{i}(0,0,0) = 0\), where \(Dn_{i}\) is the variational matrix of the function \(n_{i}\). Then, by the Center Manifold Theorem (Carr 1981), there exists a center manifold given by
with \(h(0) = 0\) and \(Dh(0) = 0\), and it satisfies the equation
Let \(u = x_{3}\), then we can approximate h(u) as follows:
For simplicity, we consider the order up to 5, and we will know later if it is enough. Then, we calculate the \(n_{i},\ i = 1, 2, 3\), as follows:
We substituting \(n_{i},\ i = 1, 2, 3\), into Eq. (B.3.7), and comparing the coefficients on both sides of the equation, we obtain \(C_{33} = \frac{-r\lambda _{v}^2(r+1)^2(\lambda _{v}\rho + 1)}{\lambda _{v}^{2} \rho ^{2} - \lambda _{v} r \rho + r - 1} < 0\). Now reducing the system (B.2.1–B.2.3) to its local center manifold, which is a single equation, we have
Eq. (B.3.10) governs the stability of the zero solution of the system (B.3.3–B.3.4). Since \(C_{33} < 0\), then the zero solution, \(x_{3} = 0\), is locally asymptotically stable. Therefore, we conclude that the trivial solution of the system (B.2.1–B.2.3) is locally asymptotically stable when \(\rho = \rho _{c} = \frac{\omega _{v}}{\lambda _{v}}\).
1.4 Proof of the Coexistence Steady State (\(\mathbf {SS_{2}}\)) Stability
Proof
If \(\mathcal {R}_{0}>1\), then we know that there is an additional steady state (Coexistence Steady State (\(\mathbf {SS_{2}}\))) given by
Furthermore, the characteristic equation at \(\mathbf {SS_{2}}\) is
with
Moreover, we have \(b_{2}>0\) and if \(\mathcal {R}_{0}>1\), then \(b_{1}>0,b_{0}>0\) and
Hence, by Routh–Hurwitz criterion (Zi 2011; Harris 2002), we deduce that \(\mathbf {SS_{2}}\) is locally asymptotically stable.
1.5 Proof of Theorem 5
Proof
The equilibrium points of (3.5.5) are given by the solutions of
From (B.5.1)\(_{1}\) we obtain \(T_{u}=0\) or \(T_{u}={\frac{r-c_{T}N}{r}.}\)
-
1.
If \(T_{u}=0\), then we obtain the equilibrium point, \(E_{00}=\left( 0, \frac{f_{N}}{\kappa _{N}}\right) .\) The eigenvalues of the variational matrix at \(E_{00}\) are \(-\kappa _{N}\) and \(r-\frac{f_{N}}{\kappa _{N}}c_{T}.\) Hence, \(E_{00}\) is locally asymptotically stable if \(r<{\dfrac{c_{T}f_{N}}{\kappa _{N}}}\).
-
2.
If \(T_{u}={\dfrac{r-c_{T}N}{r},}\) then \(r>{\dfrac{c_{T}f_{N}}{\kappa _{N}}}\), then from (B.5.1)\(_{2}\) we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\eta c_{T}}{r}N^{2}-\left( \eta +\kappa _{N}\right) N+f_{N}=0. \end{aligned}$$(B.5.2)The discriminant of (B.5.2) is \(\Delta =\left( \eta +\kappa _{N}\right) ^{2}-4\dfrac{\eta c_{T}f_{N}}{r}>(\eta -\kappa _{N})^{2}\) (since \(r>{\frac{ c_{T}f_{N}}{\kappa _{N}}}\)). Hence, (B.5.2) has two real roots \(N_{\pm }={\dfrac{r\left( \eta +\kappa _{N}\pm \sqrt{\Delta }\right) }{2\eta c_{T}}}\) which are positive (since their product and sum positive). Moreover, we have \(T_{u_{\pm }}={\frac{r-c_{T}N_{\pm }}{r}=\frac{\eta -\kappa _{N}\mp \sqrt{ \Delta }}{2\eta }}\) which, by \(\Delta >(\eta -\kappa _{N})^{2},\) implies that \(T_{u_{+}}<0\) and \(T_{u_{-}}>0.\) This leads to the following virus-free equilibrium point
$$\begin{aligned} E_{0}=\left( T_{u_{-}},N_{_{-}}\right) . \end{aligned}$$The eigenvalues of the variational matrix at \(E_{0}\) are given by the roots of the following characteristic equation
$$\begin{aligned} z^{2}+\left( \left( r+\eta \right) T_{u_{-}}+\kappa _{N}\right) z+r\sqrt{ \Delta }T_{u_{-}}=0. \end{aligned}$$(B.5.3)Hence, \(r>{\dfrac{c_{T}f_{N}}{\kappa _{N}}}\), then \(T_{u_{-}}>0\) implying that (B.5.3) does not have roots with negative real parts.
1.6 The Basic Reproductive Number of the Virus-Free Sub-model
We use the next-generation method described in den Driessche and Watmough (2002) to calculate the basic reproductive number at \(E_{0}\). The vector formed by the rates of new infections is given by
The vector formed by the other transfer rates is
The next-generation matrix is given by \(M=FV^{-1},\) where \(F=D\mathcal {F}_{ E_{0}}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 &{} \lambda _{v}T_{u0} \\ 0 &{} 0 \end{array} \right] \) and
\(W=D\mathcal {W}_{E_{0}}=\left[ \begin{array}{cc} 1+c_{TV}N_{0} &{} 0 \\ -\rho &{} \omega _{v}+c_{V}N_{0} \end{array} \right] .\) We obtain
Thus,
Model Parameters and Initial Conditions
Known model parameter values and their ranges were taken from available literature, while unknown parameter ranges were estimated using values that seemed biologically reasonable. The baseline parameters used in the model simulations are given in Table 1. Since various mechanisms might lead to NK cell activation and recruitment, we parametrize our model based on the fact that NK cell activation/recruitment is dependent on interactions between the NK cells and infected tumor cells (Leung et al. 2020) or an ICD of infected cells (Bommareddy et al. 2019; Somma et al. 2019). Thus, we adopt the activation/recruitment rate for NK cells as \(\xi _{N} = 1\times 10^{-5}\) day\(^{-1}\) (Guo et al. 2019) as our baseline value, but we shall vary this parameter in the numerical analysis to explore the potential effects of induced NK cell-mediated responses in oncolytic virotherapy. For the other parameters which govern the cytopathicity of OV, we also sweep parameters within their realistic biological ranges. Note that while we fix the values of most of the parameters used in our simulations, small variations in the values of OV or NK cell related parameters allow our model to capture different dynamics of the OV–tumor–NK cell interactions. Furthermore, in this study we do not consider a specific virus as our baseline state variable because we are interested in the OV-induced NK cell-mediated responses in general. We explore a plausible range of recruitment rates to capture the range of likely behavior of slow and fast replicating viruses. Notably, our model captures different aspects of slow replicating viruses, such the recombinant measles virus (MV-I98A-NIS) (Kemler et al. 2019; Ennis et al. 2010), which may lead to slow recruitment of activated NK cell, and the fast replicating viruses, such as the oncolytic herpes simplex virus (HSV) (Alvarez-Breckenridge et al. 2012b), which may lead to rapid recruitment of activated NK cells (Alvarez-Breckenridge et al. 2012b). It is also known, however, that the same oncolytic virus might replicate differently in different regions (Kemler et al. 2019). Hence, we do not consider specific virus kinetics in this study, but rather focus on the ability of OV infection in recruiting activated NK cells. For the sake of parameter estimation, we consider the virus kinetics of oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV), which is also a fast replicating virus (Mahasa et al. 2017; Eftimie and Eftimie 2019), to estimate the virus lysis rate, \(\delta \), and the viral clearance rate, \(\gamma \). Tumor- and NK cell-related kinetic parameters are taken from the experimental–mathematical models available in the literature and their sources are provided in Table 1. Unless otherwise stated, we assume the following initial conditions: \(T_{u} = 1\times 10^{6}\) cells, \(T_{i} = 0\) cells and \(V = 1\times 10^{6}\) PFU.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Senekal, N.S., Mahasa, K.J., Eladdadi, A. et al. Natural Killer Cells Recruitment in Oncolytic Virotherapy: A Mathematical Model. Bull Math Biol 83, 75 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-021-00903-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-021-00903-6