Progress Towards Computational 3-D Multicellular Systems Biology

  • Paul Macklin
  • Hermann B. Frieboes
  • Jessica L. Sparks
  • Ahmadreza Ghaffarizadeh
  • Samuel H. Friedman
  • Edwin F. Juarez
  • Edmond Jonckheere
  • Shannon M. Mumenthaler

Abstract

Tumors cannot be understood in isolation from their microenvironment. Tumor and stromal cells change phenotype based upon biochemical and biophysical inputs from their surroundings, even as they interact with and remodel the microenvironment. Cancer should be investigated as an adaptive, multicellular system in a dynamical microenvironment. Computational modeling offers the potential to detangle this complex system, but the modeling platform must ideally account for tumor heterogeneity, substrate and signaling factor biotransport, cell and tissue biophysics, tissue and vascular remodeling, microvascular and interstitial flow, and links between all these sub-systems. Such a platform should leverage high-throughput experimental data, while using open data standards for reproducibility. In this chapter, we review advances by our groups in these key areas, particularly in advanced models of tissue mechanics and interstitial flow, open source simulation software, high-throughput phenotypic screening, and multicellular data standards. In the future, we expect a transformation of computational cancer biology from individual groups modeling isolated parts of cancer, to coalitions of groups combining compatible tools to simulate the 3-D multicellular systems biology of cancer tissues.

Keywords

Multicellular systems biology Computational modeling Tissue engineering  Cancer microenvironment  

References

  1. 1.
    Deisboeck TS, Wang Z, Macklin P, Cristini V (2011) Multiscale cancer modeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 13(1):127–155. doi:10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071910-124729 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Macklin P (2010) Biological background. In: Cristini V, Lowengrub JS (eds) Multiscale modeling of cancer: an integrated experimental and mathematical modeling approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 8–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinberg RA (2013) Biology of Cancer, 2nd edn. Garland Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weis SM, Cheresh DA (2011) Tumor angiogenesis: molecular pathways and therapeutic targets. Nat Med 17(11):1359–1370. doi:10.1038/nm.2537 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Macklin P, Mumenthaler S, Lowengrub J (2013) Modeling multiscale necrotic and calcified tissue biomechanics in cancer patients: application to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In: Gefen A (ed) Multiscale computer modeling in biomechanics and biomedical engineering, vol 14, Studies in mechanobiology, tissue engineering and biomaterials. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 349–380. doi:10.1007/8415_2012_150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butcher DT, Alliston T, Weaver VM (2009) A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer 9(2):108–122. doi:10.1038/nrc2544 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagelkerke A, Bussink J, Rowan AE, Span PN (2015) The mechanical microenvironment in cancer: how physics affects tumours. Semin Cancer Biol 35:62–70. doi:10.1016/j.semcancer.2015.09.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fraley SI, Feng Y, Krishnamurthy R, Kim DH, Celedon A, Longmore GD, Wirtz D (2010) A distinctive role for focal adhesion proteins in three-dimensional cell motility. Nat Cell Biol 12(6):598–604. doi:10.1038/ncb2062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang S, Ingber DE (2005) Cell tension, matrix mechanics, and cancer development. Cancer Cell 8(3):175–176. doi:10.1016/j.ccr.2005.08.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frieboes HB, Lowengrub JS, Wise S, Zheng X, Macklin P, Bearer EL, Cristini V (2007) Computer simulation of glioma growth and morphology. NeuroImage 37(Suppl 1):S59–S70. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.03.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Macklin P, Lowengrub J (2005) Evolving interfaces via gradients of geometry-dependent interior Poisson problems: application to tumor growth. J Comput Phys 203(1):191–220. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2004.08.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Macklin P, Lowengrub J (2006) An improved geometry-aware curvature discretization for level set methods: application to tumor growth. J Comput Phys 215(2):392–401. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2005.11.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Macklin P, Lowengrub J (2007) Nonlinear simulation of the effect of microenvironment on tumor growth. J Theor Biol 245(4):677–704. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2006.12.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macklin P, Lowengrub JS (2008) A New ghost cell/level set method for moving boundary problems: application to tumor growth. J Sci Comput 35(2-3):266–299. doi:10.1007/s10915-008-9190-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cristini V, Lowengrub J, Nie Q (2003) Nonlinear simulation of tumor growth. J Math Biol 46(3):191–224. doi:10.1007/s00258-002-0174-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osher S, Fedkiw RP (2003) Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces. Applied mathematical sciences, vol 153. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sethian JA (1999) Level set methods and fast marching methods : evolving interfaces in computational geometry, fluid mechanics, computer vision, and materials science. Cambridge monographs on applied and computational mathematics, vol 3, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bearer EL, Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Chuang YL, Jin F, Wise SM, Ferrari M, Agus DB, Cristini V (2009) Multiparameter computational modeling of tumor invasion. Cancer Res 69(10):4493–4501. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3834 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Macklin P, Edgerton ME, Thompson AM, Cristini V (2012) Patient-calibrated agent-based modelling of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): from microscopic measurements to macroscopic predictions of clinical progression. J Theor Biol 301:122–140. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.02.002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghaffarizadeh A, Friedman SH, Macklin P (2015) Agent-based simulation of large tumors in 3-D microenvironments. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/035733
  21. 21.
    Frieboes HB, Jin F, Chuang YL, Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Cristini V (2010) Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth-II: tumor invasion and angiogenesis. J Theor Biol 264(4):1254–1278. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.02.036 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Cristini V (2008) Three-dimensional multispecies nonlinear tumor growth – I – Model and numerical method. J Theor Biol 253(3):524–543. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.03.027 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wise SM, Lowengrub JS, Cristini V (2011) An adaptive multigrid algorithm for simulating solid tumor growth using mixture models. Math Comput Model 53(1-2):1–20. doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2010.07.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Frieboes HB, Smith BR, Chuang YL, Ito K, Roettgers AM, Gambhir SS, Cristini V (2013) An integrated computational/experimental model of lymphoma growth. PLoS Comput Biol 9(3), e1003008. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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(1):R1–R91. doi:10.1088/0951-7715/23/1/R01 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Macklin P (2010) Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) simulation – extended results. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_GVnZWVhgk
  27. 27.
    Mirams GR, Arthurs CJ, Bernabeu MO, Bordas R, Cooper J, Corrias A, Davit Y, Dunn SJ, Fletcher AG, Harvey DG, Marsh ME, Osborne JM, Pathmanathan P, Pitt-Francis J, Southern J, Zemzemi N, Gavaghan DJ (2013) Chaste: an open source C plus plus library for computational physiology and biology. PLoS Comput Biol 9(3). doi:ARTN e1002970 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002970
  28. 28.
    Swat MH, Thomas GL, Belmonte JM, Shirinifard A, Hmeljak D, Glazier JA (2012) Multi-scale modeling of tissues using CompuCell3D. Methods Cell Biol 110:325–366. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-388403-9.00013-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Starruss J, de Back W, Brusch L, Deutsch A (2014) Morpheus: a user-friendly modeling environment for multiscale and multicellular systems biology. Bioinformatics 30(9):1331–1332. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btt772 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lardon LA, Merkey BV, Martins S, Dotsch A, Picioreanu C, Kreft JU, Smets BF (2011) iDynoMiCS: next-generation individual-based modelling of biofilms. Environ Microbiol 13(9):2416–2434. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02414.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Macklin P, McDougall S, Anderson ARA, Chaplain MAJ, Cristini V, Lowengrub J (2009) Multiscale modelling and nonlinear simulation of vascular tumour growth. J Math Biol 58(4-5):765–798. doi:10.1007/s00285-008-0216-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anderson AR (2005) A hybrid mathematical model of solid tumour invasion: the importance of cell adhesion. Math Med Biol: J IMA 22(2):163–186. doi:10.1093/imammb/dqi005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robertson-Tessi M, Gillies RJ, Gatenby RA, Anderson AR (2015) Impact of metabolic heterogeneity on tumor growth, invasion, and treatment outcomes. Cancer Res 75(8):1567–1579. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1428 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ghaffarizadeh A, Friedman SH, Macklin P (2015) BioFVM: an efficient, parallelized diffusive transport solver for 3-D biological simulations. Bioinformatics. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv730
  35. 35.
    Nishii K, Reese G, Moran EC, Sparks JL (2016) Multiscale computational model of fluid flow and matrix deformation in decellularized liver. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 57:201–214. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.11.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    D’Antonio G, Macklin P, Preziosi L (2013) An agent-based model for elasto-plastic mechanical interactions between cells, basement membrane and extracellular matrix. Math Biosci Eng: MBE 10(1):75–101. doi:10.3934/mbe.2013.10.75 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Anderson AR, Weaver AM, Cummings PT, Quaranta V (2006) Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment. Cell 127(5):905–915. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2006.09.042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Macklin P (2010) Tumour growth in a complex tissue structure (brain tumor). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxsAgP_l1uw
  39. 39.
    Mumenthaler SM, D’Antonio G, Preziosi L, Macklin P (2013) The need for integrative computational oncology: an illustrated example through MMP-mediated tissue degradation. Front Oncol 3:194. doi:10.3389/fonc.2013.00194 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Raman F, Scribner E, Saut O, Wenger C, Colin T, Fathallah-Shaykh HM (2016) Computational trials: unraveling motility phenotypes, progression patterns, and treatment options for glioblastoma multiforme. PLoS One 11(1), e0146617. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146617 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Karagiannis GS, Poutahidis T, Erdman SE, Kirsch R, Riddell RH, Diamandis EP (2012) Cancer-associated fibroblasts drive the progression of metastasis through both paracrine and mechanical pressure on cancer tissue. Mol Cancer Res: MCR 10(11):1403–1418. doi:10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-12-0307 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peckham MJ (1973) Quantitative cytology and cytochemistry of Hodgkin’s tissue labelled in vivo with tritiated thymidine. Br J Cancer 28(4):332–339CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Li X, Lowengrub J, Ratz A, Voigt A (2009) Solving PDEs in complex geometries: a diffuse domain approach. Commun Math Sci 7(1):81–107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ratz A, Voigt A (2005) Edge diffusion in phase-field models for epitaxial growth. Int Ser Numer Math 149:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Filly R, Bland N, Castellino RA (1976) Radiographic distribution of intrathoracic disease in previously untreated patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Radiology 120(2):277–281. doi:10.1148/120.2.277 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Swartz MA (2001) The physiology of the lymphatic system. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 50(1-2):3–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Raghunathan S, Evans D, Sparks JL (2010) Poroviscoelastic modeling of liver biomechanical response in unconfined compression. Ann Biomed Eng 38(5):1789–1800. doi:10.1007/s10439-010-9957-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Simon BR (1992) Multiphase poroelastic finite element models for soft tissue structures. Appl Mech Rev 45(6):191–218. doi:10.1115/1.3121397 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Whittaker RJ, Booth R, Dyson R, Bailey C, Chini LP, Naire S, Payvandi S, Rong ZM, Woollard H, Cummings LJ, Waters SL, Mawasse L, Chaudhuri JB, Ellis MJ, Michael V, Kuiper NJ, Cartmell S (2009) Mathematical modelling of fibre-enhanced perfusion inside a tissue-engineering bioreactor. J Theor Biol 256(4):533–546. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.10.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Swartz MA, Fleury ME (2007) Interstitial flow and its effects in soft tissues. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 9:229–256. doi:10.1146/annure/bioeng.9.060906.151850 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mak AF (1986) The apparent viscoelastic behavior of articular-cartilage – the contributions from the intrinsic matrix viscoelasticity and interstitial fluid-flows. J Biomech Eng-T ASME 108(2): 123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cheng S, Bilston LE (2007) Unconfined compression of white matter. J Biomech 40(1):117–124. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.11.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Evans DW, Moran EC, Baptista PM, Soker S, Sparks JL (2013) Scale-dependent mechanical properties of native and decellularized liver tissue. Biomech Model Mechan 12(3):569–580. doi:10.1007/s10237-012-0426-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Moran EC, Raghunathan S, Evans DW, Vavalle NA, Sparks JL, LeRoith T, Smith TL (2012) Porohyperviscoelastic model simultaneously predicts parenchymal fluid pressure and reaction force in perfused liver. J Biomech Eng 134(9):091002. doi:10.1115/1.4007175 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Preziosi L, Ambrosi D, Verdier C (2010) An elasto-visco-plastic model of cell aggregates. J Theor Biol 262(1):35–47. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2009.08.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bani Baker Q (2015) Computational modeling to study disease development: applications to breast cancer and an in vitro model of macular degeneration. All graduate theses and dissertations, Paper 4409. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/4409
  57. 57.
    Elbjeirami WM, Yonter EO, Starcher BC, West JL (2003) Enhancing mechanical properties of tissue-engineered constructs via lysyl oxidase crosslinking activity. J Biome Mater Res Part A 66(3):513–521. doi:10.1002/jbm.a.10021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Anderson ARA, Chaplain MAJ (1998) Continuous and discrete mathematical models of tumor-induced angiogenesis. Bull Math Biol 60(5):857–899. doi:10.1006/bulm.1998.0042 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    McDougall SR, Anderson AR, Chaplain MA (2006) Mathematical modelling of dynamic adaptive tumour-induced angiogenesis: clinical implications and therapeutic targeting strategies. J Theor Biol 241(3):564–589. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.12.022 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    McDougall SR, Anderson ARA, Chaplain MAJ, Sherratt JA (2002) Mathematical modelling of flow through vascular networks: implications for tumour-induced angiogenesis and chemotherapy strategies. B Math Biol 64(4):673–702. doi:10.1006/bulm.2002.0293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Macklin P (2010) Simulation of tumour growth and angiogenesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkZJt27AgUY
  62. 62.
    Wu M, Frieboes HB, McDougall SR, Chaplain MAJ, Cristini V, Lowengrub J (2013) The effect of interstitial pressure on tumor growth: coupling with the blood and lymphatic vascular systems. J Theor Biol 320:131–151. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.11.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Plank MJ, Sleeman BD (2003) A reinforced random walk model of tumour angiogenesis and anti-angiogenic strategies. Math Med Biol J IMA 20(2):135–181. doi:10.1093/imammb/20.2.135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Plank MJ, Sleeman BD (2004) Lattice and non-lattice models of tumour angiogenesis. Bull Math Biol 66(6):1785–1819. doi:10.1016/j.bulm.2004.04.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Takano S, Yoshii Y, Kondo S, Suzuki H, Maruno T, Shirai S, Nose T (1996) Concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor in the serum and tumor tissue of brain tumor patients. Cancer Res 56(9): 2185–2190PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Jain RK (2003) Molecular regulation of vessel maturation. Nat Med 9(6):685–693. doi:10.1038/Nm0603-685 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Augustin HG (2001) Tubes, branches, and pillars – the many ways of forming a new vasculature. Circ Res 89(8):645–647PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Holash J, Maisonpierre PC, Compton D, Boland P, Alexander CR, Zagzag D, Yancopoulos GD, Wiegand SJ (1999) Vessel cooption, regression, and growth in tumors mediated by angiopoietins and VEGF. Science 284(5422):1994–1998. doi:10.1126/science.284.5422.1994 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Moran EC, Baptista PM, Evans DW, Soker S, Sparks JL (2012) Evaluation of parenchymal fluid pressure in native and decellularized liver tissue. Biomed Sci Instrum 48:303–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Aird WC (2007) Phenotypic heterogeneity of the endothelium: II. Representative vascular beds. Circ Res 100(2):174–190. doi:10.1161/01.RES.0000255690.03436.ae CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Koo A, Liang IY (1979) Microvascular filling pattern in rat liver sinusoids during vagal stimulation. J Physiol 295:191–199CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Müller M, Keimling R, Lang S, Pauli J, Dahmen U, Dirsch O (2009) Estimating blood flow velocity in liver vessels. In: Meinzer H-P, Deserno TM, Handels H, Tolxdorff T (eds) Bildverarbeitung für die Medizin 2009: Algorithmen—Systeme—Anwendungen Proceedings des Workshops vom 22. bis 25. März 2009 in Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 36–40. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-93860-6_8
  73. 73.
    Oda M, Yokomori H, Han JY (2003) Regulatory mechanisms of hepatic microcirculation. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 29(3-4):167–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Grisham JW (2009) Organizational principles of the liver. In: The liver. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp 1–15. doi:10.1002/9780470747919.ch1
  75. 75.
    Frieboes HB, Zheng X, Sun CH, Tromberg B, Gatenby R, Cristini V (2006) An integrated computational/experimental model of tumor invasion. Cancer Res 66(3):1597–1604. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3166 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Gerdes J, Lemke H, Baisch H, Wacker HH, Schwab U, Stein H (1984) Cell cycle analysis of a cell proliferation-associated human nuclear antigen defined by the monoclonal antibody Ki-67. J Immunol 133(4):1710–1715PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Duan WR, Garner DS, Williams SD, Funckes-Shippy CL, Spath IS, Blomme EA (2003) Comparison of immunohistochemistry for activated caspase-3 and cleaved cytokeratin 18 with the TUNEL method for quantification of apoptosis in histological sections of PC-3 subcutaneous xenografts. J Pathol 199(2):221–228. doi:10.1002/path.1289 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hyun AZ, Macklin P (2013) Improved patient-specific calibration for agent-based cancer modeling. J Theor Biol 317:422–424. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2012.10.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Carlson KL, Helvie MA, Roubidoux MA, Kleer CG, Oberman HA, Wilson TE, Pollak EW, Rochester AB (1999) Relationship between mammographic screening intervals and size and histology of ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Roentgenol 172(2):313–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Thomson JZ, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Burrell HC, Wilson ARM, Ellis IO (2001) Growth pattern of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a retrospective analysis based on mammographic findings. Br J Cancer 85(2):225–227. doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.1877 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    De Roos MA, Pijnappel RM, Post WJ, De Vries J, Baas PC, Groote LD (2004) Correlation between imaging and pathology in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. World J Surg Oncol 2:4. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-2-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Edgerton ME, Chuang YL, Macklin P, Yang W, Bearer EL, Cristini V (2011) A novel, patient-specific mathematical pathology approach for assessment of surgical volume: application to ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Anal Cell Pathol 34(5):247–263. doi:10.3233/Acp-2011-0019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mumenthaler SM, Foo J, Choi NC, Heise N, Leder K, Agus DB, Pao W, Michor F, Mallick P (2015) The impact of microenvironmental heterogeneity on the evolution of drug resistance in cancer cells. Cancer Informat 14(Suppl 4):19–31. doi:10.4137/CIN.S19338 Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Mumenthaler SM, Foo J, Leder K, Choi NC, Agus DB, Pao W, Mallick P, Michor F (2011) Evolutionary modeling of combination treatment strategies to overcome resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer. Mol Pharm 8(6):2069–2079. doi:10.1021/mp200270v CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Juarez EF, Lau R, Friedman SH, Ghaffarizadeh A, Jonckheere E, Agus DB, Mumenthaler SM, Macklin P (2016 (in review)) Quantifying Differences in Cell Line Population Dynamics Using CellPDGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Juarez Rosales EF, Ghaffarizadeh A, Friedman SH, Jonckheere E, Macklin P (2015) Estimating cell cycle model parameters using systems identification. bioRxiv. doi:10.1101/035766
  87. 87.
    Gene Ontology Consortium: going forward (2015) Nucleic acids research 43 (Database issue):D1049–1056. doi:10.1093/nar/gku1179
  88. 88.
    Sluka JP, Shirinifard A, Swat M, Cosmanescu A, Heiland RW, Glazier JA (2014) The cell behavior ontology: describing the intrinsic biological behaviors of real and model cells seen as active agents. Bioinformatics 30(16):2367–2374. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu210 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Degtyarenko K, de Matos P, Ennis M, Hastings J, Zbinden M, McNaught A, Alcantara R, Darsow M, Guedj M, Ashburner M (2008) ChEBI: a database and ontology for chemical entities of biological interest. Nucleic Acids Res 36(Database issue):D344–D350. doi:10.1093/nar/gkm791 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Kang S, Kahan S, McDermott J, Flann N, Shmulevich I (2014) Biocellion: accelerating computer simulation of multicellular biological system models. Bioinformatics 30(21):3101–3108. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btu498 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    OSI (2008–present) OSI-Approved Open Source Licenses (Listed by name). Open Source Initiative. https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
  92. 92.
    Biocellion (2014–present) Biocellion 1.1 academic individual end user license agreement. http://biocellion.com/download.1.1/biocellion1.1.academic.eula.html
  93. 93.
    Prlic A, Lapp H (2012) The PLOS computational biology software section. PLoS Comput Biol 8(11). doi:ARTN e1002799 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002799
  94. 94.
    Somogyi ET, Bouteiller JM, Glazier JA, Konig M, Medley JK, Swat MH, Sauro HM (2015) libRoadRunner: a high performance SBML simulation and analysis library. Bioinformatics 31(20):3315–3321. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv363 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Villasante A, Vunjak-Novakovic G (2015) Tissue-engineered models of human tumors for cancer research. Expert Opin Drug Discovery 10(3):257–268. doi:10.1517/17460441.2015.1009442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Macklin
    • 1
  • Hermann B. Frieboes
    • 2
  • Jessica L. Sparks
    • 3
  • Ahmadreza Ghaffarizadeh
    • 1
  • Samuel H. Friedman
    • 1
  • Edwin F. Juarez
    • 1
    • 4
  • Edmond Jonckheere
    • 4
  • Shannon M. Mumenthaler
    • 1
  1. 1.Lawrence J. Ellison Institute for Transformative MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Chemical, Paper, and Biomedical EngineeringMiami UniversityOxfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of Electrical EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations