Skip to main content
Log in

Determining the expected variability of immune responses using the cyton model

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematical Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During an adaptive immune response, lymphocytes proliferate for 5–20 cell divisions, then stop and die over a period of weeks. The cyton model for regulation of lymphocyte proliferation and survival was introduced by Hawkins et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 5032–5037, 2007) to provide a framework for understanding this response and its regulation. The model assumes stochastic values for division and survival times for each cell in a responding population. Experimental evidence indicates that the choice of times is drawn from a skewed distribution such as the lognormal, with the fate of individual cells being potentially highly variable. For this reason we calculate the higher moments of the model so that the expected variability can be determined. To do this we formulate a new analytic framework for the cyton model by introducing a generalization to the Bellman–Harris branching process. We use this framework to introduce two distinct approaches to predicting variability in the immune response to a mitogenic signal. The first method enables explicit calculations for certain distributions and qualitatively exhibits the full range of observed immune responses. The second approach does not facilitate analytic solutions, but allows simple numerical schemes for distributions for which there is little prospect of analytic formulae. We compare the predictions derived from the second method to experimentally observed lymphocyte population sizes from in vivo and in vitro experiments. The model predictions for both data sets are remarkably accurate. The important biological conclusion is that there is limited variation around the expected value of the population size irrespective of whether the response is mediated by small numbers of cells undergoing many divisions or for many cells pursuing a small number of divisions. Therefore, we conclude the immune response is robust and predictable despite the potential for great variability in the experience of each individual cell.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abate J., Choudhury G.L. and Whitt W. (1999). Computational probability. In: Grassman, W. (eds) An Introduction to Numerical Transform Inversion and its Application to Probability Models, pp 257–323. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abate J. and Whitt W. (1992). The Fourier-series method for inverting transforms of probability distributions. Queueing Syst. Theory Appl. 10(1–2): 5–87

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Abate J. and Whitt W. (1992). Numerical inversion of probability generating functions. Oper. Res. Lett. 12(4): 245–251

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahmed R. and Gray D. (1996). Immunological memory and protective immunity: understanding their relation. Science 272(5238): 54–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Athreya K.B. and Ney P.E. (2004). Branching Processes. Dover Publications, Mineola

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Billingsley P. (1995). Probability and Measure. Willey, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Cantrell D.A. and Smith K.A. (1984). The interleukin-2 T-cell system: a new cell growth model. Science 224(4655): 1292–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Choudhury G.L., Lucantoni D.M. and Whitt W. (1994). Multidimensional transform inversion with applications to the transient M/G/1 queue. Ann. Appl. Probab. 4(3): 719–740

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. De Boer R.J. and Perelson A.S. (2005). Estimating division and death rates from CFSE data. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 184(1): 140–164

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. De Boer R.J., Homann D. and Perelson A.S. (2003). Different dynamics of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses during and after acute lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection. J. Immunol. 171(8): 3928–3935

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deenick E.K., Gett A.V. and Hodgkin P.D. (2003). Stochastic model of T cell proliferation: a calculus revealing IL-2 regulation of precursor frequencies, cell cycle time, and survival. J. Immunol. 170(10): 4963–4972

    Google Scholar 

  12. Froese G. (1964). The distribution and interdependence of generation times of HeLa cells. Exp. Cell Res. 35(2): 415–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ganusov V.V., Milutinović D. and De Boer R.J. (2007). IL-2 regulates expansion of CD4 T cell populations by affecting cell death: insights from modeling CFSE data. J. Immunol. 179: 950–957

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ganusov V.V., Pilyugin S.S., De Boer R.J., Murali-Krishna K., Ahmed R. and Antia R. (2005). Quantifying cell turnover using CFSE data. J. Immunol. Methods Mar.(1–2): 183–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gett A.V. and Hodgkin P.D. (2000). A cellular calculus for signal integration by T cells. Nat. Immunol. 1(4): 239–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Harris T.E. (2002). The Theory of Branching Processes, Dover Phoenix Editions. Dover Publications, Mineola

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hawkins E.D., Turner M.L., Dowling M.R., van Gend C. and Hodgkin P.D. (2007). A model of immune regulation as a consequence of randomized lymphocyte division and death times. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 5032–5037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Homann D., Teyton L. and Oldstone M.B.A. (2001). Differential regulation of antiviral T-cell immunity results in stable CD8+ but declining CD4+ T-cell memory. Nat. Med. 7: 913–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hommel M. and De Boer R.J. (2007). TCR affinity promotes CD8+ T cell expansion by regulation survival. J. Immunol. 179: 2250–2260

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kao E.P.C. (1997). An Introduction to Stochastic Processes. Duxbury, NY

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kimmel M. and Axelrod D.E. (2002). Branching processes in biology, volume 19 of Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. K. León, Faro J. and Carneiro J. (2004). A general mathematical framework to model generation structure in a population of asynchronously dividing cells. J. Theoret. Biol. 229(4): 455–476

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Milutinović D. and De Boer R.J. (2007). Process noicse: an explanation for the fluctiations in the immune response during acute viral infection. Biophys. J. 92: 3358–3367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nachtwey D.S. and Cameron I.L. (1968). Methods in Cell Physiology, vol. III, pp. 213–257. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Polyanin A.D. and Manzhirov A.V. (1998). Handbook of Integral Equations. CRC, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Prescott D.M. (1968). Regulation of cell reproduction. Cancer Res. 28(9): 1815–1820

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shields R. (1977). Transition probability and the origin of variation in the cell cycle. Nature 267(5613): 704–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith J.A. and Martin L. (1973). Do cells cycle? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 70(4): 1263–1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tangye S.G., Avery D.T., Deenick E.K. and Hodgkin P.D. (2003). Intrinsic differences in the proliferation of naive and memory human B cells as a mechanism for enhanced secondary immune responses. J. Immunol. 170(2): 686–694

    Google Scholar 

  30. Turner, M., Hawkins, E., Hodgkin, P.D.: Manuscript in preparation (2007)

  31. Veiga-Fernandes H., Walter U., Bourgeois C., McLean A. and Rocha B. (2000). Response of naïve and memory CD8+ t cells to antigen stimulation in vivo. Nat. Immunol. 1: 47–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yates A., Chan C., Strid J., Moon S., Callard R. and George A.J.T. (2007). Stark J. Reconstruction of cell population dynamics using CFSE. BMC Bioinformatics 8: 196

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken R. Duffy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Subramanian, V.G., Duffy, K.R., Turner, M.L. et al. Determining the expected variability of immune responses using the cyton model. J. Math. Biol. 56, 861–892 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-007-0142-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00285-007-0142-2

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Navigation