ArticlePhysical review. E2020
Comparative study between discrete and continuum models for the evolution of competing phenotype-structured cell populations in dynamical environments.
Article in Physical review. E, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evolutionary dynamics in an SI epidemic model with phenotype-structured susceptible compartment.Journal of mathematical biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deterministic continuum models formulated as nonlocal partial differential equations for the evolutionary dynamics of populations structured by phenotypic traits have been used recently to address open questions concerning the adaptation of asexual species to periodically fluctuating environmental conditions. These models are usually defined on the basis of population-scale phenomenological assumptions and cannot capture adaptive phenomena that are driven by stochastic variability in the evolutionary paths of single individuals. In light of these considerations, in this paper we develop a stochastic individual-based model for the coevolution of two competing phenotype-structured cell populations that are exposed to time-varying nutrient levels and undergo spontaneous, heritable phenotypic changes with different probabilities. Here, the evolution of every cell is described by a set of rules that result in a discrete-time branching random walk on the space of phenotypic states, and nutrient levels are governed by a difference equation in which a sink term models nutrient consumption by the cells. We formally show that the deterministic continuum counterpart of this model comprises a system of nonlocal partial differential equations for the cell population density functions coupled with an ordinary differential equation for the nutrient concentration. We compare the individual-based model and its continuum analog, focusing on scenarios whereby the predictions of the two models differ. The results obtained clarify the conditions under which significant differences between the two models can emerge due to bottleneck effects that bring about both lower regularity of the density functions of the two populations and more pronounced demographic stochasticity. In particular, bottleneck effects emerge in the presence of lower probabilities of phenotypic variation and are more apparent when the two populations are characterized by lower fitness initial mean phenotypes and smaller initial levels of phenotypic heterogeneity. The emergence of these effects, and thus the agreement between the two modeling approaches, is also dependent on the initial proportions of the two populations. As an illustrative example, we demonstrate the implications of these results in the context of the mathematical modeling of the early stage of metastatic colonization of distant organs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.