Advertisement

Fluid Dynamics

, Volume 53, Issue 5, pp 583–595 | Cite as

Mathematical Model of a Biological Medium with Account for the Active Interactions and Relative Displacements of Cells That Form It

  • S. A. Logvenkov
Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

A three-phase continuum model of a biological medium formed by cells, extracellular fluid, and an additional phase responsible for independently controlled active force interaction between the cells is obtained. The model describes the reconstruction of biological tissues with account for the active stresses exerted at intercellular interactions. The constitutive relation for the active stress tensor takes into account different mechanisms of cell interactions, including the chaotic and directed cell activities as the active stresses are created, as well as the anisotropy of their development due to cell density distribution inhomogeneity. On the basis of the model, the problem of forming a cavity within an initially homogeneous cell spheroid due to the loss of stability of the homogeneous state is solved. The constitutive relation for the medium strain rate due to cell rearrangements takes into account two mechanisms of relative cell motion: related to cell adhesion and cellmotility. The participation of differentmechanisms of cell interaction in the self-organization of the biological system that consists of mechanically active cells is investigated.

Key words

cell systems active media biological morphogenesis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    N. J. Armstrong, K. J. Painter, and J. A. Sherratt, “A Continuum Approach to Modelling Cell-Cell Adhesion,” J. Theor. Biol. 243 (1), 98–113 (2006).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Domschke, D. Trucu, A. Gerisch, and M. Chaplain, “Mathematical Modelling of Cancer Invasion: Implications of Cell Adhesion Variability for Tumour Infiltrative Growth Patterns,” J. Theor. Biol. 361, 41–60 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Gerisch and M. A. J. Chaplain, “Mathematical Modelling of Cancer Cell Invasion of Tissue: Local and Non-localModels and the Effect of Adhesion,” J. Theor. Biol. 250 (4), 684–704 (2008).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. J. Painter, N. J. Armstrong, and J. A. Sherratt, “The Impact of Adhesion on Cellular Invasion Processes in Cancer and Development,” J. Theor. Biol. 264 (3), 1057–1067 (2010).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Preziosi and A. Tosin, “Multiphase Modeling of Tumor Growth and Extracellular Matrix Interaction: Mathematical Tools and Applications,” J.Math. Biol. 58, 625–656 (2009).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Arduino and L. Preziosi, “A Multiphase Model of Tumour Aggregation in Situ by a Heterogeneous ExtracellularMatrix,” Internat. J. Non-Lin. Mech. 75, 22–30 (2015).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C. Giverso, M. Scianna, and A. Grillo, “Growing Avascular Tumours as Elasto-Plastic Bodies by the Theory of Evolving Natural Configurations,” Mech. Res. Commun. 68, 31–39 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. L. Jackson and H. M. Byrne, “A Mechanical Model of Tumor Encapsulation and Transcapsular Spread,” Mathematical Biosciences 180, 307–328 (2002).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. Byrne and L. Preziosi, “Modelling Solid Tumour Growth Using the Theory of Mixtures,” Math.Med. Biol. 20, 341–366 (2003).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. E. Green, S. L. Waters, K. M. Shakesheff, and H. M. Byrne, “A Mathematical Model of Liver Cell Aggregation in Vitro,” Bull. Math. Biol. 71, 906–930 (2009).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    G. Lemon, J. R. King, H. M. Byrne, O. E. Jensen, and K. M. Shakesheff, “Mathematical Modelling of Engineered Tissue Growth Using a Multiphase Porous Flow Mixture Theory,” J. Math. Biol. 52, 571–594 (2006).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. D. O’Dea, S. L. Waters, and H. M. Byrne, “A Multiphase Model for Tissue Construct Growth in a Perfusion Bioreactor,” Math. Med. Biol. 27 (2), 95–127 (2010).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. F. Oster, J. D. Murray, and A. K. Harris, “Mechanical Aspects of Mesenchymal Morphogenesis,” J. Embriol. Exp. Morph. 78, 83–125 (1983).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. J. Dyson, J.E.F. Green, J. P. Whiteley, and H.M. Byrne, “An Investigation of the Influence of Extracellular Matrix Anisotropy and Cell-Matrix Interactions on Tissue Architecture,” J. Math. Biol. 72 (7), 1775–1809 (2016).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. A. Davidson, S. D. Joshi, H. Y. Kim, M. Dassow, L. Zhang, and J. Zhou, “Emergent Morphogenesis: ElasticMechanics of a Self-deforming Tissue,” J. Biomech. 43 (1), 63–70 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    L. V. Beloussov, S. A. Logvenkov, and A. A. Stein, “Mathematical Model of an Active Biological Continuous Medium with Account for the Deformations and Rearrangements of the Cells,” Fluid Dynamics 47 (1), 1–9 (2015).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. A. Logvenkov and A. A. Stein, “MathematicalModel of Spatial Self-organization in aMechanically Active CellularMedium,” Biophysics 62 (6), 926–934 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. N. Kizilova, S. A. Logvenkov, and A. A. Stein, “Mathematical Modeling of Transport-Growth Processes in Multiphase Biological Continua,” Fluid Dynamics 47 (1), 1–9 (2012).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. Tracqui, “Biophysical Models of Tumour Growth,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 72 (5), 056701 (2009).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. Vlahinic, H.M. Jennings, J. E. Andrade, and J. J. Thomas, “A Novel and General Form of Effective Stress in a Partially Saturated PorousMaterial: The Influence ofMicrostructure,” Mech.Mater. 43, 25–35 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. I. Nigmatulin, Fundamentals of Mechanics of Heterogeneous Media (Nauka, Moscow, 1978) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. A. Drew and L. A. Segel, “Averaged Equations for Two-Phase Flows,” Stud. Appl.Math. 50 (3), 205–231 (1971).CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. A. Samarskii, The Theory of Difference Schemes (Nauka, Moscow, 1977) [in Russian].zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. A. Samarskii and P. N. Vabishchevich, “Difference Schemes for the Transfer Equations,” Dif. Equations 34 (12), 1675–1685.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. C. Gerhart, “Mechanisms Regulating Pattern Formation in the Amphibian Egg and Early Embryo,” in Biological Regulation and Development, Ed. by R. Goldberger (Plenum Press, New York, 1980), Vol. 2, pp. 133–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. D. White, J. Zenker, S. Bissiere, and N. Plachta, “How Cells Change Shape and Position in the Early Mammalian Embryo,” Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 44, 7–13 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. C. Fierro-Gonzalez, M. D. White, J. C. Silval, and N. Plachta, “Cadherin-Dependent Filopodia Control Preimplantation Embryo compaction,” Nat. Cell. Biol. 15 (12), 1424–1433 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    T. P. Fleming, E. Butler, J. Collins, B. Sheth, and A. E. Wild, “Cell Polarity andMouse Early Development,” Adv. Mol. and Cell Biol. 26, 67–94 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    S. F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology, 6th ed. (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass., 2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of MechanicsMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations