
Citation: Bruno Buonomo, Giuseppe Carbone, Alberto d'Onofrio. Effect of seasonality on the dynamics of an imitation-based vaccination model with public health intervention[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2018, 15(1): 299-321. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2018013
[1] | Eunha Shim . Optimal dengue vaccination strategies of seropositive individuals. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(3): 1171-1189. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019056 |
[2] | Hyun Mo Yang, André Ricardo Ribas Freitas . Biological view of vaccination described by mathematical modellings: from rubella to dengue vaccines. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 3195-3214. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019159 |
[3] | Vanessa Steindorf, Sergio Oliva, Jianhong Wu . Cross immunity protection and antibody-dependent enhancement in a distributed delay dynamic model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 2950-2984. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022136 |
[4] | Haitao Song, Dan Tian, Chunhua Shan . Modeling the effect of temperature on dengue virus transmission with periodic delay differential equations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 4147-4164. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020230 |
[5] | Bo Zheng, Lihong Chen, Qiwen Sun . Analyzing the control of dengue by releasing Wolbachia-infected male mosquitoes through a delay differential equation model. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5531-5550. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019275 |
[6] | Guangming Qiu, Zhizhong Yang, Bo Deng . Backward bifurcation of a plant virus dynamics model with nonlinear continuous and impulsive control. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(3): 4056-4084. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024179 |
[7] | Wei You, Jie Ren, Qimin Zhang . Finite-time contraction stability of a stochastic reaction-diffusion dengue model with impulse and Markov switching. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 16978-17002. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023757 |
[8] | Biao Tang, Weike Zhou, Yanni Xiao, Jianhong Wu . Implication of sexual transmission of Zika on dengue and Zika outbreaks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 5092-5113. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019256 |
[9] | Saima Akter, Zhen Jin . Simulations and fractional modeling of dengue transmission in Bangladesh. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 9891-9922. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023434 |
[10] | Zuohuan Zheng, Kaihua Wang, Daiyu Yang, Feifei Yin, Dingwei Sun, Weiyan Yu, Jialun Lin, Ying Liu, Changkuan Chen, Zehui Yang, Biao Wu . Factors affecting the transmission of dengue fever in Haikou city in 2019. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 16045-16059. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023716 |
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), featured by poor prognosis, frequent relapse and high mortality, is one of the leading malignancies, which gives rise to serious financial burden worldwide [1]. Even if the carcinoma tissues in liver can be completely resected or ablated, the remnant carcinogenic tissue microenvironment may still cause recurrent de novo HCC tumors, eventually progressing into advanced-stage disease in most patients [2]. Therefore, screening specific and sensitive biomarkers as well as potential targets in HCC is of great significance for better diagnosis, more precise treatment, and more favorable prognosis.
Chemokines have been traditionally defined as small (10–14 kDa) secreted leukocyte chemoattractants, the interactions of which could direct cell migration in immunity, inflammation, development, and cancer [3]. There is a total of 22 chemokines receptors and approximately 45 chemokines expressing in humans, thus forming a pharmacologically complex system [4]. According to the spacing of conserved cysteine residues about 10 residues from the N-terminal end of the peptide chain, chemokines are usually classified into four subfamilies (CC, CXC, CX3C and XC) [5]. The CXC chemokines is further subdivided in the ELR 61 and ELR+ chemokines, which exert a vital effect in the development of cancer, especially in tumor angiogenesis. The members containing the ELR motif bind to CXC chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) and exhibit an angiogenic effect while most of the CXC chemokines without ELR motif bind to CXCR3 and display an angiostatic effect [6].
Up to now, sixteen CXC chemokines in mammalian cells have been verified and named based on the order of their discovery (CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL3, PF4, CXCL5, CXCL6, PPBP, CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL11, CXCL12, CXCL13, CXCL14, CXCL16 and CXCL17) [6]. Among these CXC chemokines, CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL3, CXCL5, CXCL6, CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL12, CXCL13, CACL14 and CXCL17 are considered oncogenes and potential biomrkers in HCC development, as indicated by evidence in human HCC tissues, animal models and HCC cell lines. For example, CXCL5 overexpression could promote HCC cell proliferation, invasion, as well as intratumoral neutrophil infiltration by activating the PI3K-Akt and ERK1/2 signaling pathways [7]. Additionally, in HCC cells, hypoxia inducible factor-u03b1 (HIF-1u03b1) could promote the progression and metastasis of HCC through upregulating CXCL6 at transcriptional level [8]. Nevertheless, the potential mechanism by which CXC chemokines are suppressed and activated and the underlying functions of the CXC chemokines in HCC have yet to be completely illustrated.
Although the abnormal expression levels of CXC chemokines as well as their relationship with clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes have incompletely reported in HCC, to our knowledge, the exploration of CXC chemokines based on bioinformatics analysis in HCC is absent. The development of microarray technology has thoroughly revolutionized the DNA and RNA research in biomedical studies [9]. Previous study unveiled that the expression levels of several members in CXC cytokines differed between normal group and HCC group [10]. Hence, in this study, we further analyzed the expression and mutations of different CXC cytokines in patients with HCC by analyzing abundant online gene expression or variation in copy numbers, aiming to determine the expression patterns, underlying function and potential prognosis values of these CXC cytokines.
The collection and use of human liver tissues were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Lishui Municipal Central Hospital. All the datasets used in this study were retrieved from the published literature, meaning that all the written informed consent acquired was confirmed.
ONCOMINE is a cancer microarray database and web-based data-mining platform (http://www.oncomine.org), aiming to facilitate discovery from genome-wide expression analyses [11]. In this study, the ONCOMINE was used to analyze the transcription levels of CXC cytokines in different types of cancers. The mRNA expressions of CXC cytokines in clinical cancer specimens were compared with that in normal controls, using a Students’ t-test to generate a p value. The cut-off of p value and fold change were defined as 0.01 and 2, respectively.
GEPIA (http://gepia.cancer-pku.cn/index.html) is a newly developed interactive web server which was designed by Zefang Tang, Chenwei Li and Boxi Kang of Zhang Lab, Peking University, in order to analyze the RNA sequencing expression data of 8,587 normal samples and 9,736 tumors from the TCGA and the GTEx projects, using a standard processing pipeline [12]. GEPIA possesses customizable functions such as tumor/normal differential expression analysis, profiling on the basis of pathological stages or cancer types, similar gene detection, patient survival analysis, correlation analysis and dimensionality reduction analysis. In this study, we used GEPIA to construct visualized the expression levels of CXC cytokines at transcription and protein levels. Additionally, we used GEPIA to analyzed the correlation between CXC cytokines expression and tumor stage in HCC patients.
Based on GEPIA (http://gepia.cancer-pku.cn/), we acquired the correlations between these genes and their prognostic information. The hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals and logrank P value were calculated and displayed on the plot. P < 0.05 was considered statistically different.
The Cancer Genome Atlas possessed both pathological data and sequencing of 30 different cancers [13]. The liver hepatocellular carcinoma (TCGA, Provisional) dataset involving data from 442 samples with pathology reports was chosen for comprehensive analyses of CXC cytokines using cBioPortal. The genomic profiles included mutations, putative copy-number alterations (CNA) from GISTIC, mRNA expression z-scores (RNASeq V2 RSEM) and protein expression Z-scores (RPPA). Co-expression and network were calculated on the basis of the cBioPortal's online instruction.
Protein extraction, SDS-PAGE, and immunodetection of the carcinoma tissues and adjacent tissues were performed according to previous research [14]. Protein expression levels were normalized to the matched total proteins or GAPDH.
Inflammatory cytokines in this study included CXCL2, 9, 10 and 14. These cytokines in serum were detected using commercially available ELISA kits from Abcam on the basis of the manufacturer's instructions.
GO serves as a useful approach to annotate genes and gene products and also identifies characteristic biological attributing to high-throughput genome or transcriptome data. And KEGG is a collection of databases which helped to handle genomes, biological pathways, diseases, chemical substances and drugs [15]. We input these CXC cytokines separately into the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery (https://david.ncifcrf.gov/) (DAVID) which could be used to perform GO and KEGG analysis [15]. P < 0.05 was the choice criterion.
Sixteen CXC cytokines have been discovered and verified in mammalian cells. We employed ONCOMINE databases to compare the transcriptional levels of CXC cytokines in normal samples with those in HCC samples (Figure 1). The mRNA expression levels of CXCL6, CXCL9 and CXCL10 were significantly upregulated in patients with HCC. By contrast, the mRNA expression levels of CXCL1, CXCL2, CXCL12 and CXCL14 were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC. Consistent with these datasets, CXCL6, CXCL9 and CXCL10 were also overexpressed in patients with HCC with a fold change of 3.749, 5.334 and 9.272 in V Mas,dataset [16]. Additionally, another two CXC cytokines involving CXCL8 and CXCL11 were also overexpressed with a fold change of 3.323 and 2.188, respectively (Table 1). Intriguingly, in patients with cirrhosis, the expression level of CXCL6 even had a fold change of 11.046 compared with that in normal groups in V Mas,dataset [16]. As for CXCL10, Wurmbach E,dataset demonstrated that its upregulated expression level had a fold change of 17.69317.
Gene | Comparision | Fold change | P-value | t-test | Reference |
CXCL1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL2 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.143 | 9.88 × 10-7 | 5.419 | [13] |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.803 | 3.73 × 10-6 | 5.049 | [14] | |
CXCL3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
PF4 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL6 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 10.375 | 2.15 × 10-6 | 6.270 | [13] |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 7.476 | 9.03 × 10-9 | 6.472 | [14] | |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 11.046 | 5.24 × 10-16 | 14.197 | [13] | |
HCC vs. Normal | 3.749 | 3.15 × 10-7 | 5.637 | [13] | |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.946 | 1.34 × 10-6 | 5.238 | [13] | |
PPBP | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL8 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 5.819 | 4.56 × 10-9 | 7.798 | [13] |
HCC vs. Normal | 3.323 | 7.84 × 10-6 | 4.972 | [13] | |
CXCL9 | HCC vs. Normal | 5.334 | 6.20 × 10-17 | 12.031 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 6.888 | 3.52 × 10-27 | 16.889 | [13] | |
CXCL10 | HCC vs. Normal | 9.272 | 6.33 × 10-17 | 11.988 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 9.949 | 4.30 × 10-25 | 15.897 | [13] | |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 17.693 | 1.42 × 10-6 | 7.811 | [14] | |
Liver Cell Dysplasia vs. Normal | 6.620 | 9.20 × 10-5 | 5.156 | [14] | |
CXCL11 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 8.284 | 7.44 × 10-6 | 5.677 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 2.177 | 3.28 × 10-10 | 7.374 | [14] | |
HCC vs. Normal | 2.188 | 2.26 × 10-6 | 5.355 | [14] | |
CXCL12 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 4.502 | 9.99 × 10-11 | 7.837 | [14] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 3.616 | 7.75 × 10-11 | 9.688 | [14] | |
CXCL13 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL14 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 10.453 | 6.21 × 10-16 | 10.700 | [14] |
CXCL16 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL17 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
We analyzed the transcripts per million (TPM) (Figure 2) and the mRNA expression levels (Figure 3) of CXC cytokines between HCC and normal liver tissues by using GEPIA online analysis tool. The obtained results showed that TPM and the mRNA levels of CXCL2, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL12 and CXCL14 displayed significant difference (P < 0.05). To be more specific, the expression levels of CXCL2 and CXCL14 were significantly lower in HCC tissues while the levels of CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL12 were significantly higher in HCC tissues (P < 0.05).
Meanwhile, we also analyzed the expression of CXC cytokines with tumor stage for HCC (Figure 4). Intriguingly, only CXCL3 and CXCL5 significantly varied while other CXC cytokines did not show obvious difference.
We also performed western blot to re-identify the differentially expressed CXC cytokines in 10 patients with HCC (Figure 5). As expected, the protein levels of CXCL2 and CXCL14 in adjacent tissues were significantly higher compared with HCC tissues while the protein levels of CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL12 significantly increased in carcinoma tissues (P < 0.05).
Subsequently, we investigated the vital efficiency of CXC cytokines in the survival of patients with HCC. The Kaplan-Meier Plotter based on GEPIA analyzed the relationships between the mRNA expression levels of CXC cytokines and the survival of 364 patients with HCC (Figure 6). The Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test analyses uncovered that the low expression levels of CXCL1, CXCL3, CXCL5 and CXCL8 as well as the high expression level of CXCL2 were significantly correlated with the overall survival (OS) (P < 0.05). Thus the patients with high mRNA levels of CXCL1, CXCL3, CXCL5 and CXCL8 or low level of CXCL2 were supposed to possess a poor prognosis.
We further explored the CXC cytokines alterations, relationships, and networks by employing the cBioPortal tool for HCC (http://www.cbioportal.org/). CXC cytokines were altered in 87 samples out of 461 patients with HCC (27%). Nearly half of these samples have 2 or more alterations (Figure 7A). Then the network for CXC cytokines as well as their 45 most frequently altered neighbor genes were constructed. The results showed that the cytoplasmic protein (PTK2B), G protein subunit (GNG4) and reactive oxygen protein (SHC1) closely associated with CXC cytokines alterations (Figure 7B).
The functions of CXC cytokines and the genes significantly associated with CXC cytokines alterations were predicted by analyzing GO involving biological processes (BP), molecular function (MF) and cell composition (CC) as well as KEGG pathways via DAVID. We found that GO: 0006955 (immune response), GO: 0006954 (inflammatory response), GO: 0070098 (chemokine-mediated signaling pathway), GO: 0032496 (response to lipopolysaccharide), and GO: 0042127 (regulation of cell proliferation) were mainly enriched in BP. The GO: 0008009 (chemokine activity), GO: 0045236 (CXCR chemokine receptor binding) and GO: 0008201 (heparin binding) were focused in CC. The MF of these CXC cytokines was mainly responsible for GO: 0005615 (extracellular space) (Figure 8A). Eight pathways associated with the functions of CXC cytokines alterations in HCC were revealed using KEGG analysis (Figure 8B), namely ptr04062: Chemokine signaling pathway, ptr04060: Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, ptr05134: Legionellosis, ptr05132: Salmonella infection, ptr05323: Rheumatoid arthritis, ptr04620: Toll-like receptor signaling pathway, ptr04668: TNF signaling pathway and ptr05133: Pertussis.
Cancer is a type of disease due to the abnormal function of cytokine-regulated networks. Previous studies demonstrated that beneficial cytokines could exert potent anti-tumor effects by directly suppressing growth and survival of tumor cells (promotion of senescence and apoptosis, cell cycle arrest, restriction of cell motilit, enhancing the immune response against tumor cells, regulating the behavior of non-immune stromal cells [16,17,18,19,20]. By contrast, some chemokines, cytokines or their combinations could promote recruitment of immunosuppressive cells into the tumor microenvironment [21]. What is more, some pro-inflammatory chemochines or cytokines could promote cancer cell proliferation and inhibit its apoptosis in a number of instances [22]. Hence, it is necessary to clarify the roles and underlying mechanisms of the CXC chemokines in the progression of HCC. In this study, we explored the mRNA as well as the protein expression and prognostic values of different CXC cytokines in HCC for the first time. We found that the mRNA and the protein levels of CXCL9, CXCL10 and CXCL12 significantly increased in HCC tissues while the level of CXCL2 were significantly lower in carcinoma tissues. Meanwhile, another finding in our study is that CXCL3 and CXCL5 significantly differed with tumor stage. Meanwhile, the prognosis analysis showed that the low level of CXCL1, CXCL3, CXCL5 and CXCL8 as well as the high level of CXCL2 may correlate with the overall survival of patients with HCC. The GO and KEGG analysis showed that these genes were mainly enriched in chemokine activity, cytokine-cytokine interaction as well as immune and inflammatory response.
CXCL1 was reported to play a vital role in wound healing, angiogenesis, inflammation, and tumorigenesis. Upregulation of CXCL1 has been proved in various cancers and was correlated with poor prognosis. A clinical study uncovered that abnormal level of CXCL1 significantly promoted HCC cells invasion and proliferation, the CXCL1 could give rise to cell invasion in a NF-κB-dependent manner. Additionally, CXCL1 expression in HCC was significantly correlated with clinical stage as well as distant metastasis. Patients with low CXCL1 expression level had better OS than those with high CXCL1 expression [23]. What is more, CXCL1 can also regulate neutrophil infiltration into HCC tumor tissues, which could attenuate T cell responses by expressing PD-L1 and induce the generation of regulatory T (Treg) cells to accelerate tumor progression by suppressing macrophages in the tumor nest [24,25]. On the other one hand, by releasing MMP9, the accumulated neutrophils in the peri-tumoral regions of HCC patients could promote angiogenesis [26]. In our study, we obtained consistent conclusion that high CXCL1 expression conferred a poor prognosis in patients with HCC.
CXCL2 is produced by epithelial cell, macrophages, endothelial cells, and tumor cells, which also exerts critical roles in mutiple biological progresses including inflammation, angiogenesis, cancer biological behaviors and immune response [27,28]. As for HCC, CXCL2 could enhance liver cancer cell migration, proliferation and invasion while the expression of CXCL2 is regulated by miR-532-5p [29]. In our report, we showed that the TPM and the mRNA level of CXCL2 were downregulated in HCC tissues and significantly associated with the prognosis of patients with HCC, but its level was not correlated with tumor stage.
CXCL3 is subclassified as a Glu-Leu-Arg (ELR+) CXC chemokine, which is upregulated in most agammaessive tumors [30]. CXCL3 is widely expressed in liver tissue and plays essential roles in inflammatory response and liver injury [31]. Zhang L et al showed that CD133 overexpression could contribute to CXCL3 expression in HCC cells while Knockdown of CXCL3 inhibited CD133+ liver cancer stem cell (CSC) self-renewal and tumorigenesis by suppressing Erk1/2 and ETS1 phosphorylation. HCC patients with lower CXCL3 expression exhibited a better prognosis, the high level of which was significantly correlated with and tumor capsule formation and vascular invasion [32]. We uncovered that CXCL3 may potentially affect the clinical stage of HCC. In stage Ⅳ, the level of CXCL3 was significantly lower.
CXCL5, epithelial neutrophil-activating peptide-78, is a small, secreted proteins, which is mainly responsible for angiogenesis. Study showed that CXCL5 could promote HCC cell invasion, proliferation by mediating intratumoral neutrophil infiltration [7]. Also, CXCL5 could indicate poor prognosis in patients with HCC. Additionally, CXCL5 resulted in epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) of HCC cells via activating PI3K/Akt/GSK-3β/Snail axis [33]. In our study, we found that the level of CXCL3 significantly decreased in patients of stage Ⅳ.
CXCL8, known as interleukin-8 (IL-8), is usually secreted by tumor and inflammatory cells. In HCC tissues and cell lines, the level of CXCL8 was significantly increased. Meanwhile, CXCL8 can cause HCC progression and metastasis through activating AKT/mTOR/STAT3 signaling pathway [34]. Here we uncovered that patients with lower level of CXCL8 may have better prognosis.
CXCL9 is implicated with liver damage and the infiltration of inflammatory cells and after Hepatitis B virusinfection. Meantime, CXCL9 was involved in the invasion ability of HCC by increasing the level of phosphatidylinositol-3, 4, 5-trisphosphate RAC Exchanger 2 (PREX2) [35]. Based on bioinformatics analysis, we disclosed that the expression level of CXCL9 were significantly increased in carcinoma tissues.
CXCL10 is reported to regulate leukocyte trafficking, inflammation, angiogenesis, hematopoiesis, adaptive immunity and tumor metastasis mediated by G-protein-coupled (chemokine) receptors [36]. CXCL10 participates in the metastasis of HCC through up-regulating the level of matrix metallopeptidase-2 (MMP-2) [37]. In this study, we found that the level of CXCL10 significantly increased in HCC group, but its level was not associated with clinical stage and prognosis in patients with HCC.
CXCL14, also known as breast and kidney-expressed chemokine (BRAK), is a new-found CXC chemokine with unclear function as well as receptor selectivity [38]. Till now, no research has focused on the role of CXCL14 on the progression of HCC. Our study showed that the expression of CXCL14 was significantly inhibited in HCC tissue. However, the potential mechanism of CXCL9 in HCC should be further explored.
In this study, we systemically analyzed the expression and prognostic value of CXC cytokines in HCC, providing a comprehensive insight of the complexity and heterogeneity of the molecular biological characteristics of HCC. Our bioinformatics analysis firstly disclosed the potential prognosis and therapeutic values of CXC cytokines in HCC. We sincerely hope that our research will make some contributions to available knowledge, optimize treatment strategy, and improve the accuracy of prognosis for patients with HCC.
This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Lishui Municipal Central Hospital.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[1] | [ R. M. Anderson, The impact of vaccination on the epidemiology of infectious diseases, in The Vaccine Book, B. R. Bloom and P. -H. Lambert (eds. ) The Vaccine Book (Second Edition). Elsevier B. V. , Amsterdam, (2006), 3-31. |
[2] | [ R. M. Anderson,R. M. May, null, Infectious Diseases of Humans. Dynamics and Control, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991. |
[3] | [ N. Bacaër, Approximation of the basic reproduction number R0 for vector-borne diseases with a periodic vector population, Bull. Math. Biol., 69 (2007): 1067-1091. |
[4] | [ C. T. Bauch, Imitation dynamics predict vaccinating behaviour, Proc. R. Soc. B, 272 (2005): 1669-1675. |
[5] | [ B. R. Bloom and P. -H. Lambert (eds. ), The Vaccine Book (Second Edition), Elsevier B. V. , Amsterdam, 2006. |
[6] | [ F. Brauer, P. van den Driessche and J. Wu (eds. ), Mathematical Epidemiology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Mathematical biosciences subseries, vol. 1945, Springer, Berlin, 2008. |
[7] | [ B. Buonomo,A. d'Onofrio,D. Lacitignola, Modeling of pseudo-rational exemption to vaccination for SEIR diseases, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 404 (2013): 385-398. |
[8] | [ B. Buonomo, A. d'Onofrio and P. Manfredi, Public Health Intervention to shape voluntary vaccination: Continuous and piecewise optimal control, Submitted. |
[9] | [ V. Capasso, null, Mathematical Structure of Epidemic Models, 2nd edition, Springer, 2008. |
[10] | [ L. Cesari, Asymptotic Behavior and Stability Problems in Ordinary Differential Equations, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 16, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1971. |
[11] | [ C. Chicone, Ordinary Differential Equations with Applications, Texts in Applied Mathematics, 34, Springer, New York, 2006. |
[12] | [ M. Choisy,J.-F. Guegan,P. Rohani, Dynamics of infectious diseases and pulse vaccination: Teasing apart the embedded resonance effects, Physica D, 223 (2006): 26-35. |
[13] | [ W. Coppel, Stability and Asymptotic Behavior of Differential Equations, Heath, Boston, 1965. |
[14] | [ O. Diekmann,J. A. P. Heesterbeek,J. A. J. Metz, On the definition and the computation of the basic reproduction ratio R0 in models for infectious diseases in heterogeneous populations, J. Math. Biol., 28 (1990): 365-382. |
[15] | [ A. d'Onofrio, Stability properties of pulses vaccination strategy in SEIR epidemic model, Math. Biosci., 179 (2002): 57-72. |
[16] | [ A. d'Onofrio and P. Manfredi, Impact of Human Behaviour on the Spread of Infectious Diseases: a review of some evidences and models, Submitted. |
[17] | [ A. d'Onofrio,P. Manfredi,P. Poletti, The impact of vaccine side effects on the natural history of immunization programmes: An imitation-game approach, J. Theor. Biol., 273 (2011): 63-71. |
[18] | [ A. d'Onofrio,P. Manfredi,P. Poletti, The interplay of public intervention and private choices in determining the outcome of vaccination programmes, PLoS ONE, 7 (2012): e45653. |
[19] | [ A. d'Onofrio,P. Manfredi,E. Salinelli, Vaccinating behaviour, information and the dynamics of SIR vaccine preventable diseases, Theor. Popul. Biol., 71 (2007): 301-317. |
[20] | [ A. d'Onofrio,P. Manfredi,E. Salinelli, Fatal SIR diseases and rational exemption to vaccination, Math. Med. Biol., 25 (2008): 337-357. |
[21] | [ D. Elliman,H. Bedford, MMR: Where are we now?, Archives of Disease in Childhood, 92 (2007): 1055-1057. |
[22] | [ B. F. Finkenstadt,B. T. Grenfell, Time series modelling of childhood diseases: A dynamical systems approach, Appl. Stat., 49 (2000): 187-205. |
[23] | [ N. C. Grassly,C. Fraser, Seasonal infectious disease epidemiology, Proc. Royal Soc. B, 273 (2006): 2541-2550. |
[24] | [ M. W. Hirsch and H. Smith, Monotone dynamical systems, in Handbook of Differential Equations: Ordinary Differential Equations, vol. Ⅱ, Elsevier B. V. , Amsterdam, 2 (2005), 239-357. |
[25] | [ IMI. Innovative medicine initiative. First Innovative Medicines Initiative Ebola projects get underway, Available from: http://www.imi.europa.eu/content/ebola-project-launch (accessed September 2016). |
[26] | [ A. Kata, A postmodern Pandora's box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet, Vaccine, 28 (2010): 1709-1716. |
[27] | [ A. Kata, Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm-An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement, Vaccine, 30 (2012): 3778-3789. |
[28] | [ M. J. Keeling,P. Rohani, null, Modeling Infectious Diseases in Humans and Animals, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2008. |
[29] | [ W. P. London,J. A. Yorke, Recurrent outbreaks of measles, chickenpox and mumps. I. Seasonal variation in contact rates, Am. J. Epidemiol., 98 (1973): 453-468. |
[30] | [ P. Manfredi and A. d'Onofrio (eds), Modeling the Interplay Between Human Behavior and the Spread of Infectious Diseases, Springer, New York, 2013. |
[31] | [ M. Martcheva, An Introduction to Mathematical Epidemiology, Texts in Applied Mathematics, 61, Springer, New York, 2015. |
[32] | [ E. Miller,N. J. Gay, Epidemiological determinants of pertussis, Dev. Biol. Stand., 89 (1997): 15-23. |
[33] | [ J. D. Murray, Mathematical Biology. I. An Introduction. Third Edition, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics, 17. Springer-Verlag, New York, 2002. |
[34] | [ Y. Nakata,T. Kuniya, Global dynamics of a class of SEIRS epidemic models in a periodic environment, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 325 (2010): 230-237. |
[35] | [ G. Napier,D. Lee,C. Robertson,A. Lawson,K. G. Pollock, A model to estimate the impact of changes in MMR vaccine uptake on inequalities in measles susceptibility in Scotland, Stat. Methods Med. Res., 25 (2016): 1185-1200. |
[36] | [ L. F. Olsen,W. M. Schaffer, Chaos versus noisy periodicity: Alternative hypotheses for childhood epidemics, Science, 249 (1990): 499-504. |
[37] | [ T. Philipson, Private Vaccination and Public Health an empirical examination for U.S. Measles, J. Hum. Res., 31 (1996): 611-630. |
[38] | [ I. B. Schwartz,H. L. Smith, Infinite subharmonic bifurcation in an SEIR epidemic model, J. Math. Biol., 18 (1983): 233-253. |
[39] | [ H. E. Soper, The interpretation of periodicity in disease prevalence, J. R. Stat. Soc., 92 (1929): 34-73. |
[40] | [ P. van den Driessche,J. Watmough, Reproduction numbers and sub-threshold endemic equilibria for compartmental models of disease transmission, Math. Biosci., 180 (2002): 29-48. |
[41] | [ A. van Lier,J. van de Kassteele,P. de Hoogh,I. Drijfhout,H. de Melker, Vaccine uptake determinants in The Netherlands, Eur. J. Public Health, 24 (2013): 304-309. |
[42] | [ G. S. Wallace, Why Measles Matters, 2014, Available from: http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/27488/cdc_27488_DS1.pdf (accessed November 2016). |
[43] | [ Z. Wang,C. T. Bauch,S. Bhattacharyya,A. d'Onofrio,P. Manfredi,M. Perc,N. Perra,M. Salathé,D. Zhao, Statistical physics of vaccination, Physics Reports, 664 (2016): 1-113. |
[44] | [ W. Wang,X. Q. Zhao, Threshold dynamics for compartmental epidemic models in periodic environments, J. Dyn. Diff. Eq., 20 (2008): 699-717. |
[45] | [ WHO, Vaccine safety basics, Available from: http://vaccine-safety-training.org/adverse-events-classification.html (accessed November 2016). |
[46] | [ R. M. Wolfe,L. K. Sharp, Anti-vaccinationists past and present, Brit. Med. J., 325 (2002): p430. |
[47] | [ F. Zhang,X. Q. Zhao, A periodic epidemic model in a patchy environment, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 325 (2007): 496-516. |
[48] | [ X. Q. Zhao, Dynamical Systems in Population Biology, CMS Books Math. , vol. 16, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2003. |
1. | Salihu S. Musa, Shi Zhao, Daozhou Gao, Qianying Lin, Gerardo Chowell, Daihai He, Mechanistic modelling of the large-scale Lassa fever epidemics in Nigeria from 2016 to 2019, 2020, 493, 00225193, 110209, 10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110209 | |
2. | Qianying Lin, Salihu S. Musa, Shi Zhao, Daihai He, Modeling the 2014–2015 Ebola Virus Disease Outbreaks in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia with Effect of High- and Low-risk Susceptible Individuals, 2020, 82, 0092-8240, 10.1007/s11538-020-00779-y | |
3. | Shi Zhao, Salihu S. Musa, Jay T. Hebert, Peihua Cao, Jinjun Ran, Jiayi Meng, Daihai He, Jing Qin, Modelling the effective reproduction number of vector-borne diseases: the yellow fever outbreak in Luanda, Angola 2015–2016 as an example, 2020, 8, 2167-8359, e8601, 10.7717/peerj.8601 | |
4. | Akhil Kumar Srivastav, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Mini Ghosh, Modeling the impact of early case detection on dengue transmission: deterministic vs. stochastic, 2020, 0736-2994, 1, 10.1080/07362994.2020.1804403 | |
5. | Abdullahi Yusuf, Bahar Acay, Umar Tasiu Mustapha, Mustafa Inc, Dumitru Baleanu, Mathematical modeling of pine wilt disease with Caputo fractional operator, 2021, 143, 09600779, 110569, 10.1016/j.chaos.2020.110569 | |
6. | Salihu Sabiu Musa, Shi Zhao, Daihai He, Chao Liu, The Long-Term Periodic Patterns of Global Rabies Epidemics Among Animals: A Modeling Analysis, 2020, 30, 0218-1274, 2050047, 10.1142/S0218127420500479 | |
7. | Salihu Sabiu Musa, Sania Qureshi, Shi Zhao, Abdullahi Yusuf, Umar Tasiu Mustapha, Daihai He, Mathematical modeling of COVID-19 epidemic with effect of awareness programs, 2021, 6, 24680427, 448, 10.1016/j.idm.2021.01.012 | |
8. | Rahul Subramanian, Victoria Romeo-Aznar, Edward Ionides, Claudia T. Codeço, Mercedes Pascual, Predicting re-emergence times of dengue epidemics at low reproductive numbers: DENV1 in Rio de Janeiro, 1986–1990, 2020, 17, 1742-5689, 20200273, 10.1098/rsif.2020.0273 | |
9. | Yongli Cai, Shi Zhao, Yun Niu, Zhihang Peng, Kai Wang, Daihai He, Weiming Wang, Modelling the effects of the contaminated environments on tuberculosis in Jiangsu, China, 2021, 508, 00225193, 110453, 10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110453 | |
10. | Daihai He, Shi Zhao, Qianying Lin, Salihu S. Musa, Lewi Stone, Christopher M. Barker, New estimates of the Zika virus epidemic attack rate in Northeastern Brazil from 2015 to 2016: A modelling analysis based on Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) surveillance data, 2020, 14, 1935-2735, e0007502, 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007502 | |
11. | G. Udhaya Sankar, C. Ganesa Moorthy, 2020, chapter 4, 9781799821977, 64, 10.4018/978-1-7998-2197-7.ch004 | |
12. | Salihu Sabiu Musa, Shi Zhao, Nafiu Hussaini, Abdulrazaq Garba Habib, Daihai He, Mathematical modeling and analysis of meningococcal meningitis transmission dynamics, 2020, 13, 1793-5245, 2050006, 10.1142/S1793524520500060 | |
13. | Salihu Sabiu Musa, Shi Zhao, Nafiu Hussaini, Salisu Usaini, Daihai He, Dynamics analysis of typhoid fever with public health education programs and final epidemic size relation, 2021, 10, 25900374, 100153, 10.1016/j.rinam.2021.100153 | |
14. | Clarisse Lins de Lima, Ana Clara Gomes da Silva, Cecilia Cordeiro da Silva, Giselle Machado Magalhães Moreno, Abel Guilhermino da Silva Filho, Anwar Musah, Aisha Aldosery, Livia Dutra, Tercio Ambrizzi, Iuri Valério Graciano Borges, Merve Tunali, Selma Basibuyuk, Orhan Yenigün, Tiago Lima Massoni, Kate Jones, Luiza Campos, Patty Kostkova, Wellington P. dos Santos, 2022, Chapter 17, 978-3-030-79752-2, 299, 10.1007/978-3-030-79753-9_17 | |
15. | Umar T. Mustapha, Salihu S. Musa, Muhammad A. Lawan, Aliyu Abba, Evren Hincal, Musa D. Mohammed, Bashir D. Garba, Rabiu B. Yunus, Shehu A. Adamu, Daihai He, Mathematical modeling and analysis of schistosomiasis transmission dynamics, 2021, 12, 1793-9623, 2150021, 10.1142/S1793962321500215 | |
16. | Salihu S. Musa, Isa A. Baba, Abdullahi Yusuf, Tukur A. Sulaiman, Aliyu I. Aliyu, Shi Zhao, Daihai He, Transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2: A modeling analysis with high-and-moderate risk populations, 2021, 26, 22113797, 104290, 10.1016/j.rinp.2021.104290 | |
17. | Bilgen Kaymakamzade, Evren Hincal, Nezihal Gokbulut, Tamer Sanlidag, 2022, Chapter 8, 978-3-030-96681-2, 65, 10.1007/978-3-030-96682-9_8 | |
18. | Javier Armando Gutierrez, Karina Laneri, Juan Pablo Aparicio, Gustavo Javier Sibona, Meteorological indicators of dengue epidemics in non-endemic Northwest Argentina, 2022, 7, 24680427, 823, 10.1016/j.idm.2022.10.004 | |
19. | Afeez Abidemi, Hammed Olawale Fatoyinbo, Joshua Kiddy K. Asamoah, Sishu Shankar Muni, 2022, Evaluation of the Efficacy of Wolbachia Intervention on Dengue Burden in a Population: A Mathematical Insight, 978-1-6654-9501-1, 1618, 10.1109/DASA54658.2022.9765106 | |
20. | Emmanuelle Sylvestre, Clarisse Joachim, Elsa Cécilia-Joseph, Guillaume Bouzillé, Boris Campillo-Gimenez, Marc Cuggia, André Cabié, Victor S. Santos, Data-driven methods for dengue prediction and surveillance using real-world and Big Data: A systematic review, 2022, 16, 1935-2735, e0010056, 10.1371/journal.pntd.0010056 | |
21. | RUBAYYI T. ALQAHTANI, ABDULLAHI YUSUF, DEVELOPMENT AND ANALYSIS OF A SEIR MODEL FOR COVID-19 EPIDEMIC WITH VACCINATION AND NONSINGULAR KERNEL, 2022, 30, 0218-348X, 10.1142/S0218348X22400400 | |
22. | Salihu S. Musa, Abdullahi Yusuf, Emmanuel A. Bakare, Zainab U. Abdullahi, Lukman Adamu, Umar T. Mustapha, Daihai He, Unravelling the dynamics of Lassa fever transmission with differential infectivity: Modeling analysis and control strategies, 2022, 19, 1551-0018, 13114, 10.3934/mbe.2022613 | |
23. | Abdurrahman Abdulhamid, Nafiu Hussaini, Salihu S. Musa, Daihai He, Mathematical analysis of Lassa fever epidemic with effects of environmental transmission, 2022, 35, 22113797, 105335, 10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105335 | |
24. | Ziyue Yuan, Salihu Sabiu Musa, Shu-Chien Hsu, Clara Man Cheung, Daihai He, Post pandemic fatigue: what are effective strategies?, 2022, 12, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-022-13597-0 | |
25. | Ziyue Yuan, Shu-Chien Hsu, Clara Man Cheung, Vahid Asghari, Effectiveness of Interventions for Controlling COVID-19 Transmission between Construction Workers and Their Close Contacts, 2022, 38, 0742-597X, 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0001033 | |
26. | Mohammed M. Al-Shomrani, Salihu S. Musa, Abdullahi Yusuf, Unfolding the Transmission Dynamics of Monkeypox Virus: An Epidemiological Modelling Analysis, 2023, 11, 2227-7390, 1121, 10.3390/math11051121 | |
27. | Xin-You Meng, Chong-Yang Yin, DYNAMICS OF A DENGUE FEVER MODEL WITH UNREPORTED CASES AND ASYMPTOMATIC INFECTED CLASSES IN SINGAPORE, 2020, 2023, 13, 2156-907X, 782, 10.11948/20220111 | |
28. | Alhassan Ibrahim, Usa Wannasingha Humphries, Parinya Sa Ngiamsunthorn, Isa Abdullahi Baba, Sania Qureshi, Amir Khan, Modeling the dynamics of COVID-19 with real data from Thailand, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-39798-9 | |
29. | Abdoulaye Sow, Cherif Diallo, Hocine Cherifi, Benny Yong, Interplay between vaccines and treatment for dengue control: An epidemic model, 2024, 19, 1932-6203, e0295025, 10.1371/journal.pone.0295025 | |
30. | Nawaf L. Alsowait, Mohammed M. Al-Shomrani, Ismail Abdulrashid, Salihu S. Musa, Synergistic Impact of Active Case Detection and Early Hospitalization for Controlling the Spread of Yellow Fever Outbreak in Nigeria: An Epidemiological Modeling and Optimal Control Analysis, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 3817, 10.3390/math12233817 |
Gene | Comparision | Fold change | P-value | t-test | Reference |
CXCL1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL2 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.143 | 9.88 × 10-7 | 5.419 | [13] |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.803 | 3.73 × 10-6 | 5.049 | [14] | |
CXCL3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
PF4 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL6 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 10.375 | 2.15 × 10-6 | 6.270 | [13] |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 7.476 | 9.03 × 10-9 | 6.472 | [14] | |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 11.046 | 5.24 × 10-16 | 14.197 | [13] | |
HCC vs. Normal | 3.749 | 3.15 × 10-7 | 5.637 | [13] | |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.946 | 1.34 × 10-6 | 5.238 | [13] | |
PPBP | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL8 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 5.819 | 4.56 × 10-9 | 7.798 | [13] |
HCC vs. Normal | 3.323 | 7.84 × 10-6 | 4.972 | [13] | |
CXCL9 | HCC vs. Normal | 5.334 | 6.20 × 10-17 | 12.031 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 6.888 | 3.52 × 10-27 | 16.889 | [13] | |
CXCL10 | HCC vs. Normal | 9.272 | 6.33 × 10-17 | 11.988 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 9.949 | 4.30 × 10-25 | 15.897 | [13] | |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 17.693 | 1.42 × 10-6 | 7.811 | [14] | |
Liver Cell Dysplasia vs. Normal | 6.620 | 9.20 × 10-5 | 5.156 | [14] | |
CXCL11 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 8.284 | 7.44 × 10-6 | 5.677 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 2.177 | 3.28 × 10-10 | 7.374 | [14] | |
HCC vs. Normal | 2.188 | 2.26 × 10-6 | 5.355 | [14] | |
CXCL12 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 4.502 | 9.99 × 10-11 | 7.837 | [14] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 3.616 | 7.75 × 10-11 | 9.688 | [14] | |
CXCL13 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL14 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 10.453 | 6.21 × 10-16 | 10.700 | [14] |
CXCL16 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL17 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Gene | Comparision | Fold change | P-value | t-test | Reference |
CXCL1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL2 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.143 | 9.88 × 10-7 | 5.419 | [13] |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.803 | 3.73 × 10-6 | 5.049 | [14] | |
CXCL3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
PF4 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL6 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 10.375 | 2.15 × 10-6 | 6.270 | [13] |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 7.476 | 9.03 × 10-9 | 6.472 | [14] | |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 11.046 | 5.24 × 10-16 | 14.197 | [13] | |
HCC vs. Normal | 3.749 | 3.15 × 10-7 | 5.637 | [13] | |
HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 2.946 | 1.34 × 10-6 | 5.238 | [13] | |
PPBP | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL8 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 5.819 | 4.56 × 10-9 | 7.798 | [13] |
HCC vs. Normal | 3.323 | 7.84 × 10-6 | 4.972 | [13] | |
CXCL9 | HCC vs. Normal | 5.334 | 6.20 × 10-17 | 12.031 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 6.888 | 3.52 × 10-27 | 16.889 | [13] | |
CXCL10 | HCC vs. Normal | 9.272 | 6.33 × 10-17 | 11.988 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 9.949 | 4.30 × 10-25 | 15.897 | [13] | |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 17.693 | 1.42 × 10-6 | 7.811 | [14] | |
Liver Cell Dysplasia vs. Normal | 6.620 | 9.20 × 10-5 | 5.156 | [14] | |
CXCL11 | Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 8.284 | 7.44 × 10-6 | 5.677 | [13] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 2.177 | 3.28 × 10-10 | 7.374 | [14] | |
HCC vs. Normal | 2.188 | 2.26 × 10-6 | 5.355 | [14] | |
CXCL12 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 4.502 | 9.99 × 10-11 | 7.837 | [14] |
Cirrhosis vs. Normal | 3.616 | 7.75 × 10-11 | 9.688 | [14] | |
CXCL13 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL14 | HCC vs. Liver Cancer Precursor | 10.453 | 6.21 × 10-16 | 10.700 | [14] |
CXCL16 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
CXCL17 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |