Resistance to treatment poses a major challenge for cancer therapy, and oncoviral treatment encounters the issue of viral resistance as well. In this investigation, we introduce deterministic differential equation models to explore the effect of resistance on oncolytic viral therapy. Specifically, we classify tumor cells into resistant, sensitive, or infected with respect to oncolytic viruses for our analysis. Immune cells can eliminate both tumor cells and viruses. Our research shows that the introduction of immune cells into the tumor-virus interaction prevents all tumor cells from becoming resistant in the absence of conversion from resistance to sensitivity, given that the proliferation rate of immune cells exceeds their death rate. The inclusion of immune cells leads to an additional virus-free equilibrium when the immune cell recruitment rate is sufficiently high. The total tumor burden at this virus-free equilibrium is smaller than that at the virus-free and immune-free equilibrium. Therefore, immune cells are capable of reducing the tumor load under the condition of sufficient immune strength. Numerical investigations reveal that the virus transmission rate and parameters related to the immune response significantly impact treatment outcomes. However, monotherapy alone is insufficient for eradicating tumor cells, necessitating the implementation of additional therapies. Further numerical simulation shows that combination therapy with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy can enhance the success of treatment.
Citation: Prathibha Ambegoda, Hsiu-Chuan Wei, Sophia R-J Jang. The role of immune cells in resistance to oncolytic viral therapy[J]. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(5): 5900-5946. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024261
[1] | Janthip Jaiprasert, Pattrawut Chansangiam . Exact and least-squares solutions of a generalized Sylvester-transpose matrix equation over generalized quaternions. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(4): 2789-2804. doi: 10.3934/era.2024126 |
[2] |
Jin Wang, Jun-E Feng, Hua-Lin Huang .
Solvability of the matrix equation |
[3] | Yimou Liao, Tianxiu Lu, Feng Yin . A two-step randomized Gauss-Seidel method for solving large-scale linear least squares problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(2): 755-779. doi: 10.3934/era.2022040 |
[4] | Zehua Wang, Jinrui Guan, Ahmed Zubair . A structure-preserving doubling algorithm for the square root of regular M-matrix. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(9): 5306-5320. doi: 10.3934/era.2024245 |
[5] | Hankang Ji, Yuanyuan Li, Xueying Ding, Jianquan Lu . Stability analysis of Boolean networks with Markov jump disturbances and their application in apoptosis networks. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(9): 3422-3434. doi: 10.3934/era.2022174 |
[6] | Ping Yang, Xingyong Zhang . Existence of nontrivial solutions for a poly-Laplacian system involving concave-convex nonlinearities on locally finite graphs. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7473-7495. doi: 10.3934/era.2023377 |
[7] | ShinJa Jeong, Mi-Young Kim . Computational aspects of the multiscale discontinuous Galerkin method for convection-diffusion-reaction problems. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(2): 1991-2006. doi: 10.3934/era.2020101 |
[8] | Yang Song, Beiyan Yang, Jimin Wang . Stability analysis and security control of nonlinear singular semi-Markov jump systems. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(1): 1-25. doi: 10.3934/era.2025001 |
[9] | Lot-Kei Chou, Siu-Long Lei . High dimensional Riesz space distributed-order advection-dispersion equations with ADI scheme in compression format. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(4): 1463-1476. doi: 10.3934/era.2022077 |
[10] | Zhengmao Chen . A priori bounds and existence of smooth solutions to a Lp Aleksandrov problem for Codazzi tensor with log-convex measure. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 840-859. doi: 10.3934/era.2023042 |
Resistance to treatment poses a major challenge for cancer therapy, and oncoviral treatment encounters the issue of viral resistance as well. In this investigation, we introduce deterministic differential equation models to explore the effect of resistance on oncolytic viral therapy. Specifically, we classify tumor cells into resistant, sensitive, or infected with respect to oncolytic viruses for our analysis. Immune cells can eliminate both tumor cells and viruses. Our research shows that the introduction of immune cells into the tumor-virus interaction prevents all tumor cells from becoming resistant in the absence of conversion from resistance to sensitivity, given that the proliferation rate of immune cells exceeds their death rate. The inclusion of immune cells leads to an additional virus-free equilibrium when the immune cell recruitment rate is sufficiently high. The total tumor burden at this virus-free equilibrium is smaller than that at the virus-free and immune-free equilibrium. Therefore, immune cells are capable of reducing the tumor load under the condition of sufficient immune strength. Numerical investigations reveal that the virus transmission rate and parameters related to the immune response significantly impact treatment outcomes. However, monotherapy alone is insufficient for eradicating tumor cells, necessitating the implementation of additional therapies. Further numerical simulation shows that combination therapy with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T-cell) therapy can enhance the success of treatment.
Matrix equations of the form AXB=C are important research topics in linear algebra. They are widely used in engineering and theoretical studies, such as in image and signal processing, photogrammetry and surface fitting in computer-aided geometric design [1,2]. In addition, the equation-solving problems are also applied to the numerical solutions of differential equations, signal processing, cybernetics, optimization models, solid mechanics, structural dynamics, and so on [3,4,5,6,7]. So far, there is an abundance of research results on the solutions of matrix equation AXB=C, including the existence [8], uniqueness [9], numerical solution [10], and the structure of solutions [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Moreover, [17] discusses the Hermitian and skew-Hermitian splitting iterative method for solving the equation. The authors of [18] provided the Jacobi and Gauss-Seidel type iterative method to solve the equation.
However, in practical applications, ordinary matrix multiplication can no longer meet the needs. In 2001, Cheng and Zhao constructed a semi-tensor product method, which makes the multiplication of two matrices no longer limited by dimension [19,20]. After that, the semi-tensor product began to be widely studied and discussed. It is not only applied to problems such as the permutation of high-dimensional data and algebraization of non linear robust stability control of power systems [22], it also provides a new research tool for the study of problems in Boolean networks [23], game theory [24], graph coloring [25], fuzzy control [26] and other fields [27]. However, some of these problems can be reduced to solving linear or matrix equations under the semi-tensor product. Yao et al. studied the solution of the equation under a semi-tensor product (STP equation), i.e., AX=B, in [28]. After that, the authors of [29,30,31] studied the solvability of STP equations AX2=B,A∘lX=B and AX−XB=C, respectively.
To date, the application of the STP equation AXB=C has also been reflected in many studies using the matrix semi-tensor product method. For example, in the study of multi-agent distributed cooperative control over finite fields, the authors of [32] transformed nonlinear dynamic equations over finite fields into the form of STP equation Z(t)=˜LZ(t+1), where ˜L=ˆLQM and Q is the control matrix. Thus, if we want to get the right control matrix to realize consensus regarding L, we need to solve the STP equation AXB=C. Recently, Ji et al. studied the solutions of STP equation AXB=C and gave the necessary and sufficient conditions for the equation to have a solution; they also formulated the specific solution steps in [33]. Nevertheless, the condition that STP equation AXB=C has a solution is very harsh. On the one hand, parameter matrix C needs to have a specific form; particularly, it should be a block Toeplitz matrix and, even if the matrix C meets certain conditions, the equation may not have a solution. This brings difficulties in practical applications. On the other hand, there is usually a certain error in the data that we measure, which will cause the parameter matrix C of the equation AXB=C to not achieve the required specific form; furthermore, the equation at this time will have no exact solutions.
Therefore, this paper describes a study of the approximate solutions of STP equation AXB=C. The main contributions of this paper are as follows: (1) The least-squares (LS) solution of STP equation AXB=C is discussed for the first time. Compared with the existing results indicating that the equation has a solution, it is more general and greatly reduces the requirement of matrix form. (2) On the basis of Moore-Penrose generalized inverse operation and matrix differentiation, the specific forms of the LS solutions under the conditions of the matrix-vector equation and matrix equation are derived.
The paper is organized as follows. First, we study the LS solution problem of the matrix-vector STP equation AXB=C, together with a specific form of the LS solutions, where X is an unknown vector. Then, we study the LS solution problem when X is an unknown matrix and give the concrete form of the LS solutions. In addition, several simple numerical examples are given for each case to verify the feasibility of the theoretical results.
This study applies the following notations.
● R: the real number field;
● Rn: the set of n-dimensional vectors over R;
● Rm×n: the set of m×n matrices over R;
● AT: the transpose of matrix A;
● ∥A∥: the Frobenius norm of matrix A;
● tr(A): the trace of matrix A;
● A+: the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse of matrix A;
● lcm{m,n}: the least common multiple of positive integers m and n;
● gcd{m,n}: the greatest common divisor of positive integers m and n;
● ab: the formula b divides a;
● a∣b: b is divisible by a;
● ∂f(x)∂x: differentiation of f(x) with respect to x.
Let A=[aij]∈Rm×n and B=[bij]∈Rp×q. We give the following definitions:
Definition 2.1. [34] The Kronecker product A⊗B is defined as follows:
A⊗B=[a11Ba21B…a1nBa21Ba22B…a2nB⋮⋮⋱⋮am1Bam2B…amnB]∈Rmp×nq. | (2.1) |
Definition 2.2. [20] The left semi-tensor product A⋉B is defined as follows:
A⋉B=(A⊗It/n)(B⊗It/p)∈R(mt/n)×(qt/p), | (2.2) |
where t=lcm{n,p}.
Definition 2.3. [21] For a matrix A∈Rm×n, the mn column vector Vc(A) is defined as follows:
Vc(A)=[a11⋯am1a12⋯am2⋯a1n⋯amn]T. | (2.3) |
Proposition 2.1. [33,34] When A,B are two real-valued matrices and X is an unknown variable matrix, we have the following results about matrix differentiation:
∂tr(AX)∂X=AT,∂tr(XTA)∂X=A,∂tr(XTAX)∂X=(A+AT)X. |
In this subsection, we will consider the following matrix-vector STP equation:
AXB=C, | (2.4) |
where A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l, C∈Rh×k are given matrices, and X∈Rp is the vector that needs to be solved.
With regard to the requirements of the dimensionality of the matrices in the STP equation (2.4), we have the following properties:
Proposition 2.2. [33] For matrix-vector STP equation (2.4),
1) when m=h, the necessary conditions for (2.4) with vector solutions of size p are that kl,nr should be positive integers and kl∣nr,p=lnrk;
2) when m≠h, the necessary conditions for (2.4) with vector solutions of size p are that hm,kl should be positive integers and β=gcd{hm,r},gcd{kl,β}=1,gcd{hm,kl}=1 and p=nhlmrk hold.
Remark: When Proposition 2.2 is satisfied, matrices A,B, and C are said to be compatible, and the sizes of X are called permissible sizes.
Example 2.1 Consider matrix-vector STP equation AXB=C with the following coefficients:
A=[1201], B=[01], C=[111020]. |
It is easy to see that m=1,n=4,r=2,l=1,h=2, and k=3. Although m∣h,l∣k,β=gcd{hm,r},gcd{kl,β}=1, and gcd{hm,kl}=1, nbak is not a positive integer. So, A,B, and C are not compatible. At this time, matrix-vector STP equation (2.4) has no solution.
For the case that m=h, let X=[x1x2⋯xp]T∈Rp, As be the s-th column of A, and ˇA1,ˇA2,⋯,ˇAp∈Rm×np=Rm×rkl be the p equal block of the matrix A, i.e., A=[ˇA1ˇA2⋯ˇAp], and
ˇAi=[A(i−1)rkl+1A(i−1)rkl+2⋯Airkl],i=1,⋯,p. |
Let t1=lcm{n,p},t2=lcm{t1p,r}; comparing the relationship of dimensions, we can get that t1=n and t2=rkl. Then
A⋉X⋉B=(A⊗It1n)(X⊗It1p)⋉B=[ˇA1ˇA2⋯ˇAp]⋉[x1x2⋮xp]⋉B=(x1ˇA1+x2ˇA2+⋯+xpˇAp)⋉B=x1ˇA1⋉B+x2ˇA2⋉B+⋯+xpˇAp⋉B=x1(ˇA1⊗It2lrk)(B⊗It2r)+x2(ˇA2⊗It2lrk)(B⊗It2r)+⋯+xp(ˇAp⊗It2lrk)(B⊗It2r)=x1ˇA1(B⊗Ikl)+x2ˇA2(B⊗Ikl)+⋯+xpˇAp(B⊗Ikl)=C∈Rm×k. |
Denote
ˇBi=ˇAi(B⊗Ikl)=[A(i−1)rkl+1A(i−1)rkl+2⋯Airkl](B⊗Ikl)=[A(i−1)rkl+1⋯A((ji−1)r+1)kl](B1⊗Ikl)+⋯+[A(ir−1)kl+1⋯Airkl](Bh⊗Ikl)∈Rm×k,i=1,⋯,p. |
It is easy to see that when the matrices A and C have the same row dimension, the STP equation (2.4) has a better representation.
Proposition 2.3. Matrix-vector STP equation (2.4), given m=h, can be rewritten as follows:
x1ˇB1+x2ˇB2+⋯+xpˇBp=C. | (2.5) |
Obviously, it can also have the following form:
[ˇB1,jˇB2,j⋯ˇBp,j]X=Cj,i=1,⋯,p,j=1,⋯,k, |
and ˇBi,j is the j-th column of ˇBi.
At the same time, applying the Vc operator to both sides of (2.5) yields
xlVc(ˇB1)+x2Vc(ˇB2)+⋯+xpVc(ˇBp)=[Vc(ˇB1)Vc(ˇB2)⋯Vc(ˇBp)]X=Vc(C). |
We get the following proposition.
Proposition 2.4. When m=h, matrix-vector STP equation (2.4) is equivalent to the linear form equation under the traditional matrix product:
¯BX=Vc(C), |
where
¯B=[Vc(ˇB1)Vc(ˇB2)⋯Vc(ˇBp)]=[ˇB1,1ˇB2,1⋯ˇBp,1ˇB1,2ˇB2,2⋯ˇBp,2⋮⋮⋱⋮ˇB1,kˇB2,k⋯ˇBp,k]. | (2.6) |
In this subsection, we will consider the following matrix STP equation:
AXB=C, | (2.7) |
where A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l,C∈Rh×k are given matrices, and X∈Rp×q is the matrix that needs to be solved.
For matrix STP equation (2.7), the dimensionality of its matrices has the following requirements:
Proposition 2.5. [33] For matrix STP equation (2.7),
1) when m=h, the necessary conditions for (2.7) with a matrix solution with size p×q are that kl,nr should be positive integers and p=nα,q=rklα, where α is a common factor of n and rkl;
2) when m≠h, the necessary conditions for (2.7) with a matrix solution of size p×q are that hm,kl should be positive integers, gcd{hmβ,αβ}=1,gcd{hm,kl}=1,β∣r,p=nhmα,q=rklα, α is the common factor of nhm and rkl, and β=gcd{hm,α}.
Remark: When Proposition 2.5 is satisfied, matrices A,B, and C are said to be compatible, and the sizes of X are called permissible sizes.
Example 2.2 Consider matrix STP equation AXB=C with the following coefficients:
A=[10110−100], B=[21], C=[315020]. |
We see that m=2,n=4,r=2,l=1,h=2, and k=3, so A,B and C are compatible. At this time, matrix STP equation (2.7) may have a solution X∈R2×3 or R4×6. (In fact, by Corollary 4.1 of [33], this equation has no solution.)
When m=h, let As be the s-th column of A and denote ˇA1,ˇA2,⋯,ˇAp∈Rm×α as p blocks of A with the same size, i.e., A=[˜A1ˇA2⋯ˇAp], where
ˇAi=[A(i−1)α+1A(i−1)α+2⋯Aiα],i=1,⋯,p. |
Denote
ˉA=[Vc(ˇA1),Vc(ˇA2),⋯,Vc(ˇA2)]=[A1Aα+1⋯A(p−1)α+1A2Aα+2⋯A(p−1)α+2⋮⋮⋱⋮AαA2α⋯Apα], |
we will have the following proposition.
Proposition 2.6. [33] When m=h, STP equation (2.7) can be rewritten as follows:
(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)=Vc(C). | (2.8) |
In this subsection we will consider the LS solutions of the following matrix-vector STP equation:
AXB=C, | (3.1) |
where A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l,C∈Rm×k are given matrices, and X∈Rp is the vector that needs to be solved. By Proposition 2.2, we know that when k∣l,n∣r, and kl∣nr, all matrices are compatible. At this time, the matrix-vector STP equation (3.1) may have solutions in Rlnrk.
Now, assuming that k∣l,n∣r, and kl∣nr hold and we want to find the LS solutions of matrix-vector STP equation (3.1) on Rlnrk, that is, given A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l, and C∈Rm×k, we want to find X∗∈Rlnrk such that
∥A⋉X∗⋉B−C∥2=minX∈Rlnrk∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2. | (3.2) |
According to Proposition 2.3, matrix-vector equation (2.4) under the condition that m=h can be rewritten in the column form as follows:
[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X=Cj,j=1,⋯,k. |
So, we have
∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2=kΣj=1∥[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X−Cj∥2=kΣj=1tr[([ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X−Cj)T([ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X−Cj)]=kΣj=1tr(XT[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]T[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X−XT[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]TCj−CTj[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X+CTjCj). |
Since ∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2 is a smooth function for the variables of X, X∗ is the minimum point if and only if X∗ satisfies the following equation:
ddX∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2=0. |
Then, we derive the following:
ddX∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2=kΣj=1(2[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j][ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]TX−2[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]TCj). |
Taking
ddX∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2=0, |
we have
kΣj=1[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]T[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X=kΣj=1[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]TCj. | (3.3) |
Hence, the minimum point of linear equation (3.2) is given by
X∗=(kΣj=1[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]T[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j])+⋅(kΣj=1[ˇB1,j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]TCj). |
And, it is also the LS solution of (3.1).
Meanwhile, we can draw the following result:
Theorem 3.1. If ˇB1,ˇB2,⋯,ˇBp are linearly independent and ¯B of (2.6) is full rank, then the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.1) is given by
X∗=(¯BT¯B)−1¯BTVc(C); |
If ˇB1,ˇB2,⋯,ˇBp are linearly related and ¯B is not full rank, then the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.1) is given by
X∗=(¯BT¯B)+¯BTVc(C). |
Proof. According to Proposition 2.4, (3.1) is equals to the following system of linear equations with a traditional matrix product
¯BX=Vc(C). | (3.4) |
Therefore, we only need to study the LS solutions of matrix-vector STP equation (3.4). From the conclusion in linear algebra, the LS solutions of matrix-vector STP equation (3.4) must satisfy the following equation:
¯BT¯BX=¯BTVc(C). | (3.5) |
When ¯B is full rank, ¯BT¯B is invertible and the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.4) is given by
X∗=(¯BT¯B)−1¯BTVc(C); |
When ¯B is not full rank, ¯BT¯B is nonsingular and the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.4) is given by
X∗=(¯BT¯B)+¯BTVc(C). |
Comparing (3.3) and (3.5), we can see that
¯BT¯B=kΣj=1[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]T[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j],¯BTVc(C)=kΣj=1([ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]TCj, |
and
∥¯BX−Vc(C)∥2=kΣj=1∥[ˇB1,jˇB2,k+j⋯ˇBp,(p−1)k+j]X−Cj∥2. |
Therefore, the two equations are the same, and the LS solution obtained via the two methods is consistent. Obviously, the second method is easier to employ. Below, we only use the second method to find the LS solutions.
Example 3.1 Now, we shall explore the LS solution of the matrix-vector STP equation AXB=C with the following coefficients:
A=[10110−1001001],B=[21200−1],C=[1110201−10]. |
By Example 2.1(1), it follows that the matrix-vector STP equation AXB=C has no exact solution. Then, we can investigate the LS solutions of this equation.
First, because A,B, and C are compatible, the matrix-vector equation may have LS solutions on R2. Second, divide A into 2 blocks; we have
ˇA1=[100−110],ˇA2=[110001],ˇB1=ˇA1(B⊗I1)=[212001212],ˇB2=ˇA2(B⊗I1)=[21100000−1]. |
Then, we can get
¯B=[22002011001021102−1],Vc(C)=[101102−110]. |
Because ¯B is full rank, the LS solution of this matrix-vector STP equation is given by
X∗=(¯BT¯B)−1¯BTVc(C)=[0.29630.0741]. |
In this subsection we will explore the LS solutions of the following matrix-vector STP equation:
AXB=C, | (3.6) |
where A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l and C∈Rh×k are given matrices and X∈Rp is the vector that needs to be solved. By Proposition 2.2, we know that, when m|h,k|l,nl∣rk,β=gcd{hm,r},gcd{kl,β}=1, and gcd{hm,kl}=1, A,B, and C are compatible. At this time, STP equation (3.6) may have a solution belonging to Rnhlmrk.
In what follows, we assume that matrix-vector STP equation (3.6) always satisfies the compatibility conditions, and we will find the LS solutions of matrix-vector STP equation (3.6) on Rnhlmrk. Since hm is a factor of the dimension nhlmrk of X, it is easy to obtain the matrix-vector STP equation given by
A⋉X⋉B=(A⊗Ihm)⋉X⋉B, |
according to the multiplication rules of semi-tensor products. Let A′=A⊗Ihm; then matrix-vector STP equation (3.6) is transformed into the case of m=h, and, from the conclusion of the previous section, one can easily obtain the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.6).
Below, we give an algorithm for finding the LS solutions of matrix-vector STP equation (3.6):
● Step one: Check whether A,B, and C are compatible, that is, whether m|h andk|l hold, and whether gcd{hm,kl}=1. If not, we can get that the equation has no solution.
● Step two: Let X∈Rp,p=nhlmrk, and A′=A⊗Ihm∈Rh×nhm. Take ˇA′1,ˇA′2,⋯,ˇA′p∈Rm×nhmp=Rm×rkl to have p equal blocks of the matrix A′:
ˇA′i=[A′(i−1)rkl+1A′(i−1)rkl+2⋯A′irkl],i=1,⋯,p, |
A′s is the s-th column of A′. Let
ˇB′1,ˇB′2,⋯,ˇB′p∈Rm×k, |
where
ˇB′i=ˇA′i(B⊗Ikl)=[A′(i−1)rkl+1A′(i−1)rkl+2⋯A′irkl](B⊗Ikl),i=1,⋯,p. |
● Step three: Let
¯B′=[ˇB1,1ˇB2,1⋯ˇBp,1ˇB1,2ˇB2,2⋯ˇBp,2⋮⋮⋱⋮ˇB1,kˇB2,k⋯ˇBp,k], |
and calculate Vc(C).
● Step four: Solve the equation ¯B′T¯B′X=¯B′TVc(C); if ¯B′ is full rank and ¯B′T¯B′ is reversible, at this time, the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.6) is given by
X∗=(¯B′T¯B′)−1¯B′TVc(C); |
If ¯B′ is not full rank, the LS solution of matrix-vector STP equation (3.6) is given by
X∗=(¯B′T¯B′)+¯B′TVc(C). |
Example 3.2 Now, we shall explore the LS solutions of the matrix-vector STP equation AXB=C with the following coefficients:
A=[1011],B=[20],C=[110210]. |
According to Example 2.1(2), we know that this matrix-vector STP equation has no exact solution. Then, we can investigate the LS solutions of this STP equation.
Step one: m|h,k|l,gcd{hm, and kl}=1, so A,B, and C are compatible; we proceed to the second step.
Step two: The matrix-vector STP equation may have an LS solution X∈R3, and
A′=A⊗I3=[100000100100010000010010001000001001]. |
Let
ˇA′1=[100001000010],ˇA′2=[001000010000],ˇA′3=[010000101001], |
be three equal blocks of the matrix A′. We have
ˇB′1=ˇA′1(B⊗I2)=[200200],ˇB′2=ˇA′2(B⊗I2)=[000000],ˇB′3=ˇA′3(B⊗I2)=[020020]. |
Step three: Let
¯B′=[200000002002200000],Vc(C)=[101120]. |
Step four: Because ¯B′ is not full rank, the LS solution of this matrix-vector STP equation is given by
X∗=(¯B′T¯B′)+¯B′TVc(C)=[0.750000.5000]. |
In this subsection we will explore the LS solutions of the following matrix STP equation
AXB=C, | (4.1) |
where A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l, and C∈Rm×k are given matrices and X∈Rp×q is the matrix that needs to be solved. By Proposition 2.5, we have that, when l∣k, all matrices are compatible. At this time, matrix STP equation (4.1) may have solutions in Rnα×rklα, and α is a common factor of n and rkl.
Now, we assume that l∣k, and we want to find the LS solutions of matrix STP equation (4.1) on Rnα×rklα; the problem is as follows: Given A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l, and C∈Rm×k, we want to find X∗∈Rp×q such that
∥A⋉X∗⋉B−C∥2=minX∈Rp×q∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2. | (4.2) |
By Proposition 2.6, matrix STP equation (4.1) can be rewritten as
(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)=Vc(C). | (4.3) |
So, finding the LS solution of (4.1) is equivalent to finding X∗∈Rp×q such that
∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)−Vc(C)∥2=minX∈Rp×q∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X∗)−Vc(C)∥2. | (4.4) |
Then, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 4.1. When B″A″=(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA) is full rank and B″A″ is invertible, the LS solution of matrix STP equation (4.1) is given by
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)+C″; |
When B″A″ is not full rank and B″A″ is nonsingular, the LS solution of matrix STP equation (4.1) is given by
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)−1C″. |
Proof. Let B″=BT⊗Ikml,A″=Iq⊗ˉA,X″=Vc(X), and C″=Vc(C); then (4.4) can be rewritten as
∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)−Vc(C)∥2=∥B″A″X″−C″∥2=tr[(B″A″X″−C″)T(B″A″X″−C″)]=tr[(X″TA″TB″T−C″T)(B″A″X″−C″)]=tr[(X″TA″TB″TB″A″X″)−(X″TA″TB″TC″)−(C″TB″A″X″)+(C″TC″)]. |
Because ∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2 is a smooth function for the variables of X, it follows that X∗ is the minimum point if and only if X∗ satisfies
ddX∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)−Vc(C)∥2=0. |
Given that
ddX∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)−Vc(C)∥2=2A″TB″TB″A″X″−2A″TB″TC″, |
let
ddX∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X)−Vc(C)∥2=0. |
Then, we have
A″TB″TB″A″X″=A″TB″TC″. |
Thus, the minimum point of linear equation (4.2) is also the LS solution of matrix STP equation (4.1). That is to say, ∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2 is the smallest if and only if ∥(BT⊗Ikml)(Iq⊗ˉA)Vc(X∗)−Vc(C)∥2 gets the minimum value. And, the statement is naturally proven.
Now, we shall examine the relationship between the LS solutions of different compatible sizes. Let p1×q1,p2×q2 be two different compatible sizes and 1<p1q1=p2q2∈Z. If X∈Rp1×q1, we should have that X⊗Ip2p1∈Rp2×q2; we can get the following formula:
minX∈Rp2×q2∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2≤minX∈Rp1×q1∥A⋉X⋉B−C∥2. |
Therefore, if we consider (4.1) to take the LS solutions among all compatible sizes of matrices, then it should be the LS solutions of the equation on Rn×k.
Example 4.1 Now, we shall explore the LS solutions of matrix STP equation AXB=C with the following coefficients:
A=[10110−100],B=[21],C=[315020]. |
Example 2.2(1) shows that the matrix STP equation AXB=C has no exact solution. Now, we can investigate the LS solutions of this equation.
First, given that A,B, and C are compatible, the matrix STP equation may have LS solutions on R2×3 or R4×6.
(1) The case that α=2,X∈R2×3:
Let
ˇA1=[A1A2]=[100−1],ˇA2=[A3A4]=[1100]. |
Then, we have
ˉA=[110001−10],A″=I3⊗ˉA=[110000000000010000−10000000110000000000010000−10000000110000000000010000−10]. |
Let
B″=BT⊗I6=[200000100000020000010000002000001000000200000100000020000010000002000001],C″=Vc(C)=[315020]. |
Because B″A″ is full rank, the LS solution of this matrix STP equation satisfies
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)−1C″=[01.1667−1.00000.666702.6667],thenX∗=[01.1667−1.00000.666702.6667]. |
(2) The case that α=1,X∈R4×6:
Let
ˉA=[10110−100], |
A″=I6⊗ˉA=[100000000000100000100000010000000000010000010000001000000000001000001000000100000000000100000100000010000000000010000010000001000000000001000001000000−1000000000000000000000000−1000000000000000000000000−1000000000000000000000000−1000000000000000000000000−1000000000000000000000000−1000000000000]. |
Let
B″=BT⊗I6=[200000100000020000010000002000001000000200000100000020000010000002000001],C″=Vc(C)=[315020]. |
Because B″A″ is full rank, the LS solution of this matrix STP equation satisfies
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)+C″=[0.46150.15380.769200.30770−0.2308−0.0769−0.38460−0.153800.46150.15380.769200.307700.46150.15380.769200.30770],thenX∗=[0.46150.15380.769200.30770−0.2308−0.0769−0.38460−0.153800.46150.15380.769200.307700.46150.15380.769200.30770]. |
This section focuses on the LS solutions of the following matrix STP equation:
AXB=C, | (4.5) |
where A∈Rm×n,B∈Rr×l and C∈Rh×k are given matrices and X∈Rp×q is the matrix that needs to be solved. By Proposition 2.5, we have that, when m|h,l|k,gcd{hmβ,αβ}=1,gcd{β,kl}=1, and β|r, where β=gcd{hm,α}, all matrices are compatible. At this time, the matrix-vector equation (4.5) may have solutions in Rnhmα×rklα and α is a common factor of nhm and rkl.
Now, we assume that matrix STP equation (4.5) always satisfies the compatibility conditions. Since hm is a factor of the row dimension nhmα of X, it is easy to obtain the matrix STP equation
A⋉X⋉B=(A⊗Ihm)⋉X⋉B, |
according to the multiplication rules of STP. Let A′=A⊗Ihm: then (4.5) can be transformed into the case of m=h, and we can easily obtain the LS solution of matrix STP equation (4.5).
Below, we give an algorithm for finding the LS solutions of matrix STP equation (4.5):
● Step one: Check whether m|h and l|k hold. If not, we can get that the equation has no solution.
● Step two: Find all values of α that satisfy that gcd{rm,h}=1,gcd{hmβ,αβ}=1,gcd{β,kl}=1, and β|r,β=gcd{hm,α}; correspondingly, find all compatible sizes p×q and perform the following steps for each compatible size.
● Step three: Let A′=A⊗Ihm∈Rh×nhm. We have
¯A′=[Vc(ˇA′1),Vc(ˇA′2),⋯,Vc(ˇA′2)]=[A′1A′α+1⋯A′(p−1)α+1A′2A′α+2⋯A′(p−1)α+2⋮⋮⋱⋮A′αA′2α⋯A′pα], |
where ˇA′1,ˇA′2,⋯,ˇA′p∈Rm×α are p blocks of A′ of the same size, and A′i is the i-th column of A′. Let B″=BT⊗Ikhl,A″=Iq⊗¯A′,X″=Vc(X), and C″=Vc(C).
● Step four: Solve the equation A″TB″TB″A″X″=A″TB″TC″; if B″A″ is full rank and B″A″ is reversible, the LS solution of matrix STP equation (4.5) is given by
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)−1C″; |
if B″A″ is not full rank, the LS solution of matrix STP equation (4.5) is given by
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)+C″. |
Example 4.2 Now, we shall explore the LS solutions of matrix STP equation AXB=C with the following coefficients:
A=[10],B=[1010−1010100−1],C=[315020]. |
According to Example 2.2(2), matrix STP equation AXB=C has no exact solution. Now, we can investigate the LS solutions of this equation:
Step one: m|r and l|k hold.
Step two: gcd{rm,h}=1,gcd{hmβ,αβ}=1,gcd{β,kl}=1,β|r, and β=gcd{hm,α} hold. The matrix STP equation AXB=C may have the solution X∈R2×2 or R4×4.
Step three: (1) The case that α=2:
Let
A′=A⊗I2=[10000100]. |
Then, we have
¯A′=[Vc(ˇA′1),Vc(ˇA′2)]=[10000010]. |
Let
B″=BT⊗I2=[100010000100010000−100000000−10000100010−100100010−1],A″=I2⊗¯A′=[10000000000010000010000000000010],C″=Vc(C)=[315020]. |
(2) The case that α=1:
Let
A′=A⊗I2=[10000100]. |
Then, we have
¯A′=[Vc(ˇA′1),Vc(ˇA′2),Vc(ˇA′3),Vc(ˇA′4)]=[10000100]. |
Let
B″=BT⊗I2=[100010000100010000−100000000−10000100010−100100010−1],A″=I4⊗¯A′=[1000000000000000000001000000000000000000001000000000000000000001000000000000000000001000000000000000000001000000000000000000001000000000000000000001000000000000],C″=Vc(C)=[315020]. |
Step four: Because B″A″ is not full rank, the LS solution of this matrix STP equation is obtained as follows:
(1) The case that α=2:
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)+C″=[1.000001.00000]⟹X∗=[1.000001.00000]. |
(2) The case that α=1:
Vc(X∗)=(B″A″)+C″=[1.50000.5000−5.000001.50000.50001.00001.000000000000]⟹X∗=[1.50000.5000−5.000001.50000.50001.00001.000000000000]. |
In this paper, we applied the semi-tensor product to solve the matrix equation AXB=C and studied the LS solutions of the matrix equation under the semi-tensor product. By appling the definition of semi-tensor products, the equation can be transformed into the matrix equation under the ordinary matrix product and then combined with the Moore-Penrose generalized inverse operation and matrix differentiation. The specific forms of the LS solutions under the conditions of the matrix-vector equation and matrix equation were also respectively derived. Investigating the solution of Sylvester equations under a semi-tensor product, as well as the LS solution problem, will be future research work.
No artificial intelligence tools were usded in the creation of this article.
The work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of China under Grant 12301573 and in part by the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong under grant ZR2022QA095.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
[1] | H. Dong, S. Markovic, The Basics of Cancer Immunotherapy, Springer, 2018. |
[2] | R. A. Weinberg, The Biology of Cancer, 2nd edition, Garland Science: London, UK, 2013. |
[3] |
G. Marelli, A. Howells, N. R. Lemoine, Y. Wang, Oncolytic viral therapy and the immune system: A double-edged sword against cancer, Front. Immunol., 9 (2018), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.00866 doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00866
![]() |
[4] |
M. Noll, S. Berchtold, J. Lampe, N. P. Malek, M. Bitzer, U. M. Lauer, Primary resistance phenomena to oncolytic measles vaccine viruses, Int. J. Oncol., 43 (2013), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2013.1914 doi: 10.3892/ijo.2013.1914
![]() |
[5] |
M. Bodnar, U. Forys, Modeling of drug resistance: Comparison of two hypotheses for slowly proliferating tumors on the example of low-grade gliomas, Math. Methods Appl. Sci., 45 (2022), 4161–4184. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.7893 doi: 10.1002/mma.7893
![]() |
[6] |
M. Becker, D. Levy, Modeling the transfer of drug resistance in solid tumors, Bull. Math. Biol., 79 (2017), 2394–2412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-017-0334-x doi: 10.1007/s11538-017-0334-x
![]() |
[7] | M. Bodnar, U. Forys, Two models of drug resistance for low grade gliomas: Comparison of the models dynamics, in Proceedings of the XXII National Conference on Mathematics Applied in Biology and Medicine, (2017), 37–42. |
[8] |
A. Denes, S. Marzban, G. Rost, Global analysis of a cancer model with drug resistance due to Lamarckian induction and microvesicle transfer, J. Theor. Biol., 527 (2021), 110812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110812 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2021.110812
![]() |
[9] |
J. M. Greene, S. Sanchez-Tapia, E. D. Sontag, Mathematical details on a cancer resistance model, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol., 8 (2020), 501. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00501 doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.00501
![]() |
[10] |
I. Kareva, Different costs of therapeutic resistance in cancer: Short- and long-term impact of population heterogeneity, Math. Biosci., 352 (2022), 108891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2022.108891 doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2022.108891
![]() |
[11] |
K. Bao, An elementary mathematical modeling of drug resistance in cancer, Math. Biosci. Eng., 18 (2021), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021018 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021018
![]() |
[12] |
D. K. Bhatt, T. Janzen, T. Daemen, F. J. Weissing, Modelling the spatial dynamics of oncolytic virotherapy in the presence of virus-resistant tumour cells, PLoS Comput. Biol., 18 (2022), e1010076. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010076 doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010076
![]() |
[13] |
D. K. Bhatt, R. Chammas, T. Daemen, Resistance mechanisms influencing oncolytic virotherapy, a systematic analysis, Vaccines, 9 (2021), 1166. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9101166 doi: 10.3390/vaccines9101166
![]() |
[14] |
S. J. Russell, K. W. Peng, J. C. Bell, Oncolytic virotherapy, Nat. Biotechnol., 30 (2012), 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2287 doi: 10.1038/nbt.2287
![]() |
[15] |
P. Ambegoda, S. R. J. Jang, Resistance in oncolytic viral therapy for solid tumors, Appl. Math. Comput., 469 (2024), 128546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2024.128546 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2024.128546
![]() |
[16] |
K. J. Mahasa, A. Eladdadi, L. de Pillis, R. Ouifki, Oncolytic potency and reduced virus tumor specificity in oncolytic virotherapy. A mathematical modelling approach, PLoS One, 12 (2017), e0184347. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184347 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184347
![]() |
[17] |
R. Vithanage, H. C. Wei, S. R. J. Jang, Bistability in a model of tumor-immune system interactions with an oncolytic viral therapy, Math. Biosci. Eng., 19 (2022), 1559–1587. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2022072 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022072
![]() |
[18] |
R. Vithanage, H. C. Wei, S. R. J. Jang, The Role of tumor activation and inhibition with saturation effects in a mathematical model of tumor and immune system interactions undergoing oncolytic viral therapy, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci., 46 (2023), 10787–10813. https://doi.org/10.1002/mma.9152 doi: 10.1002/mma.9152
![]() |
[19] |
R. Eftimie, G. Eftimie, Tumour-associated macrophages and oncolytic virotherapies: amathematical investigation into a complex dynamics, Lett. Biomath., 5 (2018), S6–S35. https://doi.org/10.30707/LiB5.2Eftimiea doi: 10.30707/LiB5.2Eftimiea
![]() |
[20] |
P. Cordelier, M. Costa, J. Fehrenbach, Slow-fast model and therapy optimization for oncolytic treatment of tumors, Bull. Math. Biol., 84 (2022), 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-022-01025-3 doi: 10.1007/s11538-022-01025-3
![]() |
[21] | K. Murphy, C. Weaver, L. J. Berg, Janeway's Immunobiology, 10th edition, Garland Science, 2022. |
[22] |
K. M. Storey, E. L. Sean, T. L. Jackson, Modeling oncolytic viral therapy, immune checkpoint inhibition, and the complex dynamics of innate and adaptive immunity in glioblastoma treatment, Front. Physiol., 11 (2020), 151. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.00151 doi: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00151
![]() |
[23] |
S. A. Felt, G. N. Droby, V. Z. Grdzelishvili, Ruxolitinib and polycation combination treatment overcomes multiple mechanisms of resistance of pancreatic cancer cells to oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus, J. Virol., 91 (2017), e00461–17. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00461-17 doi: 10.1128/JVI.00461-17
![]() |
[24] | L. J. S. Allen, An Introduction to Mathematical Biology, Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2007. |
[25] | J. Hale, Theory of Functional Differential Equations, Springer, 1977. |
[26] | Y. Kuang, Delay Differential Equations: With Applications in Population Dynamics, Academic Press, 2012. |
[27] | H. L. Smith, An Introduction to Delay Differential Equations with Applications to the Life Sciences, Springer, 2011. |
[28] |
T. Koujima, H. Tazawa, T. Ieda, H. Araki, T. Fushimi, R. Shoji, et al., Oncolytic virus-mediated targeting of the ERK signaling pathway inhibits invasive propensity in human pancreatic cancer, Mol. Ther. Oncolytics, 17 (2020), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omto.2020.03.016 doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2020.03.016
![]() |
[29] |
C. E. Engeland, C. Grossardt, R. Veinalde, S. Bossow, D. Lutz, J. K. Kaufmann, et al., CTLA-4 and PD-L1 checkpoint blockade enhances oncolytic measles virus therapy, Mol. Ther., 22 (2014), 1949–1959. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2014.160 doi: 10.1038/mt.2014.160
![]() |
[30] | H. R. Thieme, Convergence results and a Poincare-Bendixson trichotomy for asymptotically autonomous differential equations, J. Math. Biol., 30 (1992), 755–763. |
[31] |
A. Haseley, C. Alvarez-Breckenridge, A. R. Chaudhury, B. Kaur, Advances in oncolytic virus therapy for glioma, Recent Pat. CNS. Drug Discov., 4 (2009), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2174/157488909787002573 doi: 10.2174/157488909787002573
![]() |
[32] | S. Meerani, Y. Yao, Oncolytic viruses in cancer therapy, Eur. J. Sci. Res., 40 (2010), 156–171. |
[33] |
A. Rasa, P. Alberts, Oncolytic virus preclinical toxicology studies, J. Appl. Toxicol., 43 (2023), 620–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.4408 doi: 10.1002/jat.4408
![]() |
[34] |
K. James, E. Eisenhauer, M. Christian, M. Terenziani, D. Vena, A. Muldal, et al., Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 91 (1999), 523–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.6.523 doi: 10.1093/jnci/91.6.523
![]() |
[35] |
V. Naumenko, J. Rajwani, M. Turk et al., Repeated dosing improves oncolytic rhabdovirus therapy in mice via interactions with intravascular monocytes, Commun. Biol., 5 (2022), 1385. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-04254-3 doi: 10.1038/s42003-022-04254-3
![]() |
[36] |
V. A. Kuznetsov, I. A. Makalkin, N. A. Taylor, A. S. Perelson, Nonlinear dynamics of immunogenic tumors: parameter estimation and global bifurcation analysis, Bull. Math. Biol, 56 (1994), 295–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02460644 doi: 10.1007/BF02460644
![]() |
[37] |
L. de Pillis, A. Radunskaya, C. Wiseman, A validated mathematical model of cell-mediated immune response to tumor growth, Cancer Res., 65 (2005), 7950–7958. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0564 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0564
![]() |
[38] |
R. Eftimie, J. Dushoff, B. W. Bridle, J. L. Bramson, D. J. D. Earn, Multi-stability and multi-instability phenomena in a mathematical model of tumor-immune-virus interactions, Bull. Math. Biol., 73 (2011), 2932–2961. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-011-9653-5 doi: 10.1007/s11538-011-9653-5
![]() |
[39] |
M. R. Duran, A. Podolski-Reni, A. lvarez-Arenas, J. Dini, J. Belmonte-Beitia, M. Pesi, et al., Transfer of drug resistance characteristics between cancer cell subpopulations: a study using simple mathematical models, Bull. Math. Biol., 78 (2016), 1218–1237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-016-0182-0 doi: 10.1007/s11538-016-0182-0
![]() |
[40] |
C. Macnamara, R. Eftimie, Memory versus effector immune responses in oncolytic virotherapies, J. Theor. Biol., 377 (2015), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.04.004 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.04.004
![]() |
[41] | N. Komarova, D. Wodarz, Targeted Cancer Treatment in Silico: Small Molecule Inhibitors and Oncolytic Viruses, Birkhauser, Switzerland, 2013. |
[42] |
B. Pulendran, J. Z. Oh, H. I. Nakaya, R. Ravindran, D. A. Kazmin, Immunity to viruses: learning from successful human vaccines, Immunol. Rev., 255 (2013), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.12099 doi: 10.1111/imr.12099
![]() |
[43] |
Z. Pancer, M. D. Cooper, The evolution of adaptive immunity, Annu. Rev. Immunol., 24 (2006), 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.immunol.24.021605.090542 doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.24.021605.090542
![]() |
[44] |
S. Marino, I. B. Hogue, C. J. Ray, D. E. Kirschner, A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology, J. Theor. Biol., 254 (2008), 178–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011
![]() |
[45] |
T. C. Liu, E. Galanis, D. Kirn, Clinical trial results with oncolytic virotherapy: a century of promise, a decade of progress, Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol., 4 (2007), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0736 doi: 10.1038/ncponc0736
![]() |
[46] |
A. De Matos, L. S. Franco, G. McFadden, Oncolytic viruses and the immune system: the dynamic duo, Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev., 17 (2020), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtm.2020.01.001 doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2020.01.001
![]() |
[47] |
C. J. Breitbach, Targeted inflammation during oncolytic virus therapy severely compromises tumor blood flow, Mol. Ther., 15 (2007), 1686–1693. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mt.6300215 doi: 10.1038/sj.mt.6300215
![]() |
[48] |
M. C. Speranza, K. Kasai, S. E. Lawler, Preclinical mouse models for analysis of the therapeutic potential of engineered oncolytic herpes viruses, ILAR J. 1 (2016), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilw002 doi: 10.1093/ilar/ilw002
![]() |
[49] |
M. Kozak, What is strong correlation?, Teach. Stat., 31 (2009), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9639.2009.00387.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9639.2009.00387.x
![]() |
[50] |
L. Sun, Y. Su, A. Jiao, X. Wang, B. Zhang, T cells in health and disease, Signal Transduct. Target. Ther., 8 (2023), 235. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-023-01471-y doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01471-y
![]() |
[51] |
D. F. Hale, T. J. Vreeland, G. E. Peoples, Arming the immune system through vaccination to prevent cancer recurrence, Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book, 36 (2016), e159–e167. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_158946 doi: 10.1200/EDBK_158946
![]() |
[52] |
H. C. Wei, Numerical revisit to a class of one-predator, two-prey models, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, 20 (2010), 2521–2536. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127410027143 doi: 10.1142/S0218127410027143
![]() |
[53] |
H. C. Wei, The dynamics of the Luo-Rudy model, Int. J. Bifurcation Chaos, 20 (2010), 4055–4066. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127410028185 doi: 10.1142/S0218127410028185
![]() |
[54] |
M. H. Andersen, D. Schrama, P. Straten, J. C. Becker, Cytotoxic T cells, J. Invest. Dermatol., 126 (2006), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jid.5700001 doi: 10.1038/sj.jid.5700001
![]() |
[55] |
C. M. Rollings, L. V. Sinclair, H. J. M. Brady, D. A. Cantrell, S. H. Ross, Interleukin-2 shapes the cytotoxic T cell proteome and immune environment-sensing programs, Sci. Signal., 11 (2018), eaap8112. https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.aap8112 doi: 10.1126/scisignal.aap8112
![]() |
[56] |
S. Banerjee, S. Khajanchi, S. Chaudhuri, A mathematical model to elucidate brain tumor abrogation by immunotherapy with T11 target structure, PLoS One, 10 (2015), e0123611. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123611 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123611
![]() |
[57] |
P. A. Abrams, Adaptive foraging by predators as a cause of predator-prey cycles, Evol. Ecol., 6 (1992), 56–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02285334 doi: 10.1007/BF02285334
![]() |
[58] | A. Y. Morozov, Incorporating complex foraging of zooplankton in models: role of micro-and mesoscale processes in macroscale patterns, in Dispersal, Individual Movement and Spatial Ecology: A Mathematical Perspective, Springer, New York, (2013), 1–10. |
[59] |
H. C. Wei, A mathematical model of intraguild predation with prey switching, Math. Comput. Simul., 165 (2019), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2019.03.004 doi: 10.1016/j.matcom.2019.03.004
![]() |
[60] |
S. Ruan, Absolute stability, conditional stability and bifurcation in Kolmogorov-type predator-prey systems with discrete delays, Quart. Appl. Math., 59 (2001), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1090/qam/1811101 doi: 10.1090/qam/1811101
![]() |
[61] |
J. A. Nelder, R. Mead, A simplex method for function minimization, Comput. J., 7 (1965), 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308 doi: 10.1093/comjnl/7.4.308
![]() |
[62] |
X. Fu, L. Tao, X. Zhang, Genetically coating oncolytic herpes simplex virus with CD47 allows efficient systemic delivery and prolongs virus persistence at tumor site, Oncotarget, 9 (2018), 34543–34553. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26167 doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.26167
![]() |
[63] |
I. Kareva, K. A. Luddy, C. O'Farrelly, R. A. Gatenby, J. S. Brown, Predator-prey in tumor-immune interactions: A wrong model or just an incomplete one?, Front. Immunol., 12 (2021), 668221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.668221 doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.668221
![]() |
[64] |
H. Fukuhara, Y. Ino, T. Todo, Oncolytic virus therapy: a new era of cancer treatment at dawn, Cancer Sci., 107 (2016), 1373–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.13027 doi: 10.1111/cas.13027
![]() |
[65] |
Z. S. Guo, Z. Liu, S. Kowalsky, M. Feist, P. Kalinski, B. Lu, et al., Oncolytic immunotherapy: conceptual evolution, current strategies, and future perspectives, Front. Immunol., 8 (2017), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00555 doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.00555
![]() |
[66] |
L. Aurelian, Oncolytic viruses as immunotherapy: progress and remaining challenges, OncoTargets Ther., 9 (2016), 2627–2637. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S63049 doi: 10.2147/OTT.S63049
![]() |
[67] |
S. Guedan, R. Alemany, CAR-T cells and oncolytic viruses: joining forces to overcome the solid tumor challenge, Front. Immunol., 89 (2018), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02460 doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02460
![]() |
[68] |
R. Mohanty, C. R. Chowdhury, S. Arega, P. Sen, P. Ganguly, N. Ganguly, CAR T cell therapy: A new era for cancer treatment, Oncol. Rep., 42 (2019), 2183–2195. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2019.7335 doi: 10.3892/or.2019.7335
![]() |
[69] |
S. Feins, W. Kong, E. F. Williams, M. C. Milone, J. A. Fraietta, An introduction to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy for human cancer, Am. J. Hematol., 94 (2019), S3–S9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.25418 doi: 10.1002/ajh.25418
![]() |
[70] |
A. Turdo, C. M. Cristiani, N. Schaft, CAR T-cells: novel therapeutic approaches in the new era of cancer immunotherapy, Front. Mol. Med., 3 (2023), 1239013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmmed.2023.1239013 doi: 10.3389/fmmed.2023.1239013
![]() |
[71] |
M. Al-Haideri, S. B. Tondok, S. H. Safa, A. H. maleki, S. Rostami, A. T. Jalil, et al., CAR-T cell combination therapy: the next revolution in cancer treatment, Cancer Cell Int., 22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-022-02778-6 doi: 10.1186/s12935-022-02778-6
![]() |
[72] |
A. M. Malfitano, S. D. Somma, C. A. Iannuzzi, F. Pentimalli, G. Portella, Virotherapy: From single agents to combinatorial treatments, Biochem. Pharmacol., 177 (2020), 113986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113986 doi: 10.1016/j.bcp.2020.113986
![]() |
[73] | I. Gruber, N. Landenberger, A. Staebler, M. Hahn, D. Wallwiener, T. Fehm, Relationship between circulating tumor cells and peripheral T-cells in patients with primary breast cancer, Anticancer Res., 33 (2013), 2233–2238. |
[74] |
A. Rotte, M. J. Frigault, A. Ansari, B. Gliner, Dose-response correlation for CAR-T cells: a systematic review of clinical studies, J. Immunother. Cancer, 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2022-005678 doi: 10.1136/jitc-2022-005678
![]() |
[75] |
M. Frigault, A. Rotte, A. Ansari, B. Gliner, C. Heery, Dose fractionation of CAR-T cells. A systematic review of clinical outcomes, J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res., 42 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-022-02540-w doi: 10.1186/s13046-022-02540-w
![]() |
[76] |
M. G. McCartney, Total blood and corpuscular volume in turkey hens, Poult. Sci., 31 (1952), 184–185. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.0310184 doi: 10.3382/ps.0310184
![]() |
[77] |
Z. Z. Zhang, T. Wang, X. F. Wang, Y. Q. Zhang, Improving the ability of CAR-T cells to hit solid tumors: Challenges and strategies, Pharmacol. Res., 175 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2021.106036 doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2021.106036
![]() |
[78] |
R. Bhat, J. Rommelaere, Emerging role of Natural killer cells in oncolytic virotherapy, ImmunoTargets Ther., 4 (2015), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.2147/ITT.S55549 doi: 10.2147/ITT.S55549
![]() |
[79] |
H. Wu, Y. Y. Deng, L. Liu, Q. H. Tan, C. H. Wang, M. M. Guo, et al., Intestinal ischemia-reperfusion of macaques triggers a strong innate immune response, World J Gastroenterol., 20 (2014), 15327. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i41.15327 doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i41.15327
![]() |
[80] |
J. B. Swann, M. J. Smyth, Immune surveillance of tumors, J. Clin. Invest., 117 (2007), 1137–1146. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI31405 doi: 10.1172/JCI31405
![]() |
[81] |
A. Eldar-Boock, D. Polyak, A. Scomparin, R. Satchi-Fainaro, Nano-sized polymers and liposomes designed to deliver combination therapy for cancer, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 24 (2013), 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.04.014 doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2013.04.014
![]() |
[82] |
W. Ratajczak, P. Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej, B. Tokarz-Deptula, W.Deptula, Immunological memory cells, Cent. Eur. J. Immunol., 43 (2018), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.5114/ceji.2018.77390 doi: 10.5114/ceji.2018.77390
![]() |
[83] |
D. H. Raulet, Interplay of natural killer cells and their receptors with the adaptive immune response, Nat. Immunol., 5 (2004), 996–1002. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni1114 doi: 10.1038/ni1114
![]() |
[84] |
M. J. D. Esmatabadi, B. Bakhshinejad, F. M. Motlagh, S. Babashah, M. Sadeghizadeh, Therapeutic resistance and cancer recurrence mechanisms: Unfolding the story of tumor coming back, J. Biosci., 41 (2016), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-016-9624-y doi: 10.1007/s12038-016-9624-y
![]() |
[85] |
E. Binz, U. M. Lauer, Chemovirotherapy: Combining chemotherapeutic treatment with oncolytic virotherapy, Oncolytic Virother., 4 (2015), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.2147/OV.S54780 doi: 10.2147/OV.S54780
![]() |
[86] |
H. M. Nguyen, P. K. Bommareddy, A. W. Silk, D. Daha, Optimal timing of PD-1 blockade in combination with oncolytic virus therapy, Semin. Cancer Biol., 86 (2022), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.05.019 doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2021.05.019
![]() |
[87] |
L. Aurelian, Oncolytic virotherapy: The questions and the promise, Oncolytic Virother. 2, (2013), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.2147/OV.S39609 doi: 10.2147/OV.S39609
![]() |
[88] |
M. P. F. Damen, J.van Rheenen, C. L. G. J. Scheele, Targeting dormant tumor cells to prevent cancer recurrence, FEBS J., 288 (2021), 6286–6330. https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15626 doi: 10.1111/febs.15626
![]() |