| Literature DB >> 33285941 |
Juan Carlos Chimal-Eguía1, Erandi Castillo-Montiel2, Ricardo T Paez-Hernández3.
Abstract
This work presents an analysis for real and synthetic angiogenic networks using a tomography image that obtains a portrait of a vascular network. After the image conversion into a binary format it is possible to measure various network properties, which includes the average path length, the clustering coefficient, the degree distribution and the fractal dimension. When comparing the observed properties with that produced by the Invasion Percolation algorithm (IPA), we observe that there exist differences between the properties obtained by the real and the synthetic networks produced by the IPA algorithm. Taking into account the former, a new algorithm which models the expansion of an angiogenic network through randomly heuristic rules is proposed. When comparing this new algorithm with the real networks it is observed that now both share some properties. Once creating synthetic networks, we prove the robustness of the network by subjecting the original angiogenic and the synthetic networks to the removal of the most connected nodes, and see to what extent the properties changed. Using this concept of robustness, in a very naive fashion it is possible to launch a hypothetical proposal for a therapeutic treatment based on the robustness of the network.Entities:
Keywords: angiogenesis; complex networks; network properties
Year: 2020 PMID: 33285941 PMCID: PMC7516584 DOI: 10.3390/e22020166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Entropy (Basel) ISSN: 1099-4300 Impact factor: 2.524
Characteristics of the four patients studied in the INNSZ, all with Hepato-Cellular Carcinoma (HCC).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Female | 44 | 23 November 2007 |
| B | Male | 57 | 5 February 2008 |
| C | Female | 63 | 30 October 2007 |
| D | Female | 55 | 8 March 2007 |
Figure 1Step by Step of the digital processing make to the BMP image to obtain a binary skeletonized form: (a) image in gray scale, (b) Image in binary form, (c) Segmentation procedure, (d) Skeletonized binary form.
Figure 2Modeling the complex network (a) binary skeletonized form. (b) Zoom of one part of the skeletonized binary form pixel by pixel (c) Network obtained after the assignation of nodes and edges to each pixel.
General structural properties of the four networks. For each network we have indicated the number of nodes (size), the average degree k, the clustering coefficient C, the average path length l, the fractal dimension D and the distribution exponent (this exponent was calculated taking into account a power law distribution).
|
|
| k | C | l | D |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A (32 × 32) | 98 | 2 | 0.169 | 0.061 | 1.304 | 3.256 |
| A (64 × 64) | 340 | 3 | 0.279 | 0.035 | 1.395 | 3.034 |
| A (128 × 128) | 630 | 2 | 0.231 | 0.020 | 1.357 | 4.0624 |
| A (256 × 256) | 2301 | 2 | 0.226 | 0.010 | 1.409 | 4.334 |
| B (32 × 32) | 79 | 2 | 0.122 | 0.066 | 1.278 | 3.302 |
| B (64 × 64) | 234 | 2 | 0.201 | 0.036 | 1.332 | 4.168 |
| B (128 × 128) | 1248 | 2 | 0.180 | 0.009 | 1.470 | 4.481 |
| B (256 × 256) | 2247 | 2 | 0.187 | 0.009 | 1.396 | 4.222 |
| C (32 × 32) | 111 | 2 | 0.156 | 0.063 | 1.342 | 2.552 |
| C (64 × 64) | 211 | 2 | 0.152 | 0.029 | 1.301 | 3.507 |
| C (128 × 128) | 987 | 2 | 0.214 | 0.015 | 1.425 | 2.703 |
| C (256 × 256) | 3570 | 2 | 0.230 | 0.009 | 1.494 | 2.907 |
| D (32 × 32) | 103 | 2 | 0.251 | 0.071 | 1.322 | 3.101 |
| D (64 × 64) | 428 | 2 | 0.207 | 0.026 | 1.463 | 3.320 |
| D (128 × 128) | 894 | 2 | 0.204 | 0.014 | 1.390 | 3.921 |
| D (256 × 256) | 1260 | 2 | 0.169 | 0.010 | 1.291 | 4.250 |
Figure 3(a) Example of the Binary skeletonized form for patient B. (b) Degree distribution obtained from patient B.
Robustness analysis for two networks using a random attack. For each network we have indicated the number of nodes (N), and the number of nodes eliminated randomly (), beginning with 1% of the nodes (corresponding to the first row of each patient). It is worthwhile to note that 1% corresponds, in the first case, to 3 disconnected nodes; however, when we disconnect these 3 nodes other adjacent nodes are also disconnected, giving 6 in total disconnected nodes. We did the same for 5%, 10% and finally 15%, the average degree k, the average length l, the clustering coefficient C, the fractal dimension D and the exponent of the distribution . In all the attacks we used images of 64 by 64 pixels.
| PATIENT A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 340 | 6 | 3 | 0.0339 | 0.279 | 1.390 | 0.740 | |
| 340 | 18 | 2 | 0.039 | 0.262 | 1.387 | 0.687 | |
| 340 | 35 | 2 | 0.051 | 0.267 | 1.326 | 0.704 | |
| 340 | 52 | 3 | 0.122 | 0.303 | 1.144 | 0.550 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 234 | 3 | 2 | 0.045 | 0.188 | 1.396 | 0.944 | |
| 234 | 13 | 2 | 0.036 | 0.187 | 1.272 | 1.074 | |
| 234 | 24 | 2 | 0.077 | 0.227 | 1.083 | 0.626 | |
| 234 | 36 | 2 | 0.218 | 0.254 | 1 | 0.548 |
Robustness analysis for two networks using a direct attack. For each network we have indicated the number of nodes (N), and the number of nodes eliminated (), beginning with the nodes with 7 connections (this corresponds to the first row of each patient and in parenthesis are the remaining nodes), then the nodes with 6 (corresponding to the second row) and so on, the average degree k, the average length l, the clustering coefficient C, the fractal dimension D and the exponent of the distribution . In all the attacks we used images of 64 by 64 pixels.
| PATIENT A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 340 | 6 (334) | 2 | 0.03 | 0.262 | 1.392 | 0.7984 | |
| 340 | 19 (315) | 2 | 0.036 | 0.217 | 1.391 | 1.0072 | |
| 340 | 21 (294) | 2 | 0.048 | 0.226 | 1.237 | 0.78551 | |
| 340 | 64 (230) | 2 | 0.060 | 0.118 | 1.089 | 1.292 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 234 | 1 | 2 | 0.036 | 0.197 | 1.332 | 1.008 | |
| 234 | 1 | 2 | 0.036 | 0.198 | 1.332 | 1.223 | |
| 234 | 7 | 2 | 0.0364 | 0.164 | 1.326 | 0.870 | |
| 234 | 28 | 3 | 0.110 | 0.144 | 1 | 0.778 |
Figure 4Example of the network generated by Invasion-Percolation algorithm. (a) Network generated by the algorithm. (b) Distribution of nodes generated by the same algorithm.
General structural properties for networks created by the Invasion-Percolation algorithm for different matrix sizes. After several simulations (we only have reported the average values for each measure) for each size, we have indicated the average number of nodes (average size) N, the average degree k, the average clustering coefficient C, the average path length l and the average of the fractal dimension D, also we have added the standard deviation (in parenthesis) for each size and for each measure.
|
| N | Z | C | l | D |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 × 32 | 310 (79.14) | 4 | 0.49 (0.02) | 0.007 (0.008) | 1.64 (0.092) |
| 64 × 64 | 837 (235.3) | 4 | 0.44 (0.14) | 0.08 (0.014) | 1.62 (0.07) |
| 128 × 128 | 4373 (1515.95) | 4 | 0.477 (0.007) | 0.018 (0.002) | 1.72 (0.07) |
| 256 × 256 | 16441 (5876) | 4 | 0.47 (0.006) | 0.009 (0.0019) | 1.75 (0.075) |
Figure 5Example of a single network (with a size of 128 × 128 cells) generated by ARGA algorithm. (a) Network generated by the algorithm. (b) Distribution of nodes generated by the same algorithm
General structural properties for networks created by the ARGA algorithm for different matrix sizes. For each size we have indicated the average number of nodes (average size) N, the average degree k, the average clustering coefficient C, the average path length l, the average of the fractal dimension D and the average exponent of the distribution (this exponent was calculated taking into account a Poisson distribution), also we have added the standard deviation (in parenthesis) for each size and for each measure.
|
| N | Z | C | l | D |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 32 × 32 | 110 (16.2) | 3 | 0.26 (0.08) | 0.032 (0.001) | 1.32 (0.125) | 2.92 (0.67) |
| 64 × 64 | 458 (174.8) | 3 | 0.27 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.004) | 1.48 (0.09) | 3.094 (0.51) |
| 128 × 128 | 1772 (490.31) | 3 | 0.27 (0.025) | 0.08 (0.002) | 1.56 (0.06) | 3.8 (0.48) |
| 256 × 256 | 8522 (3961) | 3 | 0.295 (0.02) | 0.09 (0.001) | 1.6 (0.08) | 3.78 (0.61) |
Robustness analysis for synthetic networks using a random attack. For each network we have indicated the number of nodes (N), the number of nodes eliminated randomly () beginning with 1% of the nodes (corresponding to the first row to the size of the network), for 5%, 10% and finally 15% respectively, the average degree k, the average length l, the clustering coefficient C and the fractal dimension D.
| Size (32 × 32 cells) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1% | 108 | 1 | 3 | 0.0839 | 0.3754 | 1.4235 |
| 5% | 108 | 7 | 2 | 0.0819 | 0.3870 | 1.415 |
| 10% | 108 | 12 | 2 | 0.0737 | 0.3606 | 1.3853 |
| 15% | 108 | 18 | 3 | 0.1030 | 0.3545 | 1.2682 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1% | 483 | 6 | 3 | 0.0412 | 0.3345 | 1.4860 |
| 5% | 483 | 25 | 3 | 0.0409 | 0.3352 | 1.402 |
| 10% | 483 | 49 | 3 | 0.0456 | 0.3185 | 1.450 |
| 15% | 483 | 73 | 3 | 0.346 | 0.3580 | 1.340 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1% | 1463 | 32 | 2 | 0.017 | 0.2708 | 1.5544 |
| 5% | 1463 | 837 | 2 | 0.026 | 0.2767 | 1.3553 |
| 10% | 1463 | 911 | 2 | 0.0298 | 0.2668 | 1.378 |
| 15% | 1463 | 1216 | 2 | 0.0319 | 0.2780 | 1.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1% | 4231 | 1904 | 2 | 0.009 | 0.2443 | 1.4980 |
| 5% | 4231 | 617 | 2 | 0.0094 | 0.2592 | 1.5412 |
| 10% | 4231 | 2060 | 2 | 0.0064 | 0.2757 | 1.4808 |
| 15% | 4231 | 3767 | 2 | 0.011 | 0.2732 | 1.200 |
Robustness analysis for the synthetic networks using a direct attack. For each network we have indicated the number of nodes (N), the number of nodes eliminated () beginning with the nodes with 7 connections (this corresponds to the first row), then the nodes with 6 (corresponding to the second row) and so on, the average degree k, the average length l, the clustering coefficient C and the fractal dimension D.
| Size (32 × 32 cells) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 108 | 0 | 3 | 0.0839 | 0.3754 | 1.4253 |
| 6 | 108 | 7 | 2 | 0.07020 | 0.2799 | 1.409 |
| 5 | 108 | 6 | 2 | 0.0807 | 0.313 | 1.411 |
| 4 | 108 | 21 | 2 | 0.0758 | 0.1760 | 1.557 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 | 483 | 5 | 3 | 0.0411 | 0.3248 | 1.4867 |
| 6 | 483 | 26 | 2 | 0.03834 | 0.3016 | 1.4763 |
| 5 | 483 | 48 | 2 | 0.0334 | 0.2709 | 1.4685 |
| 4 | 483 | 126 | 2 | 0.1023 | 0.1031 | 1.05 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 | 1463 | 4 | 2 | 0.0180 | 0.2614 | 1.5592 |
| 6 | 1463 | 21 | 2 | 0.0177 | 0.2472 | 1.5577 |
| 5 | 1463 | 59 | 2 | 0.0168 | 0.2310 | 1.5540 |
| 4 | 1463 | 1354 | 2 | 0.0356 | 0.068 | 1.1899 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 | 4231 | 14 | 2 | 0.0105 | 0.2591 | 1.5716 |
| 6 | 4231 | 96 | 2 | 0.0102 | 0.2439 | 1.5697 |
| 5 | 4231 | 329 | 2 | 0.0093 | 0.2260 | 1.5610 |
| 4 | 4231 | 3971 | 2 | 0.022 | 0.2239 | 1.03 |