Junyan Liu1, David A Hormuth2,3, Tessa Davis1, Jianchen Yang1, Matthew T McKenna4, Angela M Jarrett2,3, Heiko Enderling5,6,7, Amy Brock1,8,3, Thomas E Yankeelov1,9,8,2,3,7. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 2. Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 3. Livestrong Cancer Institutes, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA. 5. Department of Integrated Mathematical Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. 6. Department of Integrated Radiation Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL 33612, USA. 7. Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. 8. Department of Oncology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 9. Department of Diagnostic Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a mechanism-based, mathematical model that characterizes 9L and C6 glioma cells' temporal response to single-dose radiation therapy in vitro by explicitly incorporating time-dependent biological interactions with radiation. METHODS: We employed time-resolved microscopy to track the confluence of 9L and C6 glioma cells receiving radiation doses of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 or 16 Gy. DNA repair kinetics are measured by γH2AX expression via flow cytometry. The microscopy data (814 replicates for 9L, 540 replicates for C6 at various seeding densities receiving doses above) were divided into training (75%) and validation (25%) sets. A mechanistic model was developed, and model parameters were calibrated to the training data. The model was then used to predict the temporal dynamics of the validation set given the known initial confluences and doses. The predictions were compared to the corresponding dynamic microscopy data. RESULTS: For 9L, we obtained an average (± standard deviation, SD) Pearson correlation coefficient between the predicted and measured confluence of 0.87 ± 0.16, and an average (±SD) concordance correlation coefficient of 0.72 ± 0.28. For C6, we obtained an average (±SD) Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.90 ± 0.17, and an average (±SD) concordance correlation coefficient of 0.71 ± 0.24. CONCLUSION: The proposed model can effectively predict the temporal development of 9L and C6 glioma cells in response to a range of single-fraction radiation doses. By developing a mechanism-based, mathematical model that can be populated with time-resolved data, we provide an experimental-mathematical framework that allows for quantitative investigation of cells' temporal response to radiation. Our approach provides two key advances: (i) a time-resolved, dynamic death rate with a clear biological interpretation, and (ii) accurate predictions over a wide range of cell seeding densities and radiation doses.
PURPOSE: To develop and validate a mechanism-based, mathematical model that characterizes 9L and C6 glioma cells' temporal response to single-dose radiation therapy in vitro by explicitly incorporating time-dependent biological interactions with radiation. METHODS: We employed time-resolved microscopy to track the confluence of 9L and C6 glioma cells receiving radiation doses of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 or 16 Gy. DNA repair kinetics are measured by γH2AX expression via flow cytometry. The microscopy data (814 replicates for 9L, 540 replicates for C6 at various seeding densities receiving doses above) were divided into training (75%) and validation (25%) sets. A mechanistic model was developed, and model parameters were calibrated to the training data. The model was then used to predict the temporal dynamics of the validation set given the known initial confluences and doses. The predictions were compared to the corresponding dynamic microscopy data. RESULTS: For 9L, we obtained an average (± standard deviation, SD) Pearson correlation coefficient between the predicted and measured confluence of 0.87 ± 0.16, and an average (±SD) concordance correlation coefficient of 0.72 ± 0.28. For C6, we obtained an average (±SD) Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.90 ± 0.17, and an average (±SD) concordance correlation coefficient of 0.71 ± 0.24. CONCLUSION: The proposed model can effectively predict the temporal development of 9L and C6 glioma cells in response to a range of single-fraction radiation doses. By developing a mechanism-based, mathematical model that can be populated with time-resolved data, we provide an experimental-mathematical framework that allows for quantitative investigation of cells' temporal response to radiation. Our approach provides two key advances: (i) a time-resolved, dynamic death rate with a clear biological interpretation, and (ii) accurate predictions over a wide range of cell seeding densities and radiation doses.
Authors: Stephan Scheidegger; Hans U Fuchs; Kathrin Zaugg; Stephan Bodis; Rudolf M Füchslin Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 2.238
Authors: Preety M Sharma; Brian Ponnaiya; Maria Taveras; Igor Shuryak; Helen Turner; David J Brenner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Su Yeon Lee; Eui Kyong Jeong; Min Kyung Ju; Hyun Min Jeon; Min Young Kim; Cho Hee Kim; Hye Gyeong Park; Song Iy Han; Ho Sung Kang Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2017-01-30 Impact factor: 27.401
Authors: David A Hormuth; Karine A Al Feghali; Andrew M Elliott; Thomas E Yankeelov; Caroline Chung Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-04-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sotiris Prokopiou; Eduardo G Moros; Jan Poleszczuk; Jimmy Caudell; Javier F Torres-Roca; Kujtim Latifi; Jae K Lee; Robert Myerson; Louis B Harrison; Heiko Enderling Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 3.481
Authors: S Brüningk; G Powathil; P Ziegenhein; J Ijaz; I Rivens; S Nill; M Chaplain; U Oelfke; G Ter Haar Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Chengyue Wu; Guillermo Lorenzo; David A Hormuth; Ernesto A B F Lima; Kalina P Slavkova; Julie C DiCarlo; John Virostko; Caleb M Phillips; Debra Patt; Caroline Chung; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Biophys Rev (Melville) Date: 2022-05-17