4.4 Article

Multistability in an age-structured model of hematopoiesis: Cyclical neutropenia

期刊

JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL BIOLOGY
卷 270, 期 1, 页码 143-153

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.11.024

关键词

Hematopoietic disease; Dynamical disease; Delay differential equation; Bifurcation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC 10971113]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry (China)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cyclical neutropenia (CN) is a rare hematopoietic disorder in which the patient's neutrophil level drops to extremely low levels for a few days approximately every three weeks. CN is effectively treated with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), which is known to interfere with apoptosis in neutrophil precursors and to consequently increase the circulating neutrophil level. However, G-CSF treatment usually fails to eliminate the oscillation. In this study, we establish an age-structured model of hematopoiesis, which reduces to a set of four delay differential equations with specific forms of initial functions. We numerically investigate the possible stable solutions of the model equations with respect to changes in the parameters as well as the initial conditions. The results show that the hematopoietic system possesses multistability for parameters typical of the normal healthy state. From our numerical results, decreasing the proliferation rate of neutrophil precursors or increasing the stem cell death rate are two possible mechanisms to induce cyclical neutropenia, and the periods of the resulting oscillations are independent of the changing parameters. We also discuss the dependence of the model solution on the initial condition at normal parameter values corresponding to a healthy state. Using insight from our results we design a hybrid treatment method that is able to abolish the oscillations in CN. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据