Research

Mathematical modeling provides a rigorous way to quantify immunological processes and discriminate between alternative mechanisms driving specific biological phenomena. It is typical that mathematical models of immunological phenomena are developed by modelers to explain specific sets of experimental data after the data have been collected by experimental collaborators. Whether the available data are sufficient to accurately estimate model parameters or to discriminate between alternative models is not typically investigated. While previously collected data may be sufficient to guide development of alternative models and help estimating model parameters, such data often do not allow to discriminate between alternative models. As a case study, we develop a series of power analyses to determine optimal sample sizes that allow for accurate estimation of model parameters and for discrimination between alternative models describing clustering of CD8 T cells around Plasmodium liver stages. In our typical experiments, mice are infected intravenously with Plasmodium sporozoites that invade hepatocytes (liver cells), and then activated CD8 T cells are transferred into the infected mice. The number of T cells found in the vicinity of individual infected hepatocytes at different times after T cell transfer is counted using intravital microscopy. We previously developed a series of mathematical models aimed to explain highly variable number of T cells per parasite; one of such models, the density-dependent recruitment (DDR) model, fitted the data from preliminary experiments better than the alternative models, such as the density-independent exit (DIE) model. Here, we show that the ability to discriminate between these alternative models depends on the number of parasites imaged in the analysis; analysis of about [Formula: see text] parasites at 2, 4, and 8 h after T cell transfer will allow for over 95% probability to select the correct model. The type of data collected also has an impact; following T cell clustering around individual parasites over time (called as longitudinal (LT) data) allows for a more precise and less biased estimates of the parameters of the DDR model than that generated from a more traditional way of imaging individual parasites in different liver areas/mice (cross-sectional (CS) data). However, LT imaging comes at a cost of a need to keep the mice alive under the microscope for hours which may be ethically unacceptable. We finally show that the number of time points at which the measurements are taken also impacts the precision of estimation of DDR model parameters; in particular, measuring T cell clustering at one time point does not allow accurately estimating all parameters of the DDR model. Using our case study, we propose a general framework on how mathematical modeling can be used to guide experimental designs and power analyses of complex biological processes.

Malaria is a disease caused by Plasmodium parasites, resulting in over 200 million infections and 400,000 deaths every year. A critical step of malaria infection is when sporozoites, injected by mosquitoes, travel to the liver and form liver stages. Malaria vaccine candidates which induce large numbers of malaria-specific CD8 T cells in mice are able to eliminate all liver stages, preventing fulminant malaria. However, how CD8 T cells find all parasites in 48 h of the liver stage lifespan is not well understood. Using intravital microscopy of murine livers, we generated unique data on T cell search for malaria liver stages within a few hours after infection. To detect attraction of T cells to an infection site, we used the von Mises-Fisher distribution in 3D, similar to the 2D von Mises distribution previously used in ecology. Our results suggest that the vast majority (70-95%) of malaria-specific and non-specific liver-localized CD8 T cells did not display attraction towards the infection site, suggesting that the search for malaria liver stages occurs randomly. However, a small fraction (15-20%) displayed weak but detectable attraction towards parasites which already had been surrounded by several T cells. We found that speeds and turning angles correlated with attraction, suggesting that understanding mechanisms that determine the speed of T cell movement in the liver may improve the efficacy of future T cell-based vaccines. Stochastic simulations suggest that a small movement bias towards the parasite dramatically reduces the number of CD8 T cells needed to eliminate all malaria liver stages, but to detect such attraction by individual cells requires data from long imaging experiments which are not currently feasible. Importantly, as far as we know this is the first demonstration of how activated/memory CD8 T cells might search for the pathogen in nonlymphoid tissues a few hours after infection. We have also established a framework for how attraction of individual T cells towards a location in 3D can be rigorously evaluated.

While there are many opinions on what mathematical modeling in biology is, in essence, modeling is a mathematical tool, like a microscope, which allows consequences to logically follow from a set of assumptions. Only when this tool is applied appropriately, as microscope is used to look at small items, it may allow to understand importance of specific mechanisms/assumptions in biological processes. Mathematical modeling can be less useful or even misleading if used inappropriately, for example, when a microscope is used to study stars. According to some philosophers (Oreskes et al., 1994), the best use of mathematical models is not when a model is used to confirm a hypothesis but rather when a model shows inconsistency of the model (defined by a specific set of assumptions) and data. Following the principle of strong inference for experimental sciences proposed by Platt (1964), I suggest "strong inference in mathematical modeling" as an effective and robust way of using mathematical modeling to understand mechanisms driving dynamics of biological systems. The major steps of strong inference in mathematical modeling are (1) to develop multiple alternative models for the phenomenon in question; (2) to compare the models with available experimental data and to determine which of the models are not consistent with the data; (3) to determine reasons why rejected models failed to explain the data, and (4) to suggest experiments which would allow to discriminate between remaining alternative models. The use of strong inference is likely to provide better robustness of predictions of mathematical models and it should be strongly encouraged in mathematical modeling-based publications in the Twenty-First century.