Investigating Mathematical Models of Immuno-Interactions
with Early-Stage Cancer under an Agent-Based Modelling
Perspective
Grazziela P Figueredo*1 , Peer-Olaf Siebers1 and Uwe Aickelin1

'Intelligent Modelling and Analysis Research Group, School of Computer Science, The University of Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK

Email: Grazziela P Figueredo*- grazziela.figueredo@nottingham.ac.uk; Peer-Olaf Siebers - pos@cs.nott.ac.uk; Uwe Aickelin
- uxa@cs.nott.ac.uk;

*

Corresponding author

Abstract
Many advances in research regarding immuno-interactions with cancer were developed with the help of
ordinary differential equation (ODE) models. These models, however, are not effectively capable of representing
problems involving individual localisation, memory and emerging properties, which are common characteristics of
cells and molecules of the immune system. Agent-based modelling and simulation is an alternative paradigm to
ODE models that overcomes these limitations. In this paper we investigate the potential contribution of agentbased modelling and simulation when compared to ODE modelling and simulation. We seek answers to the
following questions: Is it possible to obtain an equivalent agent-based model from the ODE formulation? Do the
outcomes differ? Are there any benefits of using one method compared to the other? To answer these questions,
we have considered three case studies using established mathematical models of immune interactions with earlystage cancer. These case studies were re-conceptualised under an agent-based perspective and the simulation
results were then compared with those from the ODE models. Our results show that it is possible to obtain
equivalent agent-based models (i.e. implementing the same mechanisms); the simulation output of both types of
models however might differ depending on the attributes of the system to be modelled. In some cases, additional
insight from using agent-based modelling was obtained. Overall, we can confirm that agent-based modelling is a
useful addition to the tool set of immunologists, as it has extra features that allow for simulations with
characteristics that are closer to the biological phenomena.

1

Introduction
Advances in cancer immunology have been facilitated by the joint work of immunologists and mathematicians [1–3]. Some of the knowledge regarding interactions between the immune system and tumours is a
result of using mathematical models. Most existing mathematical models in cancer immunology are based on
sets of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) [2]. This approach, however, has limitations pertaining
problems involving spatial interactions or emerging properties [4,5]. In addition, the analysis of ODE models
is conducted at a high level of aggregation of the system entities. An alternative to ODE modelling that
overcomes these limitations is systems simulation modelling. It is a set of methodologies and applications
which mimic the behaviour of a real system [6–8]. Systems simulation modelling has also benefits compared
to real world experimentation in immunology, including time and cost effectiveness due to the resourceintensiveness of the biological environment. Furthermore, in a simulation environment it is possible to
systematically generate different scenarios and conduct experiments. In addition, the “what-if” scenarios
studied in such an environment do not require ethics approval.
Agent-based modelling and simulation (ABMS) is an object-oriented system modelling and simulation
approach that employs autonomous entities that interact with each other [9–11]. The focus during the
modelling process is on defining templates for the individual entities (agents) being modelled and defining
possible interactions between these entities. The agent behaviour is described by rules that determine how
these entities learn, adapt and interact with each other. The overall system behaviour arises from the agents’
individual behaviour and their interactions with other agents and the environment. For cancer immunology, it
can amalgamate in vitro data on individual interactions between cells and molecules of the immune system
and tumour cells to build an overview of the system as a whole [12]. Few studies, however, apply ABMS to
cancer research. Although there are examples showing the success of simulation aiding advances in
immunology [13–18], this set of methodologies is still not popular. There are several reasons for this: (1)
ABMS is not well known in the immunology research field; (2) although simulation is acknowledged as
being a useful tool by immunologists, there is no knowledge of how to use it; and (3) there is not enough
trust in the results produced by simulation.
Our aim is to outline the potential contribution of ABMS to help cancer-related immune studies. In order to
achieve our aim, we use a case study approach. We have chosen three well-established mathematical models
describing interactions between the immune system and early-stage cancer as our test candidates. These

2

models consist of systems of ODEs solved numerically for a time interval. By studying these models we focus on the
following three research enquiries:
1. Is it possible to obtain an equivalent ABMS model based on the mathematical equations from the
ODEs (i.e. can we create an object oriented model by re-using ODEs that have been created for
modelling behaviour at an aggregate level)?
2. Do we get equivalent simulation outputs for both approaches?
3. What benefits could we gain by re-conceptualizing a mathematical model under an ABMS view?
Case studies

The case studies are chosen by considering aspects such as the population size, modelling effort, model
complexity, observation of the ODEs outcome results and the number of different populations modelled.
The mathematical models chosen vary largely within these aspects and therefore we can perform a more
robust analysis of our experiments, as shown in Table 1.
The first case study considered is based on an ODE model involving interactions between tumour cells
and generic effector cells. The second case study adds to the previous model the influence of IL-2 cytokine
molecules in the immune responses of effector cells towards tumour cells. The final case study comprises an
ODE model of interactions between effector cells, tumour cells, and IL-2 and TGF- 3 molecules. For all
case studies, the mathematical model as well as the ABMS model are presented, the outcomes are contrasted
and the benefits of each approach are assessed. The models differ in terms of complexity of interactions,
population sizes and the number of agents involved in the interactions (Table 1).
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We start with a literature review of works comparing
ODEs and ABMS for different simulation domains. First, we show general work that has been carried out and
then we focus on research concerned with the comparison for immunological problems. Finally, we discuss
gaps in the literature regarding cancer research. In the methodology section, we introduce our agent-based
modelling development process and the methods used for conducting the experimentation. In the following
section, we present our case studies, comparison results and discussions. In the last section, we finally draw
our overall conclusions and outline future research opportunities.

3

Related Work
In this section we describe the literature concerned with the comparison between ODE and ABMS modelling
for different simulation domains. We start our review by showing general work that has been carried out to
assess the differences of both approaches. Subsequently, we focus on research concerned with the comparison
of the strategies for immunological problems. We found that there is a scarcity of literature comparing the
two approaches for immune simulations. Furthermore, to our knowledge there is no research contrasting the
approaches for the immune system and cancer interactions.
Over the past years several authors have acknowledged that little work has been done to compare both
methods. In one of the pioneer studies in this area, Scholl [19] gives an overview of ODE and ABMS,
describes their areas of applicability and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. The author
also tries to identify areas that could benefit from the use of both methodologies in multi-paradigm simulations
and concludes that there is little literature concerned with the comparison of both methodologies and their
cross studies. Pourdehnad et al. [20] compare the two approaches conceptually by discussing the potential
synergy between them to solve problems of teaching decision-making processes. The authors explore the
conceptual frameworks for ODE modelling (using Systems Dynamics (SD)) and ABMS to model group
learning and show the differences between the approaches in order to propose their use in a complementary
way. They conclude that a lack of knowledge exists in applying multi-paradigm simulation that involves ODEs
and ABMS. More recently, Stemate et al. [21] also compare these modelling approaches and identify a list of
likely opportunities for cross-fertilization. The authors see this list as a starting point for other researchers to
take such synergistic views further.
Studies on this comparison for Operations Research were also conducted. For example, Schieritz [22]
and Scheritz et al. [23] present a cross-study of SD (which is implemented using ODEs) and ABMS. They
define their features and characteristics and contrast the two methods. In addition, they suggest ideas of how
to integrate both approaches. Continuing their studies, in [24] the authors then describe an approach to
combine ODEs and ABMS for solving supply chain management problems. Their results show that the
combined SD/ABMS model does not produce the same outcomes as ODE model alone. To understand why
these differences occur, the authors propose new tests as future work.
In an application in health care, Ramandad et al. [25] compare the dynamics of a stochastic ABMS with
those of the analogous deterministic compartment differential equation model for contagious disease spread.
The authors convert the ABMS into an ODE model and examine the impact of individual heterogeneity and
different network topologies. The deterministic model yields a single trajectory for each parameter set,

4

while stochastic models yield a distribution of outcomes. Moreover, the ODE model and ABMS dynamics
differ in several metrics relevant to public health. The responses of the models to policies can even differ
when the base case behaviour is similar. Under some conditions, however, the differences in means are small,
compared to variability caused by stochastic events, parameter uncertainty and model boundary.
An interesting philosophical analysis is conducted by Schieritz [26] analyses two arguments given in
literature to explain the superiority of ABMS compared with ODEs: (1) “the inability of ODE models to
explain emergent phenomena” and (2) “their flaw of not considering individual diversity”. In analysing these
arguments, the author considers different concepts involving simulation research in sociology. Moreover, the
study identifies the theories of emergence that underlie the ODE and ABMS approaches. The author points
out that “the agent-based approach models social phenomena by modelling individuals and interactions on a
lower level, which makes it implicitly taking up an individualist position of emergence; ODEs, on the other
hand, without explicitly referring to the concept of emergence, has a collectivist viewpoint of emergence, as
it tends to model social phenomena on an aggregate system level”. As a second part of the study, the author
compares ODEs and ABMS for modelling species competing for resources to analyse the effects of evolution
on population dynamics. The conclusion is that when individual diversity is considered, it limits the
applicability of the ODE model. However, it is shown that “a highly aggregate more ODE-like model of an
evolutionary process displays similar results to the ABMS”. This statement suggests that there is the need to
investigate further the capabilities and equivalences of each approach.
Similarly, Lorenz [27] proposes that three aspects be compared and that this helps with the choice
between ODE and ABMS: structure, behaviour and emergence. Structure is related to how the model is
built. The structure of a model in ODE is static, whereas in ABMS it is dynamic. In ODE, all the elements,
individuals and interactions of the simulation are developed in advance. In ABMS, on the other hand, agents
are created or destroyed and interactions are defined through the course of the simulation run. The second
aspect (behaviour) focuses on the central generators of behaviours in the model. For ODE the behaviour
generators are feedback and accumulations, while for ABMS they are micro-macro-micro feedback and
interaction of the systems elements. Both methodologies incorporate feedback. ABMS, however, has
feedback in more than one level of modelling. The third aspect lies in their capacity to capture emergence,
which differs between the two methodologies. In disagreement with [26] mentioned earlier, the author states
that ABMS is capable of capturing emergence, while the one-level structure of ODE is insufficient in that
respect.
In this work we discuss the merits of ODEs and ABMS for problems involving the interactions with the

5

immune system and early-stage cancer that can benefit from either approach. To our knowledge (and as the
gap in the literature shows) such a study has not been conducted before. The differences between ODEs and
ABMS when applied to classes of problems belonging to different levels of abstraction are well established
in the literature [23]. However, we believe there is a range of problems that could benefit from being solved
by both approaches. In addition, in many cases such as for example molecular and cellular biology, it is still
not possible to use the full potential of ABMS as only the higher level of abstraction of the system is known.
Another reason to investigate problems that can interchangeably benefit from both approaches is that, as
many real-world scenarios, such as biological systems, constantly gather new information, the corresponding
simulations have to be updated frequently to suit new requirements. For some cases, in order to suit these
demands, the replacement of the current simulation approach for new developments needs to be considered.
Our case study investigation seeks to provide further understanding on these problems and fill some of the
gaps existing in simulations for early-stage cancer research.

Methodology
In this section we outline the activities and methods necessary to realise our objectives. We examine case
studies of established mathematical models that describe some immune cells and molecules interacting with
tumour cells. These case studies were chosen by considering aspects such as the behaviour of the entities of
the model, size (and number) of populations involved and the modelling effort. The original mathematical
models are built under an agent-based approach and results compared.
ABMS is capable of representing space; however, as we chose mathematical models which do not
consider spatial interactions, our corresponding ABMS models do not regard space (distance) and how it
would affect the simulation outcomes. The outcome samples obtained by ODEs and ABMS were statistically
compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to formally establish whether they are statistically different from
each other. This test is applied as it is robust when the populations are not normally distributed; this is the
case for the samples obtained by the ODEs and ABMS. Other approaches for assessing whether the two
samples are statistically different, such as the t-test, could provide inaccurate results as they perform poorly
when the samples are non-normal.

The agent-based model development

The agent-based models were implemented using (AnyLogicTM 6.5 [28]). For the agent design we follow the steps
defined in [29]: (1) identify the agents (cells and molecules), (2) define their behaviour (die, kill

6

tumour cells, suffer apoptosis), (3) add them to an environment, and (4) establish connections to finally run the
simulations, as further discussed next:

1.

Identify the possible agents . For this purpose, we use some characteristics defined in [9]. An agent

is: (1) self-contained, modular, and a uniquely identifiable individual; (2) autonomous and self-directed; (3) a
construct with states that varies over time; and (4) social, having dynamic interactions with other agents that
impact its behaviour. By looking at the ODE equations, therefore, the variables that are differentiated over time
(their disaggregation) will either be corresponding to agents or states of one agent [29,30]. The decision
whether the stock is an agent or an agent state varies depending on the problem investigated. Based on our case
studies, however, we suggest that: (1) these variables preferably become states when they represent
accumulations of elements from the same population; or (2) they become agents when they represent
accumulations from different populations. For example, if you have an ODEdx dt = y, x should either be an
agent or an agent state, depending on the problem context.

2.

Identify the behaviour and rules of each agent . In our case, the agent’s behaviours will be

determined by mathematical equations converted into rules. Each agent has two different types of behaviours:
reactive and proactive behaviours. The reactive behaviour occurs when the agents perceive the context in
which they operate and react to it appropriately. The proactive behaviour describes the situations when the
agent has the initiative to identify and solve an issue in the system.

3.

Implement the agents . Based on step 2 we develop the agents. The agents are defined by using

state charts diagrams from the unified modelling language (UML) [31]. With state charts it is possible to
define and visualize the agents’ states, transitions between the states, events that trigger transitions, timing
and agent actions [4]. Moreover, at this stage, the behaviours of each agent are implemented using the
simulation tool. Most of our transitions occur according to a certain rate. For our implementation, the rate
is obtained from the mathematical equations.

4.

Build the simulation . After agents are defined, their environment and behaviour previously

established should be incorporated in the simulation implementation. Moreover, in this step we include
parameters and events that control the agents or the overall simulation.
For example, let us consider a classical ODE which describes an early-stage tumour growth pattern [2]:

= Tf(T)

dT
dt

(1)

where:

7

 T is the tumour cell population at time t ,
 T (0) > 0,
 f(T) specifies the density dependence in proliferation and death of the tumour cells. The density dependence
factor can be written as:

f(T) = p(T) − d(T)

(2)

where:

 p ( T ) defines tumour cells proliferation
 d ( T ) define tumour cells death
The expressions for p (T) and d(T) are generally defined by power laws:

p(T) = aTa

(3)

d(T) = bT

(4)

In this case, our agent would be a tumour cell that replicates and dies according to the parameters 
and 3 . The tumour cell agent behaviours are “proliferate” or “die”, according to the rate defined by the
mathematical model. If the rate is positive, there is proliferation, otherwise, death occurs (Table 2).
The tumour cell assumes two states, alive and dead, as shown in Figure 1. In the alive state, these cells
can replicate and die. If the growth rate is positive, the cell replicates according to the rate value; otherwise,
it dies. There is, therefore a branch connecting the two transitions proliferate and death to the alive state.
Once cells move to the final state dead, they are eliminated from the system and from the simulation.
The transition connecting the state alive to the branch is triggered by the growth rate. In the state charts,
the round squares represent the states and the arrows represent the transitions between the states. Arrows
within states indicate the agent actions (or behaviours) and the final state is represented by a circle.
Our agents are stochastic and assume discrete time steps to execute their actions. This, however, does not restrict
the dynamics of the models, as most of our agents state transitions are executed according to certain rates - this will
go in parallel with steps execution, as defined in AnyLogic [28]. The rate triggered transition is

8

used to model a stream of independent events (Poisson stream). In case more than one transition/interaction
should occur at the same time, they are executed by AnyLogic in a discrete order in the same time-step. In
the next section we apply the methodology to study our case studies and compare the outcomes.

Case 1: Interactions between Tumour Cells and Generic Effector Cells
For the first case, a mathematical model of tumour cells growth and their interactions with general immune
effector cells defined in [32] is considered. Effector cells are responsible for killing the tumour cells inside the
organism. Their proliferation rate is proportional to the number of existing tumour cells. As the quantities of
effector cells increase, the capacity of eliminating tumour cells is boosted. These immune cells proliferate and
die per apoptosis, which is a programmed cellular death. In the model, cancer treatment is also considered. The
treatment consists of injections of new effector cells into the organism. The details of the mathematical model
are given in the following section.

The mathematical model

The interactions between tumour cells and immune effector cells can be defined by the following equations:

dT
= Tf(T) − dT(T,E)
dt
dE
dt

= pE(T, E) − dE(T, E) − aE(E) + Φ(T)

where

 T

is the number of tumour cells,

 E is the number of effector cells,
 f ( T ) is the growth of tumour cells,
 dT (T, E) is the number of tumour cells killed by effector cells,
 p E(T, E) is the proliferation of effector cells,
 d E(T, E) is the death of effector cells when fighting tumour cells,
 a E ( E) is the death (apoptosis) of effector cells,

9

(6)

 Φ( T ) is the treatment or influx of cells.
Kuznetsov model [32] defines the functions f ( T ), d T ( T, E ), p E ( E, T ), d E ( E, T ), a E ( E ) and Φ( t ) as shown
below:

f(T) = a(1 − bT)

(7)

dT (T, E) = nTE

(8)

pE(E, T ) = pT E
g+T

(9)

dE(E,T) = mTE

(10)

aE(E) = dE

(11)

Φ(t) = s

(12)

The agent-based model

Two classes of agents are defined: the tumour cell and the effector cell. The agents’ parameters and behaviours corresponding to each state are shown in Table 3. All behaviours are derived from the mathematical
model. In the table, each agent has two different types of behaviours: reactive and proactive behaviours.
State charts are often used in ABMS to show the different states entities can be in and how they move
from one state to the other (transitions). For our models we also use events, which are actions scheduled to
occur in the course of the simulation. The state chart for the tumour cells is shown in Figure 2(a), in which
an agent proliferates, dies with age or is killed by effector cells. In addition, at a certain rate, the tumour
cells contribute to damage to effector cells. The rates defined in the transitions are the same as those from
the mathematical model (Table 4). Figure 2(b) presents the effector cell agent state chart, in which either
the cell is alive and able to kill tumour cells and proliferate or is dead by age or apoptosis. In the transition
rate calculations, the variable TotalTumourCells corresponds to the total number of tumour cell agents; and
the variable TotalEffectorCells is the total number of effector cell agents. In the simulation model,

10

apart from the agents, there is also an event – namely, treatment – which produces new effector cells with a rate
defined by the parameter s.

Experimental design for the simulations

Four scenarios were investigated. The scenarios have different death rates of tumour cells (defined by
parameter b ), different effector cells apoptosis rates (defined by parameter d ) and different treatments
(parameter s ). The values for these parameters were obtained from [2] (see Table 5). In the first three
scenarios, cancer treatment was considered, while the fourth case did not consider any treatment. The
simulation for the ABMS was run fifty times and the mean values are displayed as results. The
mathematical model outcomes display values for a time period of one hundred days and therefore the same
interval was determined for the ABMS.

Results and discussion

In the first scenario results, shown in Figure 3, the behaviour of the tumour cells appears similar for both
ODEs and ABMS. However, the Wilcoxon test rejected the similarity hypothesis for both outcomes, as
shown in Table 6. The reason for this test pointing out that the outcomes differ is that tumour cells for the
ODE model decreased asymptotically towards to zero, while the ABMS behaviour is discrete and therefore

reached zero. Furthermore, the variances observed in the ABMS curve, given its stochastic characteristic,
also influenced the Wilcoxon test results. The number of effector cells for both simulations follow the same
pattern, although the numbers are not the same due to the agents variability. This variability is very evident
with regards to the effector cells population for two main reasons: (1) for this first case study the size of the
populations involved is relatively small, which increases the impacts of stochasticity in the outcomes; and (2)
the ODE system changes the amount of cells overtime in a continuous fashion, which means that in this
simulation fractions of cells are considered. ABMS does not consider fraction of cells - a cell either is alive
or dead. This is implemented as a boolean indicator and corresponds to the real world, where fractions of
cells could obviously not exist. Considering the above explanations we conclude that for this scenario the
ABMS outcomes seem more realistic, as in biological experiments cells are also atomic entities and
stochastic variability occurs.
The results for the second scenario seem similar for effector cells, as shown in Figure 4, which was
confirmed by the Wilcoxon test (Table 6). The results for the tumour cells are visibly not the same.
Regarding the ODE simulation, in the first ten days the tumour cells population first decreases and then

11

grows up to a value of 240 cells, in which the growth reaches a steady-state. The initial decrease of tumour
cells is also observed in the ABMS outcomes. After ten days, however, there is a smaller cellular increase
and a steady-state is not observed. Similar to the previous scenario, the simulation curve presents an erratic
behaviour throughout the simulation days. There is, however an unexpected decay of tumour cells over time.
This is explained by the individual characteristics of the agents and their growth/death rates attributed to
their instantiation. As the death rates of tumour cells agents are defined according to the mathematical model,
when the tumour cell population grows, the newborn tumour cells have higher death probabilities, which
leads to a considerable number of cells dying out. This indicates that the individual behaviour of cells can
lead to a more chaotic behaviour when compared to the aggregate view observed in the ODE simulation.
For scenarios 3 and 4, shown in Figures 5 and 6 respectively, the results for both approaches differ
completely. Moreover, with regard to the tumour cells curve, the differences are even more evident. The
ODEs outcomes for scenario 3 reveal that tumour cells decreased as effector cells increased, following a
predator-prey trend curve. For the ABMS, however, the number of effector cells decreased until a value
close to zero was reached, while the tumour cells numbers varied differently from the ODEs results. As we
discussed for the previous scenarios, the predator prey-pattern observed in the ODE simulation was only
possible due to its continuous character. In the ODE simulation outcome curve for the effector cells it is
possible to observe, for instance, that after sixty days the number of effector cells ranges between one and
two. These values could not be reflected in the ABMS simulation and therefore the differences occur.
In scenario 4, although effector cells appear to decay in a similar trend for both approaches, the results
for tumour cells vary widely. In the ODE simulation, the numbers of effector cells reached a value close to
zero after twenty days and then increased to a value smaller than one. For the ABMS simulation, however,
these cells reached zero and never increased again.
Similar to scenarios 2 and 3, the continuous ODE simulation outcomes contrasted with discrete agents
caused the different outcomes. Furthermore, as occurred in scenario 2, the individual behaviour and rates
attributed to the cells seemed to have an impact in the growth of tumours.

Summary

An ODE model of tumour cells growth and their interactions with general immune effector cells was considered for re-conceptualization using ABMS. Four scenarios considering small population numbers were
investigated and, for only one of them, the ABMS results were similar to the mathematical model. The differences observed were explained by the way each simulation approach is implemented, which includes their

12

data representation and processing. ODE simulations deal with continuous values for the entities whereas
ABMS represents discrete agents. Furthermore, the stochastic behaviour of the ABMS and how it affects
small populations is not present in the ODEs. It also appears that the individual interactions between populations in the ABMS leads to a more chaotic behaviour, which does not occur at a higher aggregate level.
The result analysis also reveals that conceptualizing the ABMS model from the mathematical equations
does not always produce the same outcomes. One alternative to obtain better matching results would be the
development of an agent-based model, which is not based on the rates defined in the ODE model, but using
real data (available or collectable) or some form of parameter calibration.

Case 2: Interactions Between Tumour Cells, Effector Cells and Cytokines IL-2
The second case study investigated is concerned with a mathematical model for the interactions between
tumour cells, effector cells and the cytokine IL-2. This is an extension of the previous study, since it considers
IL-2 as molecules that will mediate the immune response towards tumour cells. They will interfere on the
proliferation of effector cells according to the number of tumour cells in the system. Treatment is now applied
in two different ways, by injecting effector cells or injecting cytokines.

The mathematical model

The mathematical model used in case 2 is obtained from [33]. The model’s equations illustrate the non-spatial
dynamics between effector cells (E), tumour cells (T) and the cytokine IL-2 (IL), described by the following
differential equations:
d E = cT − µ E + p1EIL + s1
d t g 1 + IL
Equation 13 describes the rate of change for the effector cell
population E [33]. Effector cells grow based on recruitment (cT) and proliferation (p1EIL
g1 +IL

). The parameter c represents the antigenicity of the tumour

cells (T) [33,34]. µ is the death rate of the effector cells. p 1 and g 1 are parameters used to calibrate the
recruitment of effector cells and s1 is the treatment that will boost the number of effector cells.
d T a aET
= a(1 − bT ) −
dt g+T

________________________________________________

Equation 14 describes the changes that occur in the tumour cell
population T over time. The term a(1 − bT) represents the logistic growth of T (a and b are parameters that define
how the tumour cells will

13

grow) and a a ET
g 2 +T

is the number of tumour cells killed by effector cells. a a and g 2 are parameters to adjust

the model.

d I L p2ET
=
µ3IL + s2
dt
g3 + T
The IL-2 population dynamics is described by Equation 15.

(15)
p 2 ET
g 3 +T

determines IL-2 production using

parameters p2 and g3. µ3 is the IL-2 loss. s2 also represents treatment. The treatment is the injection of IL-2 in the
system.

The agent-based model

The populations of agents are therefore the effector cells, tumour cells and IL-2 and their behaviour is shown
in Table 7. The state charts for each agent type are shown in Figure 7. The ABMS model rates corresponding
to the flow values in the ODEs model are given in Table 8. In the transition rate calculations, the variable

TotalTumour corresponds to the total number of tumour cell agents, the variable TotalEffector is the total
number of effector cell agents and TotalIL 2 is the total number of IL-2 agents.
In the simulation model, apart from the agents, there are also two events:

1. TreatmentS 1, which adds effector cell agents according to the parameter s1
2. TreatmentS 2, which adds IL-2 agents according to the parameter s2
Experimental design for the simulation

The experiment was conducted assuming the same parameters as those of the mathematical model (Table 9). For the
ABMS model, the simulation was run fifty times and the average outcome value for these runs was collected. Each
run simulated a period equivalent to six hundred days, following the same time span used for the numerical
simulation of the mathematical model.

Results and discussion

The results obtained are shown in Figures 8, 9 and 10 for effector cells, tumour cells and IL-2 respectively.
The ABMS was validated by comparing its outputs with those produced by the ODEs. As the figures reveal,
the results for all populations are very similar; the growth and decrease of all populations occur at similar
times for both approaches. Furthermore because of the large population sizes (around 10 4), ABMS model
curves have minor erratic behaviour, which corroborates to the similar patterns observed in the outcomes.

14

These similarities are also confirmed by the Wilcoxon test results presented in Table 10. The table shows the
p-values obtained with a 5% significance level. For the effector and tumour cells, the p-value was higher than
0.5, which indicates that the test failed to reject the null hypothesis that the outcomes were similar.

Summary

A mathematical model for the interactions between tumour cells, effector cells and the cytokine IL-2 was
considered to investigate the potential contribution of building the model under an ABMS perspective. Experimentation shows that results are very similar, which is explained by the large population sizes considered
in the experiments. In further experiments, the same model was also run under small population sizes and the
results for the simulations were different due to stochasticity and the approaches particularities, as discussed in
the previous case study. Regarding the use of computational resources for larger data sets, ABMS was far
more time- and memory-consuming than the ODEs.

Case 3: Interactions Between Tumour Cells, Effector Cells, IL-2 and TGF-

8

The third case study is based on the mathematical model of Arciero et al. [34], which consists of a system
of ODEs describing interactions between tumour cells and immune effector cells, as well as the immunestimulatory and suppressive cytokines IL-2 and TGF-. According to Arciero et al. [34] TGF- stimulates
tumour growth and suppresses the immune system by inhibiting the activation of effector cells and reducing
tumour antigen expression. The mathematical model, together with further details on the interactions
studied is introduced in the following section.

The mathematical model

The mathematical model we use in case 2 is obtained from [33]. The model’s equations illustrate the non-spatial
dynamics between effector cells (E), tumour cells (T), IL-2 (I) and TGF- (S) cytokines. The model is described by
the following differential equations:
dE
cT ( p1EI ) (
)
=
dt 1 + S p1 − __________________ q1S
µ1E +
(16)
Equation 16 describes the rate of change for the effector cell population E. According to [34], effector cells are
assumed to be recruited to a tumour site as a direct result of the presence of tumour cells. The parameter
c in

cT
1+ S

represents the antigenicity of the tumour, which measures the ability of the immune system to

recognize tumour cells. The presence of TGF- (S) reduces antigen expression, thereby limiting the level of

15

recruitment, measured by inhibitory parameter . The term µ 1 E represents loss of effector cells due to cell
presence of the cytokine IL-2 and is decreased when the cytokine TGF- is present. p 1 is the maximum
rate ( 1  \ ( p 1
death, and the proliferation term

)

1+ 

 
 21+

)

asserts that effector cell proliferation depends on the

of effector cell proliferation in the absence of TGF-, g1 and q2 are halfsaturation constants, and q1 is the maximum rate of anti-proliferative
dT
effect of TGF-.
dt

(
= aT

)

1 − T − aET
g2 + T + p2ST
K
g3 + S
Equation 17 describes the dynamics of the tumour cell population. The term aT ( 1 −

(17)

)




represents

logistic growth dynamics with intrinsic growth rate a and carrying capacity K in the absence of effector cells and
TGF-. The term a
2+is the number of tumour cells killed by effector cells. The parameter a
measures the strength of the immune response to tumour cells. The third term
23+accountsfor the increased gro wth of tumo ur cells in the presence of TGF. p2 is the maximum rate of increased proliferation and g3 is the half-saturation
constant, which indicates a limited response of tumour cells to this growthstimulatory cytokine [34].
dI
=
dt

p3ET
µ2 I
(g4 + T)(1 + S)

The kinetics of IL-2 are described in equation 18. The first term 

(18)
3

(4+)(1+)

represents IL-2 production

which reaches a maximal rate of p 3 in the presence of effector cells stimulated by their interaction with the
tumour cells. In the absence of TGF-, this is a self-limiting process with half-saturation constant g 4 [34].
The presence of TGF- inhibits IL-2 production, where the parameter  is a measure of inhibition. Finally,
µ 2 I represents the loss of IL-2.
dS
=
dt

p4T2
µ3 S
(19)
2 +
T
Equation 19 describes the rate of change of the suppressor cytokine, TGF-. According to [34], experimental evidence suggests that TGF- is produced in very small amounts when tumours are small enough to
receive ample nutrient from the surrounding tissue. However, as the tumour population grows sufficiently
large, tumour cells suffer from a lack of oxygen and begin to produce TGF- in order to stimulate
angiogen-esis and to evade the immune response once tumour growth resumes. This switch in TGF-

16

production is modelled by term 4  2
2+2, where p4 is the maximum rate of TGF- production and  is the critical tumour cell
population in which the switch occurs. The decay rate of TGF- is represented by the term µ3S.

17

The agent-based model

Our agents are the effector cells, tumour cells, IL-2 and TGF-3 and the behaviour of each agent is shown in
Table 11. The state charts for each agent type were developed, as illustrated in Figure 11. The ABMS model
rates corresponding to the mathematical model are given in Table 12. In the transition rate calculations, the
variable TotalTumour corresponds to the total number of tumour cell agents; the variable TotalEffector is
the total number of effector cell agents, TotalIL 2 is the total number of IL-2 agents and TotalTGFBeta is
the total TGF-3 agents. This model does not include any events.

Experimental design for the simulation

The experiment was conducted assuming the same parameters as those defined for the mathematical model
(Table 13). For the ABMS model, the simulation was run fifty times and the average outcome value for
these runs was collected. Each run simulated a period equivalent to six hundred days, following the time
interval used for the numerical simulation of the mathematical model.

Results and discussion

Results for case 3 ODEs and ABMS simulations are provided in Figures 12, 13, 14 and 15. Outcomes
demonstrate that the behaviour of the curves for effector cells, tumour cells and IL-2 in both paradigms is
similar, although the starting time for the growth of populations for the ABMS varies for each run. In the
figures corresponding to the ABMS results, therefore, ten distinct runs were plotted to illustrate the
variations.
For most ABMS runs the pattern of behaviour of the agents is the same as that obtained by the ODEs. For a few
runs, however, the populations decreased to zero, indicating that it is not always possible to obtain similar results
with both approaches.
The differences observed occur for two reasons: (1) the ABMS stochasticity and (2) the agents
individual behaviour and their interactions. While ODEs always use the same values for the parameters
over the entire population aggregate, ABMS rates vary with time. Each agent therefore is likely to have
distinct numbers for their probabilities. The agents individual interactions, which give raise to the overall
behaviour of the system, are also influenced by the scenario determined by the random numbers used. By
running the ABMS multiple times with different sets of random numbers, the outcomes vary according to
these sets. For the ODEs, on the contrary, multiple runs always produce the same outcome, as random
numbers are not considered.

18

In addition, the unexpected patterns of behaviour found the the ABMS results are the consequence of
the agents individual interactions and their chaotic character. We believe that these unexpected patterns
obtained with ABMS should be further investigated by specialists to determine if they are realistic and
plausible to happen in biological experiments.
Regarding the TGF-3 outcomes, the ODEs results reveal numbers smaller than one, which is not possible to
achieve with the ABMS. The results for the simulations regarding these molecules are therefore completely different
and the ABMS results are always zero.
Figures 16, 17, 18 and 19 contrast the ODEs results with the closest results obtained from ABMS. For all
experiments, ABMS demanded far more computational resources than the ODEs simulation runs.

Summary

The third case study comprised interactions between effector cells, tumour cells and two types of cytokines,
namely IL-2 and TGF- 3. There were two important aspects observed in the ABMS outcomes. The first
observation is that the TGF- 3 population was not present in the simulation when using the mathematical
model’s parameters, as its numbers are real values smaller than one. This indicates that there is the need of
further model validation with real data in order to check which paradigm outcome is closer to reality. The
second aspect observed is that ABMS produces extra patterns of population behaviour (extreme cases)
distinct from that obtained by the mathematical model. This could in turn lead to the discovery of other realworld patterns, which would otherwise not be revealed by deterministic models.

Conclusions
In the literature there is little work related to the application of ABMS to cancer research. ODE models are
more frequently used instead. Immune research could benefit from ABMS as an alternative to ODE
modelling that overcomes some of its limitations regarding emergence, individual memory, adaptation and
spatial localization. In this paper, our aim was to outline the possible contribution of ABMS to early-stage
cancer research by immunologists. In order to achieve our aim, three research questions were defined: (1) Is
it possible to obtain an equivalent agent-based model from the original mathematical formulation? (2) Do the
outcomes differ? (3) Are there any benefits of using one method compared to the other? To answer these
questions we chose three well established mathematical models. These differ in terms of population sizes,
types of agents involved and nature of the interactions. A summary of our case studies and findings is
depicted in Table 14.

19

Case study 1 was concerned with the use of ODEs to model interactions with general immune effector
cells and tumour cells. The objective of this model is to observe these two populations evolving overtime and
to evaluate the impacts of cancer treatment in their dynamics. Four different scenarios regarding distinct sets
of parameters were investigated and in the first three scenarios treatment was included. The ABMS produced
very different results for most scenarios. The outcomes from ODEs and ABMS only resembled for Scenario
1. It appears that two major characteristics of this model influenced the differences obtained: (1) The small
quantities of individuals considered in the simulations (especially regarding the effector population size,
which was always smaller than ten) that significantly increase the variability of the ABMS; and (2) The
original mathematical model considers fractional population sizes (smaller than one) which is impossible to
be considered in ABMS. In addition to this particular model’s characteristics, for any mathematical model
considering cyclic intervals of growth or decay of populations observed in our studies, the corresponding
curves in the ABMS outcomes are more accentuated, given the fact that ODEs changes quantities
continuously whereas ABMS varies discretely. Small numbers do not allow to recreate predator-prey patterns
in stochastic models, as such models need to be perfectly balanced to work. Stochasticity in small models
does not allow such balance and therefore might produce chaos.
Case study 2 referred to the investigation of the interactions between effector cells, cytokines IL-2 and
tumour cells, and only one scenario was considered. ODEs and ABMS simulations also produced very similar
results. As populations’ sizes had a magnitude of 104 individuals, the ABMS erratic behaviour in the
outcomes was not evident, which contributed to the outcomes similarity. The differences observed in the
curves were explained by the continuous numbers produced by the ODEs versus discrete values from ABMS.
Case study 3 added complexity to the previous case study by establishing a mathematical model including
the influence of the cytokine TGF- 3 in the interactions between effector cells, cytokines IL-2 and tumour
cells. The simulation outcomes for the ABMS were mostly following the same pattern as that produced by
the ODEs; however there were some alternative outcomes where the patterns of behaviour demonstrated a
total extermination of tumour cells by the first two hundred days. This indicates that for this case study the
ABMS results are more informative, as they illustrate another set of possible dynamics that should be
validated through further immune experimentation.
In response to our research questions, we conclude that not everything modelled in ODEs can be implemented in ABMS (e.g. no half agents); however – this does not matter if population sizes in the original
model definition are large enough. In addition, population size has a positive impact on result similarity.
The bigger the population, the closer the simulation outputs. Finally, ABMS can contribute additional

20

insight, as due to its stochastic nature it can produce different results (normal and extreme cases). Further, variability
in the graph is closer to the real world, although knowing the underlying pattern might be more useful. ODEs
therefore also have an advantage as they show more clearly underlying patterns in the output (as for example
predator-prey pattern) .
In the future, we want to investigate new case studies and systematically determine when phenomena
such as agent-based stochasticity mostly influences on the outcome differences and in which circumstances
extreme cases occur. In addition, with regard to extreme cases, it is necessary to gain additional insights of
(1) how frequent these extreme cases occur and (2) wether there is any relation between the frequency of
occurrence of these cases in the simulation and in the real-world. For example, we could count the
appearance of these unusual cases (as a measure of system stability or robustness of the solution) when
running the experiments 10 , 000 times. This could help immunologists defining vaccination strategies and
appropriateness of cancer treatments by making them aware of the possible outcome scenarios and how
frequently they occur.

List of Abbreviations
ODE Ordinary differential equation
ABMS Agent-based modelling and simulation
Authors Contributions
Grazziela Figueredo developed the agent-based simulation models, carried out the experiments and drafted the
manuscript. Peer-Olaf Siebers helped drafting the manuscript and reviewed it critically for important
intellectual content. Uwe Aickelin reviewed the manuscript and gave the final approval of the version to be
published.

21

Figures
Figure 1 - Tumour cell agent

Figure 2 - ABMS state charts for case 1

(a) Tumour cell agent

(b) Effector cell agent

22

Figure 3 - Results for case 1 scenario 1

Scenario 1 using ODE

Scenario 1 using ABMS

60

6

6 0

Tumour cells
Effector cells

4

0

2

0

20

40

60

80

Effectorcells

Tumour cells

20

40
Effector cells

Tumourcells

40

20

0
100

0

6

Days

4

2

0
0

20

40

Days

60

80

100

Figure 4 - Results for case 1 scenario 2

Scenario 2 using ODE

Scenario 2 using ABMS

10

10

200

8

150

6

150

6

100

4

100

4

50

2

50

2

0

0

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

0
0

Days

20

40

60
Days

23

80

100

Effector cells

8

Tumour cells

200

Effector cells

Tumour cells

Tumour cells
Effector cells

Figure 5 - Results for case 1 scenario 3

Scenario 3 using ODE

100

10

Scenario 3 using ABMS

100

10

Tumour cells
Effector cells
80

8

80

6

40

4

20

2

0
0

20

40

60

0
100

80

6

60
Tumourcells

Tumourcells

60

8

40

4

20

2

0
0

20

40

Days

60

80

0
100

Days

Figure 6 - Results for case 1 scenario 4

600

600

Scenario 4 using ODE

10

Scenario 4 using ABMS

10
Tumour cells
Effector cells

480

6

Effector cell s
240

4

120

2

0
0

20

40

60

80

0
100

8

6

360
Tumourcells

360
Tumourcells

480

8

4

240

2

120

0
0

Days

0
20

40

60
Days

24

80

100

Figure 7 - ABMS state charts for the agents of case 2

Figure 8 - ODEs and ABMS results for effector cells of case 2

4.5

x 104

Effector cells from ODE

4.5

4

Effector cells from ABMS

4

3.5

3.5

3

3

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5
0

x 104

0

0.5

100

200

300
Days

400

500

0

600

25

0

100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

Figure 9 - ODEs and ABMS results for tumour cells of case 2

6

x 104

Tumour cells from ODE

x 104

Tumour cells from ABMS

6
5
5
4
4
3

3

2

2

1

1

0

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0
Days

Figure 10 - ODEs and ABMS results for IL2 of case 2

2

x 104

IL−2 from ODE

2

1.8

1.8

1.6

1.6

1.4

1.4

1.2

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0

IL−2 from ABMS

1

0.8

0

x 104

100

200

300

400

500

0

600

Days

0

100

200

300
Days

26

400

500

600

Figure 11 - ABS state charts for the agents of case 3

Figure 12 - ODEs and ten runs of ABMS results for effector cells of case 3

5.5

x 104

Effector cells from ODE

5.5

5

5

4.5

4.5

4

4

3.5

3.5

3

3

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

Effector cells from ABMS

1

0.5
0
0

x 104

0.5
0
100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

0

27

100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

Figure 13 - ODEs and ten runs of ABMS results for tumour cells of case 3

11

x 104

Tumour cells from ODE

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

0
0

0

2.5

100

200

x 104

300
Days

400

500

600

0

IL−2 from ODE

2.5

2

Tumour cells from ABMS

100

200

x 104

300
Days

400

500

600

IL−2 from ABMS

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

0

x 104

0

0.5

100

200

300

400

500

0

600

0

100

200

300

Figure 14 - ODEs and ten runs of ABMS results for IL-2
of case 3
Days

Days

28

400

500

600

Figure 15 - ODEs and ten runs of ABMS results for TGF- 0 of case 3

4

x 10−3

TGF−Beta from ODE

4

3.5

3.5

3

3

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

x 10−3

TGF−Beta from ABMS

0.5

0
0

0
100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

0100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

Figure 16 - ODEs and ABMS results for effector cells of case 3

5.5

x 104

Effector cells from ODE

5.5

5

5

4.5

4.5

4

4

3.5

3.5

3

3

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

x 104

Effector cells from ABMS

1

0.5

0.5

0

0
0

100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

0100

29

200

300
Days

400

500

600

Figure 17 - ODEs and ABMS results for tumour cells of case 3

11

x 104

Tumour cells from ODE

x 104

11

10

10

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

6

5

5

4

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

0

0

100

200

300

400

500

0

600

0

Tumour cells from ABMS

100

200

Days

2.5

x 104

IL−2 from ODE

2.5

2

400

500

600

x 104

IL−2 from ABMS

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

0

300
Days

0

0.5

100

200

300

400

500

0

600

0

100

200

300

Figure 18 - ODEs and ABMS results for IL-2 of case 3
Days

Days

30

400

500

600

Figure 19 - ODEs and ABMS results for TGF-0 of case 3

4

x 10−3

x 10−3
TGF−Beta from ABMS
4 _______________________________________

TGF−Beta from ODE

3.5

3.5

3

3

2.5

2.5

2

2

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5
0
0

0.5
0
100

200

300
Days

400

500

600

0100

200

300
Days

400

500

Tables
Table 1 - Case studies considered

Case Study
1) Tumour/Effector
2) Tumour/Efector/IL-2
3) Tumour/Effector/IL-2/ TGF-0

Number of populations
2
3
4

Population size
6 to 600
104
104

Table 2 - Agents’ parameters and behaviours for the tumour growth model

Parameters
a, alpha, b and beta

Reactive behaviour
Dies if rate < 0

Proactive behaviour
Proliferates if rate > 0

31

Complexity
Low
Medium
High

600

Table 3 - Agents’ parameters and behaviours for case 1

Agent
Tumour Cellm

Effector Cellp

Parameters
a and b
a and b

Reactive behaviour
Dies (with age)

n
m
d

Dies killed by effector cells
Dies (with age)
Dies per apoptosis

s

Proactive behaviour
Proliferates
Damages effector cells

and g

Proliferates
Is injected as treatment

Table 4 - Transition rates calculations from the mathematical equations for case 1

Agent

Transition

Mathematical equation

Transition rate

proliferation

aT(1 − Tb)

a − (TotalTumour.b)

death

aT(1 − Tb)

a − (TotalTumour.b)

dieKilledByEffectorCells

nTE

n.TotalEffectorCells

causeEffectorDamage

mTE

m

Proliferation

pT E
g+T

p.T otalT umourCells
g+TotalTumourCells

DieWithAge

dE

d

DiePerApoptosis

mTE

message from tumour

Tumour Cell

Effector Cell

32

Table 5 - Simulation parameters for different scenarios of case 1. For the other parameters, the values are
the same in all experiments, i.e. a = 1.636, g = 20.19, m = 0.00311, n = 1 and p = 1.131.

Scenario
1
2
3
4

Table 6

b
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.002

ABS
ABS - Fix 1
ABS - Fix 2

Cells
Tumour
Effector
Tumour
Effector
Tumour
Effector

1
0
0.3789
0
0
0
0

Scenario (p-value)
4
2
3
0
0.8591
0
0.6475
0
0
0
0
0.0011
0.3023
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

- Agents’ parameters and behaviours for case 2

Agent

Effector Cells1

Tumour Cell

IL-2

s
0.318
0.318
0.1181
0

- Wilcoxon test with 5% significance level comparing case 1 simulation results

Implementation

Table 7

d
0.1908
2
0.3743
0.3743

Parameters
mu2
p1 and g1
c
p2 and g3
aa and g2
a and b
a and b
aa and g2
c
p2 and g3
mu3
s2

Reactive behaviour
Dies

Proactive behaviour
Reproduces

Is recruited
Is injected as treatment
Produces IL-2
Kills tumour cells
Dies
Proliferates
Dies killed by effector cells
Induces effector recruitment
Is produced
Is lost
Is injected

33

Table 8 - Transition rates calculations from the mathematical equations for case 2

Agent

Transition

Mathematical equation

Transition rate

Reproduce

p1.ILE
g1+IL 2

p1.T otalIL 2.T otalEffector
g1+TotalIL 2

Die

µ2E

mu2

killTumour

aaET
g2+T

ProduceIL2

p2ET
g3+T

p2.T otalT umour
g3+TotalTumour

Reproduce

aT(1 − bT)

a − (TotalTumour.b)

Die

aT(1 − bT)

a − (TotalTumour.b)

DieKilledByEffector

aaT E
g2+T

message from effector

Loss

µ3IL

mu3

Effector Cell

Tumour Cell

IL-2

aa

Table 9 - Parameter values for case 2

Parameter
a
b
c
aa
g2
s1
s2
mu2
p1
g1
p2
g3
mu3

Value
0.18
0.000000001
0.05
1
100000
0
0
0.03
0.1245
20000000
5
1000
10

34

T otalT umour
g2+T otalT umour

Table 10 - Wilcoxon test with 5% significance level comparing the results from the ODEs and
ABMS for case 2

Population
Effector
Tumour
IL2

p
0.7231
0.5710
0.4711

Table 11 - Agents’ parameters and behaviours for case 3

Agent
Effector Cell

Tumour Cellg3

IL-2
TGF-3

Parameters
mu1
p1, g1, q1 and q2
c
aa and g2
a
a
aa and g2
and p2
p4 and tetha
c
alpha, p3 and g4
mu2
p4 and tetha
mu3
p2 and g3

Reactive behaviour
Dies

Proactive behaviour
Reproduces

Is recruited
Kills tumour cells
Dies
Proliferates
Dies killed by effector cells
Has growth stimulated
Produces TGF-3
Induces effector recruitment
Is produced
Is lost
Is produced
Is lost
Stimulates tumour growth

35

Table 12 - Transition rates calculations from the mathematical equations for case 3

Agent

Transition
Reproduce

Mathematical equation

1
1+
p1−

(

X

Transition rate

1×2

X

1+2
p1 − +×21


(

)
1+

)

Die

µ1E

mu1

ProduceIL2

3
(4+)(1+)

3
(4+)(1+)

KillTumour

“
2+

××
2+

Effector Cell

Reproduce

Die

Tumour Cell

IL-2

TGF-f3

(aT (1 −
(aT (1 −

1000000000))



))

(TotalTumour.a (1 − 1000000000))
(TotalTumour.a (1 −

DieKilledByEffector

“
2+

message from effector

ProduceTGF

42
2+2

4
2+2





EffectorRecruitment

1+

1+

Loss

µ2I

mu2

Loss

µ3S

mu3

2
3+

2
3+

stimulates
TumourGrowth

36

))
1000000000



1000000000

Table 13 - Parameter values for case 3

Parameter
a
aa
alpha
c
g1
g2
g3
g4
gamma
mu1
mu2
mu3
p1
p2
p3
p4
q1
q2
theta

Value
0.18
1
0.001
0.035
20000000
100000
20000000
1000
10
0.03
10
10
0.1245
0.27
5
2.84
10
0.1121
1000000

Table 14 - Summary of findings

Case Study

Outcome of the comparison

1) Tumour/Effector

 Most results were different

2) Tumour/Efector

 Results were statistically /IL-2 the same

 Different runs with outcome variations
 Simulations produced alternative scenarios
3) Tumour/Effector/ IL-  The behaviour of the curves
is less erratic for agents
2/ TGF-9

Explanation
 It appears that variabilities in
small populations have major
impacts in the outcomes
 Large populations
 Less variability in the
agents’ populations
 Agent-based stochasticity
 New scenarios need further
investigations to assess
their feasibility
 Large numbers of agents

Population size
Varied from
6 to 600
104

104

References
1. Wodarz D, Nowak MA: Mathematical models of HIV pathogenesis and treatment. BioEssays 2002, 24(12):1178–
1187, [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.10196].
2. Eftimie R, Bramson JL, Earn DJ: Interactions Between the Immune System and Cancer: A Brief
Review of Non-spatial Mathematical Models. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 2010.

37

3.

Gruber J: Models of Immune Systems: The Use of Differential Equations Last accessed 13 Jun 2011, Available at:
http://www.lymenet.de/literatur/immundif.htm.

4.

Borshchev A, Filippov A: From System Dynamics and Discrete Event to Practical Agent Based
Modeling: Reasons, Techniques, Tools. In Proceedings of the XXII International Conference of the System
Dynamics society. 2004.

5.

Louzoun Y: The evolution of mathematical immunology. Immunological Reviews 2007, 216:9–20.

6.

Pidd M: Tools for thinking: Modelling in management science. Wiley. Chichester, UK 2003.

7.

Robinson S: Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use. John Wiley and sons, Ltd 2004.

8.

Banks JASC (Ed): What is Modelling and Simulation? , John Wiley and Sons, Inc 2009 chap. 1, :3–23.

9.

Macal CM, North MJ: Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. In Proceedings of the 2005 Winter
Simulation Conference 2005.

10. Wooldridge M: An Introduction to Multiagent Systems. John Wiley and Sons Inc, England 2002.
11. C M Macal MJN: Tutorial on agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation 2010, 4(3):151–
162.
12. Kim PS, Levy D, Lee PP: Modeling and Simulation of the Immune System as a Self-Regulating Network. In
Journal of Simulation, Volume 467 of Methods in Enzymology, Academic Press 2009:79 – 109.
13. Look AT, Schriber TJ, Nawrocki JF, Murphy WH: Computer simulation of the cellular immune response to
malignant lymphoid cells: logic of approach, model design and laboratory verification. Immunology 1981,
43(4):677–690.
14. Martin S Zand AB Benjamin J Briggs, Vo T: Discrete Event Modeling of CD4+ Memory T Cell Generation. The
Journal of Immunology 2004, 173(6):3763–3772.
15. Figge MT: Stochastic discrete event simulation of germinal center reactions. Phys. Rev. E 2005,
71(5):051907.
16. Casal A, Sumen C, Reddy TE: Agent-based modeling of the context dependency in T cell recognition. J Theor Biol
2005, 236:376–391.
17. J L Segovia-Juarez DK S Ganguli: Identifying control mechanisms of granuloma formation during M.
tuberculosis infection using an agent-based model. J Theor Biol 2004, 231:357–376.
18. Fachada N, Lopes V, Rosa A: Agent-based modelling and simulation of the immune system: a review. In EPIA
2007 - 13th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2007.
19. Scholl HJ: Agent-based and system dynamics modeling: a call for cross study and joint research. In Proceedings
of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences 2001.
20. Pourdehnad J, Maani K, Sedehi H: System Dynamics and Intelligent Agent based simulation: where is the
synergy? In Proceedings of the XX International Conference of the System Dynamics society. 2002.
21. Stemate L, Taylor I, Pasca C: A COMPARISON BETWEEN SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND AGENT
BASED MODELING AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CROSS-FERTILIZATION. In Proceedings of the
2007 Winter Simulation Conference , S. G. Henderson, B. Biller, M.-H. Hsieh, J. Shortle, J. D. Tew, and R.
R. Barton 2007.
22. Schieritz N: Integrating System Dynamics and Agent-Based Modeling. In Proceedings of the XX International
Conference of the System Dynamics society. 2002.
23. Schieritz N, Milling PM: Modeling the forrest or modeling the trees: A comparison of system dynamics
and agent based simulation. In Proceedings of the XXI International Conference of the System Dynamics
society. 2003.
24. Schieritz N, Grö/3ler A: Emergent Structures in supply chains: a study integrating agent-based and
system dynamics modeling. In Proceedings of the XXI International Conference of the System Dynamics
society. 2003.
25. Ramandad H, Sterman J: Heterogeneity and Network Structure in the Dynamics of Diffusion: Comparing Agent-Based and Differential Equation Models. Management Science 2008, 5(5).

38

26. Schieritz N: Exploring the agent vocabulary – emergency and evolution in system dynamics. In Proceedings of the
2004 system dynamics conference. 2004.
27. Lorenz T: Abductive Fallacies with Agent-Based Modelling and System Dynamics. Epistemological Aspects of
Computer Simulation in the Social Sciences 2009, 5466(4):141–152.
28. XJ: XJ Technologies Simulation Software Services. Anylogic Multi-Method Simulation Tool Last accessed 02 Jun 2010,
Available: http://www.xjtek.com/anylogic/download/.
29. Figueredo GP, Aickelin U, Siebers PO: Systems Dynamics or Agent-Based Modelling for Immune Simulation? In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Immune Systems 2011.
30. Figueredo GP, Aickelin U: Investigating Immune System Aging: System Dynamics and Agent-Based Modelling.
In Proceedings of the Summer Computer Simulation Conference 2010 2010.
31. Bennett S, Skelton J, Lunn K: Schaum’s Outline of UML. London: McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition 2005, [http:
//www.mcgraw-hill.co.uk/html/0077107411.html]. [ISBN: 9780077107413].
32. Kuznetsov VA, Makalkin IA, Taylor MA, Perelson AS: Nonlinear dynamics of immunogenic tumors:
parameter estimation and global bifurcation analysis. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 1994, 56(2):295–
321.
33. Kirschner D, Panneta JC: Modelling immunotherapy of the tumor immune interaction. J. Math. Biol. 1998,
1(37):235–252.
34. Arciero JC, Jackson TL, Kirschner DE: A mathematical model of tumor-immune evasion and siRNA treatment.
Discrete and continumous dynamical systems - series B 2004, 4:39–58.

39

