Edge eects in game theoretic dynamics of spatially structured tumours.

Artem Kaznatcheev1 , Jacob G. Scott2,3 & David Basanta2

1

arXiv:1307.6914v1 [q-bio.PE] 26 Jul 2013

School of Computer Science and Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada 2 Integrated Mathematical Oncology, H. Lee Mott Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA 3 Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Abstract Evolutionary game theory has been used to model many situations in ecology where dierent species, or dierent phenotypes within one species, compete against one another. Of late, this has extended to cancer biology to understand the dynamics of disease progression as a game between competing cellular phenotypes. A major assumption in this modeling paradigm is that the population is inviscid: the probability of a player with a given phenotypic strategy interacting with another depends exclusively on the respective abundance of those strategies in the population. While there are scenarios where this assumption might be useful, in solid tumours, where the populations have spatial structure, this assumption can yield misleading results. In this study we use a recently developed mathematical tool, the Ohtsuki-Nowak transform, to study the eect of interaction neighborhood size on a canonical evolutionary cancer game: go vs. grow. We show that spatial structure promotes invasive (go) strategy. By considering the change in neighbourhood size at a boundary we show an edge eect in solid tumours. This edge eect allows a tumour with no invasive phenotypes expressed internally to have a polyclonal boundary with both invasive and non-invasive cells. We focus on evolutionary game dynamics between competing cancer cells, but we anticipate that our approach can be extended to games between other types of players where interaction neighborhoods change at the system boundary.

Contributed equally artem.kaznatcheev@mail.mcgill.ca, jacob.g.scott@gmail.com, david@CancerEvo.org

Introduction

Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) is a mathematical approach to modeling frequencydependent selection where players interact strategically not by choosing from a set of strategies but using a xed strategy given by their phenotype. This tool has been used to model many ecological scenarios including yeast population dynamics [1], invasive species [2], community dynamics in plants [3] and many more. Recently, because of the evolutionary nature of cancer [4, 5], it has been applied to study how the interactions between dierent types of cells in a polyclonal tumour could drive the evolutionary dynamics of a given cancer. The rst use of EGT in the eld of cancer was done by Tomlinson and Bodmer [6, 7]: in their models, EGT is used to analyse the circumstances that lead to coexistence of two phenotypes. Subsequent research carried out by Bach and colleagues extended this idea to interactions between three players in the angiogenesis problem [8]. Gatenby and Vincent adopted a game theory model heavily inuenced by population dynamics to investigate the inuence of the tumour-host interface in colorectal carcinogenesis [9, 10] and suggested therapeutic strategies [11]. Our own work, as well as that of others, has shown that EGT can be used to study the conditions that select for more aggressive tumour phenotypes in gliomas [12, 13], colorectal cancer [9, 10], multiple myeloma [14] and prostate cancer [15]. Furthermore, EGT has been used to investigate the impact of treatment on cancer progression [16, 17]. For an in depth overview of the game theoretical approach to cancer, see Basanta and colleagues review [18]. A standard assumption in evolutionary game theory is a perfectly mixed (inviscid) population, in which every cell in the population is equally likely to interact with every other cell [19, 20]. This may be a reasonable assumption in liquid tumours, but in solid tumours (or any situation being modeled) in which spatial structure is important, the validity of this assumption should be questioned. The current solution to this is to map analytic EGT cancer models onto a lattice and run in-silico experiments to simulate the resulting Cellular Automaton [21, 22, 23]. Unfortunately, such transformations sacrice the analytical power and full theoretical understanding of pure EGT approaches. To analytically model how spatial structure eects evolutionary games in the limit of very large populations and weak selection, Ohtsuki & Nowak [24] derived a simple rule for taking a rst-order approximation of spatial structure. Given a game matrix A, one can compute the Ohtsuki-Nowak (ON) transform A = ONk (A) and can recover the dynamics of the spatially structured game A by simply looking at the inviscid replicator equation of A . Here, we present the transform in a form that stresses its important qualitative aspects: ONk (A) = A + 1 (1T 1T ) + k2
local dispersal

1 (A AT ) (k + 1)(k 2)
nite sampling from death-birth updating

(1)

Where 1 is the all ones vector and is the diagonal of the game matrix A = [aij ], i.e. i = aii ; thus, 1T (1T ) is a matrix with diagonal elements repeated to ll each row (column). The rst summand is the original payo matrix. The second summand accounts 2

for the more common same-strain interactions that are a consequence of local dispersal. The type of perturbation in the third summand was shown by Hilbe [25] to result from nite sampling of interaction partners. In this study, we incorporate spatial structure into the canonical go versus grow game [23, 26] in which proliferation and motility compete within a tumour. We use our spatial treatment to consider a familiar scenario for conservation biology the edge eect of an ecological system (usually a forest in landscape ecology) coming in contact with a boundary [27, 28, 29]. In tumour progression, this is analogous to a system of cancer cells surrounded entirely by other cells coming into contact with a physical boundary, such as a basement membrane, organ capsule or blood vessel. Encountering such an edge (or boundary) represents one of several key moment in cancer progression: the change from in situ to invasive; locally contained to regional advanced growth; and the dramatic shift from local to metastatic disease. We show a striking change in the evolutionary game dynamics that occurs at the tumours physical boundary (Fig. 1). This study represents, to our knowledge, the rst attempt to understand the eects of changing neighborhood structure on evolutionary game dynamics of tumours.

Figure 1: A tumour growing far from a boundary has a neighborhood (green) which is large (e.g. turquoise cell) compared to that of the cells as they reach physical boundaries (e.g pink cell) like a blood vessel or basement membrane. When modeling, it is important to consider these two regions (next to membrane or other boundary; and deep inside the tumour) and model their spatial structure dierently, even if other game parameters are the same.

Inviscid game for motility

We consider the situation in which a mutation can confer motility/invasiveness (INV) to tumour cells that already capable of proliferation or autonomous growth (AG). The game has 2 parameters: c is the direct and/or indirect cost of motility incurred by cells with the 3

INV phenotype resulting from the reduced proliferation rate of motile/invasive cells [30], and b is the maximum tness a tumour cell will have under ideal circumstances when it does not have to share space or nutrients with other cells.1 With INV as strategy 1 and AG as strategy 2, the games payo matrix is:
1 b 2

INV AG

INV AG 1 + 2 (b c) b c 1 b b 2

(2)

To understand the inviscid model [23], imagine two cells meeting at random in a resource spot. If both are motile (INV) then one cell stays in the resource spot and consumes the resources b, and the other pays a cost, c, to move and nd a new empty site with resources b. 2 As the cell that has to move is chosen randomly from the two, the expected payo for each cell is the average of the no-move (b) and move (b c) payos. On the other hand, if an INV cell meets an AG cell then the INV cell will move, incurring the cost, c, before receiving the benet, b, for a total tness (b c). The AG cell, however, will stay in this case and consume all the resources (b). Finally, if two non-motile cells (AG) are in the same resource spot then they simply share the resources, for a payo of b/2.

Spatial eects and boundaries

Whenever b > c, the game in eq. 2 is a social dilemma with invasive cells as the cooperators, and AG cells as defectors. Rules of thumb from EGT [31] suggest that cooperators benet from the structure of small interaction neighbourhoods, in agreement with our biological intuition that, in this game, having the ability for conditional motion is of more use in a more structured and viscous environment than in one where all cells are already stochastically moving around and interacting at random. We look at this formally by explicitly considering spatial eects on the previously inviscid model. Applying the transform from equation 1 to the game in equation 2 yields: 2 2 k 3 2 k k 5 1 b + 1 (b c) b c 2 2 2(k 2) 2(k 2)(k + 1) . (3) k+3 b b 2k 5 + c 2 2(k 2) 2(k 2)(k + 1) This game has three qualitatively dierent regimes that depend on the value of
c b

and k :

1. If kk2+1 c then there is a single stable xed point with all cells invasive. All polyclonal +1 b tumors evolve toward this xed point. For inviscid populations (k ) this condition
Since the units of measure are arbitrary, it is usually just the ratio c/b that matters for game theoretic dynamics. 2 If after a move, a motile cell only nds a new empty spot with probability r, then the expected move payo is rb c. This can be captured as an indirect cost by adjusting the cost to be c = c + (1 r)b without introducing an extra parameter.
1

is satised only if motility is cost-free (c = 0) and hence the possibility of an all invasive tumour was not noticed in previous non-spatial analysis [23]. 2. If kk2+1 < c < 2kk+1 then the game has Hawk-Dove dynamics and there is a stable +1 b +1 polyclonal equilibrium with a proportion p of INV cells: p= 1 1 2c b 2c + bc k 2 (k + 1)(k 2) (b c) (4)

All polyclonal populations will converge toward this proportion of INV cells. In the unstructured limit as k we have perfect agreement with our previous results [23] 1 that was assumed for the inviscid equilibrium to exist and recover the condition c b 2 2c and the exact numeric value of bb for the equilibrium proportion of INV agents. For c any nite k the proportion of invasive cells is strictly higher. c then the game has Prisoners dilemma dynamics any polyclonal population 3. If 2kk+1 +1 b converges toward all AG and the tumor remains non-invasive.
1 The above three regimes are plotted in gure 2. When k = 0, we have the game as 2 1 studied previously [23] and for k2 = 1 we have the most structured regime possible with small neighbourhoods (k = 3). The red region corresponds to a completely INV tumour, the yellow to a polyclonal tumour, and the green to all AG. As we make the tumor more structured and reduce the number of neighbours, it becomes easier for the INV cells to be = 0.53 and as in gure 1 in expressed in the tumor. In particular, consider the case where c b the tumor away from boundary (the teal cell) there are k = 8 neighbours and the dynamics favour all AG, so no INV cells will be present at equilibrium. However, when the solid tumor presses against a boundary then for cells at the edge the number of neighbours decreases to k = 5 (the purple cell) and the dynamics at the boundary favour a polyclonal population with about 8% of the cells INV. The edge eect causes a polyclonal boundary in a tumor with a homogeneous all AG body.

Discussion

A standard assumption in evolutionary game theory is that all players interact with all other players: the population is inviscid. There are a number of biological scenarios in which such an assumption could be misleading, and we consider such a scenario in the form several key aspects of solid tumour progression. Applying the Ohtsuki-Nowak transform [24] to the standard go-grow game of mathematical oncology [23], we have shown a quantitative eect: spatial-structured tumours promote the invasive phenotype compared to inviscid tumours with the same ratio of cost of motility to benet of resources c/b. We also considered the decrease in neighbourhood size experienced by cells at the boundary of a tumour, compared to cells within the tumour body. This could represent a number of feasible and very relevant scenarios, including when a tumour rst encounters a blood vessel or organ capsule, or when an in situ neoplasm reaches the basement membrane. We have shown that this change in 5

1 Figure 2: Level of viscosity k versus relative cost of motility c . The parameter space is 2 b divided into three regions that correspond to qualitatively dierent dynamics. In the red, the population evolves toward all INV; in the yellow toward a polyclonal tumor of INV 1 = 0 (k ) and AG cells; and in the green the tumor remains benign (all AG). When k 2 1 we recover the standard replicator dynamics of our previous work [23]. For k2 = 1 (k = 3, labeled by the top-most dotted line), we have the most structured environment to which the ON-transform applies. The second horizontal dotted line marks k = 5 (pink cell in g. 1) and the bottom line is k = 8 (teal cell in g. 1). The vertical dotted lines shows that is possible to see a qualitative shift in dynamics with the game xed at c/b = 0.53 by decreasing k from 1 from 1/6 to 1/3) at the tumour boundary. 8 and 5 (increasing k 2

neighbourhood for the proliferating tumour cells can, independently from any other parameters, signicantly eect the evolutionary stable strategies: in this case a promotion of the INV phenotype. The edge eect allows a tumour that internally has no invasive phenotypes expressed to have a polyclonal boundary with both invasive and non-invasive cells. The results of our mathematical model could have signicant translational implications. Genetic heterogeneity has recently become recognized as the rule in cancer [32], but as long as physicians have had microscopes, we have realized that spatial organizational heterogeneity was an equally dening factor. The Gleason score [33] is a classic example of greater heterogeneity predicting worse survival in prostate cancer. This spatial heterogeneity corresponds directly to changes in neighborhood structure. We have shown that a specic change in neighbourhood size near a boundary can dramatically alter game dynamics, and select for novel phenotypes. Our work oers a plausible non-genetic explanation for some of the 6

poorer tumour outcomes. We have shown that the local spatial structure of a tumour can strongly eect the evolutionary pressures on its constituent cells, even if all other factors are held constant. This can add yet another source of sampling bias to tissue biopsies and suggests that the architectural, not just the molecular, context is important. Our model was motivated by the study of cancer, but it is based on spatial edge eects in games of interacting players which could represent any number of other scenarios. While we have focused on the specics of metastasis and cancer invasion, this method could yield insights into many other interesting problems ranging from ecology to medicine, and highlights the importance of neighborhood geometry when studying the evolutionary dynamics of competing biological agents.

References
[1] Je Gore, Hyun Youk, and Alexander van Oudenaarden. Snowdrift game dynamics and facultative cheating in yeast. Nature, 459(7244):2536, May 2009. [2] Lauren M Pintor, Joel S Brown, and Thomas L Vincent. Evolutionary game theory as a framework for studying biological invasions. Am Nat, 177(4):41023, Apr 2011. [3] Mar a Uriarte and Hudson Kern Reeve. Matchmaking and species marriage: a gametheory model of community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 100(4):178792, Feb 2003. [4] P C Nowell. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science, 194(4260):2328, October 1976. [5] Mel Greaves and Carlo C Maley. Clonal evolution in cancer. Nature, 481(7381):30613, Jan 2012. [6] I P Tomlinson. Game-theory models of interactions between tumour cells. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 33(9):14951500, August 1997. [7] I P Tomlinson and W F Bodmer. Modelling the consequences of interactions between tumour cells. British Journal of Cancer, 75(2):157160, January 1997. [8] L A Bach, S M Bentzen, J Alsner, and F B Christiansen. An evolutionary-game model of tumour-cell interactions: possible relevance to gene therapy. Eur J Cancer, 37(16):2116 20, Nov 2001. [9] R. Gatenby and T. Vincent. An evolutionary model of carcinogenesis. Cancer Res., 63:62126220, October 2003. [10] R. Gatenby, T. Vincent, and R. Gillies. Evolutionary dynamics in carcinogenesis. MATH MOD METH APPL S, 15(11):16191638, 2005.

[11] R. Gatenby and T. Vincent. Application of quantitative models from population biology and evolutionary game theory to tumor therapeutic strategies. Mol. Cancer Ther., 2:919927, 2007. [12] D Basanta, M Simon, H Hatzikirou, and A Deutsch. Evolutionary game theory elucidates the role of glycolysis in glioma progression and invasion. Cell proliferation, 41(6):980987, December 2008. [13] David Basanta, Jacob G Scott, Russ Rockne, Kristin R Swanson, and Alexander R A Anderson. The role of IDH1 mutated tumour cells in secondary glioblastomas: an evolutionary game theoretical view. Physical biology, 8(1):015016, February 2011. [14] D Dingli, F A C C Chalub, F C Santos, S van Segbroeck, and J M Pacheco. Cancer phenotype as the outcome of an evolutionary game between normal and malignant cells. British Journal of Cancer, 101(7):11301136, October 2009. [15] D Basanta, J G Scott, M N Fishman, G Ayala, S W Hayward, and A R A Anderson. Investigating prostate cancer tumour-stroma interactions: clinical and biological insights from an evolutionary game. British Journal of Cancer, 106(1):174181, January 2012. [16] David Basanta, Robert A Gatenby, and Alexander R A Anderson. Exploiting evolution to treat drug resistance: combination therapy and the double bind. Mol Pharm, 9(4):91421, Apr 2012. [17] Paul A Orlando, Robert A Gatenby, and Joel S Brown. Cancer treatment as a game: integrating evolutionary game theory into the optimal control of chemotherapy. Phys Biol, 9(6):065007, Dec 2012. [18] D. Basanta and A. Deutsch. A game theoretical perspective on the somatic evolution of cancer. In Selected topics on cancer modelling: genesis, evolution, inmune competition, therapy (N. Bellomo, M. Chaplain and E. De Angelis Eds.). Birkhauser, Boston, 2008. [19] J Hofbauer and K Sigmund. Evolutionary games and population dynamics, 1998. [20] Josef Hofbauer and Karl Sigmund. Evolutionary game dynamics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 40(4):479519, 2003. [21] L.A. Bach, D. J. T. Sumpter, J Alsner, and V. Loeschke. Spatial evolutionary games of interaction among generic cancer cells. J. Theor. Med., 5(1):4758, 2003. [22] Y. Mansury, M. Diggory, and T. S. Deisboeck. Evolutionary game theory in an agent based brain tumor model: exploring the genoype phenotype link. J. Theo. Biol., 238:146156, 2006. [23] D Basanta, H Hatzikirou, and A Deutsch. Studying the emergence of invasiveness in tumours using game theory. The European Physical Journal B, 63(3):393397, June 2008. 8

[24] Hisashi Ohtsuki and Martin A Nowak. The replicator equation on graphs. J Theor Biol, 243(1):8697, Nov 2006. [25] Christian Hilbe. Local replicator dynamics: a simple link between deterministic and stochastic models of evolutionary game theory. Bull Math Biol, 73(9):206887, Sep 2011. [26] H Hatzikirou, D Basanta, M Simon, K Schaller, and A Deutsch. Go or Grow: the key to the emergence of invasion in tumour progression? Mathematical medicine and biology : a journal of the IMA, July 2010. [27] Denis A Saunders, Richard J Hobbs, and Chris R Margules. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation biology, 5(1):1832, 1991. [28] Carolina Murcia. Edge eects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10(2):5862, 1995. [29] STA Pickett and ML Cadenasso. Landscape ecology: spatial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science, 269(5222):331334, 1995. [30] A Giese, M A Loo, N Tran, D Haskett, S W Coons, and M E Berens. Dichotomy of astrocytoma migration and proliferation. Int J Cancer, 67(2):27582, Jul 1996. [31] Hisashi Ohtsuki, Christoph Hauert, Erez Lieberman, and Martin A Nowak. A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(7092):5025, May 2006. [32] Marco Gerlinger, Andrew J Rowan, Stuart Horswell, James Larkin, David Endesfelder, Eva Gronroos, Pierre Martinez, Nicholas Matthews, Aengus Stewart, Patrick Tarpey, Ignacio Varela, Benjamin Phillimore, Sharmin Begum, Neil Q McDonald, Adam Butler, David Jones, Keiran Raine, Calli Latimer, Claudio R Santos, Mahrokh Nohadani, Aron C Eklund, Bradley Spencer-Dene, Graham Clark, Lisa Pickering, Gordon Stamp, Martin Gore, Zoltan Szallasi, Julian Downward, P Andrew Futreal, and Charles Swanton. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. The New England journal of medicine, 366(10):883892, March 2012. [33] D F Gleason. Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective. Hum Pathol, 23(3):2739, Mar 1992.