Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A spatial model predicts that dispersal and cell turnover limit intratumour heterogeneity

Nature volume 525, pages 261–264 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Most cancers in humans are large, measuring centimetres in diameter, and composed of many billions of cells1. An equivalent mass of normal cells would be highly heterogeneous as a result of the mutations that occur during each cell division. What is remarkable about cancers is that virtually every neoplastic cell within a large tumour often contains the same core set of genetic alterations, with heterogeneity confined to mutations that emerge late during tumour growth2,3,4,5. How such alterations expand within the spatially constrained three-dimensional architecture of a tumour, and come to dominate a large, pre-existing lesion, has been unclear. Here we describe a model for tumour evolution that shows how short-range dispersal and cell turnover can account for rapid cell mixing inside the tumour. We show that even a small selective advantage of a single cell within a large tumour allows the descendants of that cell to replace the precursor mass in a clinically relevant time frame. We also demonstrate that the same mechanisms can be responsible for the rapid onset of resistance to chemotherapy. Our model not only provides insights into spatial and temporal aspects of tumour growth, but also suggests that targeting short-range cellular migratory activity could have marked effects on tumour growth rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Structure of solid neoplasms.
Figure 2: Short-range dispersal affects size, shape and growth rate of tumours.
Figure 3: Treatment success rates depend on the net growth rate of tumours.
Figure 4: Genetic diversity is strongly reduced by the emergence of driver mutations.

References

  1. Vogelstein, B. et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546–1558 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Yachida, S. et al. Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature 467, 1114–1117 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sottoriva, A. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity in human glioblastoma reflects cancer evolutionary dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 4009–4014 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Navin, N. et al. Tumour evolution inferred by single-cell sequencing. Nature 472, 90–94 (2011)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gerlinger, M. et al. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 883–892 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gatenby, R. A. & Vincent, T. L. An evolutionary model of carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 63, 6212–6220 (2003)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnston, M. D., Edwards, C. M., Bodmer, W. F., Maini, P. K. & Chapman, S. J. Mathematical modeling of cell population dynamics in the colonic crypt and in colorectal cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 4008–4013 (2007)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bozic, I. et al. Accumulation of driver and passenger mutations during tumor progression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18545–18550 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Beerenwinkel, N. et al. Genetic progression and the waiting time to cancer. PLOS Comput. Biol. 3, e225 (2007)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Durrett, R. & Moseley, S. Evolution of resistance and progression to disease during clonal expansion of cancer. Theor. Popul. Biol. 77, 42–48 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. González-Garcia, I., Sole, R. V. & Costa, J. Metapopulation dynamics and spatial heterogeneity in cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 13085–13089 (2002)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Thalhauser, C. J., Lowengrub, J. S., Stupack, D. & Komarova, N. L. Selection in spatial stochastic models of cancer: migration as a key modulator of fitness. Biol. Direct 5, 21 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Martens, E. A., Kostadinov, R., Maley, C. C. & Hallatschek, O. Spatial structure increases the waiting time for cancer. New J. Phys. 13, 115014 (2011)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson, A. R. A., Weaver, A. M., Cummings, P. T. & Quaranta, V. Tumor morphology and phenotypic evolution driven by selective pressure from the microenvironment. Cell 127, 905–915 (2006)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim, Y., Magdalena, A. S. & Othmer, H. G. A hybrid model for tumor spheroid growth in vitro I: theoretical development and early results. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 17, 1773–1798 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. McDougall, S. R., Anderson, A. R. & Chaplain, M. A. Mathematical modeling of dynamic adaptive tumour-induced angiogenesis: clinical implications and therapeutic targeting strategies. J. Theor. Biol. 241, 564–589 (2006)

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hawkins-Daarud, A., Rockne, R. C., Anderson, A. R. A. & Swanson, K. R. Modeling tumor-associated edema in gliomas during anti-angiogenic therapy and its impact on imageable tumor. Front. Oncol. 3, 66 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. McDonald, O. G., Wu, H., Timp, W., Doi, A. & Feinberg, A. P. Genome-scale epigenetic reprogramming during epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 18, 867–874 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Komarova, N. L. & Wodarz, D. Drug resistance in cancer: principles of emergence and prevention. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9714–9719 (2005)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Bozic, I., Allen, B. & Nowak, M. A. Dynamics of targeted cancer therapy. Trends Mol. Med. 18, 311–316 (2012)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Bozic, I. & Nowak, M. A. Timing and heterogeneity of mutations associated with drug resistance in metastatic cancers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 15964–15968 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Turke, A. B. et al. Preexistence and clonal selection of MET amplification in EGFR mutant NSCLC. Cancer Cell 17, 77–88 (2010)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Komarova, N. L. Spatial interactions and cooperation can change the speed of evolution of complex phenotypes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10789–10795 (2014)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Talmadge, J. E. & Fidler, I. J. AACR Centennial Series: the biology of cancer metastasis: historical perspective. Cancer Res. 70, 5649–5669 (2010)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Alcolea, M. P. et al. Differentiation imbalance in single oesophageal progenitor cells causes clonal immortalization and field change. Nature Cell Biol. 16, 615–622 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Weber, K. et al. RGB marking facilitates multicolor clonal cell tracking. Nature Med. 17, 504–509 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bordeleau, F., Alcoser, T. A. & Reinhart-King, C. A. Physical biology in cancer. 5. The rocky road of metastasis: the role of cytoskeletal mechanics in cell migratory response to 3D matrix topography. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 306, C110–C120 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lawson, C. D. & Burridge, K. The on-off relationship of Rho and Rac during integrin-mediated adhesion and cell migration. Small GTPases 5, e27958 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Gall, T. M. H. & Frampton, A. E. Gene of the month: E-cadherin (CDH1). J. Clin. Pathol. 66, 928–932 (2013)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Winter, J. M. et al. Absence of E-cadherin expression distinguishes noncohesive from cohesive pancreatic cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 14, 412–418 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodriguez-Brenes, I. A., Komarova, N. L. & Wodarz, D. Tumor growth dynamics: insights into somatic evolutionary processes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 597–604 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Anderson, A. R. A. A hybrid mathematical model of solid tumour invasion: the importance of cell adhesion. Math. Med. Biol. 22, 163–186 (2005)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Komarova, N. L. Spatial stochastic models for cancer initiation and progression. Bull. Math. Biol. 68, 1573–1599 (2006)

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Lavrentovich, M. O. & Nelson, D. R. Survival probabilities at spherical frontiers. Theor. Popul. Biol. 102, 26–39 (2015)

    Article  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Komarova, N. L. Spatial stochastic models of cancer: fitness, migration, invasion. Math. Biosci. Eng. 10, 761–775 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Manem, V. S. K., Kohandel, M., Komarova, N. L. & Sivaloganathan, S. Spatial invasion dynamics on random and unstructured meshes: implications for heterogeneous tumor populations. J. Theor. Biol. 349, 66–73 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Durrett, R., Foo, J. & Leder, K. Spatial Moran models, II: cancer initiation in spatially structured tissue. J. Math. Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00285-015-0912-1 (2015)

  38. Gerlee, P. & Nelander, S. The impact of phenotypic switching on glioblastoma growth and invasion. PLOS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002556 (2012)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. González-García, I., Solé, R. V. & Costa, J. Metapopulation dynamics and spatial heterogeneity in cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 13085–13089 (2002)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Sehyo, C. C. et al. Model for in vivo progression of tumors based on co-evolving cell population and vasculature. Sci. Rep. 1, 31 (2011)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Torquato, S. Toward an Ising model of cancer and beyond. Phys. Biol. 8, 015017 (2011)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Reiter, J. G., Bozic, I., Allen, B., Chatterjee, K. & Nowak, M. A. The effect of one additional driver mutation on tumor progression. Evol. Appl. 6, 34–45 (2013)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kansal, A. R., Torquato, S., Harsh, G. R., Chiocca, E. A. & Deisboeck, T. S. Simulated brain tumor growth dynamics using a three-dimensional cellular automaton. J. Theor. Biol. 203, 367–382 (2000)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kansal, A. R., Torquato, S., Chiocca, E. A. & Deisboeck, T. S. Emergence of a subpopulation in a computational model of tumor growth. J. Theor. Biol. 207, 431–441 (2000)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Antal, T., Krapivsky, P. L. & Nowak, M. A. Spatial evolution of tumors with successive driver mutations. Phys. Rev. E 92, 022705 (2015)

  46. Enderling, H., Hlatky, L. & Hahnfeldt, P. Migration rules: tumours are conglomerates of self-metastases. Br. J. Cancer 100, 1917–1925 (2009)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Sottoriva, A. et al. Cancer stem cell tumor model reveals invasive morphology and increased phenotypical heterogeneity. Cancer Res. 70, 46–56 (2010)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Schaller, G. & Meyer-Hermann, M. Multicellular tumor spheroid in an off-lattice voronoi-delaunay cell model. Phys. Rev. E 71, 051910 (2005)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Radszuweit, M., Block, M., Hengstler, J. G., Schöll, E. & Drasdo, D. Comparing the growth kinetics of cell populations in two and three dimensions. Phys. Rev. E 79, 051907 (2009)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Moglia, B., Guisoni, N. & Albano, E. V. Interfacial properties in a discrete model for tumor growth. Phys. Rev. E 87, 032713 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Foo, J., Leder, K. & Ryser, M. Multifocality and recurrence risk: a quantitative model of field cancerization. J. Theor. Biol. 355, 170–184 (2014)

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Poleszczuk, J., Hahnfeldt, P. & Enderling, H. Evolution and phenotypic selection of cancer stem cells. PLOS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004025 (2015)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Durrett, R., Schmidt, D. & Schweinsberg, J. A waiting time problem arising from the study of multi-stage carcinogenesis. Ann. Appl. Probab. 19, 676–718 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Spencer, S. L., Berryman, M. J., García, J. A. & Abbott, D. An ordinary differential equation model for the multistep transformation to cancer. J. Theor. Biol. 231, 515–524 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim, Y. & Othmer, H. G. A hybrid model of tumor–stromal interactions in breast cancer. Bull. Math. Biol. 75, 1304–1350 (2013)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. Ramis-Conde, I., Chaplain, M. A. J., Anderson, A. R. A. & Drasdo, D. Multi-scale modelling of cancer cell intravasation: the role of cadherins in metastasis. Phys. Biol. 6, 016008 (2009)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Swanson, K. R. et al. Quantifying the role of angiogenesis in malignant progression of gliomas: in silico modeling integrates imaging and histology. Cancer Res. 71, 7366–7375 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Taloni, A. et al. Mechanical properties of growing melanocytic nevi and the progression to melanoma. PLoS ONE 9, e94229 (2014)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Drasdo, D. & Höhme, S. A single-cell-based model of tumor growth in vitro: monolayers and spheroids. Phys. Biol. 2, 133 (2005)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Drasdo, D., Hoehme, S. & Block, M. On the role of physics in the growth and pattern formation of multi-cellular systems: what can we learn from individual-cell based models? J. Stat. Phys. 128, 287–345 (2007)

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Jiang, Y., Pjesivac-Grbovic, J., Cantrell, C. & Freyer, J. P. A multiscale model for avascular tumor growth. Biophys. J. 89, 3884–3894 (2005)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Eden, M. in A Two-Dimensional Growth Process (eds Family, F. & Vicsek, T. ) 265–283 (World Scientific, 1961)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hartl, D. L. & Clark, A. G. Principles of Population Genetics (Sinauer Associates., 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Kreft, J. U., Booth, G. & Wimpenny, J. W. T. BacSim, a simulator for individual-based modelling of bacterial colony growth. Microbiology 144, 3275–3287 (1998)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Lardon, L. A. et al. iDynoMiCS: Next-generation individual-based modelling of biofilms. Environ. Microbiol. 13, 2416–2434 (2011)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Jones, S. et al. Comparative lesion sequencing provides insights into tumor evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4283–4288 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Wang, T. L. et al. Prevalence of somatic alterations in the colorectal cancer cell genome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 3076–3080 (2002)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Diaz, L. A. Jr et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature 486, 537–540 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Honda, H., Morita, T. & Tanabe, A. Establishment of epidermal cell columns in mammalian skin: computer simulation. J. Theor. Biol. 81, 745–759 (1979)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  70. Ali, A., Somfai, E. & Grosskinsky, S. Reproduction-time statistics and segregation patterns in growing populations. Phys. Rev. E 85, 021923 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Korolev, K. S., Xavier, J. B., Nelson, D. R. & Foster, K. R. Data from: a quantitative test of population genetics using spatio-genetic patterns in bacterial colonies. Dryad Digital Repository. http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.3147q (2011)

  72. Gong, P., Wang, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, J. & Wang, Z. New insight into Ki67 expression at the invasive front in breast cancer. PLoS ONE 8, e54912 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Ellison, T. A. et al. A single institution’s 26-year experience with nonfunctional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a validation of current staging systems and a new prognostic nomogram. Ann. Surg. 259, 204–212 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Jones, S. et al. Comparative lesion sequencing provides insights into tumor evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4283–4288 (2008)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Lindstrom, L. S. et al. Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 2601–2608 (2012)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Voss, M. H. et al. Tumor genetic analyses of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma and extended benefit from mTOR inhibitor therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 1955–1964 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Wiser, M. J., Ribeck, N. & Lenski, R. E. Long-term dynamics of adaptation in asexual populations. Science 342, 1364–1367 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. White, T. C. Increased mRNA Levels of ERG16, CDR, and MDR1 correlate with increases in azole resistance in Candida albicans isolates from a patient infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 41, 1482–1487 (1997)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. McGranahan, N. et al. Clonal status of actionable driver events and the timing of mutational processes in cancer evolution. Sci. Transl. Med. 7, 283 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Ranft, J. et al. Fluidization of tissues by cell division and apoptosis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20863–20868 (2010)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. LeBleu, V. S. et al. PGC-1α mediates mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative phosphorylation in cancer cells to promote metastasis. Nature Cell Biol. 16, 992–1003 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Aceto, N. et al. Circulating tumor cell clusters are oligoclonal precursors of breast cancer metastasis. Cell 158, 1110–1122 (2014)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Sciumè, G. et al. A multiphase model for three-dimensional tumor growth. New J. Phys. 15, 015005 (2013)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Charras, G. & Sahai, E. Physical influences of the extracellular environment on cell migration. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 813–824 (2014)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Jiao, Y. & Torquato, S. Diversity of dynamics and morphologies of invasive solid tumors. AIP Advances 2, 011003 (2012)

    Article  ADS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Galle, J., Loeffler, M. & Drasdo, D. Modeling the effect of deregulated proliferation and apoptosis on the growth dynamics of epithelial cell populations in vitro . Biophys. J. 88, 62–75 (2005)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Chen, E. J., Novakofski, J., Jenkins, W. K. & O’Brien, W. D. Jr. Young’s modulus measurements of soft tissues with application to elasticity imaging. Ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control. IEEE Transactions 43, 191–194 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Samani, A., Bishop, J., Luginbuhl, C. & Plewes, D. B. Measuring the elastic modulus of ex vivo small tissue samples. Phys. Med. Biol. 48, 2183 (2003)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Weinberg, R. A. The Biology of Cancer (Garland Science, 2007)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Lekka, M. et al. Elasticity of normal and cancerous human bladder cells studied by scanning force microscopy. Eur. Biophys. J. 28, 312–316 (1999)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Gonzalez-Rodriguez, D., Guevorkian, K., Douezan, S. & Brochard-Wyart, F. Soft matter models of developing tissues and tumors. Science 338, 910–917 (2012)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Stirbat, T. V. et al. Fine tuning of tissues’ viscosity and surface tension through contractility suggests a new role for α-catenin. PLoS ONE 8, e52554 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Drasdo, D. Buckling instabilities of one-layered growing tissues. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4244–4247 (2000)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Basan, M., Joanny, J.-F., Prost, J. & Risler, T. Undulation instability of epithelial tissues. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 158101 (2011)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Bozic, I. et al. Evolutionary dynamics of cancer in response to targeted combination therapy. Elife 2, e00747 (2013)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Stylianopoulos, T. & Jain, R. K. Combining two strategies to improve perfusion and drug delivery in solid tumors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18632–18637 (2013)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Foo, J. & Michor, F. Evolution of acquired resistance to anti-cancer therapy. J. Theor. Biol. 355, 10–20 (2014)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Goldie, J. H. & Coldman, A. J. The genetic origin of drug resistance in neoplasms: implications for systemic therapy. Cancer Res. 44, 3643–3653 (1984)

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Coldman, A. J. & Goldie, J. H. A stochastic model for the origin and treatment of tumors containing drug-resistant cells. Bull. Math. Biol. 48, 279–292 (1986)

    Article  MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  MATH  Google Scholar 

  100. Coldman, A. J. & Goldie, J. H. A model for the resistance of tumor cells to cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Math. Biosci. 65, 291–307 (1983)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  101. Greulich, P., Waclaw, B. & Allen, R. J. Mutational pathway determines whether drug gradients accelerate evolution of drug-resistant cells. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 088101 (2012)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. Korolev, K. S. et al. Selective sweeps in growing microbial colonies. Phys. Biol. 9, 026008 (2012)

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Support from The John Templeton Foundation is gratefully acknowledged. B.W. was supported by the Leverhulme Trust Early-Career Fellowship, and the Royal Society of Edinburgh Personal Research Fellowship. I.B. was supported by Foundational Questions in Evolutionary Biology Grant RFP-12-17. M.E.P., R.H.H. and B.V. acknowledge support from The Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, The Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, The Sol Goldman Center for Pancreatic Cancer Research, and NIH grants CA43460 and CA62924.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, JCMB, Peter Guthrie Tait Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3FD, UK

    Bartlomiej Waclaw

  2. Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University, One Brattle Square, Cambridge, 02138, Massachusetts, USA

    Ivana Bozic & Martin A. Nowak

  3. Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, One Oxford Street, Cambridge, 02138, Massachusetts, USA

    Ivana Bozic & Martin A. Nowak

  4. Department of Pathology, The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 401 North Broadway, Weinberg 2242, Baltimore, 21231, Maryland, USA

    Meredith E. Pittman, Ralph H. Hruban & Bert Vogelstein

  5. Ludwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, 1650 Orleans Street, Baltimore, 21287, Maryland, USA

    Bert Vogelstein

  6. Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, 02138, Massachusetts, USA

    Martin A. Nowak

Authors
  1. Bartlomiej Waclaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivana Bozic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Meredith E. Pittman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ralph H. Hruban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bert Vogelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Martin A. Nowak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

B.W., M.A.N., I.B. and B.V. designed the study. B.W. wrote the computer programs and made simulations. B.W., I.B. and M.A.N. made analytic calculations. M.E.P. and R.H.H. carried out experimental work. All authors discussed the results. The manuscript was written primarily by B.W., M.A.N., I.B. and B.V., with contributions from M.E.P. and R.H.H.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin A. Nowak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Figure 1 Details of the model.

a, A sketch showing how dispersal is implemented: (1) A ball of cells of radius Ri , in which the centre is at Xi , is composed of tumour cells and normal cells (blue and empty squares in the zoomed-in rectangle (2)). A cell at position xi with respect to the centre of the ball attempts to replicate (3). If replication is successful, the cell migrates with probability M and creates a new microlesion (4). The position Xj of this new ball of cells is determined as the endpoint of the vector that starts at Xi and has direction xi and length Ri . b, Overlap reduction between the balls of cells. When a growing ball begins to overlap with another ball (red), they are both moved apart along the line connecting their centres of mass (green line) by as much as necessary to reduce the overlap to zero. The process is repeated for all overlapping balls as many times as needed until there is no overlap. c, Summary of all parameters used in the model. If, for a given parameter, many different values have been used in different plots, a range of values used is shown. Birth and death rates can also depend on the number of driver mutations, see Methods. Asterisk, parameter estimated from other quantities available in the literature.

Extended Data Figure 2 Simulation snapshots.

a, b, A few snapshots of tumour growth for no dispersal, and d = 0 (a) and d = 0.9b (b). To visualize clonal sectors, cells have been colour-coded by making the colour a heritable trait and changing each of its RGB components by a small random fraction whenever a cell mutates. The initial cell is grey. Empty space (white) are non-cancer cells mixed with extracellular matrix. Note that images are not to scale. c, Tumour shapes for N = 1 × 107, d = 0.9b, and different dispersal probability M. Images not to scale; the tumour for M = 1 × 10−5 is larger than the one for M = 0.

Extended Data Figure 3 Tumour size as a function of time.

a, Growth of a tumour without dispersal (M = 0), for d = 0.8b. For large times (T), the number of cells grows approximately as const × T 3. The tumour reaches size N = 1 × 109 cells (horizontal line) after about 100 months (8 years) of growth. b, The same data are plotted in the linear scale, with N replaced by ‘linear extension’ N1/3. c, Tumour size versus time when drivers affect the dispersal probability. In all cases, d = 0.9b, and (1, black) drivers increase the dispersal rate tenfold (q = 9) but have no effect on the net growth rate; (2, red) drivers increase both the net growth rate (s = 10%) and M; (3, green) drivers either (with probability 1/2) increase M tenfold (q = 9) or increase the net growth rate by s = 10%; (4, blue) drivers increase only the net growth rate by s = 10%; and (5, black dashed line) neutral case with M = 1 × 10−7, which is indistinguishable from (1). In all cases (1–3) the initial dispersal probability M = 1 × 10−7. Points represent average value over 40–100 simulations per data point, error bars are s.e.m.

Extended Data Figure 4 Simulation of targeted therapy.

a–c, The total number of cells in the tumour (black) and the number or resistant cells (red) versus time, during growth (T < 0) and treatment (T > 0), for ∼100 independent simulations, for d = 0.5b for T < 0. Therapy begins when N = 1 × 106 cells. After treatment, many tumours die out (N decreases to zero) but those with resistant cells will regrow sooner or later. a, M = 0 for all cells at all times. b, M = 0 for all cells for T < 0 and M = 10−4 for resistant cells for T > 0. c, M = 0 for non-resistant and M = 10−5 for resistant cells at all times. In all three cases, Pregrowth is very similar: 36 ± 5% (mean ± s.e.m.) (a), 25 ± 4% (b), and 27 ± 6% for (c). d–g, Regrowth probability for four treatment scenarios not discussed in the main text. Data points correspond to three dispersal probabilities: M = 0 (red), M = 1 × 10−5 (green), and M = 1 × 10−4 (blue). The probability is plotted as a function of tumour size N just before the therapy commences. d, Before treatment, cells replicate only on the surface. Cells in the core are quiescent and do not replicate. Therapy kills cells on the surface and cells in the core resume proliferation when liberated by treatment. e, As in d, but drug is cytostatic and does not kill cells but inhibits their growth. The results for Pregrowth are identical if the drug is cytotoxic and the tumour has a necrotic core (cells die inside the tumour and cannot replicate even if the surface is removed). f, Before treatment, cells replicate and die on the surface. The core is quiescent. Therapy kills cells on the surface (cytotoxic drug). g, As in f, but therapy only inhibits growth (cytostatic drug). In all cases (d–g) error bars represent s.e.m. from 8–1,000 simulations per point.

Extended Data Figure 5 Accumulation of driver and passenger genetic alterations.

a–c, The number of drivers per cell in the primary tumour plotted as a function of time (10–100 simulations per point, error bars denote s.e.m.). a, M = 0 and three different driver selective advantages. For s = 1%, cells accumulate on average one driver mutation within 5 years. The time can be significantly lower for very strong drivers (s > 1%). b, The rate at which drivers accumulate depends mainly on their selective advantage and not on whether they affect death or birth rate. c, Dispersal does not affect the rate of driver accumulation. d, e, The number of passenger mutations (PMs) per cell versus the number of driver mutations per cell. More passenger mutations are present for smaller driver selective advantage (d), and this is independent of the dispersal probability M (e) in the regime of small M. Data points correspond to independent simulations.

Extended Data Figure 6 Genetic diversity in a single lesion for different models.

a–d, Representative simulation snapshots, with genetic alterations colour-coded as in Fig. 4. Top: s = 0, bottom: s = 1%. a, Model A from the main text in which cells replicate with rates proportional to the number of empty nearby sites. b, Model B, the replication rate is constant and non-zero if there is at least one empty site nearby, and zero otherwise. c, Model C, cells replicate at a constant rate and push away other cells to make space for their progeny. d, Model D, cells replicate/die only on the surface, the interior of the tumour (‘necrotic core’) is static. In all cases, N = 1 × 107, d = 0.99b. e, Number of genetic alterations present in at least 50% of cells for identical parameters as in a–d. In all cases except surface growth (d), drivers increase genetic homogeneity, as measured by the number of most frequent genetic alterations. Results averaged over 50–100 simulations, error bars denote s.e.m. f, Model D, with γd = 2 × 10−4 instead of 4 × 10−5, that is, drivers occur five times more often. In this case, driver mutations arise earlier than in d, and the tumour becomes more homogeneous.

Extended Data Figure 7 The off-lattice model.

a, Summary of all parameters used in the model. Asterisk, typical value, varies between different types of tissues; dagger symbol, equivalent to 24 h minimal doubling time; double dagger symbol, based on the assumption that macroscopic elastic properties of tissues such as liver, pancreases or mammary glands are primarily determined by the elastic properties of stroma. b, Simulation snapshot of a normal tissue before the invasion of cancer cells. c, Two balls of cancer cells in two nearby ducts repel each other as they grow as a consequence of mechanical forces exerted on each other. d, The balls coalesce if growth is able to break the separating extracellular matrix. e, If the balls are not encapsulated, they quickly merge. f, Isolated balls of cells are not required to speed up growth; migration (left) can cause the tumour to expand much faster even if individual microlesions merge together, as opposed to the case with no migration (right).

Extended Data Figure 8 Genetic diversity quantified.

a, Tumours are much more genetically heterogeneous in the absence of driver mutations (s = 0) (see Fig. 4). The plot shows the fraction G(r) of genetic alterations (GAs) shared between the cells as function of their separation (distance r) in the tumour. The fraction quickly decreases with increasing r. The distance in the figure is normalized by the average distance <r> between any two cells in the tumour. For a spherical tumour, <r> is approximately equal to half of the tumour diameter. b, Fraction of shared genetic alterations for s = 1% and s = 0%, N = 1 × 107, and M = 1 × 10−7. In the presence of drivers, G(r) decays slower, indicating more homogeneous tumours. c, The exact value of the selective advantage of driver mutations is not important (all curves G(r) look the same, except for s = 0) as long as s > 0. d–f, Number of genetic alterations present in at least 50% of cells for identical parameters as in a–c, correspondingly. Drivers substantially increase the level of genetic homogeneity. In all panels the results have been averaged over 30–100 simulations, with error bars as s.e.m.

Extended Data Figure 9 Growth curves for the 26-nearest neighbours (26n, red curves) and the 6-nearest neighbours (6n, green curves) models.

a, Model A (as in the main text), no death. The tumour grows about twice as slow in the 6n model. Pictures show tumour snapshots for both models; there is no visible difference in the shape. b, Model A, death d = 0.8b. The additional blue curve is for the 6n model, with modified replication probability to account for missing neighbours as explained in the Supplementary Information. c, Model A, with death d = 0.95b, and drivers s = 5%. There is very little difference in the growth curves between the 6n and 26n models. A small asymmetry in the shape is caused by faster-growing cells with driver mutations. d,ModelC(exponential growth). Growth is the same in both 6n and 26n models, but the shape is more aspheric for the 6n model. This is probably caused by shifting cells along the coordinate axes and not along the shortest path to the surface when making space for new cells. All plots show the mean (average over 50–100 simulations) and s.e.m.

Extended Data Table 1 Experimental results for the percentage of proliferating cells in the centre versus the edge of solid tumours
Full size table

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

This file contains Supplementary Text and Data 1-8. (PDF 375 kb)

Simulation of growth and treatment of a small tumor (1e7 cells)

Treatment begins at T=0. Different colors correspond to cells with different GAs. (MOV 4722 kb)

Simulation of growth of a small tumor (1e7 cells) with no migration and death rate d=0.5.

Different colors correspond to cells with different GAs. (MOV 1756 kb)

Simulation of growth of a small tumor (1e7 cells) with low migration M=1e-6 and death rate d=0.5.

Different colors correspond to cells with different GAs. (MOV 1586 kb)

Simulation of growth of a small tumor (1e7 cells) with no migration and selective advantage of driver mutations s=5%.

Different colors correspond to cells with different driver mutations. (MOV 6580 kb)

Simulation of growth of a small tumor (1e7 cells) with no migration and selective advantage of driver mutations s=1%.

Only three most-abundant driver mutations have been colored as in Fig. 4 (MOV 10697 kb)

Simulation of growth and treatment of a small tumor (1e7 cells) for M=1e-6.

Cells replicate and die only on the surface. Treatment begins at T=0. Different colors correspond to cells with different GAs. (MOV 1331 kb)

Simulation of growth and treatment of a small tumor (1e7 cells) for no migration (M=0).

Cells replicate and die only on the surface. Treatment begins at T=0. Different colors correspond to cells with different GAs. (MOV 2034 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, normal tissue with ducts.

This video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, normal tissue with ducts. (MP4 17192 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in nearby ducts

This video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in nearby ducts. ECM does not break. (MP4 15314 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in nearby ducts

This video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in nearby ducts. ECM can replicate. (MP4 13374 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in nearby ducts

The video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in nearby ducts. ECM breaks when stretched too much. (MP4 10698 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in a layer of epithelial tissue merge quickly together.

This video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, two balls of cells growing in a layer of epithelial tissue merge quickly together. (MOV 21311 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, fast growth in the presence of migration.

This video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, fast growth in the presence of migration. (MP4 3403 kb)

Simulation of the off-lattice model, slow growth in the absence of migration.

This video shows the simulation of the off-lattice model, slow growth in the absence of migration. (MP4 7621 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waclaw, B., Bozic, I., Pittman, M. et al. A spatial model predicts that dispersal and cell turnover limit intratumour heterogeneity. Nature 525, 261–264 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14971

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14971

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer