Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

A phenotype-structured model of the MITF rheostat predicts three stable long-term population behaviors for melanoma, and shows that single-cell phenotype reversibility does not guarantee population-level reversibility.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 01:39 UTC pith:X6AUMWP7

load-bearing objection A careful multiscale model whose tri-stability and hysteresis are real outputs of the equations, but the load-bearing density–stress coupling is uncalibrated, so treat the biological conclusions as conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11820 v2 pith:X6AUMWP7 submitted 2026-07-13 q-bio.CB

A quantitative model for the emergent population dynamics of the melanoma MITF rheostat

Keith L. Chambers , Richard M. White , Colin R. Goding , Helen M. Byrne This is my paper
classification q-bio.CB MSC 92D2535Q92
keywords melanomaMITF rheostatphenotype switchingstructured population modelmultiscale PDEhysteresiscell plasticitycontact inhibition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that the MITF rheostat, in which MITF activity drives the switch between proliferative (PRO), invasive (INV), and differentiated (DIF) melanoma cell states, gives rise to emergent population-level dynamics that are more than the sum of single-cell behaviors. By building a multiscale model that couples subcellular MITF dynamics to a phenotypic cell population, the authors find three stable long-term outcomes depending on sensitivity to contact inhibition: a slow-growing PRO/DIF state, a faster-growing state with an invasive core, and a rapidly growing state with an oscillatory core. A key consequence is hysteresis: a population that switches from PRO/DIF to INV/PRO does not return when the original conditions are restored, even though individual cells remain reversible. The authors argue that this cautions against extrapolating single-cell plasticity directly to tumor population dynamics.

Core claim

The central claim is that coupling the MITF rheostat to cell density—used as a proxy for microenvironmental stress—through Eq. (30), a(t) = 1/(1 + M(t)/M*), produces a bifurcation structure with three stable population behaviors. Numerical and analytical analysis of the phenotype-structured PDE shows that the contact-inhibition sensitivity κ selects between (i) a low-density PRO/DIF steady state, (ii) a higher-density INV/PRO steady state, and (iii) a limit cycle oscillating between INV and PRO phenotypes. The bistability between the two steady states generates hysteresis, demonstrated by a numerical experiment in which lowering κ and then restoring it leaves the population trapped in the IN

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the nonlocal coupling of cell density to MITF transcription, Eq. (30), which acts as a negative feedback from population stress to phenotype. This density proxy drives the bifurcations and hysteresis. The model also uses a phenotype-advection-diffusion flux derived from homogenizing fast subcellular stochastic dynamics of MITF RNA, protein, and a slower phenotype variable; this flux provides a tractable representation of single-cell plasticity within the population PDE.

Load-bearing premise

The entire feedback structure relies on Eq. (30), which assumes that total cell density M(t) is a faithful proxy for microenvironmental stress and that MITF transcription decreases monotonically with density; if the true stress signal is not monotone in density, or if other cues dominate, the predicted tri-stability and hysteresis may not arise.

What would settle it

Measure MITF transcription rate and local cell density in a growing melanoma spheroid or xenograft at multiple time points. If MITF transcription does not decrease monotonically with density, or if a population switched to an invasive phenotype returns to the proliferative/differentiated state when density is reduced (i.e., no hysteresis), the central claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Restoring contact inhibition sensitivity or relieving stress after a population has switched to an invasive phenotype may not restore the original phenotype distribution, implying that treating melanoma may require crossing a hysteresis boundary rather than simply reverting conditions.
  • The model predicts that the invasive core of a melanoma can persist as a stable steady state even when the overall phenotype distribution is reversible at the single-cell level, offering a mechanism for phenotypic heterogeneity in tumors.
  • The three stable behaviors—PRO/DIF, INV/PRO, and oscillatory—correspond to different growth speeds and spatial patterns, so the model can be used to interpret radial growth phase dynamics and the transition to vertical growth.
  • The wavefront in the spatially resolved model is always composed of proliferative and differentiated cells, independent of the core behavior, which follows from using density as the stress proxy.
  • The oscillatory core, although the paper regards it as biologically unrealistic for most parameters, provides a mathematical prediction that could be tested in engineered systems with very low contact inhibition sensitivity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The qualitative tri-stability and hysteresis likely persist for other monotone decreasing functions a(M) mapping density to MITF transcription, not just the specific Michaelis-Menten form; a robustness check with alternative saturating forms would clarify the model's structural stability.
  • The hysteresis effect suggests that therapeutic interventions aimed at 'reversing' invasive phenotypes by removing stress (e.g., reducing mechanical confinement or increasing nutrients) may fail unless the population is pushed across the bistable threshold—possibly requiring a transient over-perturbation.
  • The model's predication that the wavefront is always PRO/DIF implies that spatial sampling of a melanoma edge might systematically miss invasive cells, confounding biopsy-based phenotype assessment; this is an inference not directly drawn in the paper.
  • The same multiscale homogenization approach could be applied to other rheostat-like transcriptional regulators, where a fast noisy gene-product pair drives a slower phenotype variable, generating population-level PDEs with calibrated parameters from single-cell data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a multiscale, phenotype-structured PDE model of melanoma population dynamics driven by the MITF rheostat. The authors first reduce a stochastic subcellular model of MITF RNA, protein, and a downstream phenotype variable to an effective advection-diffusion phenotype flux using matched asymptotic expansions (Sect. 2, Appendix B), and then couple the average transcription rate a(t) to total cell density through Eq. (30). The spatially homogeneous population model is reported to exhibit three long-term behaviours — a limit cycle, an INV/PRO steady state, and a PRO/DIF steady state — separated by Hopf and double-fold bifurcations in the contact-inhibition parameter κ (Fig. 13), with hysteresis upon parameter variation (Fig. 14). A radially symmetric spatial extension produces travelling waves whose core behaviour follows the same κ-dependent branches (Sect. 4). Parameters are calibrated by Bayesian inference to published datasets (scRNA-seq, RNA/protein half-life, Ki-67, tumour doubling time, xenograft switching times, TUNEL index).

Significance. The paper has genuine strengths: the multiscale reduction is careful and the moment calculations are verified against stochastic simulations; the inference pipeline is transparent, with MCMC diagnostics and public code; and the conceptual claim that single-cell reversibility need not imply population-level reversibility is clearly demonstrated and is of broad interest. If the three-branch phenomenology is robust, the framework is a valuable contribution to phenotype-structured modelling of cancer. However, the central biological conclusions rest on an uncalibrated density-stress coupling, and the bifurcation structure is reported at one MAP parameter set without uncertainty propagation. These issues need to be addressed before the quantitative claims can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (30)] The density-stress coupling a(t) = 1/(1+M/M*) is the load-bearing mechanism that generates the three long-term behaviours and the hysteresis in Figs. 9, 13, and 14. Yet M* is not constrained by the calibration data: the likelihood (Eqs. 42-45) uses only the low-density exponential phase where a≈1, and M* is scaled out of the dimensionless equations. Thus the threshold density at which ISR-driven MITF repression begins is arbitrary. Likewise κ is not identifiable from the exponential-phase data; its lower bound is imposed by rejecting the oscillatory branch as biologically unrealistic (Sect. 5). The authors should either calibrate or bound M* and κ from data, or at minimum perform a robustness analysis with alternative stress-MITF relations (e.g., Hill coefficient ≠1, exponential, density-independent offset, non-monotone signals) and show whether the double-fold and Hopf bifurcations pers
  2. [§3.4, Fig. 13] The central bifurcation diagram is computed at the single MAP parameter vector (49). The MCMC posterior samples obtained in Sect. 3.3 are not propagated into the bifurcation analysis, so the reported thresholds (κ≈0.57, 4.7, 10.5) and even the existence of the three branches have no uncertainty quantification. Given the strong parameter correlations shown in Fig. 12 (e.g., ρ_max with ν, Δφ with ν), different posterior draws could shift or eliminate branches. The authors should provide credible intervals for the branch boundaries, or at least a multi-sample overlay of the bifurcation diagram, to substantiate the claim that the model 'admits' three stable behaviours rather than that one MAP parameter set does.
  3. [§5, Discussion] The paper lists oscillatory dynamics as one of the three stable long-term behaviours in the abstract and conclusions, but later states that the cyclic solutions are 'biologically unrealistic' and uses this to infer a lower bound κ>0.57. This is a post-hoc prior rather than a validation, and it creates tension with the central claim. If the oscillatory branch is not a viable biological prediction, the abstract and conclusions should be revised to present it as a mathematical possibility that is excluded by biological reasoning; alternatively, the authors should identify data that could test this branch.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and Appendix F] The median Ki-67 and doubling-time outputs are calibrated quantities, and the posterior predictive checks in Fig. F.3 reuse the same data used for inference. Describing these as 'predictions' is misleading; they should be termed posterior predictive checks or fitted quantities. The genuinely emergent predictions are the three long-term behaviours and hysteresis.
  2. [§3.3, Eq. (47)] The constraint that invasive cells comprise <1% of the population during exponential growth is enforced by rejecting MCMC samples, not derived from the model. This should be stated more prominently as an assumption, as it directly shapes the inferred switching time t_s and the resulting Ki-67 prediction.
  3. [§4] The spatial model introduces two uncalibrated parameters, D_max and ζ. While the authors note this, the wave-speed results in Fig. 18 are therefore illustrative rather than quantitative. A sentence clarifying that no formal inference was attempted for the spatial model would help avoid over-interpretation.
  4. [Eq. (29)] The right-hand side appears to contain a typo: the death term is rendered as '−ρνρ' and should presumably be '−ν' (or '−νρ'). Please correct.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor in-sample posterior predictive checks are labelled 'predictions'; the central tri-stability/hysteresis results are emergent and not circular.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eqs. (42)-(45); Fig. F.3]
    "Posterior predictions for the medians of the Ki-67 and tumour doubling time observation distributions are presented in Fig. F.3. These plots confirm that the data medians lie within the medians predicted by the posterior distribution."

    The Ki-67 and tumour doubling time outputs in Eqs. (42)-(45) (K_model = integral of m_hat_exp over the proliferative window; T_model = ln2/S) are exactly the quantities whose likelihoods define the posterior for the parameters in Eq. (49). The Fig. F.3 'predictions' are therefore in-sample posterior predictive checks: the fitted parameters concentrate the predictive distribution near the calibration data by construction. This is a standard goodness-of-fit diagnostic and not an independent test, so calling it a prediction overstates its evidential value. It is peripheral to the central claim: the three long-term behaviours and hysteresis in Figs. 9, 13 and 14 are emergent outputs of the PDE system, not fitted targets.

full rationale

No load-bearing circularity was found in the derivation chain. The subcellular SDE/Fokker-Planck model, equilibrium moments, homogenised phenotype flux, and population PDE are derived in-paper from explicit mechanistic assumptions and calibrated to external published data (GSE72056, RNA decay, protein half-life, Ki-67, uveal doubling time, xenograft switching lags, TUNEL index). The central result—three stable population behaviours and population-level hysteresis—is a bifurcation/numerical output of the resulting PDE with respect to the free, uncalibrated parameter κ, not a quantity used in the inference. The density-stress closure Eq. (30) is posited, not derived, and the paper openly states both the assumption ('cell density is a proxy for degree of stress') and its limitation ('unlikely to provide a complete description of the microenvironment'); dependence of the behaviour on that assumption is a robustness or identifiability concern, not a circular reduction. Self-citations (e.g., Goding's MITF rheostat papers) supply biological background and are not used to import a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative model choices; the sinusoidal proliferation window is explicitly acknowledged as an arbitrary modelling choice. The only noteworthy issue is that in-sample posterior predictive checks are called 'predictions', which is a minor overstatement and does not affect the independent content of the main qualitative conclusions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

14 free parameters · 7 axioms · 4 invented entities

The model's biology enters through postulated couplings (density-stress, proliferation window, motility) rather than from first principles. Parameters are numerous and fitted to published data, while key structural parameters (κ, ζ, D_max) are left free or chosen for illustration. No new biological data are generated, and no independent out-of-sample validation is performed.

free parameters (14)
  • q (RNA noise exponent) = 1.83
    MAP estimate from scRNA mean-variance fit (Eq. 17).
  • θ (RNA noise scale) = 0.20
    MAP estimate from Eq. (17).
  • λ_r (RNA degradation rate) = 0.28 h⁻¹
    Fitted to RNA decay data (Eq. 17).
  • λ_p (effective protein degradation rate) = 0.35 h⁻¹
    Used in simulations; not directly inferred in population fit, mixture of ps73/ups73 rates.
  • σ₁, σ₂, σ₃ (subcellular observation noise) = 0.70, 0.21, 0.21
    MAP estimates of observation noise in subcellular likelihood (Eq. 17).
  • φ_L (proliferative window lower edge) = 0.603
    MAP estimate from population inference (Eq. 49).
  • Δφ (proliferative window width) = 0.110
    MAP estimate from population inference (Eq. 49).
  • ρ_max (max proliferation rate) = 0.347 day⁻¹
    MAP estimate with prior from culture doubling times (Eq. 49).
  • ν (death rate) = 0.966 month⁻¹
    MAP estimate with prior from TUNEL index (Eq. 49).
  • t_s (invasive-to-proliferative switching time) = 1.385 months
    MAP estimate with prior from xenograft data (Eq. 49).
  • σ₄, σ₅ (population observation noise) = 1.008, 0.429
    MAP estimates for Ki-67 and doubling-time observation models (Eq. 49).
  • κ (contact inhibition sensitivity) = free, explored 0.3–6
    Not inferred from data; controls the three long-term behaviours and is the central bifurcation parameter.
  • ζ (motility shape parameter) = free, explored 0.2–0.8
    Not inferred; controls phenotype-dependence of motility in spatial model.
  • D_max (max motility coefficient) = 0.003 mm²/month
    Chosen for illustration to match reported wave speeds; not inferred from data.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Fokker-Planck reduction and homogenisation of fast RNA/protein dynamics
    Invoked in Sect. 2.1.2 and Appendix B to derive the effective phenotype flux (Eq. 26).
  • domain assumption Separation of timescales: ε = 1/720 ≪ 1, phenotype evolves on months timescale
    Eq. (19); motivated by Hoek et al. but not directly validated for MITF phenotype switching in vivo.
  • domain assumption MITF rheostat: only intermediate MITF activity supports proliferation (window function W)
    Eqs. (31)-(32); the specific sinusoidal form is 'an arbitrary modelling choice used for simplicity' (Sect. 3.1).
  • domain assumption Cell density is an inverse proxy for stress: a = 1/(1+M/M⋆)
    Eq. (30); cited qualitative evidence exists, but no quantitative calibration of this coupling is given.
  • domain assumption Daughter cells inherit the parent phenotype
    Stated in Sect. 3.1; no inheritance noise is included.
  • ad hoc to paper Invasive cells are <1% of the population during exponential growth (Eq. 47)
    Enforced during MCMC by rejecting samples; this constraint is not directly measured and biases the inferred parameter region.
  • domain assumption Cell motility decreases monotonically with MITF activity (Eq. 51)
    Assumed sigmoidal decrease centred at φ_L; supported by qualitative observations, but the functional form and ζ are not data-derived.
invented entities (4)
  • Phenotype variable φ (MITF activity) no independent evidence
    purpose: Continuous cell-state coordinate that determines proliferation, death, and motility
    Not directly measured; defined as a slow downstream variable of MITF protein. No falsifiable handle outside the model.
  • Cell-density stress proxy a(M) no independent evidence
    purpose: Couples population density to MITF transcription, enabling stress-induced phenotype switching
    Postulated in Eq. (30); the paper admits density is 'unlikely to provide a complete description' of the microenvironment.
  • Proliferative window W(φ; φ_L, φ_R) no independent evidence
    purpose: Restricts proliferation to intermediate MITF activity
    Arbitrary sinusoidal window; acknowledged as a modelling choice.
  • Phenotype-dependent motility D(φ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Makes invasive low-MITF cells more motile than differentiated high-MITF cells
    Functional form chosen for convenience; no direct fitting to motility data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30043 in / 13192 out tokens · 130219 ms · 2026-08-04T01:39:36.257211+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A quantitative model for the emergent population dynamics of the melanoma MITF rheostat." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6AUMWP7

@misc{pith2026260711820,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A quantitative model for the emergent population dynamics of the melanoma MITF rheostat},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6AUMWP7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.11820}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Cancer progression is driven by the ability of cells with identical driver mutations to adopt biologically distinct adaptive phenotypes. Yet the population dynamics implied by intratumour phenotypic heterogeneity is poorly understood. Melanoma is an excellent setting to study phenotype switching, in part because phenotypic identity is conferred by melanocyte inducing transcription factor (MITF) activity. Here we develop a multiscale phenotype-structured partial differential equation model for epidermal melanoma cell populations, first considering subcellular MITF and then spatially uniform and spatially heterogeneous populations. The model admits three stable long-term behaviours: slow growth with proliferative cells and non-cycling differentiated cells; faster expansion, with an invasive core; and rapid growth with oscillatory core dynamics. More broadly, the analysis highlights that phenotype reversibility by individual cells does not imply reversibility of phenotype population distributions. Hence, single-cell properties (e.g., reversibility of invasive capacity) must be extrapolated with caution to populations with coupled cell dynamics.

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology17(7), 413–425 (2016)

    Merrell, A.J., Stanger, B.Z.: Adult Cell Plasticity in Vivo: De- Differentiation and Transdifferentiation Are Back in Style. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology17(7), 413–425 (2016). https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nrm.2016.27

    work page doi:10.1038/nrm.2016.27 2016

  2. [2]

    Stem Cell Research & Therapy11(1), 349 (2020)

    Mei, X., Gu, M., Li, M.: Plasticity of Paneth Cells and Their Ability to Regulate Intestinal Stem Cells. Stem Cell Research & Therapy11(1), 349 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-020-01857-7

    work page doi:10.1186/s13287-020-01857-7 2020

  3. [3]

    Nature Cardiovascular Research3(12), 1408–1423 (2024)

    Lin, A., Miano, J.M., Fisher, E.A., Misra, A.: Chronic Inflammation and Vascular Cell Plasticity in Atherosclerosis. Nature Cardiovascular Research3(12), 1408–1423 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44161-024-0 0569-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s44161-024-0 2024

  4. [4]

    Trends in Cell Biology30(4), 329–338 (2020)

    Li, W., Li, L., Hui, L.: Cell Plasticity in Liver Regeneration. Trends in Cell Biology30(4), 329–338 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2019.12.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2019.12.007 2020

  5. [5]

    Surgical Oncology 34, 154–162 (2020)

    Shenoy, S.: Cell Plasticity in Cancer: A Complex Interplay of Genetic, Epi- genetic Mechanisms and Tumor Micro-Environment. Surgical Oncology 34, 154–162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2020.05.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.suronc.2020.05.001 2020

  6. [6]

    Cancer Cell37(4), 471–484 (2020)

    Marusyk, A., Janiszewska, M., Polyak, K.: Intratumor Heterogeneity: The Rosetta Stone of Therapy Resistance. Cancer Cell37(4), 471–484 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.007 2020

  7. [7]

    Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena15, 14 (2020)

    Stace, R.E., Stiehl, T., Chaplain, M.A., Marciniak-Czochra, A., Lorenzi, T.: Discrete and Continuum Phenotype-Structured Models for the Evo- lution of Cancer Cell Populations under Chemotherapy. Mathematical Modelling of Natural Phenomena15, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.105 1/mmnp/2019027

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    PLOS Computational A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics35 Biology21(6), 1013202 (2025)

    Browning, A.P., Crossley, R.M., Villa, C., Maini, P.K., Jenner, A.L., Cassidy, T., Hamis, S.: Identifiability of Phenotypic Adaptation from Low- Cell-Count Experiments and a Stochastic Model. PLOS Computational A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics35 Biology21(6), 1013202 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.101 3202

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.101 2025

  9. [9]

    Journal of Theoretical Biology490, 110162 (2020)

    Gunnarsson, E.B., De, S., Leder, K., Foo, J.: Understanding the Role of Phenotypic Switching in Cancer Drug Resistance. Journal of Theoretical Biology490, 110162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110162

    arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Current Opinion in Cell Biology95, 102558 (2025)

    Colson, C., Whiting, F.J., Baker, A.-M., Graham, T.A.: Mathematical Modelling of Cancer Cell Evolution and Plasticity. Current Opinion in Cell Biology95, 102558 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2025.102 558

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ceb.2025.102 2025

  11. [11]

    Biomath8(1), 1905147 (2019)

    Clairambault, J., Pouchol, C.: A Survey of Adaptive Cell Population Dynamics Models of Emergence of Drug Resistance in Cancer, and Open Questions About Evolution and Cancer. Biomath8(1), 1905147 (2019). https://doi.org/10.11145/j.biomath.2019.05.147

    work page doi:10.11145/j.biomath.2019.05.147 2019

  12. [12]

    PLOS Computational Biology17(8), 1–25 (2021)

    Cassidy, T., Nichol, D., Robertson-Tessi, M., Craig, M., Anderson, A.R.A.: The Role of Memory in Non-Genetic Inheritance and Its Impact on Cancer Treatment Resistance. PLOS Computational Biology17(8), 1–25 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009348

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009348 2021

  13. [13]

    Cell127(5), 905–915 (2006)

    Anderson, A.R.A., Weaver, A.M., Cummings, P.T., Quaranta, V.: Tumor Morphology and Phenotypic Evolution Driven by Selective Pressure from the Microenvironment. Cell127(5), 905–915 (2006). https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.cell.2006.09.042

    2006

  14. [14]

    Cancers17(17), 2920 (2025)

    Caraviello, C., Nazzaro, G., Tavoletti, G., Boggio, F., Denaro, N., Murgia, G., Passoni, E., Mancin, V.B., Marzano, A.V.: Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Current Knowledge. Cancers17(17), 2920 (2025). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers17172920

    work page doi:10.3390/cancers17172920 2025

  15. [15]

    Oncology and Therapy6(1), 87–104 (2018)

    Singh, M., Durairaj, P., Yeung, J.: Uveal Melanoma: A Review of the Literature. Oncology and Therapy6(1), 87–104 (2018). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s40487-018-0056-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s40487-018-0056-8 2018

  16. [16]

    Current Oncology Reports25(11), 1247–1258 (2023)

    Sergi, M.C., Filoni, E., Triggiano, G., Silvestris, N., Guida, M.: Mucosal Melanoma: Epidemiology, Clinical Features, and Treatment. Current Oncology Reports25(11), 1247–1258 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1 1912-023-01453-x

    doi:10.1007/s1 2023

  17. [17]

    Scientific Reports15, 5996 (2025)

    Zhou, L., Zhong, Y., Han, L., Xie, Y., Wan, M.: Global, Regional, and National Trends in the Burden of Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Insights from the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2021. Scientific Reports15, 5996 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025 -90485-3 36A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025 1990

  18. [18]

    Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling17(1), 8 (2020)

    Albrecht, M., Lucarelli, P., Kulms, D., Sauter, T.: Computational Models of Melanoma. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling17(1), 8 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12976-020-00126-7

    work page doi:10.1186/s12976-020-00126-7 2020

  19. [19]

    Computational and Applied Mathematics44(1), 1–26 (2025)

    Rodrigues, G., da Silva, J.G., Adimy, M., Mancera, P.F.A.: A Math- ematical Model to the Melanoma Dynamics Involving CAR T-Cells. Computational and Applied Mathematics44(1), 1–26 (2025). https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40314-024-03060-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s40314-024-03060-3 2025

  20. [20]

    Mathematical Biosciences365, 109073 (2023)

    Ramaj, T., Zou, X.: On the Treatment of Melanoma: A Mathematical Model of Oncolytic Virotherapy. Mathematical Biosciences365, 109073 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2023.109073

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Frontiers in Oncology3, 56 (2013)

    de Pillis, L.G., Gallegos, A., Radunskaya, A.E.: A Model of Dendritic Cell Therapy for Melanoma. Frontiers in Oncology3, 56 (2013). https: //doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2013.00056

    arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    The- oretical Biology and Medical Modelling12, 11 (2015)

    Castillo-Montiel, E., Chimal-Egu ´ ıa, J.C., Tello, J.I., Pi˜ non-Z´ arate, G., Herrera-Enr ´ ıquez, M., Castell-Rodr ´ ıguez, A.E.: Enhancing Dendritic Cell Immunotherapy for Melanoma Using a Simple Mathematical Model. The- oretical Biology and Medical Modelling12, 11 (2015). https://doi.org/10 .1186/s12976-015-0007-0

    2015

  23. [23]

    SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics80(2), 906–928 (2020)

    Dickman, L.R., Milliken, E., Kuang, Y.: Tumor Control, Elimination, and Escape Through a Compartmental Model of Dendritic Cell Therapy for Melanoma. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics80(2), 906–928 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1258503

    work page doi:10.1137/19m1258503 2020

  24. [24]

    BMC Systems Biology11(1), 70 (2017)

    Lai, X., Friedman, A.: Combination Therapy for Melanoma with BRAF/MEK Inhibitor and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor: A Mathemat- ical Model. BMC Systems Biology11(1), 70 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1 186/s12918-017-0446-9

    2017

  25. [25]

    Applied Sciences12(23), 12474 (2022)

    Nave, O., Sigron, M.: A Mathematical Model for the Treatment of Melanoma with the BRAF/MEK Inhibitor and Anti-PD-1. Applied Sciences12(23), 12474 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/app122312474

    work page doi:10.3390/app122312474 2022

  26. [26]

    Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling10(1), 41 (2013)

    Wang, J., Zhang, L., Jing, C., Ye, G., Wu, H., Miao, H., Wu, Y., Zhou, X.: Multi-Scale Agent-Based Modeling on Melanoma and Its Related Angio- genesis Analysis. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling10(1), 41 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-10-41

    work page doi:10.1186/1742-4682-10-41 2013

  27. [28]

    eLlife11, 76535 (2022)

    Hari, K., Ullanat, V., Balasubramanian, A., Gopalan, A., Jolly, M.K.: Landscape of epithelial–mesenchymal plasticity as an emergent property of coordinated teams in regulatory networks. eLlife11, 76535 (2022). https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76535

    work page doi:10.7554/elife.76535 2022

  28. [29]

    Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer11(9), 006766 (2023)

    Subhadarshini, S., Sahoo, S., Debnath, S., Somarelli, J.A., Jolly, M.K.: Dynamical modeling of proliferative-invasive plasticity and ifnγsignal- ing in melanoma reveals mechanisms of pd-l1 expression heterogeneity. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer11(9), 006766 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2023-006766

    work page doi:10.1136/jitc-2023-006766 2023

  29. [30]

    Bulletin of Mathematical Biology88(7), 107 (2026)

    Taylor Barca, C., Leshem, R., Gopalan, V., Woolner, S., Marie, K.L., Jones, G.W., Jensen, O.E.: Travelling waves in gene expression: A mathematical model of cell-state dynamics in melanoma. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology88(7), 107 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538 -026-01637-z

    doi:10.1007/s11538 2026

  30. [31]

    Science352(6282), 189–196 (2016)

    Tirosh, I., Izar, B., Prakadan, S.M., Wadsworth, M.H., Treacy, D., Trombetta, J.J., Rotem, A., Rodman, C., Lian, C., Murphy, G.,et al.: Dissecting the Multicellular Ecosystem of Metastatic Melanoma by Single- Cell RNA-Seq. Science352(6282), 189–196 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1 126/science.aad0501

    2016

  31. [32]

    Cell 174(4), 843–855 (2018)

    Rambow, F., Rogiers, A., Marin-Bejar, O., Aibar, S., Femel, J., Dewaele, M., Karras, P., Brown, D., Chang, Y.H., Debiec-Rychter, M.,et al.: Toward minimal residual disease-directed therapy in melanoma. Cell 174(4), 843–855 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.025

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.025 2018

  32. [33]

    Genes & Devel- opment33(15–16), 983–1007 (2019)

    Goding, C.R., Arnheiter, H.: MITF—The First 25 Years. Genes & Devel- opment33(15–16), 983–1007 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.3246 57.119

    work page doi:10.1101/gad.3246 2019

  33. [34]

    Genes & Development33(19–20), 1295–1318 (2019)

    Rambow, F., Marine, J.-C., Goding, C.R.: Melanoma Plasticity and Phenotypic Diversity: Therapeutic Barriers and Opportunities. Genes & Development33(19–20), 1295–1318 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1101/gad. 329771.119

    work page doi:10.1101/gad 2019

  34. [35]

    Genes & Development 20(24), 3426–3439 (2006)

    Carreira, S., Goodall, J., Denat, L., Rodriguez, M., Nuciforo, P., Hoek, K.S., Testori, A., Larue, L., Goding, C.R.: MITF Regulation of Dia1 Controls Melanoma Proliferation and Invasiveness. Genes & Development 20(24), 3426–3439 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.406406

    work page doi:10.1101/gad.406406 2006

  35. [36]

    Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research23(6), 746–759 (2010)

    Hoek, K.S., Goding, C.R.: Cancer Stem Cells Versus Phenotype-Switching in Melanoma. Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research23(6), 746–759 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-148X.2010.00757.x 38A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [37]

    EMBO Reports17(10), 1374–1395 (2016)

    Pakos-Zebrucka, K., Koryga, I., Mnich, K., Ljuji´ c, M., Samali, A., Gor- man, A.M.: The Integrated Stress Response. EMBO Reports17(10), 1374–1395 (2016). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201642195

    work page doi:10.15252/embr.201642195 2016

  37. [38]

    Genes & Development31(1), 18–33 (2017)

    Falletta, P., Sanchez-del-Campo, L., Chauhan, J., Effern, M., Kenyon, A., Kershaw, C.J., Siddaway, R., Lisle, R., Freter, R., Daniels, M.J.,et al.: Translation Reprogramming Is an Evolutionarily Conserved Driver of Phenotypic Plasticity and Therapeutic Resistance in Melanoma. Genes & Development31(1), 18–33 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.290940.1 16

    work page doi:10.1101/gad.290940.1 2017

  38. [39]

    Journal of Biological Chemistry290(1), 384–395 (2015)

    Goswami, S., Tarapore, R.S., Strong, A.M.P., TeSlaa, J.J., Grinblat, Y., Setaluri, V., Spiegelman, V.S.: MicroRNA-340-Mediated Degradation of Microphthalmia-Associated Transcription Factor (MITF) mrna Is Inhib- ited by Coding Region Determinant-Binding Protein (CRD-BP). Journal of Biological Chemistry290(1), 384–395 (2015)

    2015

  39. [40]

    EMBO Reports25(10), 4252 (2024)

    Vu, H.N., Valdimarsson, M.M., Sigurbj¨ ornsd´ ottir, S., Bergsteinsd´ ottir, K., Debbache, J., Bismuth, K., Swing, D.A., Hallsson, J.H., Larue, L., Arnheiter, H.,et al.: Novel Mechanisms of MITF Regulation Identified in a Mouse Suppressor Screen. EMBO Reports25(10), 4252 (2024). https: //doi.org/10.1038/s44319-024-00225-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s44319-024-00225-3 2024

  40. [41]

    Cancer Research68(3), 650–656 (2008)

    Hoek, K.S., Eichhoff, O.M., Schlegel, N.C., D¨ obbeling, U., Kobert, N., Schaerer, L., Hemmi, S., Dummer, R.: In Vivo Switching of Human Melanoma Cells between Proliferative and Invasive States. Cancer Research68(3), 650–656 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CA N-07-2491

    work page doi:10.1158/0008-5472.ca 2008

  41. [42]

    Nature647(8089), 517–527 (2025)

    Hunter, M.V., Joshi, E., Bowker, S., Montal, E., Ma, Y., Kim, Y.H., Yang, Z., Tuffery, L., Li, Z., Rosiek, E.,et al.: Mechanical Confinement Governs Phenotypic Plasticity in Melanoma. Nature647(8089), 517–527 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09445-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09445-6 2025

  42. [43]

    Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research27(1) (2014)

    Goding, C.R.: Fishful Thinking: The Rise and Fall of MITF in Melanoma. Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research27(1) (2014). https://doi.org/10.1 111/pcmr.12177

    2014

  43. [44]

    BMC Cancer10(1), 140 (2010)

    Ladstein, R.G., Bachmann, I.M., Straume, O., Akslen, L.A.: Ki-67 Expression Is Superior to Mitotic Count and Novel Proliferation Markers PHH3, MCM4 and Mitosin as a Prognostic Factor in Thick Cutaneous Melanoma. BMC Cancer10(1), 140 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/14 71-2407-10-140

    work page doi:10.1186/14 2010

  44. [45]

    Ophthalmology A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics39 107(8), 1443–1449 (2000)

    Eskelin, S., Pyrh¨ onen, S., Summanen, P., Hahka-Kemppinen, M., Kivel¨ a, T.: Tumor Doubling Times in Metastatic Malignant Melanoma of the Uvea: Tumor Progression Before and After Treatment. Ophthalmology A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics39 107(8), 1443–1449 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00182 -2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0161-6420(00)00182 2000

  45. [46]

    Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research25(3), 343–353 (2012)

    Widmer, D.S., Cheng, P.F., Eichhoff, O.M., Belloni, B.C., Zipser, M.C., Schlegel, N.C., Javelaud, D., Mauviel, A., Dummer, R., Hoek, K.S.: Sys- tematic Classification of Melanoma Cells by Phenotype-Specific Gene Expression Mapping. Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research25(3), 343–353 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-148X.2012.00986.x

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [47]

    Modern Pathology15(4), 387–396 (2002)

    Shukuwa, T., Katayama, I., Koji, T.: Fas-Mediated Apoptosis of Melanoma Cells and Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Human Malignant Melanomas. Modern Pathology15(4), 387–396 (2002). https://doi.org/ 10.1038/modpathol.3880535

    work page doi:10.1038/modpathol.3880535 2002

  47. [48]

    Journal of Investigative Dermatology100(3), 342–345 (1993)

    Guerry IV, D., Synnestvedt, M., Elder, D.E., Schultz, D.: Lessons from Tumor Progression: The Invasive Radial Growth Phase of Melanoma Is Common, Incapable of Metastasis, and Indolent. Journal of Investigative Dermatology100(3), 342–345 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1111/1523-174 7.ep12470248

    work page doi:10.1111/1523-174 1993

  48. [49]

    Cooper, G.M.: The Development and Causes of Cancer (2000)

    2000

  49. [50]

    Oncogene 30(20), 2304–2306 (2011)

    Goding, C.: A Picture of MITF in Melanoma Immortality. Oncogene 30(20), 2304–2306 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.641

    work page doi:10.1038/onc.2010.641 2011

  50. [51]

    Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics563, 28–34 (2014)

    Hsiao, J.J., Fisher, D.E.: The Roles of Microphthalmia-Associated Tran- scription Factor and Pigmentation in Melanoma. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics563, 28–34 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abb.2014.0 7.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.abb.2014.0 2014

  51. [52]

    Archives of Dermatology 142(12), 1551–1558 (2006)

    Liu, W., Dowling, J.P., Murray, W.K., McArthur, G.A., Thompson, J.F., Wolfe, R., Kelly, J.W.: Rate of Growth in Melanomas: Characteristics and Associations of Rapidly Growing Melanomas. Archives of Dermatology 142(12), 1551–1558 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.142.12.15 51

    work page doi:10.1001/archderm.142.12.15 2006

  52. [53]

    Dermatology Practical & Conceptual1(1), 59 (2011)

    Beer, J., Xu, L., Tschandl, P., Kittler, H.: Growth Rate of Melanoma in Vivo and Correlation with Dermatoscopic and Dermatopathologic Findings. Dermatology Practical & Conceptual1(1), 59 (2011). https: //doi.org/10.5826/dpc.0101a13

    work page doi:10.5826/dpc.0101a13 2011

  53. [54]

    Nature Cell Biology 22(8), 986–998 (2020)

    Wouters, J., Kalender-Atak, Z., Minnoye, L., Spanier, K.I., De Waegeneer, M., Bravo Gonz´ alez-Blas, C., Mauduit, D., Davie, K., Hulselmans, G., Najem, A.,et al.: Robust Gene Expression Programs Underlie Recurrent Cell States and Phenotype Switching in Melanoma. Nature Cell Biology 22(8), 986–998 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-020-0547-3 40A quant...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41556-020-0547-3 2020

  54. [55]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73829-1

    Pavliotis, G.A., Stuart, A.M.: Multiscale methods: Averaging and homog- enization (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73829-1

    doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73829-1 2008

  55. [56]

    International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics139, 103885 (2022)

    Lorenzi, T., Painter, K.J.: Trade-Offs between Chemotaxis and Prolifera- tion Shape the Phenotypic Structuring of Invading Waves. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics139, 103885 (2022). https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.ijnonlinmec.2021.103885

    arXiv 2022

  56. [57]

    Mathematical Biosciences357, 108971 (2023)

    Chambers, K.L., Myerscough, M.R., Byrne, H.M.: A New Lipid- Structured Model to Investigate the Opposing Effects of LDL and HDL on Atherosclerotic Plaque Macrophages. Mathematical Biosciences357, 108971 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mbs.2023.108971

    arXiv 2023

  57. [58]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15217 (2026)

    Agostinelli, E., Chambers, K.L., Byrne, H.M., Dalwadi, M.P.: A Multi- scale Discrete-to-Continuum Framework for Structured Population Mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15217 (2026). https://doi.org/10.48550/a rXiv.2603.15217

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.15217 2026

  58. [59]

    Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postepy Dermatologii i Alergologii30(1), 30–41 (2013)

    Cichorek, M., Wachulska, M., Stasiewicz, A., Tymi´ nska, A.: Skin Melanocytes: Biology and Development. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postepy Dermatologii i Alergologii30(1), 30–41 (2013). http s://doi.org/10.5114/pdia.2013.33376

    arXiv 2013

  59. [60]

    Melanoma Research22(1), 1 (2012)

    Greenwald, H.S., Friedman, E.B., Osman, I.: Superficial Spreading and Nodular Melanoma Are Distinct Biological Entities: A Challenge to the Linear Progression Model. Melanoma Research22(1), 1 (2012). https: //doi.org/10.1097/CMR.0b013e32834e14f5

    work page doi:10.1097/cmr.0b013e32834e14f5 2012

  60. [61]

    Biophysical Journal 120(8), 1314–1322 (2021)

    Gavagnin, E., Vittadello, S.T., Gunasingh, G., Haass, N.K., Simpson, M.J., Rogers, T., Yates, C.A.: Synchronized Oscillations in Growing Cell Populations Are Explained by Demographic Noise. Biophysical Journal 120(8), 1314–1322 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2021.02.017

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2021.02.017 2021

  61. [62]

    Nature Communications 16(1), 1394 (2025)

    Maiques, O., Sallan, M.C., Laddach, R., Pandya, P., Varela, A., Crosas- Molist, E., Barcelo, J., Courbot, O., Liu, Y., Graziani, V.,et al.: Matrix Mechano-Sensing at the Invasive Front Induces a Cytoskeletal and Transcriptional Memory Supporting Metastasis. Nature Communications 16(1), 1394 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56299-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56299-7 2025

  62. [63]

    Journal of the Royal Society Interface5(22), 483–505 (2008)

    Sherratt, J.A., Smith, M.J.: Periodic travelling waves in cyclic popula- tions: field studies and reaction–diffusion models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface5(22), 483–505 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.200 7.1327

    work page doi:10.1098/rsif.200 2008

  63. [64]

    Cancer Discovery8(8), 1006–1025 (2018)

    Zhang, M., Di Martino, J.S., Bowman, R.L., Campbell, N.R., Baksh, S.C., Simon-Vermot, T., Kim, I.S., Haldeman, P., Mondal, C., Yong-Gonzales, V.,et al.: Adipocyte-Derived Lipids Mediate Melanoma Progression via A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics41 F ATP Proteins. Cancer Discovery8(8), 1006–1025 (2018). https://doi.or g/10.1158/2159...

    work page doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-1371 2018

  64. [65]

    Genes & Development39(7-8), 463–489 (2025)

    Chocarro-Calvo, A., Jociles-Ortega, M., Garc ´ ıa-Martinez, J.M., Louphra- sitthiphol, P., Carvalho-Marques, S., Vivas-Garc ´ ıa, Y., Ram ´ ırez-S´ anchez, A., Chauhan, J., Fiuza, M.C., Duran, M.,et al.: Fatty Acid Uptake Acti- vates an AXL–CA V1–β-Catenin Axis to Drive Melanoma Progression. Genes & Development39(7-8), 463–489 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1...

    2025

  65. [66]

    Cancer Research68(19), 7788–7794 (2008)

    Goodall, J., Carreira, S., Denat, L., Kobi, D., Davidson, I., Nuciforo, P., Sturm, R.A., Larue, L., Goding, C.R.: Brn-2 Represses Microphthalmia- Associated Transcription Factor Expression and Marks a Distinct Sub- population of Microphthalmia-Associated Transcription Factor–Negative Melanoma Cells. Cancer Research68(19), 7788–7794 (2008). https://do i.or...

    work page doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-08-1053 2008

  66. [67]

    Molecular Cell77(1), 120–137 (2020)

    Vivas-Garc ´ ıa, Y., Falletta, P., Liebing, J., Louphrasitthiphol, P., Feng, Y., Chauhan, J., Scott, D.A., Glodde, N., Chocarro-Calvo, A., Bonham, S.,et al.: Lineage-Restricted Regulation of SCD and Fatty Acid Saturation by MITF Controls Melanoma Phenotypic Plasticity. Molecular Cell77(1), 120–137 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.014

    work page doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2019.10.014 2020

  67. [68]

    Immunity 50(5), 1149–1162 (2019)

    Morioka, S., Mauer¨ oder, C., Ravichandran, K.S.: Living on the Edge: Efferocytosis at the Interface of Homeostasis and Pathology. Immunity 50(5), 1149–1162 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2019.04.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2019.04.018 2019

  68. [69]

    Journal of Investigative Dermatology131(9), 1916–1926 (2011)

    Weatherhead, S.C., Farr, P.M., Jamieson, D., Hallinan, J.S., Lloyd, J.J., Wipat, A., Reynolds, N.J.: Keratinocyte Apoptosis in Epidermal Remod- eling and Clearance of Psoriasis Induced by UV Radiation. Journal of Investigative Dermatology131(9), 1916–1926 (2011). https://doi.org/10 .1038/jid.2011.134

    1916

  69. [70]

    Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE (138), 58149 (2018)

    Taruc, K., Yin, C., Wootton, D.G., Heit, B.: Quantification of Effero- cytosis by Single-Cell Fluorescence Microscopy. Journal of Visualized Experiments: JoVE (138), 58149 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3791/58149 42A quantitative model for melanoma cell population dynamics A MCMC plots: subcellular inference problem Fig. A.1 T race plots of the four independ...

    work page doi:10.3791/58149 2018