You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Cells
  • Review
  • Open Access

14 November 2025

Mathematical Modeling of Cell Death and Survival: Toward an Integrated Computational Framework for Multi-Decision Regulatory Dynamics

,
,
and
1
Department of Computational Biology, Sirius University of Science and Technology, 354340 Sirius, Russia
2
Laboratory of Bioinformatics, Federal Research Center for Information and Computational Technologies, 630090 Novosibirsk, Russia
3
Translational Inflammation Research, Medical Faculty, Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg, 39106 Magdeburg, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Translational Aspects of Cell Signaling

Highlights

What are the main findings?
  • Existing ordinary differential equation models incorporate no more than two regulated cell death types simultaneously, limiting their capacity to capture the full complexity of pathway crosstalk and coordination.
  • Ferroptosis is currently modeled only as an independent process, with no mechanistic links established to other regulated cell death pathways.
  • Comprehensive models that integrate molecular mechanisms of regulated cell death, damage-associated molecular pattern release, and subsequent intercellular immune activation are still absent.

Abstract

Mathematical modeling is essential for understanding the complex regulatory pathways governing cell death and survival, including apoptosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, autophagy, and immunogenic cell death (ICD)—a functional category comprising diverse morphological types capable of activating immune responses. The growing number of models describing individual signaling pathways poses the challenge of integrating them into a cohesive framework. This review aims to identify common components across existing ordinary differential equation models that could serve as key nodes to merge distinct signaling modalities. Proposed models highlight Bcl-2, Bax, Ca2, and p53 as shared regulators linking autophagy and apoptosis. Necroptosis and apoptosis are interconnected via TNF signaling network and modulated by caspase-8, c-FLIP, and NFκB, with RIPK1 acting as a critical hub directing pathway choice. Pyroptosis and apoptosis are co-regulated by NFκB, tBid, and caspases, while ferroptosis is modeled exclusively as an independent process, separate from other forms of cell death. Furthermore, existing models indicate that ICD intersects with necroptosis during oncolytic virotherapy, with pyroptosis in SARS-CoV-2 infection, and with apoptosis in the context of chemotherapy. Although several models address crosstalk between pairs of cell fate decisions, creating comprehensive frameworks that encompass three or more death modes remains an open challenge.

1. Introduction

The fundamental principle of organismal function is homeostasis, defined as the ability to maintain a stable internal functional and structural state despite external changes [1]. At the cellular level, homeostasis is achieved through a delicate balance between cell proliferation (division and growth) and regulated cell death (RCD) [2,3]. Advances in elucidating the molecular mechanisms of cell death have led to the establishment of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD), which regularly updates recommendations for defining and interpreting cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives [4,5,6,7,8]. The current RCD types include necroptosis, ferroptosis, alkaliptosis, apoptosis, autophagy-dependent cell death, cuproptosis, disulfidptosis, entosis, immunogenic cell death (ICD), lysosome-dependent cell death, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, NETosis, oxeiptosis, parthanatos, and pyroptosis. Each modality is driven by specific molecular pathways characterized by extensive interconnectivity [7,9,10]. Alongside molecular discoveries, mathematical modeling has become indispensable for quantifying, predicting, and analyzing cell dynamics across diverse conditions [11]. Ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are a widely used approach for representing biological processes [12,13]. However, modeling cellular behavior extends well beyond ODEs [14] to include approaches such as partial differential equations [15,16,17,18,19], Boolean networks [20,21,22,23,24,25,26], cellular automata [27,28], and agent-based simulations [29,30]. Comprehensive reviews have been published on models of apoptosis [31,32,33], autophagy [34,35], and ICD [36,37,38], along with a notable review that integrates models across these and other cell death pathways [39]. Despite this progress, the increasing number of models describing individual signaling modalities poses the challenge of integrating them into a single framework capable of capturing the complexity of cell death regulation. This challenge resonates with Michael Savageau’s concept that every reductionist must also act as a reconstructionist, implying that a true understanding of complex biological systems involves not only breaking them down into fundamental parts but also reassembling those parts to uncover the emergent behaviors [40].
Systematic efforts have been made to identify shared components across various cell death and survival pathways, aiming to develop a unified mathematical framework for cell fate decisions [23,29,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. However, existing ODE-based models consider no more than two RCD types simultaneously. This overview addresses this limitation by initiating steps toward the integration of multiple RCD pathways within a unified ODE model. Among the regulatory pathways controlling cell death and survival, ODE models have been developed for apoptosis, autophagy, ferroptosis, ICD (primarily involving intercellular interactions), necroptosis, and pyroptosis. Since all existing crosstalk models incorporate apoptosis with other death modalities, we begin our exploration with apoptosis models and then examine other pathways, highlighting hubs of their intersection with apoptosis and, where data allow, with additional RCD types. Characteristics of all models discussed in this review are summarized in Supplementary Table S1 and can be accessed online via the GitLab wiki at https://gitlab.sirius-web.org/virtual-cell/info/-/wikis/Cell%20fate/Home (accessed on 11 November 2025).

2. Apoptosis

Apoptosis is a universal, evolutionarily conserved form of RCD involving caspase family proteases [8]. It plays key roles in eliminating unwanted cells during development, removing damaged or infected cells, and maintaining tissue homeostasis by controlling cell populations [48]. The process of apoptosis comprises three distinct phases: induction (signaling), effector, and degradation [49,50]. The induction phase is triggered by external signals, such as death receptor (DR) activation, or internal stimuli like mitochondrial stress, initiating the caspase cascade [51,52]. Caspases are synthesized as inactive zymogens, known as procaspases, and are classified into two types depending on their roles in apoptosis: initiator (caspases-2, -8, -9, and -10) and effector (caspases-3, -6, and -7) [53,54]. During the effector phase, the proteolytic cleavage of vital cellular proteins orchestrates apoptotic dismantling [55]. The degradation phase culminates in cellular fragmentation into membrane-bound apoptotic bodies that are quickly phagocytosed by neighboring cells, including macrophages and parenchymal cells [56].
Death receptors (DRs) belong to the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily, including TNFR1 (p55/CD120a), TNFR2 (p75/CD120b), CD95 (Fas/APO-1), and TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL)-R1 (DR4) and -R2 (DR5/APO-2) [57]. The stimulation of CD95 and TRAIL-R1/R2 with their cognate ligands leads to the assembly of the death-inducing signaling complex (DISC), which, in addition to the receptor, includes the Fas-associated protein with death domain (FADD), procaspases-8/-10, and cellular FADD-like interleukin (IL)-1β-converting enzyme-inhibitory proteins (c-FLIPs). The DISC serves as a platform for procaspase-8 processing and activation [58]. In contrast, the TNFR1-induced pro-apoptotic pathway requires the formation of two distinct complexes. The membrane-bound complex I, which is formed rapidly, consists of TNFR1, TNFR1-associated death domain protein (TRADD), receptor-interacting protein kinase 1 (RIPK1), TNF receptor-associated factor 2 (TRAF2), cellular inhibitor of apoptosis proteins (cIAPs), LUBAC complex [59], and inhibitory κB (IκB) kinases (IKKs) and triggers nuclear factor κB (NFκB) response, but not apoptosis. This complex gives rise to a cytosolic complex II, which lacks TNFR1 but includes RIPK1, FADD and procaspases-8/-10 to initiate apoptosis. However, cell death is generally not a typical outcome, as NFκB induces the transcriptional regulation of c-FLIP, the main inhibitor of caspase-8 as well as other inhibitors of apoptotic pathway [60,61,62].
The intrinsic apoptotic pathway is triggered by stress stimuli or extrinsically via caspase-8-induced proteolysis of Bid into tBid and activation of Bax [63], leading to mitochondrial release of cytochrome c and Smac, which activate caspase-9 [64]. Subsequent to this, active caspases-8 and -9 cleave caspases-3 and -7 [65], thereby initiating the cleavage of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) [66,67]. The primary function of PARP-1 is to detect and repair DNA damage. Consequently, following its cleavage, the process of apoptosis becomes irreversible [67,68]. This pathway is blocked by anti-apoptotic Bcl-2 family members (Bcl-2, Bcl-xL), which prevent mitochondrial release of apoptogenic factors and regulate Bax activation [69,70,71]. Depending on the pathway of apoptosis caused by DRs, cells are classified as type I, where caspase-8 directly activates effector caspases, or type II, where this activation requires mitochondrial involvement [72,73,74,75,76].
In 2000, Fussenegger et al. pioneered a model capturing key aspects of receptor-mediated and stress-induced caspase activation [77]. Since then, apoptosis modeling has become widespread within the scientific community. While several research groups following Fussenegger and colleagues have simulated the interplay between intra- and extracellular signals that initiate apoptosis [78,79,80,81], other studies (reviewed below) have focused more narrowly on pathways related to specific triggers, such as DRs or intracellular catastrophes.
Bentele et al. developed a detailed computational model of CD95 signaling, revealing a threshold mechanism whereby c-FLIP inhibits caspase-8 activation at the DISC under low ligand conditions, blocking apoptosis [82]. The model was calibrated using experimental data from SKW 6.4 human B lymphoblastoid cells, which were classified as type I due to elevated DISC formation [74]. Hua and colleagues next constructed a model that reproduced the transition from type II (Bcl-2–sensitive) to type I (Bcl-2–insensitive) signaling by increasing caspase-8 levels [83]. Simplified versions of this model were used in later studies [84,85]. Neumann et al. proposed an integrated quantitative model of CD95-mediated apoptosis and NFκB activation, uncovering a novel mechanism in which p43-FLIP (a c-FLIP cleavage product generated by procaspase-8 at the DISC) directly interacts with the IKK complex leading to its activation, a finding validated experimentally [86]. In the same year, Fricker et al. furthered understanding of c-FLIP isoform roles (c-FLIP long, c-FLIPL; c-FLIP short, c-FLIPS; and c-FLIP Raji, c-FLIPR) in caspase-8 activation at the DISC by constructing a mathematical model of this process [87]. The findings demonstrated that c-FLIPL promotes apoptosis only at moderate expression in combination with strong receptor stimulation or in the presence of high amounts of one of the short c-FLIP isoforms, c-FLIPS or c-FLIPR. In subsequent research, Kutumova and colleagues reduced and combined the Bentele and Neumann models into a comprehensive computational framework for the CD95 and NFκB pathways, suitable for analyzing pro- and anti-apoptotic signaling in both type I and type II cells [88]. This framework was recently integrated with a mechanistic cardiorenal model [89,90,91], enabling in silico exploration of age-dependent cardiomyocyte apoptosis and its systemic effects [92]. Models of CD95-induced apoptosis developed in the last decade have provided new insights into the molecular mechanisms of the CD95 signaling network. Wu and Finley developed a model of Thrombospondin-1 (TSP1)-mediated apoptosis [93] by adapting molecular details of the CD95L cascade from the model by Neumann et al. [86]. The Lavrik group investigated cell-to-cell variability in the apoptotic phenotype and showed that it arises not from stochastic gene expression in the NFκB response, but from heterogeneity in the composition of death effector domain (DED) chains (filaments) formed by procaspase-8 within the DISC [94]. Subsequent models created by the group further clarified the mechanisms underlying caspase-8 activation at the DED filaments as well as their regulation [95,96]. Finally, Mangrum and Finley extended the caspases-mediated apoptosis model originally established by Eissing et al. [97] by incorporating extracellular activation and CD95 receptor dynamics, identifying key modulators of apoptosis in heterogeneous cancer cell populations that may be leveraged to enhance cell death [98].
Several models have been developed to study TRAIL signaling [99,100,101,102,103]. Albeck et al. showed that the delay before effector caspase activation depends on caspase-8 activity and the rates of downstream reactions immediately following TRAIL stimulation [99,100]. The findings of this study indicate that interactions between Bcl-2 family proteins, the segregation of Smac from XIAP (X-linked IAP), and mitochondrial pore formation mechanisms are critical for the snap-action switch that enforces a binary decision between cell survival and death. Zhang and coworkers adapted Hua’s model [83] to TRAIL signaling and revealed that high expression of decoy receptors (TRAIL-R3 and TRAIL-R4) relative to DRs (TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2) negatively regulates apoptosis via ligand-independent binding [101]. The intricate mechanism through which decoy receptors can disrupt the assembly of TRAIL receptor homotrimers was modeled by Laussmann and colleagues [102]. The authors demonstrated that caspase-8 activation might be delayed in the presence of proteasome inhibitors, particularly at submaximal doses of TRAIL. Anderson et al. developed a simplified model of TRAIL-induced apoptosis that included only the key reactions to investigate the systemic effects of protein kinase B (AKT) [103]. The model predictions clarified how individual protein species, as well as the apoptotic system in its entirety, are influenced across different genetic backgrounds. Subsequent laboratory studies revealed that AKT regulation of apoptosis is significantly stronger during TRAIL-mediated extrinsic apoptosis compared to TRAIL-independent pathways, with its effects most pronounced in the early stages of the apoptotic response.
The pioneering model of the cellular decision between apoptosis and proliferation in response to TNFα stimulation was established by Cho et al. [104]. Despite its simplicity and lack of quantitative calibration with experimental data, their systems-theoretical approach captured the ambiguous outcomes of TNFα signaling. Rangamani and Sirovich expanded this model by incorporating NFκB-driven transcription of IAP and IκB, activation of caspases-8 and -3, and DNA fragmentation [105]. Koh and Lee proposed an even more complex model that included the intrinsic apoptotic pathway alongside the extrinsic one, as well as NFκB-mediated synthesis of apoptosis regulators A20 and c-FLIP [106]. The critical roles of A20 and c-FLIP in modulating TNFα responses were also explored in an experimentally validated mathematical model of TNFR1-induced pro- and anti-apoptotic pathways by Schliemann et al. [107]. Most recently, Halder and Chatterjee designed a novel model describing the bistable switch between cell survival and death triggered by TNFα, elucidating the mechanism of TNFR2 signaling in T-regulatory cells that suppress immunological responses to preserve homeostasis and self-tolerance [108].
Computational models with a focus on mitochondria-dependent apoptotic pathways have been developed by multiple research groups, taking into consideration a variety of stimuli that initiate the process. Bagci et al. simulated the effects of silymarin [109], which elevates p53 levels, downregulates Bcl-2, and upregulates Bax [110]. This model was later expanded to include nitric oxide–induced reactions, revealing its complex, competing roles in apoptosis regulation [111]. The calculations indicated that the balance between pro- and anti-apoptotic outcomes depends on the relative concentrations of reactive nitric oxide species and their interactions with glutathione, with precise timing of nitric oxide production and external stimulation being crucial. Another extension of the Bagci model, involving the p53-Mdm2 feedback loop and p53-induced G2/M phase cell cycle arrest, demonstrated that intrinsic apoptosis triggered by severe DNA damage is driven by oscillatory p53 dynamics and initiated strictly after cell cycle arrest [112]. Zhang et al. clarified this scheme by proposing that cell cycle arrest coordinates DNA repair, and apoptosis ensues if the damage is irreparable [113]. Their model attributed this cell-fate transition to a transformation of p53 from a “helper” (pro-arrest) to a “killer” (pro-apoptotic) form. Notably, the timing of p53 activation is critical, as DNA-damaging agents can both induce p53-driven apoptosis and promote apoptosis inhibitors that counteract cell death [114].
To study the mechanisms behind fractional killing by DNA-damaging chemotherapeutic agents, Ballweg et al. constructed a mathematical model representing this complex biological process [115]. Their analysis predicted that cell fate depends on the interplay between the temporal trajectories of p53 and cIAP and the bifurcation geometry that defines how Bax is activated by these two control parameters. McKenna and colleagues further explored how DNA-damaging drugs trigger apoptosis and highlighted Bax and Smac as key regulators of the apoptotic switch, with Bax acting as a primary mediator of mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP) [116]. Their findings complement the research of Rehm et al. [117], who identified MOMP as the essential initiating event in intrinsic apoptosis and developed a biochemical model based on experimental data obtained in HeLa cells that accurately reproduced the rapid in vivo kinetics of effector caspase activation following staurosporine treatment. Moreover, the crucial role of Smac concentrations was explored for the effective apoptosis initiation. In contrast, Ryu et al. focused specifically on apoptosome formation as a critical step in apoptosis [118], parameterizing their model using experimental data from Rodriguez and Lazebnik [119], where activation of caspases-9 and -3 was induced in HEK293 cell extracts by ATP or dATP. Finally, other models abstract from specific stimuli that initiate mitochondrial apoptosis and instead concentrate on the ensuing molecular interactions, thereby providing deeper insights into the dynamic regulation and bistable properties of the process [27,120,121,122].
In summary, although existing models capture specific aspects of the apoptotic signaling network, a comprehensive model that integrates all apoptosis scenarios remains unavailable. Despite the efforts to develop such a model [123], the primary challenge lies in the lack of sufficient experimental data for its calibration.

3. Autophagy

Macroautophagy (commonly referred to as autophagy) is a process where cellular contents are encircled by the membrane-bound structures called autophagic vesicles. These vesicles subsequently fuse with lysosomes, where the cellular contents are broken down into small molecules, which are recycled by the cell [124,125]. The modeling of autophagy has a long history. As early as 1975, Russell Deter proposed a conceptual model describing the interactions among telolysosomes, autophagosomes, and autolysosomes during glucagon-induced autophagy in rat liver [126]. More recently, Han and colleagues applied similar approaches to mammalian hepatocytes [127] and human neurons [128], modeling autophagosome formation from proteins and organelles and subsequent autolysosome formation. These studies identified intracellular ATP and amino acid levels as key biochemical parameters reflecting cellular energetic and metabolic states that influence cell fate. Using combined computational and experimental methods, Dalle Pezze et al. investigated how amino acids regulate core autophagy controllers: AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and Unc-51-like kinase 1 (ULK1), which promote autophagy, and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) complex 1 (mTORC1), which inhibits it [129]. They found that amino acids acutely activate AMPK concurrently with mTOR, and in the presence of sufficient amino acids, AMPK does not inhibit mTORC1 but sustains ULK1 activity and autophagy.
Autophagy dysfunction is associated with a broad spectrum of pathologies, including cancer, neurodegenerative conditions, metabolic disorders, and autoimmune diseases [130,131,132,133]. Due to their pivotal functions, the kinase triad AMPK, MTORC1 and ULK1 represents a promising target for pharmaceutical interventions [134,135,136]. Reflecting this, several mathematical models have recently been developed to simulate the effects of drugs targeting these key autophagy regulators [137,138,139,140,141].
In 2011, Tyson et al. designed a roadmap for a pioneering ODE model of estrogen receptor signaling in breast epithelial cells that, for the first time, integrated the interplay between autophagy and apoptosis in response to stress activating the unfolded protein response (UPD) [41]. They emphasised that under low stress conditions, autophagy promotes cell survival; at moderate stress, it may lead to autophagic cell death; and for large stress, calcium release may stimulate apoptosis by the intrinsic (mitochondrial) pathway. Subsequently, the Tyson group created a dynamic model that was consistent with quantitative measurements of autophagy and apoptosis in rat kidney proximal tubular cells in response to cisplatin-induced stress [142]. Concurrently, Cook et al. presented a mathematical model which, together with experimental data, demonstrated that knockdown of estrogen receptor-α in antiestrogen-resistant cells stimulates mitochondrial dysfunction and inhibits the UPR-mediated antioxidant pathway, thereby promoting reactive oxygen species formation and apoptosis [143].
Autophagy and apoptosis share common regulators, with Bcl-2 playing a central role in their crosstalk [144,145]. To explore the physiological relevance of this interaction, Kapuy et al. developed a computational model incorporating Bcl-2, Bax, the autophagy inducer Beclin-1, and caspases [146]. Subsequent studies from the Kapuy group examined survival and death control through a series of minimalistic models. Specifically, the initial model of the regulatory triangle involving AMPK, mTORC1, and ULK1 [147] was based on computational analysis of a bistable switch between autophagy and protein synthesis at the translational level, originally described by Szymańska and colleagues [148]. This was followed by multiple models investigating AMPK–mTORC1–ULK1 network behavior [149,150,151,152,153,154]. Additional regulators were also considered, including the transcription factor NRF2 (nuclear factor erythroid-related factor 2) [150,155], sensors for endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress such as PERK (protein kinase RNA-like ER kinase) and IRE1 (inositol requiring 1) [156], PERK-induced protein ATF4 (activating transcription factor 4) and its two targets, GADD34 (growth arrest and DNA damage-inducible 34) and CHOP (C/EBP homologous protein) [150,157,158]. The effects of diverse chemicals on cell death mechanisms were also examined, including sulforaphane [153], tropic antimalarial drugs (chloroquine, hydroxochloroquine) after SARS-CoV-2 infection [159], and chloroquine combined with pharmacologic ascorbate in KRAS mutant tumors [160]. It was demonstrated that ER stress generates an autophagy-dependent apoptotic threshold, and that double-negative feedback between autophagy and apoptosis inducers can yield bistability [161,162]. This extensive body of work was complemented by studies from Yang and co-authors. Using the primary Kapuy model [146], Yang et al. investigated the binding of the cancer cell regulator AMBRA1 (Beclin1-regulated autophagy protein 1) [163] to Bcl-2 in the ER and mitochondria under varying stress levels [164]. They showed that AMBRA1 competes with Bcl-2 family proteins to activate Beclin-1, thereby promoting sustained autophagy prior to apoptosis. Furthermore, noise effects on the double-negative feedback between autophagy and apoptosis were examined using a minimal three-component model of stress, caspases, and Beclin-1, revealing that stronger noise increases randomness in switching [165]. Finally, extending the model of cell fate decisions during ER stress [161], Yang et al. explored autophagic degradation of misfolded α-synuclein (whose accumulation is associated with Parkinson’s disease) and found that oxidative stress can transform the bistable switch of misfolded α-synuclein aggregation from an irreversible to a reversible condition through the autophagy-lysosome degradation pathway [166].
The interplay between autophagy and apoptosis relies heavily on calcium-dependent signaling pathways [167,168]. The role of Ca2+ as a rheostat fine-tuning cellular responses was investigated in a comprehensive model by Liu et al. [44], which incorporates mTOR and inositol signaling, as well as the autophagic and intrinsic apoptosis pathways. Their study highlighted that, beyond Ca2+ released from the ER, p53 also acts as a crucial determinant of cell fate through its regulation of Bcl-2, Bax, AMPK, and damage-regulated autophagy modulator (DRAM), a lysosomal protein that induces autophagy. Since the authors did not release the source code for their model and could not provide it upon request, Hajdú et al. reconstructed, calibrated, and made the model publicly available [169]. Additionally, several research groups have examined the complex roles of calcium ions and p53 in autophagy-apoptosis decisions using simpler models [41,43,142,170,171].
Finally, in addition to the extensively studied regulators of autophagy and apoptosis described above, mathematical modeling has been applied to explore more specific signaling pathways influencing cell fate decisions. For instance, Schwartz-Roberts et al. reported an inverse correlation between the expression of nuclear interferon regulatory factor-1 (IRF1) and the autophagy regulator ATG7 in human breast cancer cells [172]. Using a computational model to generate signaling hypotheses, they provided evidence that ATG7 silencing could resensitize IRF1-attenuated cells to apoptosis via mechanisms involving other estrogen-regulated genes. Furthermore, Pavel et al. constructed a model of the mutual regulation between the Hippo pathway and autophagy [173].

4. Ferroptosis

Ferroptosis is a recently discovered form of cell death characterized by the lethal accumulation of iron-dependent membrane-localized lipid peroxides [174,175,176,177]. Although apoptosis and ferroptosis mechanisms were initially thought to be mutually exclusive, current studies have revealed cellular contexts requiring a balanced interaction between these death pathways [178,179,180]. Despite intensive research conducted in this field in recent times, computational models capable of adequately characterizing the switch between ferroptosis and apoptosis remain elusive. Moreover, a review of the extant literature indicates that only three ODE models of ferroptosis have been developed to date [181,182,183].
The first model of the phospholipid metabolic network regulating ferroptosis was constructed by Kagan et al. in 2017 [181]. The model replicated glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) deficiency induced by its inhibitor RSL3 and triggering ferroptosis and contributed to the discovery that ferroptosis execution involves a highly organized oxygenation center, where only one class of phospholipids (phosphatidylethanolamines) undergoes oxidation in ER-associated compartments with the specificity towards two fatty acyls: arachidonoyl and adrenoyl. Furthermore, vitamin E was shown to regulate ferroptosis by suppressing lipoxygenases involved in death signaling, thereby suggesting its protective role [181].
The next model created by the Kagan group was designed to enhance comprehension of the nitric oxide (NO•) effects on the ferroptotic program of macrophages/microglia [182]. In computational experiments, elevated expression of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) decreased sensitivity of macrophages to RSL3 stimulation. Concurrently, both inhibitory mechanisms of NO•, including the inactivation of 15-lipoxygenase and the scavenging of lipid radical intermediates, was significant for iNOS-mediated suppression of RSL3-stimulated ferroptosis in activated M1 cells.
The most recent model by Arbatskiy et al. presents a comprehensive modular framework for ferroptosis, integrating the key molecular and genetic mechanisms that regulate its execution: Fenton’s reaction, iron metabolism, lipid synthesis and peroxidation, the pentose phosphate pathway, and the antioxidant system, which encompasses both the gamma–glutamyl cycle and the GPX4 system [183].

5. Immunogenic Cell Death

ICD is a form of RCD that activates an adaptive immune response against dying cells, in particular cancer cells [184,185,186,187]. ICD can be initiated by a wide range of stimuli, including viral infections, chemotherapeutic agents, physicochemical therapies, photodynamic therapy, and radiotherapy [7,188]. The primary forms of ICD are pyroptosis, necroptosis, and ferroptosis, which promote immune activation by releasing damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), while apoptosis is typically regarded as an immunologically silent process [3,189]. However, under certain conditions (such as exposure to chemotherapy or radiation), apoptosis can acquire immunogenic properties [190,191,192].
Mathematical modeling of ICD has been refined over the years in the context of anticancer therapies, aiming to enhance understanding and optimize immune-mediated treatment outcomes. As early as 1977, DeLisi and Rescigno introduced a predator-prey model of carcinogenesis that described the dynamics of tumor cells in the presence of tumor-stimulated killer lymphocytes [193,194]. In the proposed model, the survival probability of a solid tumor increased with tumor size and depended on both the timing of immune intervention and the status of the recipient’s immune system. It was much more sensitive to variations in tumor characteristics, such as antigenicity, than to alterations in lymphocyte parameters. However, the “sneaking through” phenomenon, defined by the progressive growth of small antigenic tumors, rejection of medium-sized tumors, and eventual breakthrough of large tumors [195,196], was not observed. The model developed by Grossman and Berke [197] specifically examined this phenomenon and was subsequently complemented by a series of in silico studies that delved deeper into the mechanisms underlying tumor rejection and breakthrough [198,199,200]. In 1994, Kuznetsov et al. introduced a mathematical model depicting the cytotoxic T lymphocyte response to the progression of immunogenic tumors [201], which has become a widely accepted standard in the field of mathematical oncology [36,37,202]. This model captures key in vivo phenomena, such as tumor dormancy, immunostimulation of tumor growth, and tumor sneaking through, analyzing steady states, bifurcations, and oscillatory behaviors in tumor-immune dynamics.
Although models of initial antitumor immune activation continued to emerge [203,204], since the late 1990s, ICD modeling has advanced to incorporate more sophisticated mechanisms of tumor regulation, including the influence of the tumor microenvironment [205,206,207,208], immune-related factors driving tumor regrowth [209], metastatic lesion [210], and responses to therapy. The evolution of models for studying ICD inducers had closely reflected the development of therapeutic strategies. To date, these models encompass major immunotherapy modalities, including immune checkpoint inhibitors [211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221], cancer vaccines [222,223,224,225], monoclonal antibodies [223], adoptive cell transfer [219,222,226,227], immune system modulators [219,222,226,228,229,230,231], and oncolytic viruses [215,220,224,232,233]. A number of models have also investigated the complex effects of other cancer therapies on the immune system, including radiotherapy [210,211,212,214,217,218,234,235,236,237,238,239], chemotherapy [221,222,227,240,241], and surgical interventions [223,235,236]. The prevailing consensus from these models is that although monotherapies can lead to promising outcomes in some cases (especially in early-stage cancer), combination therapies, involving multiple immunotherapeutic agents or integrating immunotherapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, or targeted therapy are generally more effective [211,212,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,222,223,224,226,227]. This is particularly relevant given that approximately 50% of cancers are diagnosed at advanced stages [242]. Moreover, integrating computational models of the tumor microenvironment with clinical patient data can facilitate the development of personalized combination therapies, leading to more effective treatment regimens than standardized protocols [221]. This tailored approach has the potential to improve disease control, increase survival rates, and minimize side effects, ultimately optimizing overall patient outcomes.
In conclusion, it is important to highlight that among the models discussed, only one explicitly attributes that immune activation occurs in response to apoptosis of bladder cancer cells induced by mitomycin-C chemotherapy, while avoiding molecular complexities [241]. The other models do not specify a particular cell death mechanism responsible for ICD.

6. Necroptosis

Necroptosis is a form of RCD that critically depends on RIPK1, RIPK3 and the mixed lineage kinase domain-like (MLKL) pseudokinase and is typically characterized by morphological features resembling necrosis [243,244,245]. This pathway can be initiated by the activation of DRs, with TNFR1 being the most extensively studied, particularly in the contexts of caspase-8 or FADD deficiency, or in the presence of the caspase inhibitor Z-VAD-FMK [246,247,248]. In contrast, the catalytic activity of the caspase-8–c-FLIPL complex acts to inhibit necroptosis [249].
The computational modeling of necroptosis is currently in its nascent stage. In 2020, Oliver Metzig and colleagues introduced a conceptual mathematical model to investigate the complex interplay between TNF-induced NFκB signaling and necroptotic fate decisions [250]. Their research identified the TNF-induced, NFκB-responsive protein A20 as a critical regulator whose expression forms an incoherent feedforward loop, protecting a fraction of cells from transient TNF doses but sensitizing them to prolonged TNF stimulation. Moreover, they found that dysregulated NFκB dynamics diminish the cellular discrimination of TNF exposures. Xu et al. explored oscillations within the necroptotic network by analyzing a circuit of four key components: TRADD, RIPK1, caspase-8, and RIPK3 [251]. They demonstrated that elevated levels of RIPK1 and caspase-8 increase the probability of oscillations, while high TRADD levels reduce it. Their study revealed that the minimal essential structure for generating oscillations is a paradoxical component combined with positive feedback among RIPK1, caspase-8, and RIPK3. Ildefonso et al. further examined the biochemical regulation of necroptosis, focusing on a critical activation step–RIPK1 deubiquitination mediated by the enzymes CYLD (cylindromatosis lysine 63 deubiquitinase) and A20, whose precise roles have been debated [252]. To clarify these contradictions, they constructed a detailed model of TNF-induced necroptosis and identified four distinct signaling modes. In one mode, A20 and CYLD work together to drive RIPK1 deubiquitination; in another, CYLD acts as the sole deubiquitinase; while in the remaining two modes, either enzyme serves as the driver, with the other unexpectedly inhibiting necroptosis. This model reconciles conflicting and counterintuitive experimental findings across various cell types by associating them with these necroptosis modes.
Beyond models specifically focused on necroptosis, several have been developed to explore the interplay between apoptosis and necroptosis. Li et al. addressed the paradoxical role of RIPK1, which can both promote and limit necroptosis [45]. Combining mathematical modeling with experimental validation, they found two critical RIPK1 molecule thresholds per cell: a lower threshold of approximately 1000 molecules and an upper threshold of approximately 46,000 molecules. Below the lower threshold, cells undergo only TRADD-dependent apoptosis. Between the thresholds, the recruitment of procaspase-8 and RIPK3 to the necrosome (dependent linearly and nonlinearly on RIPK1 levels, respectively) explains the coexistence of apoptosis and necroptosis as well as RIPK1’s contradictory functions. Above the upper threshold, apoptosis is suppressed, resulting in necroptosis alone. These findings highlight the complex interplay of proteins in TNF signaling, demonstrating how RIPK1 orchestrates diverse cell fate decisions. More recently, Lee et al. developed a computational model depicting the interactions between tumor cells and therapeutic agents such as bortezomib and oncolytic viruses, which induce both necroptosis and apoptosis by modulating an intracellular signaling network comprising NFκB, IκB, Bax, and RIPK1 [253]. The model effectively integrates the dynamics of cell–cell and cell–drug interactions (an approach typical of ICD modeling) with intracellular processes, thereby providing valuable insights to optimize clinical protocols in cancer therapy.
Taken together, these models clarify the regulation of necroptosis and its close interconnection with other cell death pathways, demonstrating that RIPK1 not only serves as a distributor directing signals toward apoptosis or necroptosis but also actively influences the selection of the specific pathway.

7. Pyroptosis

Pyroptosis is an inflammatory form of RCD characterized by cell membrane rupture and the release of interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-18 [254,255,256,257,258,259,260,261]. This process is primarily mediated by inflammatory caspases-1, -4, -5, and -11 that cleave gasdermin D (GSDMD). The resulting N-terminal fragment of GSDMD forms pores in the cell membrane, causing cell swelling and lysis. Additionally, caspase-3 can cleave gasdermin E (GSDME), shifting apoptosis toward pyroptosis via a similar pore-forming mechanism that culminates in membrane rupture [262,263].
Although the term “pyroptosis” was first introduced in 2001 [264,265], mathematical modeling of pyroptotic signaling pathways has only recently begun to emerge. To date, just a few ODE models explicitly characterize this phenomenon [46,47,266,267]. Among these, the model developed by Hamis and Macfarlane [266] simulates pyroptosis within a single cell following SARS-CoV-2 infection, detected by toll-like receptors (TLRs) on immune and lung epithelial cells [268]. Upon recognition of viral pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), TLRs induce the translocation of NFκB to the nucleus, triggering synthesis of inactive NLRP3 (NLR family pyrin domain containing 3) and pro-IL-1β (the IL-1β precursor). Various stimuli, such as ionic flux or excessive reactive oxygen species, activate NLRP3, causing it to oligomerize and form the inflammasome base, which recruits ASC (apoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a CARD) and procaspase-1. Within this complex, procaspase-1 becomes activated and cleaves GSDMD, pro-IL-1β, and pro-IL-18 into their active forms, initiating pyroptotic cell death. The model also incorporates anti-inflammatory therapy that inhibits NLRP3 inflammasome formation, demonstrating how such intervention can redirect cell death from inflammatory pyroptosis to non-inflammatory pathways like apoptosis, thereby preventing uncontrolled cytokine release.
IL-1β and IL-18 are potent proinflammatory cytokines [269,270,271,272,273] whose release during pyroptosis underscores its role as a highly immunogenic form of cell death. From this perspective, the Hamis-Macfarlane model can be integrated with existing mathematical models of ICD described above. Although these ICD models were primarily designed to study tumor-immune interactions, they are adaptable to virus-infected cells due to shared biological mechanisms underpinning anticancer and antiviral immunity. Moreover, some models developed for oncolytic virus therapy already incorporate viral dynamics alongside immune responses, demonstrating their flexibility to model viral ICD [215,220,224,232,233]. Integrating the intracellular molecular mechanisms of pyroptosis with the intercellular processes considered by ICD models into a unified framework offers a promising strategy to deepen our understanding of the complex mechanisms driving severe SARS-CoV-2 manifestations and to inform the development of preventive interventions.
To investigate the interplay between pyroptosis and apoptosis, Yin and colleagues constructed a coarse-grained model of Salmonella Typhimurium-induced caspase-1 activation, which drives two competing pathways: GSDMD cleavage leading to pyroptosis, and activation of caspases-8, -9, and -3 triggering apoptosis [46]. Using sensitivity and bifurcation analyses, they explored how the network switches between cell death modes, identifying conditions that produce monostability, bistability, and tristability. Their findings revealed that only changes in caspase-1 or GSDMD levels can independently switch cell fate, with reductions in either favoring a shift from pyroptosis to apoptosis. A similar approach was later applied to create a model of pyroptosis and secondary pyroptosis by expanding the refined network of caspases-1, -3, -8, -9, and GSDMD to include two additional components: tBid, which mediates caspase-1-induced activation of caspase-9, and GSDME, cleaved by caspase-3 to initiate secondary pyroptosis [267]. Additionally, Li et al. proposed a model of NLRP1b inflammasome signaling that integrates the downstream cascade involving ASC, caspases-1, -3, -8, -9, and GSDMD, capturing possible pyroptosis and apoptosis outcomes [47]. Through combined modeling and experimental analysis, they showed that pyroptosis switches to apoptosis at a very low caspase-1 threshold but requires a high GSDMD threshold. Caspase-1-impaired cells activate apoptosis via an ASC-caspase-8-dependent pathway, while GSDMD-deficient cells primarily rely on a caspase-1-dependent route. Moreover, caspase-1 and GSDMD can independently trigger the simultaneous occurrence of pyroptosis and apoptosis. Together, these models reveal key regulatory mechanisms governing cell death decisions and highlight potential targets for therapeutic intervention.

8. Comparative Statistics

We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of ODE models describing various cell death modalities. Our focus was on ODE modeling as the predominant mathematical approach for capturing complex signaling networks. The summary covered 137 ODE-derived mathematical models of cell death and survival (Supplementary Table S1), comprising 40 apoptosis models, 20 autophagy models, 46 ICD models, 3 ferroptosis models, 3 necroptosis models, 2 pyroptosis models, and 23 hybrid models involving multiple pathways. Among the hybrid models, 19 combine apoptosis and autophagy, 2 integrate apoptosis and necroptosis, and 2 link apoptosis with pyroptosis. Program code is publicly available for 69 models, accounting for 50% of the total (Table 1). The most used modeling formats are MATLAB (45 models), SBML (27 models), and XPPAUT (22 models). Additionally, 23 of the 27 SBML models are accessible through the BioModels database [274,275].
Table 1. Comparative analysis of the mathematical models discussed in this review and summarized in Supplementary Table S1.

9. Integrated Model of the Pathways

In summary, our analysis of the developed models revealed key common elements that integrate diverse cell death pathways into a unified decision-making framework governing cell fate. It is also worth to note that the framework does not consider the ferroptosis module due to the state-of-the-art knowledge and data in the field justifying the ferroptosis does not have any mechanistic relationships established to other regulated cell death pathways.
At the core of the crosstalk between apoptosis and autophagy lies the Bcl-2 family of proteins, notably Bcl-2 and Bax. Bcl-2 serves as a crucial regulator by inhibiting Bax-mediated apoptosis, primarily by preventing the mitochondrial release of apoptogenic factors such as cytochrome c and Smac [83,85,99,100,101,103,109,112,113,120]. Additionally, Bcl-2 modulates autophagy through its interaction with the autophagy initiator Beclin-1 [41,43,44,142,146,164,170,171]. Calcium signaling acts as a rheostat in this balance; calcium ions released from the endoplasmic reticulum influence both autophagic and intrinsic apoptotic pathways via modulators like BH3, mTOR and inositol signaling components [43,44,142,170]. The tumor suppressor p53 has a dual regulatory role, promoting apoptosis by controlling Bcl-2 and Bax, while also modulating autophagy through AMPK inhibition and DRAM activation [44,171].
Both apoptosis and necroptosis are triggered by activation of DRs from the TNF receptor superfamily, which assemble multi-protein signaling complexes to determine cellular outcomes. Caspase-8, RIPK1, and c-FLIP are central to this overlap [106,252]. DR stimulation leads to the formation of membrane-bound complex I, followed by cytosolic complex II, which can initiate apoptosis or necroptosis depending on caspase-8 activity. Active caspase-8 cleaves and inactivates RIPK1, suppressing necroptosis and favoring apoptosis. When caspase-8 is inhibited, RIPK1 and RIPK3 undergo phosphorylation and oligomerization, recruiting MLKL to form the necrosome and trigger necroptosis [45]. RIPK1 functions as a key molecular switch that is regulated by its ubiquitination status; its deubiquitination by A20 removes an inhibitory block, facilitating necrosome assembly. c-FLIP adds complexity by inhibiting apoptosis through caspase-8 blockade while modulating necroptotic signaling [252]. NFκB activation by complex I upregulates anti-apoptotic genes, promoting cell survival unless this pathway is suppressed [104,105,107,250].
Caspase-8 also bridges apoptosis and pyroptosis, beyond its traditional apoptotic role. It can directly cleave GSDMD to induce pyroptosis under certain conditions, linking apoptosis to inflammatory cell death. Caspase-1, the pyroptosis effector, can activate caspase-3 and facilitate tBid-mediated caspase-9 activation when gasdermin-dependent pyroptosis is impaired, illustrating bidirectional crosstalk between these pathways [47,267]. Inflammasomes, particularly NLRP3 upregulated by NFκB, coordinate pyroptosis by recruiting and activating procaspase-1 [266]. Overlaps between necroptosis and pyroptosis involve shared molecules like caspase-8 [251,252,267] and NFκB-mediated regulation [250,266].
We integrated these insights into a comprehensive diagram (Figure 1) summarizing key biochemical reactions across apoptosis, autophagy, necroptosis, and pyroptosis, emphasizing their roles in immune activation and cell survival. This map organizes interconnected signaling modules triggered by cellular stress, immune stimuli such as DAMPs/PAMPs, and the TNFα pathway. External signals engage membrane receptors or intracellular sensors, initiating assembly of multi-protein complexes. Upon TNFα stimulation, TNFR1 recruits TRADD, RIPK1, TRAF2, cIAPs, and the LUBAC complex to form membrane-associated complex I [105,106,252]. RIPK1 ubiquitination stabilizes this complex [252], activating the IKK complex and subsequently inducing NFκB activation [104,105,106,250]. Dominant NFκB signaling upregulates anti-apoptotic proteins such as c-FLIP, A20, and XIAP, thereby promoting cell survival [107]. Alternatively, signaling may shift to cytoplasmic complex II comprising FADD, caspase-8, and RIPK1 [105,106]. Activation of caspase-8 initiates apoptosis via executioner caspase-3, leading to PARP-1 cleavage [82,88,99,107]. In the absence of caspase-8 activity, RIPK1 and RIPK3 drive necroptosis via phosphorylation and activation of MLKL [252]. Autophagy is regulated by metabolic cues including AMPK activation and nutrient deprivation, which relieve mTORC1-mediated inhibition of ULK1 to induce autophagosome formation [44,137,139,140,148]. Pyroptosis is depicted as an inflammatory cell death driven by inflammasomes such as NLRP3. Caspase-1 activation processes pro-IL-1β and pro-IL-18 into mature cytokines and cleaves GSDMD, forming membrane pores that cause rapid cell lysis and potent immune signaling [266]. Calcium-activated calpain proteases modulate both apoptosis and autophagy [44,142]. Mitochondrial factors governed by Bax, Bcl-2, and p53 intersect these pathways [41,44,81,109,112,113,142,146,170,171]. Thus, Figure 1 illustrates a dense signaling network where the ultimate cell fate emerges from integrating survival (NFκB), metabolic (mTORC1/AMPK/ULK1), stress, and TNFR1 (TRADD/RIPK1/FADD/caspase-8) cues, with critical modulation by calcium and mitochondrial inputs. The cell’s decision among apoptosis, autophagy, necroptosis, pyroptosis, or survival reflects this intricate biochemical signaling landscape.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of cellular signaling pathways, depicting the transduction of extracellular and intracellular input signals (blue) that culminate in diverse cell fate decisions (red), including apoptosis, autophagy, necroptosis, pyroptosis with immune response activation, and cell survival. Ferroptosis is excluded from the scheme because, at present, no ODE models directly integrate it through common components with the other represented processes. The diagram was created using BioUML software, version 2023.3 [276] and employs SBGN graphical notation [277].

10. Concluding Remarks

Mathematical modeling is actively employed to interpret complex data, predict system behavior, and provide quantitative frameworks that complement experimental observations. The ODE-based approach, in particular, effectively models a broad spectrum of pathological and chronic conditions, including infectious diseases [278], cancer [279,280,281], heart failure [282,283], hypertension [90,91,284], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [285], diabetes [286,287], and autoimmune disorders [288]. Therefore, this approach is indispensable for capturing the dynamic interactions within biological systems and providing insights into disease mechanisms across multiple scales.
Comprehensive ODE models of the pathways regulating cell death and survival have been developed and are continuously refined. To date, the majority of these models has focused on apoptosis, autophagy, and ICD (as a process of cell–cell interactions), while ferroptosis, pyroptosis, and necroptosis are gaining more attention (Supplementary Table S1). Notably, although this review covers autophagy in general without exploring its selective forms, there exist specific models of mitophagy–the selective degradation of damaged or dysfunctional mitochondria [138,289,290]. In contrast, no models have yet been reported for MPT-driven necrosis, entosis, NETosis, lysosome-dependent cell death, parthanatos, or for recently characterized RCD types such as alkaliptosis, oxeiptosis, cuproptosis, and disulfidptosis [9].
Beyond models of individual pathways, numerous mathematical studies capture the crosstalk between different cell death and survival mechanisms, including apoptosis and autophagy [41,43,44,141,142,146,153,156,157,158,159,161,162,164,165,166,169,170,172], apoptosis and necroptosis [45,253], as well as apoptosis and pyroptosis [46,47]. Several ICD models incorporate the role of apoptosis in modulating immune responses, addressing phenomena such as: (1) apoptosis as the predominant mode of lymphocyte death following radiotherapy [236,237,238]; (2) tumor cell expression of PD-L1 and PD-L2 promoting T cell exhaustion and apoptosis, facilitating immune evasion [208,211]; and (3) mitomycin-C chemotherapy inducing apoptosis in bladder tumor cells, which in turn activates effector immune cells [241]. Additionally, oncolytic virotherapy can induce ICD [215,220,224,232,233], with necroptosis serving as the primary underlying mechanism [253], whereas SARS-CoV-2 triggers pyroptosis [266].
Context-specific ICD modeling in cancer therapy, oncolytic virotherapy, and viral infections enhances translational insights by capturing distinct biological and immune conditions. In cancer, it enables stratification by tumor type and microenvironment, improving identification of therapeutic targets and prediction of treatment responses [207,208,229]. In oncolytic virotherapy, it improves understanding of virus–cancer cell interactions and immune modulation, guiding safer and more effective virus design and therapy regimens [215,220,224,232,233]. In viral infections, models elucidate interactions between viral replication and host immunity to inform antiviral strategies [266]. Collectively, these models improve mechanistic understanding, predict outcomes, identify biomarkers, and guide targeted interventions, thereby advancing clinical translation. Incorporating immune cell dynamics, cytokine signaling, and tumor–immune interactions into RCD models could significantly improve understanding of therapy-induced immunogenic responses by capturing the complex interplay between tumor cells and immune components. These models could clarify how immune cells such as cytotoxic T lymphocytes and dendritic cells, aided by cytokines, initiate and sustain anti-tumor immunity while revealing mechanisms of tumor resistance [291,292,293]. This enhanced insight would improve the ability to predict and optimize therapy outcomes, particularly considering the impact of non-apoptotic RCD pathways on the tumor immune microenvironment and immunotherapy efficacy [294,295]. However, comprehensive models that integrate the complex molecular events leading to regulated cell death, the release of DAMPs, subsequent intercellular immune activation, and intracellular immunogenic signaling feedback are still lacking. Applying multiscale modeling strategies—such as modular and agent-based approaches [296,297,298]—to link intracellular signaling with intercellular communication and spatial dynamics holds great potential for reproducing these complex pathways. Such approaches could enhance our capacity to predict and analyze intricate immune responses shaped by diverse cell death regulatory pathways.
In summary, although the molecular mechanisms of autophagy, apoptosis, ferroptosis, necroptosis, and pyroptosis differ significantly, these processes coexist and engage in dynamic and functional crosstalk that modulates the development of immune responses [179,299]. While a number of mathematical models have been proposed to characterize interactions between some pairs of these pathways, a comprehensive ODE model that integrates more than two modes remains to be developed. To address this gap, we present an integrated diagram of key reactions derived from the reviewed models, encompassing apoptosis, autophagy, necroptosis, pyroptosis–including its role in activating immune responses–and survival (Figure 1). This comprehensive framework establishes a foundation for follow-up quantitative modeling of the coordinated regulation of these critical cell death and survival pathways. Future modeling efforts should adopt the multi-optosis concept, which views cell death as an interconnected network rather than isolated events [300]. This approach necessitates the use of systems biology and computational modeling to integrate key signaling components, regulators, and inhibitors of apoptosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, ferroptosis, and autophagy, alongside experimental data on pathway-specific marker activation—such as responses to chemotherapy or radiation—for rigorous calibration and validation.
Furthermore, emerging RCD types—including cuproptosis, disulfidptosis, alkaliptosis, and oxeiptosis—hold significant therapeutic potential [301,302,303,304,305,306,307,308,309,310,311,312,313]. Therefore, future research should not only refine existing programmed cell death models, which offer robust foundations and broad applicability, but also explore these novel RCD forms to uncover new mechanistic insights, particularly in oncological and metabolic vulnerabilities. This dual strategy will advance therapeutic innovation by deepening mechanistic understanding and expanding the scope of RCD modeling, thereby bridging foundational knowledge and clinical translation.
While this review focuses on ODE-based modeling of cell death and survival decisions, the complexity and multi-scale features of RCD pathways highlight the value of hybrid modeling approaches. Integrating ODEs with Boolean networks and agent-based models can better capture the full spectrum of regulatory dynamics. ODE models quantitatively describe continuous biochemical kinetics within cells, Boolean models represent logical relationships among signaling nodes and efficiently capture activation and inhibition patterns [23], while agent-based models simulate cellular behaviors and interactions within heterogeneous microenvironments [314]. Combined, these approaches provide a powerful framework that accommodates the inherent complexity of multi-omics data and dynamic immune responses.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cells14221792/s1, Table S1: Mathematical models of cell death and survival developed using ordinary differential equations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.K., I.A., I.L. and F.K.; Formal Analysis, E.K.; Investigation, E.K.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, E.K.; Writing—Review & Editing, I.A., I.L. and F.K.; Visualization, E.K.; Supervision, I.L. and F.K.; Project Administration, F.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, grant no. 24-14-20031.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Characteristics of all models discussed in this review can be accessed online via the GitLab wiki at https://gitlab.sirius-web.org/virtual-cell/info/-/wikis/Cell%20fate/Home (accessed on 11 November 2025).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AMBRA1Activating molecule in beclin-1-regulated autophagy 1
AMPAdenosine monophosphate
AMPKAMP-activated protein kinase
ATF4Activating transcription factor 4
ASCApoptosis-associated speck-like protein containing a CARD
BH3BCL-2 homology domain 3
BioUMLBiological universal modeling language
c-FLIPsCellular FADD-like interleukin (IL)-1β-converting enzyme-inhibitory proteins
CARDCaspase recruitment domain
CHOPC/EBP homologous protein
cIAPsCellular inhibitor of apoptosis proteins
CYLDCylindromatosis lysine 63 deubiquitinase
DAMPsDamage-associated molecular patterns
DEDDeath effector domain
DISCDeath-inducing signaling complex
DRAMDamage-regulated autophagy modulator
DRDeath receptor
EREndoplasmic reticulum
GADD34Growth arrest and DNA damage-inducible 34
GPX4Glutathione peroxidase 4
GSDMDGasdermin D
GSDMEGasdermin E
ICDImmunogenic cell death
IκBInhibitor of kappa B
IKKsIκB kinases
IL-1β, -18Interleukin-1β, -18
iNOSInducible nitric oxide synthase
IRE1Inositol requiring 1
IRF1Interferon regulatory factor-1
FADDFas-associated protein with death domain
MLKLMixed lineage kinase domain-like
MOMPMitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization
MPTMitochondrial permeability transition
mTORMammalian target of rapamycin
mTORC1mTOR complex 1
NFκBNuclear factor κB
NLRNOD-like receptor
NLRP3NLR family pyrin domain containing 3
NONitric oxide
NODNucleotide-binding oligomerization domain
NRF2Nuclear factor erythroid-related factor 2
ODEsOrdinary differential equations
PAMPsPathogen-associated molecular patterns
PARP-1Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1
PD-L1, -L2Programmed death-ligand 1, 2
PERKProtein kinase RNA-like ER kinase
RCDRegulated cell death
RIPK1, RIPK3Receptor-interacting protein kinase 1, 3
RSL3RAS-selective lethal 3
SARS-CoV-2Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
SBGNSystems biology graphical notation
SBMLSystems biology markup language
TLRsToll-like receptors
TNFTumor necrosis factor
TNFR1/2TNF receptor 1/2
TRADDTNFR1-associated death domain protein
TRAILTNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand
TRAIL-R1/R2/R3/R4TRAIL receptor 1/2/3/4
TRAF2TNF receptor-associated factor 2
ULK1Unc-51-like kinase 1
UPRUnfolded protein response

References

  1. Billman, G.E. Homeostasis: The Underappreciated and Far Too Often Ignored Central Organizing Principle of Physiology. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wang, S.; Guo, S.; Guo, J.; Du, Q.; Wu, C.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, Y. Cell Death Pathways: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Targets for Cancer. MedComm 2024, 5, e693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lee, E.; Song, C.-H.; Bae, S.-J.; Ha, K.-T.; Karki, R. Regulated Cell Death Pathways and Their Roles in Homeostasis, Infection, Inflammation, and Tumorigenesis. Exp. Mol. Med. 2023, 55, 1632–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kroemer, G.; El-Deiry, W.S.; Golstein, P.; Peter, M.E.; Vaux, D.; Vandenabeele, P.; Zhivotovsky, B.; Blagosklonny, M.V.; Malorni, W.; Knight, R.A.; et al. Classification of Cell Death: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death. Cell Death Differ. 2005, 12, 1463–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kroemer, G.; Galluzzi, L.; Vandenabeele, P.; Abrams, J.; Alnemri, E.S.; Baehrecke, E.H.; Blagosklonny, M.V.; El-Deiry, W.S.; Golstein, P.; Green, D.R.; et al. Classification of Cell Death: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2009. Cell Death Differ. 2009, 16, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Galluzzi, L.; Vitale, I.; Abrams, J.M.; Alnemri, E.S.; Baehrecke, E.H.; Blagosklonny, M.V.; Dawson, T.M.; Dawson, V.L.; El-Deiry, W.S.; Fulda, S.; et al. Molecular Definitions of Cell Death Subroutines: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2012. Cell Death Differ. 2012, 19, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Galluzzi, L.; Vitale, I.; Aaronson, S.A.; Abrams, J.M.; Adam, D.; Agostinis, P.; Alnemri, E.S.; Altucci, L.; Amelio, I.; Andrews, D.W.; et al. Molecular Mechanisms of Cell Death: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death Differ. 2018, 25, 486–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vitale, I.; Pietrocola, F.; Guilbaud, E.; Aaronson, S.A.; Abrams, J.M.; Adam, D.; Agostini, M.; Agostinis, P.; Alnemri, E.S.; Altucci, L.; et al. Apoptotic Cell Death in Disease—Current Understanding of the NCCD 2023. Cell Death Differ. 2023, 30, 1097–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jin, X.; Jin, W.; Tong, L.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, L.; Lin, N. Therapeutic Strategies of Targeting Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death (RCD) with Small-Molecule Compounds in Cancer. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2024, 14, 2815–2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. He, R.; Liu, Y.; Fu, W.; He, X.; Liu, S.; Xiao, D.; Tao, Y. Mechanisms and Cross-Talk of Regulated Cell Death and Their Epigenetic Modifications in Tumor Progression. Mol. Cancer 2024, 23, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kardynska, M.; Kogut, D.; Pacholczyk, M.; Smieja, J. Mathematical Modeling of Regulatory Networks of Intracellular Processes–Aims and Selected Methods. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2023, 21, 1523–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Daun, S.; Rubin, J.; Vodovotz, Y.; Clermont, G. Equation-Based Models of Dynamic Biological Systems. J. Crit. Care 2008, 23, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Städter, P.; Schälte, Y.; Schmiester, L.; Hasenauer, J.; Stapor, P.L. Benchmarking of Numerical Integration Methods for ODE Models of Biological Systems. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Machado, D.; Costa, R.S.; Rocha, M.; Ferreira, E.C.; Tidor, B.; Rocha, I. Modeling Formalisms in Systems Biology. AMB Express 2011, 1, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rehm, M.; Huber, H.J.; Hellwig, C.T.; Anguissola, S.; Dussmann, H.; Prehn, J.H.M. Dynamics of Outer Mitochondrial Membrane Permeabilization during Apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2009, 16, 613–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rehm, M.; Prehn, J.H.M. Systems Modelling Methodology for the Analysis of Apoptosis Signal Transduction and Cell Death Decisions. Methods 2013, 61, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Friedman, A.; Lai, X. Combination Therapy for Cancer with Oncolytic Virus and Checkpoint Inhibitor: A Mathematical Model. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Kim, Y.; Yoo, J.Y.; Lee, T.J.; Liu, J.; Yu, J.; Caligiuri, M.A.; Kaur, B.; Friedman, A. Complex Role of NK Cells in Regulation of Oncolytic Virus–Bortezomib Therapy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 4927–4932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, W.; Ren, X.; Wang, X. Spatial–Temporal Dynamics of a Novel PDE Model: Applications to Pharmacologic Inhibition of Pyroptosis by Necrosulfonamide. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 2021, 103, 106025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mai, Z.; Liu, H. Boolean Network-Based Analysis of the Apoptosis Network: Irreversible Apoptosis and Stable Surviving. J. Theor. Biol. 2009, 259, 760–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Saez-Rodriguez, J.; Alexopoulos, L.G.; Epperlein, J.; Samaga, R.; Lauffenburger, D.A.; Klamt, S.; Sorger, P.K. Discrete Logic Modelling as a Means to Link Protein Signalling Networks with Functional Analysis of Mammalian Signal Transduction. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2009, 5, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Schlatter, R.; Schmich, K.; Avalos Vizcarra, I.; Scheurich, P.; Sauter, T.; Borner, C.; Ederer, M.; Merfort, I.; Sawodny, O. ON/OFF and Beyond—A Boolean Model of Apoptosis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2009, 5, e1000595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Calzone, L.; Tournier, L.; Fourquet, S.; Thieffry, D.; Zhivotovsky, B.; Barillot, E.; Zinovyev, A. Mathematical Modelling of Cell-Fate Decision in Response to Death Receptor Engagement. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2010, 6, e1000702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Checcoli, A.; Pol, J.G.; Naldi, A.; Noel, V.; Barillot, E.; Kroemer, G.; Thieffry, D.; Calzone, L.; Stoll, G. Dynamical Boolean Modeling of Immunogenic Cell Death. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 590479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Montagud, A.; Béal, J.; Tobalina, L.; Traynard, P.; Subramanian, V.; Szalai, B.; Alföldi, R.; Puskás, L.; Valencia, A.; Barillot, E.; et al. Patient-Specific Boolean Models of Signalling Networks Guide Personalised Treatments. eLife 2022, 11, e72626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gupta, S.; Silveira, D.A.; Mombach, J.C.M.; Hashimoto, R.F. DNA Damage-Induced Ferroptosis: A Boolean Model Regulating P53 and Non-Coding RNAs in Drug Resistance. Proteomes 2025, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, C.; Cui, J.; Lu, H.; Wang, R.; Zhang, S.; Shen, P. Modeling of the Role of a Bax-Activation Switch in the Mitochondrial Apoptosis Decision. Biophys. J. 2007, 92, 4304–4315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Apte, A.; Bonchev, D.; Fong, S. Cellular Automata Modeling of FASL-Initiated Apoptosis. Chem. Biodivers. 2010, 7, 1163–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Feuerwerker, S.; Cockrell, R.C.; An, G. Characterizing the Crosstalk Between Programmed Cell Death Pathways in Cytokine Storm with an Agent-Based Model. Surg. Infect. 2023, 24, 725–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Surendran, A.; Jenner, A.L.; Karimi, E.; Fiset, B.; Quail, D.F.; Walsh, L.A.; Craig, M. Agent-Based Modelling Reveals the Role of the Tumor Microenvironment on the Short-Term Success of Combination Temozolomide/Immune Checkpoint Blockade to Treat Glioblastoma. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2023, 387, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Spencer, S.L.; Sorger, P.K. Measuring and Modeling Apoptosis in Single Cells. Cell 2011, 144, 926–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huber, H.J.; Duessmann, H.; Wenus, J.; Kilbride, S.M.; Prehn, J.H.M. Mathematical Modelling of the Mitochondrial Apoptosis Pathway. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Mol. Cell Res. 2011, 1813, 608–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Schleich, K.; Lavrik, I.N. Mathematical Modeling of Apoptosis. Cell Commun. Signal. 2013, 11, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, L.; Jin, W.; Yu, H.; Liu, B. Modulating Autophagy to Treat Diseases: A Revisited Review on in Silico Methods. J. Adv. Res. 2024, 58, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Galhuber, M.; Thedieck, K. ODE-Based Models of Signaling Networks in Autophagy. Curr. Opin. Syst. Biol. 2024, 39, 100519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mahlbacher, G.E.; Reihmer, K.C.; Frieboes, H.B. Mathematical Modeling of Tumor-Immune Cell Interactions. J. Theor. Biol. 2019, 469, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bekker, R.A.; Kim, S.; Pilon-Thomas, S.; Enderling, H. Mathematical Modeling of Radiotherapy and Its Impact on Tumor Interactions with the Immune System. Neoplasia 2022, 28, 100796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ng, A.M.; MacKinnon, K.M.; Cook, A.A.; D’Alonzo, R.A.; Rowshanfarzad, P.; Nowak, A.K.; Gill, S.; Ebert, M.A. Mechanistic in Silico Explorations of the Immunogenic and Synergistic Effects of Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy: A Critical Review. Phys. Eng. Sci. Med. 2024, 47, 1291–1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Srinivasan, M.; Clarke, R.; Kraikivski, P. Mathematical Models of Death Signaling Networks. Entropy 2022, 24, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Savageau, M.A. Biochemical Systems Theory: Operational Differences among Variant Representations and Their Significance. J. Theor. Biol. 1991, 151, 509–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Tyson, J.J.; Baumann, W.T.; Chen, C.; Verdugo, A.; Tavassoly, I.; Wang, Y.; Weiner, L.M.; Clarke, R. Dynamic Modelling of Oestrogen Signalling and Cell Fate in Breast Cancer Cells. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011, 11, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zinovyev, A.; Fourquet, S.; Tournier, L.; Calzone, L.; Barillot, E. Cell Death and Life in Cancer: Mathematical Modeling of Cell Fate Decisions. In Advances in Systems Biology; Goryanin, I.I., Goryachev, A.B., Eds.; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 736, pp. 261–274. ISBN 978-1-4419-7209-5. [Google Scholar]
  43. Parmar, J.H.; Cook, K.L.; Shajahan-Haq, A.N.; Clarke, P.A.G.; Tavassoly, I.; Clarke, R.; Tyson, J.J.; Baumann, W.T. Modelling the Effect of GRP78 on Anti-Oestrogen Sensitivity and Resistance in Breast Cancer. Interface Focus 2013, 3, 20130012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  44. Liu, B.; Oltvai, Z.N.; Bayır, H.; Silverman, G.A.; Pak, S.C.; Perlmutter, D.H.; Bahar, I. Quantitative Assessment of Cell Fate Decision between Autophagy and Apoptosis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Li, X.; Zhong, C.-Q.; Wu, R.; Xu, X.; Yang, Z.-H.; Cai, S.; Wu, X.; Chen, X.; Yin, Z.; He, Q.; et al. RIP1-Dependent Linear and Nonlinear Recruitments of Caspase-8 and RIP3 Respectively to Necrosome Specify Distinct Cell Death Outcomes. Protein Cell 2021, 12, 858–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yin, Z.; Zhang, P.; Xu, F.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, L.; Jin, J.; Qi, H.; Shuai, J.; Li, X. Cell Death Modes Are Specified by the Crosstalk Dynamics within Pyroptotic and Apoptotic Signaling. Chaos Interdiscip. J. Nonlinear Sci. 2021, 31, 093103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, X.; Zhang, P.; Yin, Z.; Xu, F.; Yang, Z.-H.; Jin, J.; Qu, J.; Liu, Z.; Qi, H.; Yao, C.; et al. Caspase-1 and Gasdermin D Afford the Optimal Targets with Distinct Switching Strategies in NLRP1b Inflammasome-Induced Cell Death. Research 2022, 2022, 2022/9838341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mustafa, M.; Ahmad, R.; Tantry, I.Q.; Ahmad, W.; Siddiqui, S.; Alam, M.; Abbas, K.; Moinuddin; Hassan, M.d.I.; Habib, S.; et al. Apoptosis: A Comprehensive Overview of Signaling Pathways, Morphological Changes, and Physiological Significance and Therapeutic Implications. Cells 2024, 13, 1838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kroemer, G.; Petit, P.; Zamzami, N.; Vayssière, J.; Mignotte, B. The Biochemistry of Programmed Cell Death. FASEB J. 1995, 9, 1277–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pallardy, M.; Perrin-Wolff, M.; Biola, A. Cellular Stress and Apoptosis. Toxicol. Vitr. 1997, 11, 573–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fulda, S.; Debatin, K.-M. Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Apoptosis Pathways in Anticancer Chemotherapy. Oncogene 2006, 25, 4798–4811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kashyap, D.; Garg, V.K.; Goel, N. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Pathways of Apoptosis: Role in Cancer Development and Prognosis. In Advances in Protein Chemistry and Structural Biology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; Volume 125, pp. 73–120. ISBN 978-0-323-85315-6. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lavrik, I.N. Caspases: Pharmacological Manipulation of Cell Death. J. Clin. Investig. 2005, 115, 2665–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Julien, O.; Wells, J.A. Caspases and Their Substrates. Cell Death Differ. 2017, 24, 1380–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Harvey, K.J.; Blomquist, J.F.; Ucker, D.S. Commitment and Effector Phases of the Physiological Cell Death Pathway Elucidated with Respect to Bcl-2, Caspase, and Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Activities. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1998, 18, 2912–2922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Saraste, A. Morphologic and Biochemical Hallmarks of Apoptosis. Cardiovasc. Res. 2000, 45, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guicciardi, M.E.; Gores, G.J. Life and Death by Death Receptors. FASEB J. 2009, 23, 1625–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hillert-Richter, L.K.; Lavrik, I.N. Measuring Composition of CD95 Death-Inducing Signaling Complex and Processing of Procaspase-8 in This Complex. JoVE 2021, 174, 62842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Shimizu, Y.; Taraborrelli, L.; Walczak, H. Linear Ubiquitination in Immunity. Immunol. Rev. 2015, 266, 190–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Micheau, O.; Tschopp, J. Induction of TNF Receptor I-Mediated Apoptosis via Two Sequential Signaling Complexes. Cell 2003, 114, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Micheau, O.; Shirley, S.; Dufour, F. Death Receptors as Targets in Cancer. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2013, 169, 1723–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Guerrache, A.; Micheau, O. TNF-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand: Non-Apoptotic Signalling. Cells 2024, 13, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Huang, K.; Zhang, J.; O’Neill, K.L.; Gurumurthy, C.B.; Quadros, R.M.; Tu, Y.; Luo, X. Cleavage by Caspase 8 and Mitochondrial Membrane Association Activate the BH3-Only Protein Bid during TRAIL-Induced Apoptosis. J. Biol. Chem. 2016, 291, 11843–11851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Garrido, C.; Galluzzi, L.; Brunet, M.; Puig, P.E.; Didelot, C.; Kroemer, G. Mechanisms of Cytochrome c Release from Mitochondria. Cell Death Differ. 2006, 13, 1423–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Beaudouin, J.; Liesche, C.; Aschenbrenner, S.; Hörner, M.; Eils, R. Caspase-8 Cleaves Its Substrates from the Plasma Membrane upon CD95-Induced Apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2013, 20, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liao, W.-T.; Chang, K.-L.; Yu, C.-L.; Chen, G.-S.; Chang, L.W.; Yu, H.-S. Arsenic Induces Human Keratinocyte Apoptosis by the FAS/FAS Ligand Pathway, Which Correlates with Alterations in Nuclear Factor-κB and Activator Protein-1 Activity. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2004, 122, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chaitanya, G.V.; Alexander, J.S.; Babu, P.P. PARP-1 Cleavage Fragments: Signatures of Cell-Death Proteases in Neurodegeneration. Cell Commun. Signal. 2010, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Smulson, M.E.; Pang, D.; Jung, M.; Dimtchev, A.; Chasovskikh, S.; Spoonde, A.; Simbulan-Rosenthal, C.; Rosenthal, D.; Yakovlev, A.; Dritschilo, A. Irreversible Binding of Poly(ADP)Ribose Polymerase Cleavage Product to DNA Ends Revealed by Atomic Force Microscopy: Possible Role in Apoptosis. Cancer Res. 1998, 58, 3495–3498. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  69. Whelan, R.S.; Kaplinskiy, V.; Kitsis, R.N. Cell Death in the Pathogenesis of Heart Disease: Mechanisms and Significance. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2010, 72, 19–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Renault, T.T.; Teijido, O.; Antonsson, B.; Dejean, L.M.; Manon, S. Regulation of Bax Mitochondrial Localization by Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL: Keep Your Friends Close but Your Enemies Closer. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2013, 45, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dlugosz, P.J.; Billen, L.P.; Annis, M.G.; Zhu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Lin, J.; Leber, B.; Andrews, D.W. Bcl-2 Changes Conformation to Inhibit Bax Oligomerization. EMBO J. 2006, 25, 2287–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bennett, M.R. Apoptosis in the cardiovascular system. Heart 2002, 87, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Kantari, C.; Walczak, H. Caspase-8 and Bid: Caught in the Act between Death Receptors and Mitochondria. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Mol. Cell Res. 2011, 1813, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Scaffidi, C.; Schmitz, I.; Zha, J.; Korsmeyer, S.J.; Krammer, P.H.; Peter, M.E. Differential Modulation of Apoptosis Sensitivity in CD95 Type I and Type II Cells. J. Biol. Chem. 1999, 274, 22532–22538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Krammer, P.H. CD95′s Deadly Mission in the Immune System. Nature 2000, 407, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Barnhart, B.C.; Alappat, E.C.; Peter, M.E. The CD95 Type I/Type II Model. Semin. Immunol. 2003, 15, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fussenegger, M.; Bailey, J.E.; Varner, J. A Mathematical Model of Caspase Function in Apoptosis. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000, 18, 768–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Stucki, J.W.; Simon, H.-U. Mathematical Modeling of the Regulation of Caspase-3 Activation and Degradation. J. Theor. Biol. 2005, 234, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Harrington, H.A.; Ho, K.L.; Ghosh, S.; Tung, K. Construction and Analysis of a Modular Model of Caspase Activation in Apoptosis. Theor. Biol. Med. Model. 2008, 5, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hong, J.-Y.; Kim, G.-H.; Kim, J.-W.; Kwon, S.-S.; Sato, E.F.; Cho, K.-H.; Shim, E.B. Computational Modeling of Apoptotic Signaling Pathways Induced by Cisplatin. BMC Syst. Biol. 2012, 6, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hendrata, M.; Sudiono, J. A Computational Model for Investigating Tumor Apoptosis Induced by Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Secretome. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2016, 2016, 4910603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Bentele, M.; Lavrik, I.; Ulrich, M.; Stößer, S.; Heermann, D.W.; Kalthoff, H.; Krammer, P.H.; Eils, R. Mathematical Modeling Reveals Threshold Mechanism in CD95-Induced Apoptosis. J. Cell Biol. 2004, 166, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hua, F.; Cornejo, M.G.; Cardone, M.H.; Stokes, C.L.; Lauffenburger, D.A. Effects of Bcl-2 Levels on Fas Signaling-Induced Caspase-3 Activation: Molecular Genetic Tests of Computational Model Predictions. J. Immunol. 2005, 175, 985–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hua, F.; Hautaniemi, S.; Yokoo, R.; Lauffenburger, D.A. Integrated Mechanistic and Data-Driven Modelling for Multivariate Analysis of Signalling Pathways. J. R. Soc. Interface 2006, 3, 515–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Okazaki, N.; Asano, R.; Kinoshita, T.; Chuman, H. Simple Computational Models of Type I/Type II Cells in Fas Signaling-Induced Apoptosis. J. Theor. Biol. 2008, 250, 621–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Neumann, L.; Pforr, C.; Beaudouin, J.; Pappa, A.; Fricker, N.; Krammer, P.H.; Lavrik, I.N.; Eils, R. Dynamics within the CD95 Death-inducing Signaling Complex Decide Life and Death of Cells. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2010, 6, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Fricker, N.; Beaudouin, J.; Richter, P.; Eils, R.; Krammer, P.H.; Lavrik, I.N. Model-Based Dissection of CD95 Signaling Dynamics Reveals Both a pro- and Antiapoptotic Role of c-FLIPL. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 190, 377–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kutumova, E.; Zinovyev, A.; Sharipov, R.; Kolpakov, F. Model Composition through Model Reduction: A Combined Model of CD95 and NF-κB Signaling Pathways. BMC Syst. Biol. 2013, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kutumova, E.; Kiselev, I.; Sharipov, R.; Lifshits, G.; Kolpakov, F. Thoroughly Calibrated Modular Agent-Based Model of the Human Cardiovascular and Renal Systems for Blood Pressure Regulation in Health and Disease. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 746300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kutumova, E.; Kiselev, I.; Sharipov, R.; Lifshits, G.; Kolpakov, F. Mathematical Modeling of Antihypertensive Therapy. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 1070115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kutumova, E.; Kovaleva, A.; Sharipov, R.; Lifshits, G.; Kolpakov, F. Mathematical Modelling of the Influence of ACE I/D Polymorphism on Blood Pressure and Antihypertensive Therapy. Heliyon 2024, 10, e29988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Kutumova, E.; Kiselev, I.; Kolpakov, F. A Computational Model of Age-dependent Cardiomyocyte Apoptosis. J. Physiol. 2025, JP288853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wu, Q.; Finley, S.D. Predictive Model Identifies Strategies to Enhance TSP1-Mediated Apoptosis Signaling. Cell Commun. Signal. 2017, 15, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Buchbinder, J.H.; Pischel, D.; Sundmacher, K.; Flassig, R.J.; Lavrik, I.N. Quantitative Single Cell Analysis Uncovers the Life/Death Decision in CD95 Network. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2018, 14, e1006368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hillert, L.K.; Ivanisenko, N.V.; Busse, D.; Espe, J.; König, C.; Peltek, S.E.; Kolchanov, N.A.; Ivanisenko, V.A.; Lavrik, I.N. Dissecting DISC Regulation via Pharmacological Targeting of Caspase-8/c-FLIPL Heterodimer. Cell Death Differ. 2020, 27, 2117–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Ivanisenko, N.V.; Lavrik, I.N. Mathematical Modeling Reveals the Importance of the DED Filament Composition in the Effects of Small Molecules Targeting Caspase-8/c-FLIPL Heterodimer. Biochem. Mosc. 2020, 85, 1134–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Eissing, T.; Conzelmann, H.; Gilles, E.D.; Allgöwer, F.; Bullinger, E.; Scheurich, P. Bistability Analyses of a Caspase Activation Model for Receptor-Induced Apoptosis. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 36892–36897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mangrum, D.S.; Finley, S.D. Modeling the Heterogeneous Apoptotic Response of Caspase-Mediated Signaling in Tumor Cells. J. Theor. Biol. 2024, 590, 111857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Albeck, J.G.; Burke, J.M.; Spencer, S.L.; Lauffenburger, D.A.; Sorger, P.K. Modeling a Snap-Action, Variable-Delay Switch Controlling Extrinsic Cell Death. PLoS Biol. 2008, 6, e299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Albeck, J.G.; Burke, J.M.; Aldridge, B.B.; Zhang, M.; Lauffenburger, D.A.; Sorger, P.K. Quantitative Analysis of Pathways Controlling Extrinsic Apoptosis in Single Cells. Mol. Cell 2008, 30, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Zhang, T.; Wu, M.; Chen, Q.; Sun, Z. Investigation into the Regulation Mechanisms of TRAIL Apoptosis Pathway by Mathematical Modeling. ABBS 2010, 42, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  102. Laussmann, M.A.; Passante, E.; Hellwig, C.T.; Tomiczek, B.; Flanagan, L.; Prehn, J.H.M.; Huber, H.J.; Rehm, M. Proteasome Inhibition Can Impair Caspase-8 Activation upon Submaximal Stimulation of Apoptotic Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis Inducing Ligand (TRAIL) Signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 14402–14411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Anderson, M.W.; Moss, J.J.; Szalai, R.; Lane, J.D. Mathematical Modeling Highlights the Complex Role of AKT in TRAIL-Induced Apoptosis of Colorectal Carcinoma Cells. iScience 2019, 12, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Cho, K.-H.; Shin, S.-Y.; Lee, H.-W.; Wolkenhauer, O. Investigations Into the Analysis and Modeling of the TNFα-Mediated NF-κB-Signaling Pathway. Genome Res. 2003, 13, 2413–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rangamani, P.; Sirovich, L. Survival and Apoptotic Pathways Initiated by TNF-α: Modeling and Predictions. Biotech Bioeng. 2007, 97, 1216–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Koh, G.; Lee, D.-Y. Mathematical Modeling and Sensitivity Analysis of the Integrated TNFα-Mediated Apoptotic Pathway for Identifying Key Regulators. Comput. Biol. Med. 2011, 41, 512–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Schliemann, M.; Bullinger, E.; Borchers, S.; Allgöwer, F.; Findeisen, R.; Scheurich, P. Heterogeneity Reduces Sensitivity of Cell Death for TNF-Stimuli. BMC Syst. Biol. 2011, 5, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Halder, S.; Chatterjee, S. Bistability Regulates TNFR2-Mediated Survival and Death of T-Regulatory Cells. J. Biol. Phys. 2023, 49, 95–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Bagci, E.Z.; Vodovotz, Y.; Billiar, T.R.; Ermentrout, G.B.; Bahar, I. Bistability in Apoptosis: Roles of Bax, Bcl-2, and Mitochondrial Permeability Transition Pores. Biophys. J. 2006, 90, 1546–1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Katiyar, S.K.; Roy, A.M.; Baliga, M.S. Silymarin Induces Apoptosis Primarily through a P53-Dependent Pathway Involving Bcl-2/Bax, Cytochrome c Release, and Caspase Activation. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2005, 4, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bagci, E.Z.; Vodovotz, Y.; Billiar, T.R.; Ermentrout, B.; Bahar, I. Computational Insights on the Competing Effects of Nitric Oxide in Regulating Apoptosis. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hamada, H.; Tashima, Y.; Kisaka, Y.; Iwamoto, K.; Hanai, T.; Eguchi, Y.; Okamoto, M. Sophisticated Framework between Cell Cycle Arrest and Apoptosis Induction Based on P53 Dynamics. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e4795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zhang, T.; Brazhnik, P.; Tyson, J.J. Computational Analysis of Dynamical Responses to the Intrinsic Pathway of Programmed Cell Death. Biophys. J. 2009, 97, 415–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Paek, A.L.; Liu, J.C.; Loewer, A.; Forrester, W.C.; Lahav, G. Cell-to-Cell Variation in P53 Dynamics Leads to Fractional Killing. Cell 2016, 165, 631–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Ballweg, R.; Paek, A.L.; Zhang, T. A Dynamical Framework for Complex Fractional Killing. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. McKenna, S.; García-Gutiérrez, L.; Matallanas, D.; Fey, D. BAX and SMAC Regulate Bistable Properties of the Apoptotic Caspase System. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Rehm, M.; Huber, H.J.; Dussmann, H.; Prehn, J.H.M. Systems Analysis of Effector Caspase Activation and Its Control by X-Linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis Protein. EMBO J. 2006, 25, 4338–4349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Ryu, S.; Lin, S.; Ugel, N.; Antoniotti, M.; Mishra, B. Mathematical Modeling of the Formation of Apoptosome in Intrinsic Pathway of Apoptosis. Syst. Synth. Biol. 2008, 2, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Rodriguez, J.; Lazebnik, Y. Caspase-9 and APAF-1 Form an Active Holoenzyme. Genes Dev. 1999, 13, 3179–3184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Legewie, S.; Blüthgen, N.; Herzel, H. Mathematical Modeling Identifies Inhibitors of Apoptosis as Mediators of Positive Feedback and Bistability. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2006, 2, e120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ooi, H.; Ma, L. Modeling Heterogeneous Responsiveness of Intrinsic Apoptosis Pathway. BMC Syst. Biol. 2013, 7, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Burt, P.; Cornelis, R.; Geißler, G.; Hahne, S.; Radbruch, A.; Chang, H.-D.; Thurley, K. Data-Driven Mathematical Model of Apoptosis Regulation in Memory Plasma Cells. Cells 2022, 11, 1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Kutumova, E.O.; Kiselev, I.N.; Sharipov, R.N.; Lavrik, I.N.; Kolpakov, F.A. A Modular Model of the Apoptosis Machinery. In Advances in Systems Biology; Goryanin, I.I., Goryachev, A.B., Eds.; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Volume 736, pp. 235–245. ISBN 978-1-4419-7209-5. [Google Scholar]
  124. Liu, S.; Yao, S.; Yang, H.; Liu, S.; Wang, Y. Autophagy: Regulator of Cell Death. Cell Death Dis. 2023, 14, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Khandia, R.; Dadar, M.; Munjal, A.; Dhama, K.; Karthik, K.; Tiwari, R.; Yatoo, M.I.; Iqbal, H.M.N.; Singh, K.P.; Joshi, S.K.; et al. A Comprehensive Review of Autophagy and Its Various Roles in Infectious, Non-Infectious, and Lifestyle Diseases: Current Knowledge and Prospects for Disease Prevention, Novel Drug Design, and Therapy. Cells 2019, 8, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Deter, R.L. Analog Modeling of Glucagon-Induced Autophagy in Rat Liver. Exp. Cell Res. 1975, 94, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Han, K.; Kim, J.; Choi, M. Autophagy Mediates Phase Transitions from Cell Death to Life. Heliyon 2015, 1, e00027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Han, K.; Kim, S.H.; Choi, M. Computational Modeling of the Effects of Autophagy on Amyloid-β Peptide Levels. Theor. Biol Med. Model. 2020, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Dalle Pezze, P.; Ruf, S.; Sonntag, A.G.; Langelaar-Makkinje, M.; Hall, P.; Heberle, A.M.; Razquin Navas, P.; Van Eunen, K.; Tölle, R.C.; Schwarz, J.J.; et al. A Systems Study Reveals Concurrent Activation of AMPK and mTOR by Amino Acids. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Ichimiya, T.; Yamakawa, T.; Hirano, T.; Yokoyama, Y.; Hayashi, Y.; Hirayama, D.; Wagatsuma, K.; Itoi, T.; Nakase, H. Autophagy and Autophagy-Related Diseases: A Review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 8974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Yang, Z.; Goronzy, J.J.; Weyand, C.M. Autophagy in Autoimmune Disease. J. Mol. Med. 2015, 93, 707–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Giovedì, S.; Ravanelli, M.M.; Parisi, B.; Bettegazzi, B.; Guarnieri, F.C. Dysfunctional Autophagy and Endolysosomal System in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Relevance and Therapeutic Options. Front. Cell Neurosci. 2020, 14, 602116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Jiang, P.; Mizushima, N. Autophagy and Human Diseases. Cell Res. 2014, 24, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Cheng, Y.; Ren, X.; Hait, W.N.; Yang, J.-M. Therapeutic Targeting of Autophagy in Disease: Biology and Pharmacology. Pharmacol. Rev. 2013, 65, 1162–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Yuan, W.; Fang, W.; Zhang, R.; Lyu, H.; Xiao, S.; Guo, D.; Ali, D.W.; Michalak, M.; Chen, X.-Z.; Zhou, C.; et al. Therapeutic Strategies Targeting AMPK-Dependent Autophagy in Cancer Cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta (BBA)-Mol. Cell Res. 2023, 1870, 119537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Liu, L.; Yan, L.; Liao, N.; Wu, W.-Q.; Shi, J.-L. A Review of ULK1-Mediated Autophagy in Drug Resistance of Cancer. Cancers 2020, 12, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Shirin, A.; Klickstein, I.S.; Feng, S.; Lin, Y.T.; Hlavacek, W.S.; Sorrentino, F. Prediction of Optimal Drug Schedules for Controlling Autophagy. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Dalle Pezze, P.; Karanasios, E.; Kandia, V.; Manifava, M.; Walker, S.A.; Gambardella Le Novère, N.; Ktistakis, N.T. ATG13 Dynamics in Nonselective Autophagy and Mitophagy: Insights from Live Imaging Studies and Mathematical Modeling. Autophagy 2021, 17, 1131–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Sadria, M.; Layton, A.T. Interactions among mTORC, AMPK and SIRT: A Computational Model for Cell Energy Balance and Metabolism. Cell Commun. Signal. 2021, 19, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Sadria, M.; Seo, D.; Layton, A.T. The Mixed Blessing of AMPK Signaling in Cancer Treatments. BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Mehta, K.; Guo, T.; Wallis, R.S.; Van Der Graaf, P.H.; Van Hasselt, J.G.C. Quantitative Systems Pharmacology Modeling Framework of Autophagy in Tuberculosis: Application to Adjunctive Metformin Host-Directed Therapy. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2022, 66, e00366-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Tavassoly, I.; Parmar, J.; Shajahan-Haq, A.; Clarke, R.; Baumann, W.; Tyson, J. Dynamic Modeling of the Interaction Between Autophagy and Apoptosis in Mammalian Cells. CPT Pharmacom. Syst. Pharma. 2015, 4, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Cook, K.L.; Clarke, P.A.G.; Parmar, J.; Hu, R.; Schwartz-Roberts, J.L.; Abu-Asab, M.; Wärri, A.; Baumann, W.T.; Clarke, R. Knockdown of Estrogen Receptor-α Induces Autophagy and Inhibits Antiestrogen-mediated Unfolded Protein Response Activation, Promoting ROS-induced Breast Cancer Cell Death. FASEB J. 2014, 28, 3891–3905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Levine, B.; Sinha, S.C.; Kroemer, G. Bcl-2 Family Members: Dual Regulators of Apoptosis and Autophagy. Autophagy 2008, 4, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Zhou, F.; Yang, Y.; Xing, D. Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL Play Important Roles in the Crosstalk between Autophagy and Apoptosis. FEBS J. 2011, 278, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Kapuy, O.; Vinod, P.K.; Mandl, J.; Bánhegyi, G. A Cellular Stress-Directed Bistable Switch Controls the Crosstalk between Autophagy and Apoptosis. Mol. BioSyst. 2013, 9, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Holczer, M.; Hajdú, B.; Lőrincz, T.; Szarka, A.; Bánhegyi, G.; Kapuy, O. A Double Negative Feedback Loop between mTORC1 and AMPK Kinases Guarantees Precise Autophagy Induction upon Cellular Stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 5543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Szymańska, P.; Martin, K.R.; MacKeigan, J.P.; Hlavacek, W.S.; Lipniacki, T. Computational Analysis of an Autophagy/Translation Switch Based on Mutual Inhibition of MTORC1 and ULK1. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Holczer, M.; Hajdú, B.; Lőrincz, T.; Szarka, A.; Bánhegyi, G.; Kapuy, O. Fine-Tuning of AMPK–ULK1–mTORC1 Regulatory Triangle Is Crucial for Autophagy Oscillation. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Kapuy, O.; Holczer, M.; Márton, M.; Korcsmáros, T. Autophagy-Dependent Survival Is Controlled with a Unique Regulatory Network upon Various Cellular Stress Events. Cell Death Dis. 2021, 12, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hajdú, B.; Holczer, M.; Horváth, G.; Szederkényi, G.; Kapuy, O. Fine-Tuning of mTORC1-ULK1-PP2A Regulatory Triangle Is Crucial for Robust Autophagic Response upon Cellular Stress. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Hajdú, B.; Csabai, L.; Márton, M.; Holczer, M.; Korcsmáros, T.; Kapuy, O. Oscillation of Autophagy Induction under Cellular Stress and What Lies behind It, a Systems Biology Study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 7671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Holczer, M.; Besze, B.; Lehel, A.; Kapuy, O. The Dual Role of Sulforaphane-Induced Cellular Stress—A Systems Biological Study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Kapuy, O.; Holczer, M.; Csabai, L.; Korcsmáros, T. Oscillatory Autophagy Induction Is Enabled by an Updated AMPK-ULK1 Regulatory Wiring. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0313302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Kapuy, O.; Papp, D.; Vellai, T.; Bánhegyi, G.; Korcsmáros, T. Systems-Level Feedbacks of NRF2 Controlling Autophagy upon Oxidative Stress Response. Antioxidants 2018, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Márton, M.; Kurucz, A.; Lizák, B.; Margittai, É.; Bánhegyi, G.; Kapuy, O. A Systems Biological View of Life-and-Death Decision with Respect to Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress—The Role of PERK Pathway. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Kapuy, O.; Márton, M.; Bánhegyi, G.; Vinod, P.K. Multiple System-level Feedback Loops Control Life-and-death Decisions in Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. FEBS Lett. 2020, 594, 1112–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Márton, M.; Bánhegyi, G.; Gyöngyösi, N.; Kálmán, E.É.; Pettkó-Szandtner, A.; Káldi, K.; Kapuy, O. A Systems Biological Analysis of the ATF4-GADD34-CHOP Regulatory Triangle upon Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. FEBS Open Bio. 2022, 12, 2065–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Kapuy, O.; Korcsmáros, T. Chloroquine and COVID-19—A Systems Biology Model Uncovers the Drug’s Detrimental Effect on Autophagy and Explains Its Failure. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0266337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Kapuy, O.; Makk-Merczel, K.; Szarka, A. Therapeutic Approach of KRAS Mutant Tumours by the Combination of Pharmacologic Ascorbate and Chloroquine. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Kapuy, O.; Vinod, P.K.; Bánhegyi, G. mTOR Inhibition Increases Cell Viability via Autophagy Induction during Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress—An Experimental and Modeling Study. FEBS Open Bio. 2014, 4, 704–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Holczer, M.; Márton, M.; Kurucz, A.; Bánhegyi, G.; Kapuy, O. A Comprehensive Systems Biological Study of Autophagy-Apoptosis Crosstalk during Endoplasmic Reticulum Stress. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 319589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Li, X.; Lyu, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, X. AMBRA1 and Its Role as a Target for Anticancer Therapy. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 946086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Yang, B.; Liu, Q.; Bi, Y. Autophagy and Apoptosis Are Regulated by Stress on Bcl2 by AMBRA1 in the Endoplasmic Reticulum and Mitochondria. Theor. Biol. Med. Model. 2019, 16, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Yang, B.; Yang, Z. Deterministic and Stochastic Approaches to a Minimal Model for the Transition from Autophagy to Apoptosis. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2024, 21, 3207–3228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Yang, B.; Yang, Z.; Hao, L. Dynamics of a Model for the Degradation Mechanism of Aggregated α-Synuclein in Parkinson’s Disease. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1068150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Sukumaran, P.; Nascimento Da Conceicao, V.; Sun, Y.; Ahamad, N.; Saraiva, L.R.; Selvaraj, S.; Singh, B.B. Calcium Signaling Regulates Autophagy and Apoptosis. Cells 2021, 10, 2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Decuypere, J.-P.; Bultynck, G.; Parys, J.B. A Dual Role for Ca2+ in Autophagy Regulation. Cell Calcium 2011, 50, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Hajdú, B.; Kapuy, O.; Nagy, T. Basal State Calibration of a Chemical Reaction Network Model for Autophagy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Ge, Z.; Wang, R. Fate Decisions Mediated by Crosstalk of Autophagy and Apoptosis in Mammalian Cells. J. Biol. Phys. 2020, 46, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Sarmah, D.T.; Bairagi, N.; Chatterjee, S. The Interplay between DNA Damage and Autophagy in Lung Cancer: A Mathematical Study. Biosystems 2021, 206, 104443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Schwartz-Roberts, J.L.; Cook, K.L.; Chen, C.; Shajahan-Haq, A.N.; Axelrod, M.; Wärri, A.; Riggins, R.B.; Jin, L.; Haddad, B.R.; Kallakury, B.V.; et al. Interferon Regulatory Factor-1 Signaling Regulates the Switch between Autophagy and Apoptosis to Determine Breast Cancer Cell Fate. Cancer Res. 2015, 75, 1046–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Pavel, M.; Park, S.J.; Frake, R.A.; Son, S.M.; Manni, M.M.; Bento, C.F.; Renna, M.; Ricketts, T.; Menzies, F.M.; Tanasa, R.; et al. α-Catenin Levels Determine Direction of YAP/TAZ Response to Autophagy Perturbation. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Zhou, Q.; Meng, Y.; Li, D.; Yao, L.; Le, J.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Zeng, F.; Chen, X.; Deng, G. Ferroptosis in Cancer: From Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutic Strategies. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024, 9, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Berndt, C.; Alborzinia, H.; Amen, V.S.; Ayton, S.; Barayeu, U.; Bartelt, A.; Bayir, H.; Bebber, C.M.; Birsoy, K.; Böttcher, J.P.; et al. Ferroptosis in Health and Disease. Redox Biol. 2024, 75, 103211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Dixon, S.J.; Olzmann, J.A. The Cell Biology of Ferroptosis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2024, 25, 424–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Jin, X.; Tang, J.; Qiu, X.; Nie, X.; Ou, S.; Wu, G.; Zhang, R.; Zhu, J. Ferroptosis: Emerging Mechanisms, Biological Function, and Therapeutic Potential in Cancer and Inflammation. Cell Death Discov. 2024, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Wu, P.; Zhang, X.; Duan, D.; Zhao, L. Organelle-Specific Mechanisms in Crosstalk between Apoptosis and Ferroptosis. Oxidative Med. Cell. Longev. 2023, 2023, 3400147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Eskander, G.; Abdelhamid, S.G.; Wahdan, S.A.; Radwan, S.M. Insights on the Crosstalk among Different Cell Death Mechanisms. Cell Death Discov. 2025, 11, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Qiu, Y.; Hüther, J.A.; Wank, B.; Rath, A.; Tykwe, R.; Aldrovandi, M.; Henkelmann, B.; Mergner, J.; Nakamura, T.; Laschat, S.; et al. Interplay of Ferroptotic and Apoptotic Cell Death and Its Modulation by BH3-Mimetics. Cell Death Differ. 2025, 32, 1970–1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Kagan, V.E.; Mao, G.; Qu, F.; Angeli, J.P.F.; Doll, S.; Croix, C.S.; Dar, H.H.; Liu, B.; Tyurin, V.A.; Ritov, V.B.; et al. Oxidized Arachidonic and Adrenic PEs Navigate Cells to Ferroptosis. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2017, 13, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Kapralov, A.A.; Yang, Q.; Dar, H.H.; Tyurina, Y.Y.; Anthonymuthu, T.S.; Kim, R.; St. Croix, C.M.; Mikulska-Ruminska, K.; Liu, B.; Shrivastava, I.H.; et al. Redox Lipid Reprogramming Commands Susceptibility of Macrophages and Microglia to Ferroptotic Death. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020, 16, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Arbatskiy, M.; Balandin, D.; Akberdin, I.; Churov, A. A Systems Biology Approach Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of Ferroptosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 11782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Jiang, J.; Yan, Y.; Yang, C.; Cai, H. Immunogenic Cell Death and Metabolic Reprogramming in Cancer: Mechanisms, Synergies, and Innovative Therapeutic Strategies. Biomedicines 2025, 13, 950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Arimoto, K.; Miyauchi, S.; Liu, M.; Zhang, D.-E. Emerging Role of Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Immunotherapy. Front. Immunol. 2024, 15, 1390263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Galluzzi, L.; Guilbaud, E.; Schmidt, D.; Kroemer, G.; Marincola, F.M. Targeting Immunogenic Cell Stress and Death for Cancer Therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 2024, 23, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Rodrigues, M.C.; Morais, J.A.V.; Ganassin, R.; Oliveira, G.R.T.; Costa, F.C.; Morais, A.A.C.; Silveira, A.P.; Silva, V.C.M.; Longo, J.P.F.; Muehlmann, L.A. An Overview on Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer Biology and Therapy. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Ahmed, A.; Tait, S.W.G. Targeting Immunogenic Cell Death in Cancer. Mol. Oncol. 2020, 14, 2994–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Guo, Z.; Liu, Y.; Chen, D.; Sun, Y.; Li, D.; Meng, Y.; Zhou, Q.; Zeng, F.; Deng, G.; Chen, X. Targeting Regulated Cell Death: Apoptosis, Necroptosis, Pyroptosis, Ferroptosis, and Cuproptosis in Anticancer Immunity. J. Transl. Intern. Med. 2025, 13, 10–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Vandenabeele, P.; Vandecasteele, K.; Bachert, C.; Krysko, O.; Krysko, D.V. Immunogenic Apoptotic Cell Death and Anticancer Immunity. In Apoptosis in Cancer Pathogenesis and Anti-Cancer Therapy; Gregory, C.D., Ed.; Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; Volume 930, pp. 133–149. ISBN 978-3-319-39404-6. [Google Scholar]
  191. Montico, B.; Nigro, A.; Casolaro, V.; Dal Col, J. Immunogenic Apoptosis as a Novel Tool for Anticancer Vaccine Development. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Hänggi, K.; Ruffell, B. Cell Death, Therapeutics, and the Immune Response in Cancer. Trends Cancer 2023, 9, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. DeLisi, C.; Rescigno, A. Immune Surveillance and Neoplasia—1 a Minimal Mathematical Model. Bull. Math. Biol. 1977, 39, 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Rescigno, A.; DeLisi, C. Immune Surveillance and Neoplasia—II A Two-Stage Mathematical Model. Bull. Math. Biol. 1977, 39, 487–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Deichman, G.I.; Kluchareva, T.E.; Kashkina, L.M.; Matveeva, V.A. Reproducibility and Relation to Specific and Non-specific Anti-tumor Resistance of the Tumor “Sneaking through” Phenomenon. Int. J. Cancer 1979, 23, 571–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Gatenby, P.A.; Basten, A.; Creswick, P. “Sneaking through”: A T-Cell-Dependent Phenomenon. Br. J. Cancer 1981, 44, 753–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  197. Grossman, Z.; Berke, G. Tumor Escape from Immune Elimination. J. Theor. Biol. 1980, 83, 267–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. De Boer, R.J.; Hogeweg, P. Tumor Escape from Immune Elimination: Simplified Precursor Bound Cytotoxicity Models. J. Theor. Biol. 1985, 113, 719–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  199. De Boer, R.J.; Hogeweg, P.; Dullens, H.F.; De Weger, R.A.; Den Otter, W. Macrophage T Lymphocyte Interactions in the Anti-Tumor Immune Response: A Mathematical Model. J. Immunol. 1985, 134, 2748–2758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. De Boer, R.J.; Hogeweg, P. Interactions between Macrophages and T-Lymphocytes: Tumor Sneaking through Intrinsic to Helper T Cell Dynamics. J. Theor. Biol. 1986, 120, 331–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Kuznetsov, V.A.; Makalkin, I.A.; Taylor, M.A.; Perelson, A.S. Nonlinear Dynamics of Immunogenic Tumors: Parameter Estimation and Global Bifurcation Analysis. Bull. Math. Biol. 1994, 56, 295–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. El Wajeh, M.; Jung, F.; Bongartz, D.; Kappatou, C.D.; Ghaffari Laleh, N.; Mitsos, A.; Kather, J.N. Can the Kuznetsov Model Replicate and Predict Cancer Growth in Humans? Bull. Math. Biol. 2022, 84, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Moore, H.; Li, N.K. A Mathematical Model for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML) and T Cell Interaction. J. Theor. Biol. 2004, 227, 513–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. De Pillis, L.G.; Radunskaya, A.E.; Wiseman, C.L. A Validated Mathematical Model of Cell-Mediated Immune Response to Tumor Growth. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 7950–7958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Adam, J.A. Effects of Vascularization on Lymphocyte/Tumor Cell Dynamics: Qualitative Features. Math. Comput. Model. 1996, 23, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  206. Hatzikirou, H.; Alfonso, J.C.L.; Mühle, S.; Stern, C.; Weiss, S.; Meyer-Hermann, M. Cancer Therapeutic Potential of Combinatorial Immuno- and Vasomodulatory Interventions. J. R. Soc. Interface 2015, 12, 20150439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Kirshtein, A.; Akbarinejad, S.; Hao, W.; Le, T.; Su, S.; Aronow, R.A.; Shahriyari, L. Data Driven Mathematical Model of Colon Cancer Progression. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Sofia, D.; Mohammad Mirzaei, N.; Shahriyari, L. Patient-Specific Mathematical Model of the Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Microenvironment. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Kuznetsov, V.A.; Knott, G.D. Modeling Tumor Regrowth and Immunotherapy. Math. Comput. Model. 2001, 33, 1275–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Poleszczuk, J.T.; Luddy, K.A.; Prokopiou, S.; Robertson-Tessi, M.; Moros, E.G.; Fishman, M.; Djeu, J.Y.; Finkelstein, S.E.; Enderling, H. Abscopal Benefits of Localized Radiotherapy Depend on Activated T-Cell Trafficking and Distribution between Metastatic Lesions. Cancer Res. 2016, 76, 1009–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Kosinsky, Y.; Dovedi, S.J.; Peskov, K.; Voronova, V.; Chu, L.; Tomkinson, H.; Al-Huniti, N.; Stanski, D.R.; Helmlinger, G. Radiation and PD-(L)1 Treatment Combinations: Immune Response and Dose Optimization via a Predictive Systems Model. J. Immunother. Cancer 2018, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Poleszczuk, J.; Enderling, H. The Optimal Radiation Dose to Induce Robust Systemic Anti-Tumor Immunity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Nikolopoulou, E.; Johnson, L.; Harris, D.; Nagy, J.; Stites, E.; Kuang, Y. Tumour-Immune Dynamics with an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor. LiB 2018, 5, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Byun, J.H.; Yoon, I.-S.; Jeong, Y.D.; Kim, S.; Jung, I.H. A Tumor-Immune Interaction Model for Synergistic Combinations of Anti PD-L1 and Ionizing Irradiation Treatment. Pharmaceutics 2020, 12, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Storey, K.M.; Lawler, S.E.; Jackson, T.L. Modeling Oncolytic Viral Therapy, Immune Checkpoint Inhibition, and the Complex Dynamics of Innate and Adaptive Immunity in Glioblastoma Treatment. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Okuneye, K.; Bergman, D.; Bloodworth, J.C.; Pearson, A.T.; Sweis, R.F.; Jackson, T.L. A Validated Mathematical Model of FGFR3-mediated Tumor Growth Reveals Pathways to Harness the Benefits of Combination Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy in Bladder Cancer. Comput. Syst. Oncol. 2021, 1, e1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Sung, W.; Hong, T.S.; Poznansky, M.C.; Paganetti, H.; Grassberger, C. Mathematical Modeling to Simulate the Effect of Adding Radiation Therapy to Immunotherapy and Application to Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. *Biol. *Phys. 2022, 112, 1055–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Kim, Y.; Choe, B.-Y.; Suh, T.S.; Sung, W. A Mathematical Model for Predicting Patient Responses to Combined Radiotherapy with CTLA-4 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors. Cells 2023, 12, 1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Wang, Y.; Bergman, D.R.; Trujillo, E.; Pearson, A.T.; Sweis, R.F.; Jackson, T.L. Mathematical Model Predicts Tumor Control Patterns Induced by Fast and Slow Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Killing Mechanisms. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Yu, J.-L.; Jang, S.R.-J.; Liu, K.-Y. Exploring the Interactions of Oncolytic Viral Therapy and Immunotherapy of Anti-CTLA-4 for Malignant Melanoma Mice Model. Cells 2023, 12, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Yao, Y.; Chen, Y.F.; Zhang, Q. Optimized Patient-Specific Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapies for Cancer Treatment Based on Tumor Immune Microenvironment Modeling. Brief. Bioinform. 2024, 25, bbae547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. De Pillis, L.G.; Gu, W.; Radunskaya, A.E. Mixed Immunotherapy and Chemotherapy of Tumors: Modeling, Applications and Biological Interpretations. J. Theor. Biol. 2006, 238, 841–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Leon, K.; Garcia, K.; Carneiro, J.; Lage, A. How Regulatory CD25+CD4+ T Cells Impinge on Tumor Immunobiology: The Differential Response of Tumors to Therapies. J. Immunol. 2007, 179, 5659–5668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Eftimie, R.; Dushoff, J.; Bridle, B.W.; Bramson, J.L.; Earn, D.J.D. Multi-Stability and Multi-Instability Phenomena in a Mathematical Model of Tumor-Immune-Virus Interactions. Bull. Math. Biol. 2011, 73, 2932–2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Robertson-Tessi, M.; El-Kareh, A.; Goriely, A. A Mathematical Model of Tumor–Immune Interactions. J. Theor. Biol. 2012, 294, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Kirschner, D.; Panetta, J.C. Modeling Immunotherapy of the Tumor-Immune Interaction. J. Math. Biol. 1998, 37, 235–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Rodrigues, D.S.; Mancera, P.F.A.; Carvalho, T.; Gonçalves, L.F. A Mathematical Model for Chemoimmunotherapy of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Appl. Math. Comput. 2019, 349, 118–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Sotolongo-Costa, O.; Morales Molina, L.; Rodríguez Perez, D.; Antoranz, J.C.; Chacón Reyes, M. Behavior of Tumors under Nonstationary Therapy. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 2003, 178, 242–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky, S.; Shochat, E.; Stone, L. Mathematical Model of BCG Immunotherapy in Superficial Bladder Cancer. Bull. Math. Biol. 2007, 69, 1847–1870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Rodriguez-Perez, D.; Sotolongo-Grau, O.; Espinosa Riquelme, R.; Sotolongo-Costa, O.; Santos Miranda, J.A.; Antoranz, J.C. Assessment of Cancer Immunotherapy Outcome in Terms of the Immune Response Time Features. Math. Med. Biol. 2007, 24, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Shaikhet, L.; Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky, S. Stability Analysis of Delayed Immune Response BCG Infection in Bladder Cancer Treatment Model by Stochastic Perturbations. Comput. Math. Methods Med. 2018, 2018, 9653873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Wodarz, D. Viruses as Antitumor Weapons: Defining Conditions for Tumor Remission. Cancer Res. 2001, 61, 3501–3507. [Google Scholar]
  233. Senekal, N.S.; Mahasa, K.J.; Eladdadi, A.; De Pillis, L.; Ouifki, R. Natural Killer Cells Recruitment in Oncolytic Virotherapy: A Mathematical Model. Bull. Math. Biol. 2021, 83, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Sotolongo-Grau, O.; Rodriguez-Perez, D.; Santos-Miranda, J.A.; Sotolongo-Costa, O.; Antoranz, J.C. Immune System-Tumour Efficiency Ratio as a New Oncological Index for Radiotherapy Treatment Optimization. Math. Med. Biol. 2009, 26, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Walker, R.; Poleszczuk, J.; Pilon-Thomas, S.; Kim, S.; Anderson, A.A.R.A.; Czerniecki, B.J.; Harrison, L.B.; Moros, E.G.; Enderling, H. Immune Interconnectivity of Anatomically Distant Tumors as a Potential Mediator of Systemic Responses to Local Therapy. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 9474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. López Alfonso, J.C.; Poleszczuk, J.; Walker, R.; Kim, S.; Pilon-Thomas, S.; Conejo-Garcia, J.J.; Soliman, H.; Czerniecki, B.; Harrison, L.B.; Enderling, H. Immunologic Consequences of Sequencing Cancer Radiotherapy and Surgery. JCO Clin. Cancer Inform. 2019, 3, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Alfonso, J.C.L.; Papaxenopoulou, L.A.; Mascheroni, P.; Meyer-Hermann, M.; Hatzikirou, H. On the Immunological Consequences of Conventionally Fractionated Radiotherapy. iScience 2020, 23, 100897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Montaseri, G.; Alfonso, J.C.L.; Hatzikirou, H.; Meyer-Hermann, M. A Minimal Modeling Framework of Radiation and Immune System Synergy to Assist Radiotherapy Planning. J. Theor. Biol. 2020, 486, 110099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Sung, W.; Grassberger, C.; McNamara, A.L.; Basler, L.; Ehrbar, S.; Tanadini-Lang, S.; Hong, T.S.; Paganetti, H. A Tumor-Immune Interaction Model for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Based on Measured Lymphocyte Counts in Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy. Radiother. Oncol. 2020, 151, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Forjanič, T.; Miklavčič, D. Mathematical Model of Tumor Volume Dynamics in Mice Treated with Electrochemotherapy. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 2017, 55, 1085–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Yosef, M.; Bunimovich-Mendrazitsky, S. Mathematical Model of MMC Chemotherapy for Non-Invasive Bladder Cancer Treatment. Front. Oncol. 2024, 14, 1352065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Crosby, D.; Bhatia, S.; Brindle, K.M.; Coussens, L.M.; Dive, C.; Emberton, M.; Esener, S.; Fitzgerald, R.C.; Gambhir, S.S.; Kuhn, P.; et al. Early Detection of Cancer. Science 2022, 375, eaay9040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Galluzzi, L.; Kepp, O.; Chan, F.K.-M.; Kroemer, G. Necroptosis: Mechanisms and Relevance to Disease. Annu. Rev. Pathol. Mech. Dis. 2017, 12, 103–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Dhuriya, Y.K.; Sharma, D. Necroptosis: A Regulated Inflammatory Mode of Cell Death. J. Neuro Inflamm. 2018, 15, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Yao, K.; Shi, Z.; Zhao, F.; Tan, C.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Kong, J.; Wang, Q.; et al. RIPK1 in Necroptosis and Recent Progress in Related Pharmaceutics. Front. Immunol. 2025, 16, 1480027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Salvesen, G.S.; Walsh, C.M. Functions of Caspase 8: The Identified and the Mysterious. Semin. Immunol. 2014, 26, 246–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Yuan, J.; Najafov, A.; Py, B.F. Roles of Caspases in Necrotic Cell Death. Cell 2016, 167, 1693–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Ye, K.; Chen, Z.; Xu, Y. The Double-Edged Functions of Necroptosis. Cell Death Dis. 2023, 14, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Oberst, A.; Dillon, C.P.; Weinlich, R.; McCormick, L.L.; Fitzgerald, P.; Pop, C.; Hakem, R.; Salvesen, G.S.; Green, D.R. Catalytic Activity of the Caspase-8–FLIPL Complex Inhibits RIPK3-Dependent Necrosis. Nature 2011, 471, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Oliver Metzig, M.; Tang, Y.; Mitchell, S.; Taylor, B.; Foreman, R.; Wollman, R.; Hoffmann, A. An Incoherent Feedforward Loop Interprets NFκB/RelA Dynamics to Determine TNF-induced Necroptosis Decisions. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2020, 16, e9677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Xu, F.; Yin, Z.; Zhu, L.; Jin, J.; He, Q.; Li, X.; Shuai, J. Oscillations Governed by the Incoherent Dynamics in Necroptotic Signaling. Front. Phys. 2021, 9, 726638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  252. Ildefonso, G.V.; Oliver Metzig, M.; Hoffmann, A.; Harris, L.A.; Lopez, C.F. A Biochemical Necroptosis Model Explains Cell-Type-Specific Responses to Cell Death Cues. Biophys. J. 2023, 122, 817–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Lee, D.; De Los Reyes, V.A.A.; Kim, Y. Optimal Strategies of Oncolytic Virus-Bortezomib Therapy via the Apoptotic, Necroptotic, and Oncolysis Signaling Network. Math. Biosci. Eng. 2024, 21, 3876–3909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Jorgensen, I.; Miao, E.A. Pyroptotic Cell Death Defends against Intracellular Pathogens. Immunol. Rev. 2015, 265, 130–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Hou, J.; Hsu, J.-M.; Hung, M.-C. Molecular Mechanisms and Functions of Pyroptosis in Inflammation and Antitumor Immunity. Mol. Cell 2021, 81, 4579–4590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Tan, Y.; Chen, Q.; Li, X.; Zeng, Z.; Xiong, W.; Li, G.; Li, X.; Yang, J.; Xiang, B.; Yi, M. Pyroptosis: A New Paradigm of Cell Death for Fighting against Cancer. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2021, 40, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  257. Yu, P.; Zhang, X.; Liu, N.; Tang, L.; Peng, C.; Chen, X. Pyroptosis: Mechanisms and Diseases. Signal Transduct. Target Ther. 2021, 6, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Wei, S.; Feng, M.; Zhang, S. Molecular Characteristics of Cell Pyroptosis and Its Inhibitors: A Review of Activation, Regulation, and Inhibitors. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 16115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  259. Chai, R.; Li, Y.; Shui, L.; Ni, L.; Zhang, A. The Role of Pyroptosis in Inflammatory Diseases. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2023, 11, 1173235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. Liu, Y.; Pan, R.; Ouyang, Y.; Gu, W.; Xiao, T.; Yang, H.; Tang, L.; Wang, H.; Xiang, B.; Chen, P. Pyroptosis in Health and Disease: Mechanisms, Regulation and Clinical Perspective. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2024, 9, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Broz, P. Pyroptosis: Molecular Mechanisms and Roles in Disease. Cell Res. 2025, 35, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. Jiang, M.; Qi, L.; Li, L.; Li, Y. The Caspase-3/GSDME Signal Pathway as a Switch between Apoptosis and Pyroptosis in Cancer. Cell Death Discov. 2020, 6, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Bhat, A.A.; Thapa, R.; Afzal, O.; Agrawal, N.; Almalki, W.H.; Kazmi, I.; Alzarea, S.I.; Altamimi, A.S.A.; Prasher, P.; Singh, S.K.; et al. The Pyroptotic Role of Caspase-3/GSDME Signalling Pathway among Various Cancer: A Review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 242, 124832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Cookson, B.T.; Brennan, M.A. Pro-Inflammatory Programmed Cell Death. Trends Microbiol. 2001, 9, 113–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  265. Ma, D.; Yang, B.; Guan, B.; Song, L.; Liu, Q.; Fan, Y.; Zhao, L.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Z.; Gao, Z.; et al. A Bibliometric Analysis of Pyroptosis From 2001 to 2021. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 731933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Hamis, S.J.; Macfarlane, F.R. A Single-Cell Mathematical Model of SARS-CoV-2 Induced Pyroptosis and the Effects of Anti-Inflammatory Intervention. AIMS Math. 2021, 6, 6050–6086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Zhu, L.; Li, X.; Xu, F.; Yin, Z.; Jin, J.; Liu, Z.; Qi, H.; Shuai, J. Network Modeling-Based Identification of the Switching Targets between Pyroptosis and Secondary Pyroptosis. Chaos Solitons Fractals 2022, 155, 111724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Dai, J.; Wang, Y.; Wang, H.; Gao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Fang, M.; Shi, S.; Zhang, P.; Wang, H.; Su, Y.; et al. Toll-Like Receptor Signaling in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2-Induced Innate Immune Responses and the Potential Application Value of Toll-Like Receptor Immunomodulators in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 948770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Barker, B.R.; Taxman, D.J.; Ting, J.P.-Y. Cross-Regulation between the IL-1β/IL-18 Processing Inflammasome and Other Inflammatory Cytokines. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 2011, 23, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Van De Veerdonk, F.L.; Netea, M.G.; Dinarello, C.A.; Joosten, L.A.B. Inflammasome Activation and IL-1β and IL-18 Processing during Infection. Trends Immunol. 2011, 32, 110–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. Dinarello, C.A. Overview of the IL-1 Family in Innate Inflammation and Acquired Immunity. Immunol. Rev. 2018, 281, 8–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  272. Declercq, J.; De Leeuw, E.; Lambrecht, B.N. Inflammasomes and IL-1 Family Cytokines in SARS-CoV-2 Infection: From Prognostic Marker to Therapeutic Agent. Cytokine 2022, 157, 155934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  273. Ihim, S.A.; Abubakar, S.D.; Zian, Z.; Sasaki, T.; Saffarioun, M.; Maleknia, S.; Azizi, G. Interleukin-18 Cytokine in Immunity, Inflammation, and Autoimmunity: Biological Role in Induction, Regulation, and Treatment. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 919973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Glont, M.; Nguyen, T.V.N.; Graesslin, M.; Hälke, R.; Ali, R.; Schramm, J.; Wimalaratne, S.M.; Kothamachu, V.B.; Rodriguez, N.; Swat, M.J.; et al. BioModels: Expanding Horizons to Include More Modelling Approaches and Formats. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, D1248–D1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Malik-Sheriff, R.S.; Glont, M.; Nguyen, T.V.N.; Tiwari, K.; Roberts, M.G.; Xavier, A.; Vu, M.T.; Men, J.; Maire, M.; Kananathan, S.; et al. BioModels—15 Years of Sharing Computational Models in Life Science. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 48, D407–D415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  276. Kolpakov, F.; Akberdin, I.; Kiselev, I.; Kolmykov, S.; Kondrakhin, Y.; Kulyashov, M.; Kutumova, E.; Pintus, S.; Ryabova, A.; Sharipov, R.; et al. BioUML—Towards a Universal Research Platform. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, W124–W131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  277. Novère, N.L.; Hucka, M.; Mi, H.; Moodie, S.; Schreiber, F.; Sorokin, A.; Demir, E.; Wegner, K.; Aladjem, M.I.; Wimalaratne, S.M.; et al. The Systems Biology Graphical Notation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  278. Hoang, M.T.; Ehrhardt, M. Differential Equation Models for Infectious Diseases: Mathematical Modeling, Qualitative Analysis, Numerical Methods and Applications. SeMA 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  279. Yin, A.; Moes, D.J.A.R.; Van Hasselt, J.G.C.; Swen, J.J.; Guchelaar, H. A Review of Mathematical Models for Tumor Dynamics and Treatment Resistance Evolution of Solid Tumors. CPT Pharmacom. Syst. Pharma. 2019, 8, 720–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. 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. 2004, 231, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Lee, J.; Kim, E. Ordinary Differential Equation Model of Cancer-Associated Fibroblast Heterogeneity Predicts Treatment Outcomes. Npj Syst. Biol. Appl. 2025, 11, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  282. Guyton, A.C.; Coleman, T.G.; Granger, H.J. Circulation: Overall Regulation. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 1972, 34, 13–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Bhattacharya-Ghosh, B.; Bozkurt, S.; Rutten, M.C.M.; Van De Vosse, F.N.; Díaz-Zuccarini, V. An in Silico Case Study of Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy via a Multi-Scale Model of the Cardiovascular System. Comput. Biol. Med. 2014, 53, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Hallow, K.M.; Lo, A.; Beh, J.; Rodrigo, M.; Ermakov, S.; Friedman, S.; De Leon, H.; Sarkar, A.; Xiong, Y.; Sarangapani, R.; et al. A Model-Based Approach to Investigating the Pathophysiological Mechanisms of Hypertension and Response to Antihypertensive Therapies: Extending the Guyton Model. Am. J. Physiol.-Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2014, 306, R647–R662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Kurian, V.; Gee, M.; Farrington, S.; Yang, E.; Okossi, A.; Chen, L.; Beris, A.N. Systems Engineering Approach to Modeling and Analysis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Part II: Extension for Variable Metabolic Rates. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 494–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Siewe, N.; Friedman, A. A Mathematical Model of Obesity-Induced Type 2 Diabetes and Efficacy of Anti-Diabetic Weight Reducing Drug. J. Theor. Biol. 2024, 581, 111756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Aliffi, G.E.; Nastasi, G.; Romano, V.; Pitocco, D.; Rizzi, A.; Moore, E.J.; De Gaetano, A. A System of ODEs for Representing Trends of CGM Signals. J. Math. Ind. 2024, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Ugolkov, Y.; Nikitich, A.; Leon, C.; Helmlinger, G.; Peskov, K.; Sokolov, V.; Volkova, A. Mathematical Modeling in Autoimmune Diseases: From Theory to Clinical Application. Front. Immunol. 2024, 15, 1371620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  289. Lin, J.; Chen, K.; Chen, W.; Yao, Y.; Ni, S.; Ye, M.; Zhuang, G.; Hu, M.; Gao, J.; Gao, C.; et al. Paradoxical Mitophagy Regulation by PINK1 and TUFm. Mol. Cell 2020, 80, 607–620.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  290. Goglia, I.; Węglarz-Tomczak, E.; Gioia, C.; Liu, Y.; Virtuoso, A.; Bonanomi, M.; Gaglio, D.; Salmistraro, N.; De Luca, C.; Papa, M.; et al. Fusion–Fission–Mitophagy Cycling and Metabolic Reprogramming Coordinate Nerve Growth Factor (NGF)-dependent Neuronal Differentiation. FEBS J. 2024, 291, 2811–2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Fu, C.; Jiang, A. Dendritic Cells and CD8 T Cell Immunity in Tumor Microenvironment. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Garris, C.S.; Luke, J.J. Dendritic Cells, the T-Cell-Inflamed Tumor Microenvironment, and Immunotherapy Treatment Response. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 3901–3907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Heras-Murillo, I.; Adán-Barrientos, I.; Galán, M.; Wculek, S.K.; Sancho, D. Dendritic Cells as Orchestrators of Anticancer Immunity and Immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2024, 21, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  294. Peng, F.; Liao, M.; Qin, R.; Zhu, S.; Peng, C.; Fu, L.; Chen, Y.; Han, B. Regulated Cell Death (RCD) in Cancer: Key Pathways and Targeted Therapies. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022, 7, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  295. Zhang, Y.; Yi, S.; Luan, M. Advances in Non-Apoptotic Regulated Cell Death: Implications for Malignant Tumor Treatment. Front. Oncol. 2025, 15, 1519119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Neal, M.L.; Cooling, M.T.; Smith, L.P.; Thompson, C.T.; Sauro, H.M.; Carlson, B.E.; Cook, D.L.; Gennari, J.H. A Reappraisal of How to Build Modular, Reusable Models of Biological Systems. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, e1003849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Soheilypour, M.; Mofrad, M.R.K. Agent-Based Modeling in Molecular Systems Biology. BioEssays 2018, 40, 1800020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Macal, C.M.; North, M.J. Tutorial on Agent-Based Modelling and Simulation. J. Simul. 2010, 4, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  299. Tang, D.; Kang, R.; Berghe, T.V.; Vandenabeele, P.; Kroemer, G. The Molecular Machinery of Regulated Cell Death. Cell Res. 2019, 29, 347–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  300. Rodrigues De Souza, E.; Almeida Cordeiro Nogueira, H.; Da Silva Francisco Junior, R.; Garcia, A.B.; Medina-Acosta, E. Integrated Multi-Optosis Model for Pan-Cancer Candidate Biomarker and Therapy Target Discovery. Front. Bioinform. 2025, 5, 1630518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Liu, J.; Kuang, F.; Kang, R.; Tang, D. Alkaliptosis: A New Weapon for Cancer Therapy. Cancer Gene Ther. 2020, 27, 267–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  302. Chen, F.; Kang, R.; Liu, J.; Tang, D. Mechanisms of Alkaliptosis. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2023, 11, 1213995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  303. Pallichankandy, S.; Thayyullathil, F.; Cheratta, A.R.; Subburayan, K.; Alakkal, A.; Sultana, M.; Drou, N.; Arshad, M.; Tariq, S.; Galadari, S. Targeting Oxeiptosis-Mediated Tumor Suppression: A Novel Approach to Treat Colorectal Cancers by Sanguinarine. Cell Death Discov. 2023, 9, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Bartoszewska, E.; Florek, K.; Zagórski, K.; Gachowska, M.; Wietrzyk, A.; Hutny, A.; Nowakowska-Toporowska, A.; Kulbacka, J. Methuosis, Alkaliptosis, and Oxeiptosis and Their Significance in Anticancer Therapy. Cells 2024, 13, 2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  305. Chen, K.-Q.; Wang, S.-Z.; Lei, H.-B.; Liu, X. Mini-Review: Research and Progress of Oxeiptosis in Diseases. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2024, 12, 1428250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Fleishman, J.S.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Chen, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, H. Cuproptosis: A Novel Therapeutic Target for Overcoming Cancer Drug Resistance. Drug Resist. Updates 2024, 72, 101018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Bhuvaneshwari, K.; Harithpriya, K.; Ganesan, K.; Xu, B.; Ramkumar, K.M. Role of Oxeiptosis in Disease Mechanisms and Therapeutic Opportunities. Apoptosis 2025, 30, 1182–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  308. Chen, R.; You, J.; Weng, S.; Zhao, T. Disulfidptosis Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications in Cancer Metabolic Reprogramming and Future Perspectives. Discov. Oncol. 2025, 16, 1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  309. Gan, B. Redox-Driven Cell Death by Disulfidptosis and Its Therapeutic Potential. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2025, 26, 727–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Guo, Z.; Chen, D.; Yao, L.; Sun, Y.; Li, D.; Le, J.; Dian, Y.; Zeng, F.; Chen, X.; Deng, G. The Molecular Mechanism and Therapeutic Landscape of Copper and Cuproptosis in Cancer. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2025, 10, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  311. Jiang, C.; Xin, H.; Liu, Y.; Han, Y. Cuproptosis as a Therapeutic Target in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of the Research Landscape. Front. Oncol. 2025, 15, 1566986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  312. Liu, Y.; Li, S.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, P.; Yu, Y.; Chen, X.; Yu, L.; Yang, X.; Li, H.; Wu, C.; et al. Molecular Signatures of Disulfidptosis: Interplay with Programmed Cell Death Pathways and Therapeutic Implications in Oncology. Cell Mol. Biol. Lett. 2025, 30, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  313. Zhen, W.; Zhao, T.; Chen, X.; Zhang, J. Unlocking the Potential of Disulfidptosis: Nanotechnology-Driven Strategies for Advanced Cancer Therapy. Small 2025, 21, 2500880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Yu, J.S.; Bagheri, N. Agent-Based Models Predict Emergent Behavior of Heterogeneous Cell Populations in Dynamic Microenvironments. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.