Modelling acidosis and the cell cycle in multicellular tumour spheroids

A partial differential equation model is developed to understand the effect that nutrient and acidosis have on the distribution of proliferating and quiescent cells and dead cell material (necrotic and apopotic) within a multicellular tumour spheroid. The rates of cell quiescence and necrosis depend upon the local nutrient and acid concentrations and quiescent cells are assumed to consume less nutrient and produce less acid than proliferating cells. Analysis of the differences in nutrient consumption and acid production by quiescent and proliferating cells shows low nutrient levels do not necessarily lead to increased acid concentration via anaerobic metabolism. Rather, it is the balance between proliferating and quiescent cells within the tumour which is important; decreased nutrient levels lead to more quiescent cells, which produce less acid than proliferating cells. We examine this effect via a sensitivity analysis which also includes a quantification of the effect that nutrient and acid concentrations have on the rates of cell quiescence and necrosis.

Do preference reversals generalise? Results on ambiguity and loss aversion

Preference reversals are frequently observed in the lab, but almost all designs use completely transparent prospects, which are rarely features of decision making elsewhere. This raises questions of external validity. We test the robustness of the phenomenon to gambles that incorporate realistic ambiguity in both payoffs and probabilities. In addition, we test a recent explanation of preference reversals by loss aversion, which would also restrict the incidence of reversals outside the lab. According to this account, reversals occur largely because the valuation task endows subject with a gamble, activating loss aversion. This contrasts with the choice task, where the reference point is pre-experiment wealth. We test this explanation by holding the reference point constant. Our evidence suggests that reversals are only slightly diminished with ambiguity. We find no evidence supporting their explanation by loss aversion.