Figure 1.
Schematic representation of Eq. (1).
Table 1.
Variables, parameters, and values used in Eq. (1).
Table 2.
Parameter values of the best fits of Eq. (1) to experimental data.
Figure 2.
Model comparisons with viral load data.
Best fits of Eq. (1) (solid red) and the Saenz et al. model (dashed green) to the viral load data (filled red circles) were shown. The horizontal dashed blue line represents the detection limit of the viral titer, i.e., 100 RNA copies per ml of nasal secretions. Data below the detection limit were plotted as 1 RNA copy per ml of nasal secretions.
Figure 3.
Model comparisons with IFN data.
Best fits of Eq. (1) (solid blue) and the Saenz et al. model (dashed orange) to the IFN fold change data (filled blue circles) were shown.
Figure 4.
The changes of cell populations predicted by Eq. (1) based on the best fits.
Solid blue represents susceptible cells, solid green represents infected cells, dashed red represents cells in the refractory state, and dotted black represents the total number of cells. The curves were zoomed in for ponies 2 and 4 to show the level of refractory cells.
Figure 5.
Best fits of different models to experimental data.
Model 1 is described by Eq. (1). Model 2 is Eq. (1) with κ = 0, i.e., no killing of infected cells by NK cells. Model 3 is model 2 assuming the viral production rate is . The detection limit of the viral titer is 100 RNA copies per ml of nasal secretions. Data below the detection limit were plotted as 1 RNA copy per ml of nasal secretions.
Table 3.
Comparisons of the best fits using different models.
Figure 6.
Sensitivity tests of the predicted viral load of pony 1 to model parameters.
The parameter in the legend was varied (10-fold larger or smaller than the estimate in Table 2) while the remaining parameters were fixed and chosen from Table 2.