Nonlocal and local models for taxis in cell migration: a rigorous limit procedure

Anna Zhigun; Christina Surulescu; Kevin Painter; Maria Krasnianski

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Nonlocal and local models for taxis in cell migration: a rigorous limit procedure

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that, as the sensing radius in nonlocal adhesion and chemotaxis models tends to zero, solutions of the nonlocal systems converge to solutions of the classical local haptotaxis and chemotaxis systems, provided the…

desk verdict Rigorous bridge between nonlocal and local taxis models with a genuinely new operator trick; the main theorem is plausible but the proof has two concrete holes that need patching. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10287 v2 pith:XVLIGKLY submitted 2019-08-27 math.AP

Maria Krasnianski , Kevin Painter , Christina Surulescu , Anna Zhigun This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q9292C1735K5535R0947G2035B4535D30

keywords cell-cellandcell-tissueadhesionnonlocallocalchemotaxishaptotaxisintegro-differentialequationsunifiedapproachglobalexistencerigorouslimitbehaviourweaksolutions

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish a rigorous bridge between two modelling traditions: nonlocal equations in which cells sense adhesive or chemical signals over a finite radius, and local equations in which the signal gradient acts pointwise. Its central result, Theorem 5.8, states that under suitable assumptions there are nonlocal solutions that converge in $L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$ to a solution of the local model as the sensing radius $r$ goes to zero. The key move is to rewrite the nonlocal operators as averages applied to $\nabla u$, not to $u$ itself; this removes boundary-layer artefacts and makes a compactness argument possible with only weak regularity. A sympathetic reader would care because the result justifies when simpler local models are the appropriate limit of more realistic finite-sensing models, and it exposes exactly where the two families disagree.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of integral averaging operators. For a vector field $w$, $$T_r w(x) = \$int_0^{1}$ \frac{1}{|B_1|}\int_{B_1} (w(x+rsy)\cdot y)\,\frac{y}{|y|}\,F_r(r|y|)\,dy\,ds$$ and $$S_r w(x) = n\$int_0^{1}$ \frac{1}{|S_1|}\int_{S_1} (w(x+rsy)\cdot y)\,y\,dS_1(y)\,ds,$$ where $F_r$ is a smooth positive interaction kernel normalized so that $F_0(0)=n+1$. They carry the argument because they turn the adhesion velocity and the nonlocal gradient into averages of $\nabla u$, are self-adjoint on $L^2$, have norm bounds uniform in $r$, and converge strongly to the identity in $L^p$ as $r \to 0$. Those three facts, reformulation, boundedness, and strong convergence, produce the uniform a priori estimates and the passage to the limit in the nonlocal flux, which is the heart of Theorem 5.8.

What would settle it

Take the one-dimensional setting of Example 3.3 ($\Omega=(-1,1)$, $F_r\equiv 2$, $u\equiv 1$) and compute numerically the $L^1$ norms of $A_r u$ and $T_r(\nabla u)$ on $\Omega$ as $r \to 0$: the example predicts $\|A_r u\|_{L^1}$ stays about $1$ while $\|T_r(\nabla u)\|_{L^1} \to 0$, which directly checks the boundary-layer gap. Independently of the theorem, one could also run the nonlocal system (5.1) with coefficients violating (5.7) and measure whether the $L^2$ distance between nonlocal and local solutions still tends to zero as $r \to 0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the limit procedure works for a family of nonlocal models whose nonlocal terms are the averaging operators $T_r$ and $S_r$ applied to gradients, rather than the original operators $A_r$ and $\mathring{\nabla}_r$ applied to signal values. Inside the domain these are the same objects, $A_r u = T_r(\nabla u)$ and $\mathring{\nabla}_r u = S_r(\nabla u)$, but in a boundary layer they differ, and Example 3.3 shows that the original form can fail to converge in $L^1$ even when the signal is constant. Theorem 5.8 then asserts that, under a smallness condition tying cell sensitivity to diffusion, a sequence of nonlocal solutions with radii $r_m \to 0$ has a subsequence converging in $L^2(0,T;L^2(\Omega))$ to a weak-strong solution of the corresponding local haptotaxis or chemotaxis system. The proof obtains uniform-in-$r$ a priori estimates, uses the $L^p$ convergence of $T_r$ and $S_r$ to the identity to pass to the limit in the tactic flux, and closes with a compactness argument. On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the correct object to average is the gradient of the signal-dependent quantity, not the quantity itself.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem depends on replacing the original nonlocal operators by gradient-averaging versions that agree with them only away from a boundary layer, and on the smallness condition $C_{11}<1$; if the boundary-layer modification is judged illegitimate, or if that smallness condition fails, the stated convergence is not proved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For any sequence of sensing radii satisfying the smallness condition, the nonlocal systems admit global weak-strong solutions whose cell and tissue densities converge, up to a subsequence, to a solution of the local haptotaxis or chemotaxis system.
Away from the boundary the new nonlocal operators coincide with the original adhesion velocity and nonlocal gradient, so the convergence result legitimizes the local model as the $r \to 0$ limit of finite-sensing models in the interior.
In the numerical experiments the nonlocal formulation remains computable in parameter regimes where the local model's effective diffusion becomes negative and the local problem turns ill-posed, with the nonlocal solution destabilizing into aggregates whose wavelength shrinks as $r \to 0$.
The same gradient-averaging reformulation treats adhesion and nonlocal chemotaxis in one framework and covers coefficients that depend on the solution itself, extending earlier analyses restricted to simpler settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The line-segment averaging inside $T_r$ and $S_r$ suggests that cells in these models sense the gradient accumulated along a protrusion path rather than at its endpoint; if taken seriously as a modelling principle, it favours gradient-averaging formulations over endpoint-sampling ones in future data-driven models.
Example 3.3 implies that the original nonlocal operators, when naively extended by zero outside the domain, can inject an artificial boundary tendency even for constant signals; a testable prediction is that boundary-confined cell populations should behave differently under the two formulations, as the 1D boundary simulations already show.
The smallness condition $C_{11}<1$ links the convergence to a competition between tactic strength and diffusion; one could test numerically whether the $L^2$ distance to the local solution fails to vanish, or converges more slowly, as that condition is approached.
The same averaging construction is likely to transfer to other integro-differential systems with comparable structure, such as multi-species or structured-population migration models, giving a recipe for proving local limits without high-order regularity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The headline result is real: this is the first rigorous convergence result linking nonlocal adhesion/chemotaxis models to local haptotaxis/chemotaxis, and the T_r/S_r reformulation is a neat idea that deserves to be reused. I'd send it to a referee.

What's genuinely new: writing A_r u = T_r(∇u) and ˚∇_r u = S_r(∇u) turns the old formal Taylor expansions into honest L^p operator convergence, and it handles solution-dependent coefficients in one framework. The Section 3 estimates are careful, the existence theory in Sections 4–5 is substantial, and the 1D simulations honestly show where the modified operators differ from the original ones near boundaries. The paper also credits the open question from [29] and answers it, so the citation pattern looks fine.

Now the soft spots, both in the proof of Theorem 5.8. First, the uniformity step says "Replacing ||R_r|| by C11" after choosing r_m with sup ||R_{r_m}|| < 1/C11. That is backwards: C11 < 1 while the operator norm is near 1, so shrinking the constant artificially underestimates the dependence. The correct replacement is the sup bound 1/C11, and as written the r-uniform estimates (5.40)–(5.47) are not established. This looks like a typo, not a fatal flaw, but it has to be fixed.

Second, Theorem 5.8 is stated under Assumptions 5.3 with either (a) or (b), but the proof invokes Theorem 5.13, which is proved only under (b). The Lipschitz case (a) would need analogous uniform-in-r estimates, and those are not stated or proved. This is a genuine gap in the manuscript, though likely patchable by reworking the proof of Theorem 5.10 or 5.13.

Minor framing issue: the abstract says it links nonlocal models to local counterparts without saying the rigorous result is for the modified T_r/S_r operators, not the original A_r/˚∇_r near boundaries. Example 3.3 makes the distinction clear, and the text acknowledges it, so this is a wording problem rather than a correctness problem.

Bottom line: the strategy is sound, the novelty is real, and the flaws are repairable. This deserves peer review with a request to fix the uniformity step and clarify the scope of Theorem 5.8. I'd bring it to a reading group for the operator trick alone.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a rigorous limit procedure connecting nonlocal taxis/adhesion models to local haptotaxis/chemotaxis models as the sensing radius tends to zero. The key technical idea is to reformulate the classical nonlocal operators A_r and tilde-grad_r as integral operators T_r and S_r acting directly on gradients of signal-dependent quantities, proving L^p approximation of the identity for these operators. The authors prove global existence for the modified nonlocal system (5.1) under either Lipschitz or dissipative growth of the source terms, and establish existence of solutions and global weak-strong solutions. The main theorem, Theorem 5.8, asserts that under Assumptions 1.1, 5.1, 5.3, and 5.4(b), there exists a sequence r_m -> 0 such that solutions (c_{r_m}, v_{r_m}) of the nonlocal system converge in L^2 to a solution (c,v) of the local system (5.2). The paper also contains one-dimensional numerical simulations illustrating boundary-layer differences between the original and modified nonlocal operators, and convergence of nonlocal to local dynamics as r -> 0.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this is a valuable contribution: it provides the first rigorous convergence result for a broad class of nonlocal adhesion and nonlocal chemotaxis models with solution-dependent coefficients, and it gives a clean operator-theoretic explanation of why the modified operators are the right objects for the limit. The operator estimates in Section 3 (Lemmas 3.5 and 3.7) are carefully proved and include useful adjointness, norm-convergence, and Fourier-multiplier computations. The paper is also honest about the limitation that the convergence concerns the modified operators T_r and S_r, not the original boundary-layer-sensitive operators A_r and tilde-grad_r, and Example 3.3 demonstrates a genuine boundary-layer pathology of A_r. The numerical simulations are a useful illustration. The two gaps identified below affect the proof of the main theorem but appear repairable, so the central claim is not called into question beyond the need for revision.

major comments (2)

[Section 5.4, proof of Theorem 5.8] The uniformity step in the proof of Theorem 5.8 is not valid as written. After choosing r_m so that sup_m ||R_{r_m}|| < 1/C11, the text says that 'Replacing ||R_r|| by C11 in C22(T, ||R_r||)' makes the constants independent of m. This replacement is backwards: C11 = C12C13/C5 satisfies C11 < 1, while ||R_{r_m}|| -> 1, so C11 is strictly smaller than ||R_{r_m}|| for all sufficiently large m. Unless C22 is known to be decreasing in its second argument—which the Gronwall-based estimates in Theorem 5.13 do not suggest—substituting C11 does not provide an upper bound for the uniform constants. The correct uniform substitution is sup_m ||R_{r_m}||, which is admitted to be < 1/C11. As written, the r-uniform estimates (5.40)-(5.47) are not established, and the compactness argument lacks a foundation. This is repairable by replacing C11 with sup_m ||R_{r_m}|| in C22 and making the monotonicity of C22 explicit.
[Theorem 5.8 and Section 5.4] Theorem 5.8 is stated under Assumption 5.3, which allows either alternative (a) or (b), but the proof invokes Theorem 5.13, which is stated and proved only under Assumption 5.3(b). In the case of Assumption 5.3(a), Theorem 5.10 provides existence of weak-strong solutions for each fixed r satisfying Assumption 5.4(a), but it does not provide r-uniform a priori estimates of the type (5.40)-(5.47). Therefore the convergence proof as written does not cover the (a) branch of Assumption 5.3. The statement should either be restricted to Assumption 5.3(b), or a proof of r-uniform estimates should be supplied for case (a).

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract and introduction present the limit procedure as linking the nonlocal models (1.1) and (1.4) to local models, while Theorem 5.8 concerns the modified systems (5.1) with operators T_r and S_r. Although Sections 3 and 5 are explicit about this modification and Example 3.3 justifies it, the abstract should state this qualification to avoid overstating the scope.
[Proof of Theorem 5.8] The proof of Theorem 5.8 uses 'standard arguments' and 'we omit these details' for several limit passages, including the convergence of the remaining nonlinear terms and boundary conditions. Given the otherwise detailed style, a brief summary of the compactness and limit argument for those terms would improve verifiability.
[Lemma 3.5(iv)] The Fourier-multiplier argument in Lemma 3.5(iv) uses the convention that functions are extended by zero outside Omega; this convention is stated in Section 2, but it would help the reader if it were recalled explicitly at the point where the hat symbol is introduced in the proof.
[Section 6] In Figures 3 and 4, the 'nonlocal model' simulations use the original formulation (1.1) rather than the modified formulation (5.1) with T_r. This is correct for the numerical comparison but should be stated explicitly in the captions to avoid confusion with the theoretical convergence result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: convergence is derived from a priori estimates and compactness, with the normalization and operator modification stated explicitly.

full rationale

The paper's central theorem (Theorem 5.8) asserts L^2 convergence of solutions of the nonlocal systems (5.1) to those of the local system (5.2) under Assumptions 1.1, 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4(b). The proof does not fit parameters to outputs or rename inputs as predictions. The key identity T0 = Id (and S0 = Id) follows from the explicit normalization F0(0) = n+1 (Assumption 1.1(ii), equations (3.3)-(3.4)), which is a transparent scaling assumption, not an instance of the target conclusion being inserted as an input. The convergence of solutions is obtained through uniform-in-r estimates (Theorem 5.13), the Lions-Aubin lemma, Banach-Alaoglu and compensated compactness; these are external standard tools. Self-citations (e.g., [11,19,29,30]) provide modeling context and are not used to justify the convergence claims; no 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors is invoked to rule out alternatives. The paper explicitly acknowledges that Theorem 5.8 concerns the modified operators T_r/S_r and not the original A_r/gradient-tilde_r near the boundary: Section 5 states that the modification 'affects the points in the boundary layer Omega z Omega_r, at the most', and Example 3.3 shows A_r u need not converge in L^1. The Discussion further states that the choice (3.2) 'is motivated above all from a mathematical viewpoint (as it enables a rigorous, well-justified passage to the limit)'. This is a disclosed scope limitation, not circularity: the theorem's statement matches the modified systems. A reviewer's concern about the proof's replacement of ||R_r|| by C11 in C22(·,·) is a possible correctness gap, not a circularity, since it concerns bounding constants rather than the conclusion being an input. Therefore no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a package of standard PDE tools plus structural assumptions on the model coefficients (Assumptions 5.1, 5.3, 5.4) and the normalization F0(0)=n+1. The most fragile pieces are the smallness condition C11<1 and the use of modified gradient-averaging operators, which are introduced to make the limit work. No free parameters are fitted to data, and no new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Assumptions 5.1: coefficient bounds and nonnegativity, e.g. C5 <= D_c <= C6, ∇g and ∇f_v in L∞, f_c(0,·) = 0, f_v(·,0) = 0.
These hypotheses define the class of models treated; they are not derived from biological data.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 5.4(b): C11 := C12 C13 / C5 < 1, with C12 = sup c|χ(c,v)|, C13 = sup |B_c g|.
Smallness condition needed for uniform-in-r a priori estimates and convergence; no biological justification is given for this parameter regime.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 1.1(ii): F0(0) = n+1 normalization for the interaction kernel F_r.
Chosen so the limiting operator T_0 becomes the identity; with a different constant the limit model would have a different drift magnitude.
ad hoc to paper The nonlocal operators A_r and ˚∇_r are replaced by T_r and S_r acting on gradients.
This modification is introduced in Section 5 to make the convergence proof work; the original operators can behave differently near the boundary, as shown in Example 3.3.
domain assumption Assumption 5.3: f_c is either globally Lipschitz or satisfies a dissipative growth bound.
Needed for global existence of the approximating solutions in Section 5.
standard math Standard PDE tools: Banach-Steinhaus, Lions-Aubin lemma, Leray-Schauder principle, Minty-Browder monotonicity, Gronwall, dominated convergence, Lions lemma.
Invoked throughout Sections 3-5 without proof; these are standard background results.
domain assumption Ω is a bounded smooth domain and functions are extended by zero outside Ω in the nonlocal operators.
The boundary treatment is critical for the operator definitions and for the boundary-layer behavior discussed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlocal and local models for taxis in cell migration: a rigorous limit procedure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVLIGKLY

@misc{pith2026190810287,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlocal and local models for taxis in cell migration: a rigorous limit procedure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVLIGKLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10287}
}

read the original abstract

A rigorous limit procedure is presented which links nonlocal models involving adhesion or nonlocal chemotaxis to their local counterparts featuring haptotaxis and classical chemotaxis, respectively. It relies on a novel reformulation of the involved nonlocalities in terms of integral operators applied directly to the gradients of signal-dependent quantities. The proposed approach handles both model types in a unified way and extends the previous mathematical framework to settings that allow for general solution-dependent coefficient functions. The previous forms of nonlocal operators are compared with the new ones introduced in this paper and the advantages of the latter are highlighted by concrete examples. Numerical simulations in 1D provide an illustration of some of the theoretical findings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10287 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a-c) Comparison between nonlocal formulations ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Convergence between nonlocal and local/classical formulations under negligible cell-cell adhe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Time restricted convergence under moderate cell-cell adhesion, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Convergence between nonlocal and local/classical formulations under a set of minimalistic linear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[29]

Hillen, K

T. Hillen, K. Painter, and C. Schmeiser. Global existence for chemotaxis with ﬁnite sampling radius. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B , 7(1):125–144

work page
[1]

A. R. A. Anderson, M. A. J. Chaplain, E. L. Newman, R. J. C. Steele, and M. Thompson, A. Math- ematical modelling of tumour invasion and metastasis. Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2(2):129–154, 2000

work page 2000
[2]

N. J. Armstrong, K. J. Painter, and J. A. Sherratt. A continuum approach to modelling cell-cell adhesion. J. Theoret. Biol., 243(1):98–113, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

G. Bell. Models for the speciﬁc adhesion of cells to cells. Science, 200(4342):618–627, 1978

work page 1978
[4]

G. Bell, M. Dembo, and P. Bongrand. Cell adhesion. competition between nonspeciﬁc repulsion and speciﬁc bonding. Biophysical Journal, 45(6):1051 – 1064, 1984

work page 1984
[5]

Bellomo, A

N. Bellomo, A. Bellouquid, Y. Tao, and M. Winkler. Toward a mathematical theory of keller-segel models of pattern formation in biological tissues. Math. Models Meth. Appl. Sci. , 25(9):1663–1763, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Bitsouni, D

V. Bitsouni, D. Trucu, M. A. J. Chaplain, and R. Eftimie. Aggregation and travelling wave dynamics in a two-population model of cancer cell growth and invasion. Mathematical Medicine and Biology: A Journal of the IMA , 35(4):541–577, 01 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Buttensch¨ on and T

A. Buttensch¨ on and T. Hillen. Nonlocal adhesion models for microorganisms on bounded domains, preprint

work page

Show all 52 references

[8]

Buttensch¨ on, T

A. Buttensch¨ on, T. Hillen, A. Gerisch, and K. J. Painter. A space-jump derivation for non-local models of cell-cell adhesion and non-local chemotaxis. J. Math. Biol. , 76(1-2):429–456, 2018. 30

2018
[9]

Carrillo, H

J. Carrillo, H. Murakawa, M. Sato, H. Togashi, and O. Trush. A population dynamics model of cell- cell adhesion incorporating population pressure and density saturation. J. Theor. Biol. , 474:14–24, 2019

2019
[10]

Chaplain, M

M. Chaplain, M. Lachowicz, Z. Szymanska, and D. Wrzosek. Mathematical modelling of cancer invasion: The importance of cell-cell adhesion and cell-matrix adhesion. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , 21(04):719–743, 2011

2011
[11]

L. Chen, K. Painter, C. Surulescu, and A. Zhigun. Mathematical models for cell migration: a nonlocal perspective, 2019

2019
[12]

R. B. Dickinson and R. T. Tranquillo. A stochastic model for adhesion-mediated cell random motility and haptotaxis. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 31(6):563–600, 1993

1993
[13]

DiMilla, K

P. DiMilla, K. Barbee, and D. Lauﬀenburger. Mathematical model for the eﬀects of adhesion and mechanics on cell migration speed. Biophysical Journal, 60(1):15 – 37, 1991

1991
[14]

Domschke, D

P. Domschke, D. Trucu, A. Gerisch, and M. A. J. Chaplain. Mathematical modelling of cancer invasion: implications of cell adhesion variability for tumour inﬁltrative growth patterns. J. Theoret. Biol., 361:41–60, 2014

2014
[15]

Domschke, D

P. Domschke, D. Trucu, A. Gerisch, and M. A. J. Chaplain. Structured models of cell migration incorporating molecular binding processes. J. Math. Biol. , 75(6-7):1517–1561, 2017

2017
[16]

Dyson, S

J. Dyson, S. Gourley, and G. Webb. A non-local evolution equation model of cell-cell adhesion in higher dimensional space. Journal of biological dynamics , 7:68–87, 2013

2013
[17]

Dyson, S

J. Dyson, S. A. Gourley, R. Villella-Bressan, and G. F. Webb. Existence and asymptotic properties of solutions of a nonlocal evolution equation modeling cell-cell adhesion. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 42(4):1784–1804, 2010

2010
[18]

R. Eftimie. Hyperbolic and Kinetic Models for Self-organised Biological Aggregations. A Modelling and Pattern Formation Approach. Springer, Cham, 2018

2018
[19]

Engwer, C

C. Engwer, C. Stinner, and C. Surulescu. On a structured multiscale model for acid-mediated tumor invasion: the eﬀects of adhesion and proliferation. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 27(7):1355– 1390, 2017

2017
[20]

D. S. Eom and D. M. Parichy. A macrophage relay for long-distance signaling during postembryonic tissue remodeling. Science, 355(6331):1317–1320, 2017

2017
[21]

L. C. Evans. Weak convergence methods for nonlinear partial diﬀerential equations , volume 74 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics . Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990

1990
[22]

Garcia and C

G. Garcia and C. Parent. Signal relay during chemotaxis. Journal of Microscopy , 231(3):529–534, 2008

2008
[23]

A. Gerisch. On the approximation and eﬃcient evaluation of integral terms in PDE models of cell adhesion. IMA Journal of Numerical Analysis , 30(1):173–194, 01 2010

2010
[24]

Gerisch and M

A. Gerisch and M. A. J. Chaplain. Mathematical modelling of cancer cell invasion of tissue: local and non-local models and the eﬀect of adhesion. J. Theoret. Biol., 250(4):684–704, 2008

2008
[25]

Gerisch and K

A. Gerisch and K. J. Painter. Mathematical modeling of cell adhesion and its applications to developmental biology and cancer invasion. 2010

2010
[26]

Gonz´ alez-M´ endez, I

L. Gonz´ alez-M´ endez, I. Seijo-Barandiar´ an, and I. Guerrero. Cytoneme-mediated cell-cell contacts for hedgehog reception. eLife, 6:e24045, 2017

2017
[27]

S. C. Gupta and Y.-Y. Mo. Abstract 168: Malat1 is crucial for epithelial-mesenchymal transition of breast cancer cells in acidic microenvironment. Cancer Research, 75(15 Supplement):168–168, 2015

2015
[28]

T. Hillen. A classiﬁcation of spikes and plateaus. SIAM Rev., 49(1):35–51, 2007. 31

2007
[30]

Hillen, K

T. Hillen, K. Painter, and M. Winkler. Global solvability and explicit bounds for non-local adhesion models. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 29(04):1–40, 2018

2018
[31]

N. I. Kavallaris and T. Suzuki. Non-local partial diﬀerential equations for engineering and biology , volume 31 of Mathematics for Industry (Tokyo). Springer, Cham, 2018. Mathematical modeling and analysis

2018
[32]

Kuusela and W

E. Kuusela and W. Alt. Continuum model of cell adhesion and migration. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 58(1):135, 2008

2008
[33]

Ladyzhenskaya, V

O. Ladyzhenskaya, V. Solonnikov, and N. Ural’tseva. Linear and quasi-linear equations of parabolic type. Translated from the Russian by S. Smith. Translations of Mathematical Monographs. 23. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS). XI, 648 p. (1968)., 1968

1968
[34]

Lamalice, F

L. Lamalice, F. Le Boeuf, and J. Huot. Endothelial cell migration during angiogenesis. Circulation Research, 100:782 – 794, 2007

2007
[35]

J.-L. Lions. Quelques m´ ethodes de r´ esolution des probl` emes aux limites non lin´ eaires. Dunod, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969

1969
[36]

Loy and L

N. Loy and L. Preziosi. Kinetic models with non-local sensing determining cell polarization and speed according to independent cues. arXiv:1906.11039, 2019

1906 arXiv
[37]

P. Lu, V. Weaver, and Z. Werb. The extracellular matrix: A dynamic niche in cancer progression. J. Cell Biol. , 196:395–406, 2012

2012
[38]

Murakawa and H

H. Murakawa and H. Togashi. Continuous models for cell-cell adhesion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 374:1–12, 2015

2015
[39]

Othmer and T

H. Othmer and T. Hillen. The diﬀusion limit of transport equations ii: chemotaxis equations. SIAM J. Appl. Math. , 62:1122–1250, 2002

2002
[40]

K. J. Painter, N. J. Armstrong, and J. A. Sherratt. The impact of adhesion on cellular invasion processes in cancer and development. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 264(3):1057 – 1067, 2010

2010
[41]

Peppicelli, F

S. Peppicelli, F. Bianchini, E. Torre, and L. Calorini. Contribution of acidic melanoma cells under- going epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition to aggressiveness of non-acidic melanoma cells. Clinical & Experimental Metastasis , 31(4):423–433, Jan. 2014

2014
[42]

A. J. Perumpanani, J. A. Sherratt, J. Norbury, and H. M. Byrne. Biological inferences from a mathematical model for malignant invasion. Invasion Metastasis, 16(4-5):209–221, 1996

1996
[43]

Pickup, J

M. Pickup, J. Mouw, and V. Weaver. The extracellular matrix modulates the hallmarks of cancer. EMBO reports, 15:1243–1253, 2014

2014
[44]

Prieto-Garc´ ıa, C

E. Prieto-Garc´ ıa, C. V. D´ ıaz-Garc´ ıa, I. Garc´ ıa-Ruiz, and M. T. Agull´ o-Ortu˜ no. Epithelial-to- mesenchymal transition in tumor progression. Medical Oncology, 34(7), May 2017

2017
[45]

S´ aenz-de Santa-Mar´ ıa, C

I. S´ aenz-de Santa-Mar´ ıa, C. Bernardo-Casti˜ neira, E. Enciso, I. Garc´ ıa-Moreno, J. Chiara, C. Suarez, and M.-D. Chiara. Control of long-distance cell-to-cell communication and autophagosome transfer in squamous cell carcinoma via tunneling nanotubes. Oncotarget, 8:20939–...

2017
[46]

Sherratt, S

J. Sherratt, S. Gourley, N. Armstrong, and K. Painter. Boundedness of solutions of a non-local reaction-diﬀusion model for adhesion in cell aggregation and cancer invasion. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 20(1):123–144, 2009

2009
[47]

R. E. Showalter. Monotone Operators in Banach Space and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Equations, volume 49 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, 1997

1997
[48]

R. Temam. Navier-Stokes equations: theory and numerical analysis , volume 343. American Mathe- matical Soc., 2001

2001
[49]

A. Uatay. Multiscale Mathematical Modeling of Cell Migration: From Single Cells to Populations . PhD thesis, TU Kaiserslautern, 2019. 32

2019
[50]

Ward and D

M. Ward and D. Hammer. A theoretical analysis for the eﬀect of focal contact formation on cell- substrate attachment strength. Biophysical Journal, 64(3):936 – 959, 1993

1993
[51]

J. H. Wen, O. Choi, H. Taylor-Weiner, A. Fuhrmann, J. V. Karpiak, A. Almutairi, and A. J. Engler. Haptotaxis is cell type speciﬁc and limited by substrate adhesiveness. Cell Mol. Bioeng. , 8(4):530 – 542, 2015

2015
[52]

E. Zeidler. Nonlinear functional analysis and its applications. I . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986. Fixed-point theorems, Translated from the German by Peter R. Wadsack. 33

1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

Hillen, K

T. Hillen, K. Painter, and C. Schmeiser. Global existence for chemotaxis with ﬁnite sampling radius. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. B , 7(1):125–144

work page

[2] [1]

A. R. A. Anderson, M. A. J. Chaplain, E. L. Newman, R. J. C. Steele, and M. Thompson, A. Math- ematical modelling of tumour invasion and metastasis. Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2(2):129–154, 2000

work page 2000

[3] [2]

N. J. Armstrong, K. J. Painter, and J. A. Sherratt. A continuum approach to modelling cell-cell adhesion. J. Theoret. Biol., 243(1):98–113, 2006

work page 2006

[4] [3]

G. Bell. Models for the speciﬁc adhesion of cells to cells. Science, 200(4342):618–627, 1978

work page 1978

[5] [4]

G. Bell, M. Dembo, and P. Bongrand. Cell adhesion. competition between nonspeciﬁc repulsion and speciﬁc bonding. Biophysical Journal, 45(6):1051 – 1064, 1984

work page 1984

[6] [5]

Bellomo, A

N. Bellomo, A. Bellouquid, Y. Tao, and M. Winkler. Toward a mathematical theory of keller-segel models of pattern formation in biological tissues. Math. Models Meth. Appl. Sci. , 25(9):1663–1763, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Bitsouni, D

V. Bitsouni, D. Trucu, M. A. J. Chaplain, and R. Eftimie. Aggregation and travelling wave dynamics in a two-population model of cancer cell growth and invasion. Mathematical Medicine and Biology: A Journal of the IMA , 35(4):541–577, 01 2018

work page 2018

[8] [7]

Buttensch¨ on and T

A. Buttensch¨ on and T. Hillen. Nonlocal adhesion models for microorganisms on bounded domains, preprint

work page