Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 70 references

Chemomechanical regulation of growing tissues from a thermodynamically-consistent framework and its application to tumor spheroid growth

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A thermodynamic growth law predicts that tumor spheroids have no stable size unless the environment presses on them.

desk verdict Real derivation, real fits, but the no-plateau free-growth prediction is a chosen closure, not a thermodynamic necessity. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00916 v2 pith:J2AUA4HI submitted 2024-12-01 physics.bio-ph

Nonthakorn Olaranont , Chaozhen Wei , John Lowengrub , Min Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph MSC 74L1592C5074A15
keywords growthviscoelasticitymechanicalfeedbackfluiditynonlinearmechanicstumorthermodynamicconsistencygrowth-elasticity
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

This paper builds a thermodynamically consistent continuum model of tissue growth in which the volumetric growth rate is not prescribed but emerges from the joint dissipation of elastic and chemical energy. The central message is that, in this model, a tumor spheroid growing without external confinement or pressure has no finite equilibrium radius: it keeps growing, with the proliferation zone narrowing to a rim near the surface. With a confining gel, the spheroid reaches a finite size that shrinks as the gel stiffens; under applied pressure, it can even vanish if the pressure exceeds half the chemical-energy coefficient. The model reproduces published spheroid-radius data under gel confinement, gel release, and osmotic pressure, and it traces the difference between uniform and rim-restricted growth patterns to the tissue rearrangement rate.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is an energy-variational argument on a growing elastic body with multiplicative decomposition $F = F_e F_g$, where $F_g$ is active growth and $F_e$ is elastic response, posed in the Eulerian frame. The total energy is the neo-Hookean elastic energy $W(F_e)$ plus a quadratic chemical energy $\tfrac{k}{2}c^2$; requiring the total energy to decrease selects the deviatoric rearrangement rate $\Gamma_D = \beta\big(F_e F_e^T - \tfrac{1}{d}\operatorname{tr}(F_e F_e^T)I\big)$ and the volumetric growth rate $\gamma = \eta c\big(\tfrac{1}{2}k\rho c^2 + K(J_e-1) - J_e^{-1}W\big)$. At equilibrium, the zero-growth condition $\gamma = 0$ combined with radial force balance reduces to a one-dimensional shooting problem whose boundary equations give the threshold $F_{\rm ext} \le k/2$ and the impossibility of a finite radius when $F_{\rm ext} = 0$.

What would settle it

Measure the radius of a tumor spheroid in long-term culture with no confining gel or applied pressure. If the radius approaches a finite plateau rather than continuing to increase with a positive but shrinking growth rate, the central claim of no equilibrium without external load is falsified. A second check: for $\beta = 0$ the model predicts the volumetric growth rate is uniformly zero across the spheroid at the confined equilibrium, so measuring spatially resolved proliferation and finding a persistent central death zone would also count against the closure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors derive a coupled system for an Eulerian growth-elasticity model with nutrient diffusion. The load-bearing result is the chemomechanical feedback closure $\gamma = \eta c\big(\tfrac{1}{2} k \rho c^2 + K(J_e-1) - J_e^{-1}W\big)$, obtained by requiring that total elastic-plus-chemical energy is dissipated by volumetric growth, nutrient uptake, diffusion, and mass-conserving rearrangement. From the equilibrium analysis of this system, they show that when the external traction $F_{\rm ext}$ is zero, force balance at the center cannot be satisfied for any finite radius, so the tumor grows indefinitely; when a gel provides confinement, an equilibrium always exists; and when a constant pressure is applied, an equilibrium exists only up to $P_{\rm ext} = k/2$, above which the spheroid shrinks to zero. The authors also find that the inferred tissue rearrangement rate $\beta$ is zero for gel-confined spheroids and positive for pressure-clamped spheroids, and that $\beta$ controls whether the growth-rate profile is uniform or boundary-localized.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the volumetric growth rate has exactly the energy-dissipation form derived here and that dying cells are not explicitly included; add cell death or change that energy function and the unbounded-growth result could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Free-growing spheroids have no finite equilibrium radius; growth continues with a narrowing proliferative rim, in contrast to classic nutrient-limited models that plateau via central cell death.
  • With a confining gel, a finite equilibrium radius exists for any gel stiffness, decreases as stiffness or mechanical feedback strength increases, and growth stops with $\gamma$ uniformly zero when $\beta = 0$.
  • With applied pressure, the equilibrium radius decreases as pressure increases, and the spheroid shrinks to zero once $P_{\rm ext}$ exceeds $k/2$; gel confinement never produces this shrink-to-zero behavior.
  • The tissue rearrangement rate $\beta$ controls the growth pattern: $\beta = 0$ gives a uniform volumetric growth rate, while $\beta > 0$ concentrates growth at the boundary and, under compression, produces negative growth in the core.
  • Both compressible and incompressible versions fit the spheroid-radius data; model selection favors the incompressible version despite a slightly larger fitting error, because it has one fewer parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the unbounded-free-growth prediction holds, size homeostasis in avascular spheroids would itself be evidence of mechanical confinement from the microenvironment, not an intrinsic property of the tissue; plateau sizes would become environmental readouts rather than tissue-intrinsic constants.
  • Editorial inference: a decisive test would be long-time tracking of spheroids in non-adherent suspension with no gel; a clear plateau would falsify the no-death closure, while sustained growth with a positive but decreasing growth rate would support it.
  • Editorial inference: the threshold $P_{\rm ext} = k/2$ suggests that measuring the critical osmotic pressure at which spheroids vanish could directly estimate the chemical-energy coefficient $k$, a parameter otherwise inferred only by fitting.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a continuum model for chemomechanically regulated tissue growth in an Eulerian frame, using the multiplicative decomposition F = Fe Fg, a nutrient reaction-diffusion equation, and a dissipation-based closure for the volumetric growth rate. After deriving an energy balance, the authors choose the specific feedback law gamma = eta c [ (1/2) k rho c^2 + K(Je-1) - Je^{-1} W ] (Eq. 62), calibrate the model to tumor spheroid radius measurements in agarose gels [43] and under osmotic pressure [44], and study the dependence of growth on mechanical feedback strength, rearrangement rate, compressibility, and external loads. A central qualitative claim is that unconfined spheroids never reach a finite equilibrium radius and instead grow indefinitely, in contrast to Greenspan-type models. The paper also derives the linearized Maxwell-type viscoelastic limit and compares the framework with earlier biomechanical growth models.

Significance. If the central claims held as stated, the paper would be a valuable contribution: it gives a clean variational derivation of growth feedback, a frame-invariant evolution equation for the elastic Finger tensor, a transparent reduction to Maxwell-type linear viscoelasticity, and quantitative fits to two widely used spheroid experiments. The authors are also honest about parameter fitting, show robustness bands, and compare compressible and incompressible models with an information criterion. However, the headline prediction of unbounded free growth is conditional on a specific closure for gamma and on an unproven characterization of equilibrium, so the significance is currently lower than the abstract claims. The framework may still be useful as one admissible thermodynamically consistent model, but it is not uniquely selected by thermodynamics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (32); Sec. 3.4, Eq. (62)] Thermodynamic consistency alone requires only that gamma and the bracket B in Eq. (31) have the same sign so that Q <= 0; it does not select the linear closure gamma = eta B. The later choices of quadratic chemical energy and eta(c,sigma) = eta c are modeling assumptions, not consequences of the variational principle. In particular, the absence of an independent death/apoptosis term means the bracket must vanish at equilibrium. Adding a non-negative death rate gamma_a(c) to gamma changes the equilibrium condition to eta B - gamma_a = 0 and permits a finite equilibrium even when F_ext = 0. Since Sec. 5.2.3 uses gamma = 0 as the equilibrium condition, the prediction of unbounded free growth is a property of the chosen closure, not a theorem of thermodynamic consistency. The manuscript should state this limitation explicitly and test whether the qualitative prediction survives under other admissible closures.
  2. [Sec. 5.2.3, Eq. (66) and Supplemental E] The argument that no finite equilibrium exists for F_ext = 0 assumes gamma = 0 everywhere at equilibrium for beta = 0. However, stationarity of the radius only requires v(R) = 0, which with incompressibility gives the integral constraint Integral_0^R gamma(r) r^2 dr = 0; sign-changing gamma with a proliferating rim and a dying core is not excluded. The paper states that gamma becomes uniformly zero based on simulations, but does not prove this. The shooting analysis further assumes f_e_theta in (0,1] and uses heuristic root-selection rules when Eq. (82) has no positive root or multiple roots, so it cannot rule out other equilibrium branches. The phrase 'we can conclude' therefore overstates the result; the no-equilibrium conclusion is a numerical observation under a restricted ansatz.
  3. [Sec. 5.1.1, Tables 1-2, Fig. 2A] The free-growth dataset is part of the calibration group (free, 0.7%, and 1% gel concentrations), so the predicted absence of a plateau in free growth is not an independent prediction. The other gel concentrations are tested only after fitting the tumor-associated parameters and then adjusting c_H, and the gel-release 'prediction' uses release times fitted to the same experimental data. With roughly eight effective free parameters and no genuine holdout set beyond the c_H scan, the agreement in Fig. 2 mainly demonstrates consistency rather than strong confirmation of the novel qualitative behavior. The manuscript should avoid calling the free-growth behavior a prediction and should report cross-validation or a parameter-identifiability analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Refs [45]] The author name is misspelled as 'Arajo' and later 'Arajuo'; it should be Araújo.
  2. [Supplementary B, Eq. (67)] The AICc formula as printed is ambiguous and does not reproduce the reported positive AICc values with the given sample sizes and relative errors when compared with the standard form AICc = n log(RSS/n) + 2m + 2m(m+1)/(n-m-1). Please restate the formula unambiguously or justify the alternative definition used.
  3. [Sec. 5.1.1 and Fig. 2 caption] The text describes the shaded bands as parameter sets within 10% of the best fit, while the caption says 'within 10% of the best fitting set of parameters'; these are different and should be clarified.
  4. [Supplemental E, paragraph on shooting method] The rule that x(r_j) is set to x(r_{j+1}) when no positive real root exists is unphysical and may artificially force a solution; a documented branch-continuation or a more robust root-search procedure should be used instead.
  5. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (53)] The artificial damping parameter beta-tilde is not specified, and no convergence study with respect to beta-tilde or the spatial grid is reported; a brief numerical validation would strengthen the reliability of the simulations.
  6. [Sec. 2.4] There are typographical errors in this section: 'deviotoric' should be 'deviatoric' and 'rearragement' should be 'rearrangement'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the thermodynamic argument fixes only the sign of the growth-rate coupling, the specific closure is explicitly called the 'simplest choice,' and the no-equilibrium prediction is a mathematical consequence of that closure rather than a re-labeled fitted input.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is not circular. In Sec. 3.2, the paper computes the total energy rate and identifies the coupling term Q; thermodynamic consistency only requires that the volumetric growth rate γ have the sign of the bracket in Eq. (31). The constitutive law γ = η[ρ(E'c c − Ec) + (σN − Je^{−1}W)] is introduced as 'The simplest choice' in Eq. (32), and the reductions Ec = (k/2)c^2 and η(c,σ) = ηc in Sec. 3.4 are stated modeling assumptions, not consequences of the dissipation inequality. The equilibrium analysis in Sec. 5.2.3 and Supplemental E solves the model's own equilibrium condition γ = 0; Eq. (66) shows that for Fext = 0 no finite equilibrium radius exists when β = 0 and f_eθ ∈ (0,1]. That is a theorem about the chosen closure, not a restatement of the fitted radii. The free-growth dataset was one of the three fitting groups in Sec. 5.1.1, so agreement there is not an out-of-sample prediction; however, the unbounded-growth claim is a late-time extrapolation of the model and is not itself a fitted parameter. The overlapping-author citation that enters the validation, the gel traction formula Eq. (42) from [33], is a boundary condition for simulating the experiments and is not used to justify the central feedback law or the no-equilibrium result. The paper also states its own limitation: 'We cannot conclude whether this new system is more effective to describe large-scale tissue growth than previous models as this requires more experimental data.' The absence of an explicit death term is a modeling choice that could alter the equilibrium behavior, but that is a scientific limitation, not a circular derivation. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on a set of continuum assumptions (growth-elasticity decomposition, quasi-static equilibrium, neo-Hookean elasticity) and on several model-specific choices (quadratic chemical energy, linear dissipation closure, no apoptosis). All quantitative outputs are calibrated by fitting the listed parameters to two published spheroid datasets, so the predictive content of the 'prediction' is conditional on those fitted constants.

free parameters (8)
  • eta (rescaling factor for growth rate) = 0.8 (incomp.) / 0.7 (comp.) for gel; 1.2 for pressure
    Controls overall sensitivity of growth to the thermodynamic driving force; fitted to tumor radius data.
  • k (chemical energy coefficient) = 2.5 (gel experiments), 3.5 (pressure experiments)
    Sets the relative strength of chemical energy vs mechanical energy; drives the threshold P_ext = k/2.
  • gamma_c (nutrient uptake rate) = 0.8 or 1.3 (gel, incomp./comp.); 1.2 (pressure)
    Nutrient consumption rate; fitted to spheroid radius evolution.
  • L (diffusion length, D = L^2) = sqrt(652) or sqrt(902) (gel); sqrt(702) (pressure)
    Nutrient penetration depth; fitted to data.
  • beta (rearrangement rate) = 0 (gel), 0.06 (incomp.) / 0.08 (comp.) (pressure)
    Stress relaxation rate; inferred to be zero for the gel-confined LS174T spheroids and positive for HT29 spheroids under pressure.
  • K (bulk modulus) = 10 (gel), 30 (pressure)
    Tissue compressibility, only in the compressible model; noted as an extra parameter that AICc penalizes.
  • c_H (gel stiffness parameter) = 0.32-0.87 for different agarose concentrations
    Relative gel rigidity; fitted separately for each gel concentration because no independent measurement is used.
  • P_ext (non-dimensional applied pressure) = 0.35, 0.45, 0.65 for 500, 2000, 5000 Pa
    Applied osmotic pressure converted to model units; fitted to data, not derived from the experimental stress values.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Multiplicative decomposition of deformation gradient F = F_e F_g (Sec. 2.1)
    Standard in growth-elasticity theory; assumes growth and elastic deformation are independent stages.
  • domain assumption Mass conservation with source: d(rho)/dt + v.grad(rho) = rho(gamma - div v) (Eq. 10)
    Relates volumetric growth to density change; assumes active growth does not change density locally.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static mechanical equilibrium: div(sigma) = 0 (Eq. 21)
    Neglects inertia; commonly used in tissue mechanics.
  • domain assumption Compressible neo-Hookean elastic energy (Eq. 15)
    Constitutive choice for the tissue's elastic response.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic chemical energy E_c = k/2 c^2 (Sec. 3.4)
    A convenient choice; not derived from underlying biochemistry.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear thermodynamic closure gamma = eta[...] (Eq. 32, 62)
    The simplest functional form that guarantees dissipation; other nonlinear closures would also satisfy the entropy inequality.
  • ad hoc to paper No explicit apoptosis or cell-death term in the growth rate
    Contrasts with Greenspan-type models; this omission is necessary for the unbounded free-growth prediction.
  • domain assumption Constant nutrient concentration c = c0 at the moving boundary
    Assumes the surrounding medium acts as a nutrient reservoir.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemomechanical regulation of growing tissues from a thermodynamically-consistent framework and its application to tumor spheroid growth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J2AUA4HI

@misc{pith2026241200916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemomechanical regulation of growing tissues from a thermodynamically-consistent framework and its application to tumor spheroid growth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J2AUA4HI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00916}
}
read the original abstract

It is widely recognized that reciprocal interactions between cells and their microenvironment, via mechanical forces and biochemical signaling pathways, regulate cell behaviors during normal development, homeostasis and disease progression such as cancer. However, it is still not well understood how complex patterns of tissue growth emerge. Here, we propose a framework for the chemomechanical regulation of growth based on thermodynamics of continua and growth-elasticity to predict growth patterns. Combining the elastic and chemical energies, we use an energy variational approach to derive a novel formulation that incorporates an energy-dissipating stress relaxation and biochemomechanical regulation of the volumetric growth rate. We validate the model using experimental data from growth of tumor spheroids in confined environments. We also investigate the influence of model parameters, including tissue rearrangement rate, tissue compressibility, strength of mechanical feedback and external mechanical stimuli, on the growth patterns of tumor spheroids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Decomposition of the geometric deformation gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A) Model fits (curves) to the data (symbols) of the tumor size evolution in free suspension, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The normal stress average σN distributions at different times for A) free case (Fext = 0), B) 0.7% gel concentration, and C) 1% gel concentration. The solid and dashed lines show the results of the incompressible and compressible models, respectively. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The volumetric growth rate γ distributions at different times for A) free case (Fext = 0), B) 0.7% gel concentration, and C) free case in Parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radii (A,B), the growth rates (C,D), the velocities (E,F) and elastic volume variation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Study of the parameter k, which represents the chemical energy coefficient that influences the proliferation rate. Figures A), B), and C) show the evolution of tumor along the time (days) for the free case, with gel confinement (0.7% gel), and with an applied static ex…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Study of the relaxation parameter β for the free case, gel confinement (0.7% gel), and an applied external pressure (5000 Pa). A),B), and C) show tumor evolution over time (days) for each case. D), E), and F) depict the volumetric growth rate distributions in the norma…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Numerically predicted equilibrium radii (log scale) for the incompressible model without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Study of the parameter K, which represents the bulk modulus and influences tissue compressibility. Figures A) & B) and C) show the evolution of tumor along time (days) for the free case, with gel confinement (0.7% gel), and with an applied static external pressure (500…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    Solid stress inhibits the growth of multicellular tumor spheroids

    Gabriel Helmlinger, Paolo A Netti, Hera C Lichtenbeld, Robert J Melder, and Rakesh K Jain. Solid stress inhibits the growth of multicellular tumor spheroids. Nature biotechnology, 15(8):778–783, 1997

    work page 1997

  2. [44]

    Stress clamp experiments on multicellular tumor spheroids

    Fabien Montel, Morgan Delarue, Jens Elgeti, Laurent Malaquin, Markus Basan, Thomas Risler, Bernard Cabane, Danijela Vignjevic, Jacques Prost, Giovanni Cappello, and Jean-Fran ¸ cois Joanny. Stress clamp experiments on multicellular tumor spheroids. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 107:188102, Oct 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [1]

    Coordination of growth and cell division in the drosophila wing

    Thomas P Neufeld, Aida Flor A De La Cruz, Laura A Johnston, and Bruce A Edgar. Coordination of growth and cell division in the drosophila wing. Cell, 93(7):1183–1193, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [2]

    Developmental control of cell morphogenesis: a focus on membrane growth

    Thomas Lecuit and Fanny Pilot. Developmental control of cell morphogenesis: a focus on membrane growth. Nature cell biology , 5(2):103–108, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [3]

    Mechanical control of tissue morphogenesis during embryological development

    Donald E Ingber. Mechanical control of tissue morphogenesis during embryological development. The International journal of developmental biology , 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [4]

    Intercellular communication and tissue growth: Ii

    Werner R Loewenstein and Richard D Penn. Intercellular communication and tissue growth: Ii. tissue regeneration. The Journal of Cell Biology , 33(2):235–242, 1967

    work page 1967

  7. [5]

    Control of growth during regeneration

    Gongping Sun and Kenneth D Irvine. Control of growth during regeneration. Current topics in devel- opmental biology, 108:95–120, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [6]

    Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis

    Judah Folkman. Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis. In Seminars in oncology , volume 29, pages 15–18. Elsevier, 2002

    work page 2002

Show all 70 references
  1. [7]

    The lung microenvironment: an important regulator of tumour growth and metastasis

    Nasser K Altorki, Geoffrey J Markowitz, Dingcheng Gao, Jeffrey L Port, Ashish Saxena, Brendon Stiles, Timothy McGraw, and Vivek Mittal. The lung microenvironment: an important regulator of tumour growth and metastasis. Nature Reviews Cancer, 19(1):9–31, 2019

    2019

  2. [8]

    Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies

    Madeline A Lancaster and Juergen A Knoblich. Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies. Science, 345(6194):1247125, 2014

    2014

  3. [9]

    Engineering organoids

    Moritz Hofer and Matthias P Lutolf. Engineering organoids. Nature Reviews Materials , 6(5):402–420, 2021

    2021

  4. [10]

    On growth and form, 1917

    D’Arcy Thompson. On growth and form, 1917

    1917

  5. [11]

    Proliferating active matter

    Oskar Hallatschek, Sujit S Datta, Knut Drescher, J¨ orn Dunkel, Jens Elgeti, Bartek Waclaw, and Ned S Wingreen. Proliferating active matter. Nature Reviews Physics , 5(7):407–419, 2023

    2023

  6. [12]

    Differential growth triggers mechanical feedback that elevates hippo signaling

    Yuanwang Pan, Idse Heemskerk, Consuelo Ibar, Boris I Shraiman, and Kenneth D Irvine. Differential growth triggers mechanical feedback that elevates hippo signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(45):E6974–E6983, 2016

    2016

  7. [13]

    Planar differential growth rates initiate precise fold positions in complex epithelia

    Melda Tozluoˇ glu, Maria Duda, Natalie J Kirkland, Ricardo Barrientos, Jemima J Burden, Jose J Munoz, and Yanlan Mao. Planar differential growth rates initiate precise fold positions in complex epithelia. Developmental cell , 51(3):299–312, 2019

    2019

  8. [14]

    The extracellular matrix guides the orientation of the cell division axis

    Manuel Th´ ery, Victor Racine, Anne P´ epin, Matthieu Piel, Yong Chen, Jean-Baptiste Sibarita, and Michel Bornens. The extracellular matrix guides the orientation of the cell division axis. Nature cell biology, 7(10):947–953, 2005. 28

    2005

  9. [15]

    Cell division orientation and planar cell polarity pathways

    Marion Segalen and Yohanns Bella ¨ ıche. Cell division orientation and planar cell polarity pathways. In Seminars in cell & developmental biology , volume 20, pages 972–977. Elsevier, 2009

    2009

  10. [16]

    Oriented cell divisions in epithelia: from force generation to force anisotropy by tension, shape and vertices

    Eric Victor van Leen, Florencia Di Pietro, and Yohanns Bella ¨ ıche. Oriented cell divisions in epithelia: from force generation to force anisotropy by tension, shape and vertices. Current Opinion in Cell Biology, 62:9–16, 2020

    2020

  11. [17]

    On the growth and stability of cell cultures and solid tumors

    HP Greenspan. On the growth and stability of cell cultures and solid tumors. Journal of theoretical biology, 56(1):229–242, 1976

    1976

  12. [18]

    Nonlinear modelling of cancer: bridging the gap between cells and tumours

    John S Lowengrub, Hermann B Frieboes, Fang Jin, Yao-Li Chuang, Xiangrong Li, Paul Macklin, Steven M Wise, and Vittorio Cristini. Nonlinear modelling of cancer: bridging the gap between cells and tumours. Nonlinearity, 23(1):R1, 2009

    2009

  13. [19]

    Force generation, transmission, and integra- tion during cell and tissue morphogenesis

    Thomas Lecuit, Pierre-Fran¸ cois Lenne, and Edwin Munro. Force generation, transmission, and integra- tion during cell and tissue morphogenesis. Annual review of cell and developmental biology , 27(1):157– 184, 2011

    2011

  14. [20]

    Measurement of cortical elasticity in drosophila melanogaster embryos using ferrofluids

    Konstantin Doubrovinski, Michael Swan, Oleg Polyakov, and Eric F Wieschaus. Measurement of cortical elasticity in drosophila melanogaster embryos using ferrofluids. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(5):1051–1056, 2017

    2017

  15. [21]

    Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour

    Ovijit Chaudhuri, Justin Cooper-White, Paul A Janmey, David J Mooney, and Vivek B Shenoy. Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature, 584(7822):535–546, 2020

    2020

  16. [22]

    Fluidization of tissues by cell division and apoptosis

    Jonas Ranft, Markus Basan, Jens Elgeti, Jean-Fran¸ cois Joanny, Jacques Prost, and Frank J¨ ulicher. Fluidization of tissues by cell division and apoptosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 107(49):20863–20868, 2010

    2010

  17. [23]

    Global morphogenetic flow is accurately predicted by the spatial distribution of myosin motors

    Sebastian J Streichan, Matthew F Lefebvre, Nicholas Noll, Eric F Wieschaus, and Boris I Shraiman. Global morphogenetic flow is accurately predicted by the spatial distribution of myosin motors. eLife, 7:e27454, feb 2018

    2018

  18. [24]

    Solid stress and elastic energy as measures of tumour mechanopathology

    Hadi T Nia, Hao Liu, Giorgio Seano, Meenal Datta, Dennis Jones, Nuh Rahbari, Joao Incio, Vikash P Chauhan, Keehoon Jung, John D Martin, et al. Solid stress and elastic energy as measures of tumour mechanopathology. Nature biomedical engineering, 1(1):0004, 2016

    2016

  19. [25]

    Stress-dependent finite growth in soft elastic tissues

    Edward K Rodriguez, Anne Hoger, and Andrew D McCulloch. Stress-dependent finite growth in soft elastic tissues. Journal of biomechanics , 27(4):455–467, 1994

    1994

  20. [26]

    Differential growth and instability in elastic shells

    Alain Goriely and Martine Ben Amar. Differential growth and instability in elastic shells. Physical Review Letters, 94(19):1–4, 2005

    2005

  21. [27]

    Goriely and M

    A. Goriely and M. Ben Amar. On the role of stress in the elastic growth of biological tissues. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 55(9):1721–1738, 2007

    2007

  22. [28]

    The mathematics and mechanics of biological growth , volume 45

    Alain Goriely. The mathematics and mechanics of biological growth , volume 45. Springer, 2017

    2017

  23. [29]

    Walker, G.L

    B.J. Walker, G.L. Celora, A. Goriely, D.E. Moulton, and H.M. Byrne. Minimal morphoelastic models of solid tumour spheroids: A tutorial. Bull. Math. Biol. , 85:38, 2023

    2023

  24. [30]

    L.A. Taber. Biomechanics of growth, remodeling, and morphogenesis. Journal of Biomechanical Engi- neering, 117(4):429–439, 1995

    1995

  25. [31]

    Growth and remodelling of living tissues: perspectives, challenges and opportunities

    Davide Ambrosi, Martine Ben Amar, Christian J Cyron, Antonio DeSimone, Alain Goriely, Jay D Humphrey, and Ellen Kuhl. Growth and remodelling of living tissues: perspectives, challenges and opportunities. Journal of the Royal Society Interface , 16(157):20190233, 2019

    2019

  26. [32]

    Ambrosi and L

    D. Ambrosi and L. Preziosi. Cell adhesion mechanisms and stress relaxation in the mechanics of tumours. Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology , 8(5):397–413, 2009

    2009

  27. [33]

    Stress generation, relaxation and size control in confined tumor growth

    Huaming Yan, Daniel Ramirez-Guerrero, John Lowengrub, and Min Wu. Stress generation, relaxation and size control in confined tumor growth. PLoS computational biology, 17(12):e1009701, 2021. 29

    2021

  28. [34]

    An eulerian nonlinear elastic model for compressible and fluidic tissue with radially symmetric growth

    Chaozhen Wei and Min Wu. An eulerian nonlinear elastic model for compressible and fluidic tissue with radially symmetric growth. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics , 83(1):254–275, 2023

    2023

  29. [35]

    Garcke, , B

    H. Garcke, , B. Kovacs, and D. Trautwein. Viscoelastic cahn-hilliard models for tumour growth. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. , 32(13):2673–2758, 2022

    2022

  30. [36]

    Garcke and D

    H. Garcke and D. Trautwein. Approximation and existence of a viscoelastic phase-field model for tumor growth in two and there dimensions. Disc. Contin. Dyn. Sys. , 17(1):221–284, 2024

    2024

  31. [37]

    Reference map technique for finite-strain elasticity and fluid–solid interaction

    Ken Kamrin, Chris H Rycroft, and Jean-Christophe Nave. Reference map technique for finite-strain elasticity and fluid–solid interaction. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 60(11):1952–1969, 2012

    1952

  32. [38]

    Reference map technique for incompressible fluid–structure interaction

    Chris H Rycroft, Chen-Hung Wu, Yue Yu, and Ken Kamrin. Reference map technique for incompressible fluid–structure interaction. Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 898:A9, 2020

    2020

  33. [39]

    Mechanical feedback as a possible regulator of tissue growth

    Boris I Shraiman. Mechanical feedback as a possible regulator of tissue growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 102(9):3318–3323, 2005

    2005

  34. [40]

    Mechanical feedback defines organizing centers to drive digit emergence

    Carolina Parada, Samhita P Banavar, Parisa Khalilian, Stephane Rigaud, Arthur Michaut, Yucen Liu, Dennis Manjaly Joshy, Otger Camp` as, and Jerome Gros. Mechanical feedback defines organizing centers to drive digit emergence. Developmental Cell , 57(7):854–866, 2022

    2022

  35. [41]

    Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis

    Jay D Humphrey, Eric R Dufresne, and Martin A Schwartz. Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology , 15(12):802–812, 2014

    2014

  36. [42]

    Mechanical homeostasis in tissue equivalents: a review

    Jonas F Eichinger, Lea J Haeusel, Daniel Paukner, Roland C Aydin, Jay D Humphrey, and Chris- tian J Cyron. Mechanical homeostasis in tissue equivalents: a review. Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 20(3):833–850, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    A linear-elastic model of anisotropic tumour growth

    RP Araujo and DLS McElwain. A linear-elastic model of anisotropic tumour growth. European Journal of Applied Mathematics , 15(3):365–384, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    Size and curvature regulate pattern selection in the mammalian brain

    Silvia Budday, Paul Steinmann, Alain Goriely, and Ellen Kuhl. Size and curvature regulate pattern selection in the mammalian brain. Extreme Mechanics Letters, 4:193–198, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Contraction and stress-dependent growth shape the forebrain of the early chicken embryo.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 65:383–397, 2017

    Kara E Garcia, Ruth J Okamoto, Philip V Bayly, and Larry A Taber. Contraction and stress-dependent growth shape the forebrain of the early chicken embryo.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials, 65:383–397, 2017

    2017

  40. [48]

    The mechanics and thermodynamics of continua

    Morton E Gurtin, Eliot Fried, and Lallit Anand. The mechanics and thermodynamics of continua . Cambridge university press, 2010

    2010

  41. [49]

    Surface wrinkling of mucosa induced by volumetric growth: Theory, simulation and experiment

    Bo Li, Yan Ping Cao, Xi Qiao Feng, and Huajian Gao. Surface wrinkling of mucosa induced by volumetric growth: Theory, simulation and experiment. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 59(4):758–774, 2011

    2011

  42. [50]

    Apoptosis generates mechanical forces that close the lens vesicle in the chick embryo

    Alina Oltean and Larry A Taber. Apoptosis generates mechanical forces that close the lens vesicle in the chick embryo. Physical biology, 15(2):025001, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    On the mechanics of a growing tumor

    D Ambrosi and F Mollica. On the mechanics of a growing tumor. International journal of engineering science, 40(12):1297–1316, 2002

    2002

  44. [52]

    Garcke, K.F

    H. Garcke, K.F. Lam, and A. Signori. Sparse optimal control of a phase field tumor model with mechanical effects. SIAM J. Control Optim. , 59:1555–1580, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    The role of stress in the growth of a multicell spheroid

    D Ambrosi and F Mollica. The role of stress in the growth of a multicell spheroid. J. Math. Biol. , 48(5):477–499, 2004. 30

    2004

  46. [54]

    Preziosi, and G

    D Ambrosi, L. Preziosi, and G. Vitale. The interplay between stress and growth in solid tumors. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol., 42:87–91, 2012

    2012

  47. [55]

    Ciarletta, D

    P. Ciarletta, D. Ambrosi, G.A. Maugin, and L. Preziosi. Mechanotransduction in tumour growth modelling: Physical constraints of morphogenesis and evolution. Eur. Phys. J. E , 36:23, 2013

    2013

  48. [56]

    Solid tumors are poroelastic solids with a chemo-mechanical feedback on growth

    D Ambrosi, Simone Pezzuto, Davide Riccobelli, T Stylianopoulos, and Pasquale Ciarletta. Solid tumors are poroelastic solids with a chemo-mechanical feedback on growth. Journal of Elasticity , 129:107–124, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    A. F. Jones, H. M. Byrne, J. S. Gibson, and J. W. Dold. A mathematical model of the stress induced during avascular tumour growth. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 40(6):473–499, June 2000

    2000

  50. [58]

    Forcing form and function: biomechanical regulation of tumor evolution

    Hongmei Yu, Janna Kay Mouw, and Valerie M Weaver. Forcing form and function: biomechanical regulation of tumor evolution. Trends in cell biology , 21(1):47–56, 2011

    2011

  51. [59]

    Stress clamp experiments on multicellular tumor spheroids

    Fabien Montel, Morgan Delarue, Jens Elgeti, Danijela Vignjevic, Giovanni Cappello, Jacques Prost, and Jean-Francois Joanny. Stress clamp experiments on multicellular tumor spheroids. Biophysical Journal, 102(3):220a, 2012

    2012

  52. [60]

    Compressive stress inhibits proliferation in tumor spheroids through a volume limitation

    Morgan Delarue, Fabien Montel, Danijela Vignjevic, Jacques Prost, Jean-Fran¸ cois Joanny, and Giovanni Cappello. Compressive stress inhibits proliferation in tumor spheroids through a volume limitation. Biophysical journal, 107(8):1821–1828, 2014

    2014

  53. [61]

    Evaluating the influence of mechanical stress on anticancer treatments through a multiphase porous media model

    Pietro Mascheroni, Daniela Boso, Luigi Preziosi, and Bernhard A Schrefler. Evaluating the influence of mechanical stress on anticancer treatments through a multiphase porous media model. Journal of theoretical biology, 421:179–188, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: implica- tions for fibrotic diseases and cancer

    Thomas R Cox and Janine T Erler. Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: implica- tions for fibrotic diseases and cancer. Disease models & mechanisms , 4(2):165–178, 2011

    2011

  55. [63]

    Concepts of extracel- lular matrix remodelling in tumour progression and metastasis

    Juliane Winkler, Abisola Abisoye-Ogunniyan, Kevin J Metcalf, and Zena Werb. Concepts of extracel- lular matrix remodelling in tumour progression and metastasis. Nature communications, 11(1):5120, 2020

    2020

  56. [64]

    Extracellular matrix remodeling in tumor progression and immune escape: from mechanisms to treatments

    Zhennan Yuan, Yingpu Li, Sifan Zhang, Xueying Wang, He Dou, Xi Yu, Zhiren Zhang, Shanshan Yang, and Min Xiao. Extracellular matrix remodeling in tumor progression and immune escape: from mechanisms to treatments. Molecular Cancer, 22(1):48, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Mechanical forces and growth in animal tissues

    Lo ¨ ıc LeGoff and Thomas Lecuit. Mechanical forces and growth in animal tissues. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 8(3):a019232, 2016

    2016

  58. [66]

    Tumor size predicts long-term survival in colon cancer: an analysis of the national cancer data base

    Sukamal Saha, Mohammed Shaik, Gregory Johnston, Supriya Kumar Saha, Lindsay Berbiglia, Micheal Hicks, Jill Gernand, Sandeep Grewal, Madan Arora, and David Wiese. Tumor size predicts long-term survival in colon cancer: an analysis of the national cancer data base. The American ...

    2015

  59. [67]

    Measurement of cell compressibility changes during epithelial–mesenchymal transition based on acoustofluidic microdevice

    Qibin Fu, Yan Zhang, Tuchen Huang, Ying Liang, and Yang Liu. Measurement of cell compressibility changes during epithelial–mesenchymal transition based on acoustofluidic microdevice. Biomicroflu- idics, 15(6), 2021

    2021

  60. [68]

    Tissue cohesion and the mechanics of cell rearrangement

    Robert David, Olivia Luu, Erich W Damm, Jason WH Wen, Martina Nagel, and Rudolf Winklbauer. Tissue cohesion and the mechanics of cell rearrangement. Development, 141(19):3672–3682, 2014

    2014

  61. [69]

    Endocytosis, cadherins and tissue dynamics

    Hiroko Katsuno-Kambe and Alpha S Yap. Endocytosis, cadherins and tissue dynamics. Traffic, 21(3):268–273, 2020

    2020

  62. [70]

    adaptive reference map

    Kenneth P Bumham and David R Anderson. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Spnnger-Veflag, New York, New York , 2002. 31 Supplemental Materials for Chemomechanical regulation of growing tissues from a thermodynamically-consiste...

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.