Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

The geometric nature of homeostatic stress in biological growth

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Homeostatic growth stress is curvature, not a prescribed tensor

desk verdict A genuinely new variational route to homeostatic stress in growth mechanics, with a clean reduction to two scalars, but the paper overclaims the proof that equilibrium size equals the action's global minimum. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16021 v3 pith:FFL3DHT6 submitted 2024-12-20 physics.bio-ph

Alexander Erlich , Giuseppe Zurlo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph MSC 74L1574B2053Z05
keywords morphogenesisnonlinearelasticitygrowthlawsincompatibilityhomeostaticstressmetriccurvaturevariationalmethodsresidual
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 claims that the target stress state which growing tissue tries to reach—the homeostatic Eshelby stress—is not an arbitrary input but the variational derivative of a 'growth action' that penalises deviations from a target amount of geometric frustration. The action combines a chemical potential for adding mass with a quadratic penalty on the Ricci scalar curvature of the growth metric, so that reaching homeostasis means establishing a physiological level of incompatibility rather than hitting a hand-picked stress tensor. The practical gain is that the six independent components of the target stress are replaced by two scalar fields, the chemical potential and the target curvature, and in spherical symmetry the minimisation selects a unique equilibrium size. This matters because it gives a mechanistic and experimentally testable account of how organs regulate their size and store residual stress.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the growth action, a volume integral whose density is elastic energy minus chemical potential plus a quadratic penalty on the Ricci scalar $R$ of the growth metric $G_{AB}$. Ricci curvature is the paper's measure of growth incompatibility, the geometric frustration left when locally grown pieces cannot be assembled without residual stress, and the quadratic penalty makes $R=R^*$ the preferred state while avoiding the ill-posed boundary conditions that a linear Einstein–Hilbert coupling would produce. The derivation uses the standard variation of $f(R)$ gravity, including the Laplace–Beltrami terms, and a gauge-fixing diffeomorphism that trades the reference coordinate for the compatible part of the growth metric, reducing the spherical equilibrium to a moving-boundary problem whose extra boundary condition determines the final size.

What would settle it

Grow a spheroid with positive target curvature under increasingly abundant nutrients and measure its terminal radius: if it can exceed $3.26/\sqrt{R^*}$, the predicted upper bound is wrong. Alternatively, cut a spheroid radially at several distances from the centre: the finite-$\lambda$ theory predicts opening that grows toward the periphery, whereas a spatially uniform opening would contradict the predicted non-uniform Ricci profile.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the homeostatic Eshelby stress is determined by the growth action $S = \int_B \sqrt{G}\,[(W-W^*) + \frac{\lambda}{2}(R-R^*)^2]\,d^3X$, whose variation yields $T^*_{AB} = W^* G_{AB} + 2\lambda[(R-R^*)R_{AB} - \frac{1}{4}(R-R^*)^2 G_{AB} - \nabla_A\nabla_B R + G_{AB}\Delta R]$. Here $W^*$ is the chemical potential of the nutrient bath, $R$ is the Ricci scalar of the growth metric, $R^*$ is the target curvature, and $\lambda$ is a material modulus. The paper argues that this expression replaces the arbitrary prescription of an inhomogeneous anisotropic homeostatic stress tensor with two scalar fields that carry clear physical meaning, and that the earlier uniform-curvature theory reappears as the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit. For spherical symmetry, solving the equilibrium system with the boundary conditions $R'(0)=R'(g_B)=0$ selects a unique minimising body size, and positive target curvature imposes the explicit upper bound $r \le 3.26/\sqrt{R^*}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a tissue's homeostatic state is the global minimum of the growth action over all admissible growth metrics, with the spherical boundary conditions $R'(0)=R'(g_B)=0$ selecting that minimum uniquely; the paper verifies this numerically for spheres and states in Section 8 that existence and uniqueness of minimisers remains entirely open in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • To model growth of a tissue, one no longer needs to prescribe six unknown components of target stress; two scalars, $W^*$ and $R^*$, determine the homeostatic state.
  • Homeostatic size is set by local parameters: positive target curvature gives a hard upper bound on radius, so nutrient supply alone cannot make a spheroid arbitrarily large.
  • The growth law $\dot G_{AB} = k(T^*_{AB}-T_{AB})$ becomes a generalised Ricci flow, providing a thermodynamically grounded evolution equation for the growth metric.
  • Spatially resolved cutting experiments should distinguish the finite-$\lambda$ regime, where curvature is concentrated near the periphery, from the uniform-curvature $\lambda\to\infty$ regime.
  • The prior uniform-curvature theory for discs and spheres is recovered as the rigid-curvature limit, so the framework extends that theory rather than replacing it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the variational selection of size carries over to lower symmetry, then local cell-level regulation of curvature (for example through area and perimeter targets or cell rearrangements) could robustly set organ size without any global positional information; the paper leaves this connection implicit.
  • The bound $r \le 3.26/\sqrt{R^*}$ is directly testable: measuring the terminal radius of spheroids with different target curvatures would calibrate $R^*$ and could falsify the theory if the bound is violated.
  • The predicted non-uniform Ricci profile suggests an optimal-cutting protocol: incisions at several radii could reconstruct the curvature field from opening shapes, giving a way to image incompatibility in living tissues.
  • Because existence and uniqueness of minimisers remain open outside spherical symmetry, the same variational principle may need extra selection criteria in ellipsoidal or layered geometries; numerical experiments there would probe how robust the size-selection mechanism is.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 proposes a variational framework for biological growth in which the homeostatic Eshelby stress is not prescribed by hand but derived from a 'growth action' that penalizes deviations of the Ricci curvature of the growth metric from a target value. The central result is the explicit formula T*_AB = W*G_AB + 2λ[(R−R*)R_AB − ¼(R−R*)²G_AB − ∇_A∇_B R + G_AB ΔR] (Eq. 3), obtained as the variational derivative of the action S = ∫_B √G [(W−W*) + (λ/2)(R−R*)²] d³X. The paper then restricts to spherical symmetry, performs a gauge fix to simplify the equilibrium equations, and shows numerically that the moving-boundary problem yields a unique homeostatic size for given W*, R*, and λ. In the limit λ→∞ it recovers the authors' previous uniform-curvature theory and derives an upper bound r ≤ 3.26/√R* for positive target curvature. The paper also discusses why a linear curvature coupling is unsuitable and frames the quadratic coupling as the simplest viable choice.

Significance. If the framework and its spherical reduction are accepted, the paper offers a genuinely useful reformulation: it replaces the six components of an arbitrary, inhomogeneous homeostatic stress tensor with two scalar targets (W*, R*), connects growth mechanics to f(R) gravity and Ricci-flow-like dynamics, and produces falsifiable predictions about size regulation and non-uniform residual-stress distributions that could be tested in cutting experiments. Concrete strengths include the explicit variational derivation of T*_AB, the clean recovery of the λ→∞ limit, and the availability of the Mathematica notebooks used to generate all figures, which supports reproducibility. The main caveat is that the quadratic curvature coupling is a constitutive postulate rather than a derivation from cell-level mechanisms, so the 'geometric nature' of homeostatic stress is established within the model rather than from independent microscale data; nevertheless, the model's predictions are specific enough to be tested against experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, divergence-free claim] The claimed equivalence between the second minimization of S(gB) and the boundary condition R'(gB)=0 is not established. The statement that S'(gB)=0 'by the fundamental theorem of calculus' gives W* = W at g=gB ignores that S(gB) is a shape functional: the fields r, σ, and Γ depend on gB through the ODE system (77) and its boundary conditions, so dS/dgB contains terms involving ∂y/∂gB and boundary variations in addition to the endpoint integrand. The authors should either provide the full endpoint-variation calculation (including the transversality condition and the boundary terms from δr, δσ, δΓ) or present a numerical check that is not circular: compute S(gB) for solutions that do not impose R'(gB)=0, locate its minimum, and compare with the solution of the moving-boundary system that imposes R'(gB)=0, over a range of λ and W*. As presented, Fig. 2 is ambiguous about whether R'(gB)=0 was imposed while generating the plotted solutions; if it was, the agreement is built in, and if it was not, the evidence covers only three λ values, W*=0.02, and two signs of curvature. Because the finite-λ size predictions in Fig. 3 rest on this equivalence, and because Section 8 concedes that existence and uniqueness of minimizers remain open, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Sec. 6.2, Eq. (74), Fig. 2] The assertion that the target stress tensor is divergence-free, ∇^B T*_AB = 0, is stated for the general theory, but it is only true if the chemical potential W* is covariantly constant. Since ∇^A(W* G_AB) = ∇_B W*, an inhomogeneous W* would spoil the conservation law, and the conclusion that 'T*_AB satisfies momentum balance by construction' would fail. The spherical calculations use constant W* and R*, and Section 1 says the targets are 'not required' to be inhomogeneous, but the general claim as written in Section 3.3 is too strong. Please either state the assumption that W* is constant in the general framework or provide the additional terms and consistency conditions that arise for inhomogeneous targets.
  3. [Sec. 8 and Introduction] The paper's stated conclusions that 'the homeostatic state corresponds to the minimisation of the growth action within the class of spherically symmetric solutions' and that equilibrium yields 'a well-defined equilibrium size' are stronger than what is actually demonstrated. The spherical result is numerical for finite λ, the analytical equivalence behind it is the unproven one discussed above, and Section 8 explicitly leaves open the existence and uniqueness of minimizers as well as gauge fixing in lower symmetry. The abstract and introduction should be tempered to say that the framework offers a new variational route and that, in spherical symmetry, numerical evidence supports unique size selection, rather than presenting these as established general results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 captions] The axis labels 'g = g R*+/6' are dimensionally inconsistent and should read 'ĝ = g sqrt(R*+/6)' (or 'g = g sqrt(R*+/6)'), matching the scaling in Eq. (76).
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the plot shows 'dimensionless equilibrium size r(gB) as a function of the dimensionless compatible growth metric g', but the horizontal axis is the dimensionless chemical potential W*; please correct the wording.
  3. [Eq. (77)] The layout of the reduced system (77) is very difficult to parse: boundary conditions are interleaved with the algebraic T_RR = (T*)_RR condition, and it is not immediately clear how many equations, unknowns, and boundary conditions are being counted. Reformatting this as a numbered system with a clean list of boundary conditions would substantially improve readability.
  4. [Eq. (54)] The displayed expression for (T*)_θθ contains a problematic line break and a leading minus sign that make the formula hard to verify; please simplify it, move the full component to an appendix, or use a symbolic shorthand.
  5. [References] Reference [45] (Riccobelli) is incomplete: it lacks year, journal, volume, and pages. Please update it.
  6. [Sec. 6.2, Eqs. (37) and (72)] The logical relation between the general boundary conditions (37), which already give R = R* and f''(R)∂_C R = 0, and the spherical boundary conditions in (72) should be clarified: in the quadratic case, (37) yields both R(gB)=R* and R'(gB)=0, so the 'second minimization' over gB appears to be an alternative characterization rather than the source of the extra boundary condition. A sentence explaining this relation would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central T* formula is a variational consequence of the explicitly postulated growth action, and the spherical size predictions are model outputs rather than fitted data. Minor reliance on the authors' prior paper [21] supplies the λ→∞ limit and qualitative experimental comparisons, but it is not the justification of the new finite-λ results.

full rationale

The paper's central object T*_AB (Eq. 3) is the Euler–Lagrange expression of the explicitly postulated growth action (Eq. 2); deriving a field from an energy by variation is a model consequence, not a circular reduction to fitted data. The reduced spherical system (77) and the size predictions (Figs. 3–4, bound (84)) are obtained by solving the model equations for chosen inputs W*, R*, and λ; no parameter is fitted to the predicted outputs. The use of the authors' prior paper [21] supplies the λ→∞ limit and qualitative experimental comparisons (wing discs, spheroids); this is a self-citation, but it is not the load-bearing justification of the new finite-λ formula or the size bound, and that prior work is published and experimentally falsifiable. The main load-bearing weak point is mathematical rather than circular: the claimed equivalence between the second minimization of S(gB) and the boundary condition R'(gB)=0 (Sec. 6.2) is asserted with numerical illustration rather than proven, and Sec. 8 explicitly concedes that existence and uniqueness of minimisers of the growth action remain open. If the equivalence fails, the finite-λ size predictions would be unjustified, but that is a correctness/existence gap, not an input–output identity. No circular step meets the quoted-evidence threshold required by the analysis rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities; it postulates a new energy functional with two scalar target fields (W*, R*) and a modulus λ, which are not derived from lower-scale physics. The central derivation is self-contained within the model.

free parameters (4)
  • W* (chemical potential) = 0.02 (dimensionless) in numerical examples
    Input parameter representing nutrient availability; not measured independently, chosen for illustrative plots.
  • R* (target Ricci scalar) = scaled to 1 in non-dimensionalization; sign k = ±1
    Target homeostatic curvature; in prior work [21] fitted to cutting experiments; here treated as given input.
  • λ (curvature modulus) = 500, 0.01, 0.005 (dimensionless) in plots
    Material parameter weighting curvature penalty; not measured, varied to explore regimes.
  • k (growth rate constant) = not used in equilibrium analysis
    Positive scalar in growth law (35); cancels in equilibrium, but relevant for dynamics.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Levi-Civita connection and standard Riemannian geometry
    Used throughout Sec. 2-3 for curvature and variation.
  • domain assumption Single-constituent continuum with volumetric growth, no surface growth
    Assumed in Sec. 3.3 dissipation inequality; excludes surface deposition and multi-phase effects.
  • ad hoc to paper Quadratic curvature penalty f(R) = 1/2 (R − R*)²
    Chosen in Sec. 4.2 after rejecting linear coupling; not derived from cell-level physics.
  • ad hoc to paper Linear Onsager growth law Ġ_AB = k(T*_AB − T_AB)
    Posited in Sec. 3.3 to satisfy dissipation; assumed valid near equilibrium.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium corresponds to global minimum of the action within symmetry class
    Central premise; demonstrated numerically for spheres, open in general (Sec. 8).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The geometric nature of homeostatic stress in biological growth." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFL3DHT6

@misc{pith2026241216021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The geometric nature of homeostatic stress in biological growth},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFL3DHT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16021}
}
read the original abstract

Morphogenesis, the process of growth and shape formation in biological tissues, is driven by complex interactions between mechanical, biochemical, and genetic factors. Traditional models of biological growth often rely on the concept of homeostatic Eshelby stress, which defines an ideal target state for the growing body. Any local deviation from this state triggers growth and remodelling, aimed at restoring balance between mechanical forces and biological adaptation. Despite its relevance in the biomechanical context, the nature of homeostatic stress remains elusive, with its value and spatial distribution often chosen arbitrarily, lacking a clear biological interpretation or understanding of its connection to the lower scales of the tissue. To bring clarity on the nature of homeostatic stress, we shift the focus from Eshelby stress to growth incompatibility, a measure of geometric frustration in the tissue that is the primary source of residual stresses in the developing body. Incompatibility, measured by the Ricci tensor of the growth metric at the continuous level, can be potentially regulated at the cell level through connections with the surrounding cells, making it a more meaningful concept than homeostatic stress. In this geometric perspective, achieving a homeostatic state corresponds to the establishment of a physiological level of frustration in the body, a process leading to the generation and maintenance of the mechanical stresses that are crucial to tissue functionality. In this work we present a formulation of biological growth that penalises deviations from a desired state of incompatibility, similar to the way the Einstein-Hilbert action operates in General Relativity. The proposed framework offers a clear and physically grounded approach that elucidates the regulation of size and shape, while providing a means to link cellular and tissue scales in biological systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16021 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the material manifold B (metric GAB), which has curvature, and the flat spatial manifold S (metric gab). The deformation map φ connects tangent spaces TXB and Tφ(X)S. Their respective coordinate bases are illustrated. 2. An overview of residually stressed elasticity and its Riemannian interpretation The description of residual stresses in the context of biomechanics and growth mechanics is typically app… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dimensionless functional Sˆ as a function of the dimensionless compatible growth metric gˆ for k = 1 (left panel, positive curvature) and k = −1 (right panel, negative curvature). The behaviour is shown for three different values of the dimensionless stiffness parameter λˆ: 500 (orange circles), 0.01 (blue squares), and 0.005 (green diamonds). The dashed line shows the functional Sˆ(ˆgB) in the limit λˆ → ∞, given b… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dimensionless equilibrium size rˆ(ˆgB) as a function of the dimensionless compatible growth metric gˆ, where k = 1 (left panel) represents positive curvature and k = −1 (right panel) represents negative curvature. The data is shown for different values of the dimensionless stiffness parameter λˆ: 500 (orange circles), 0.01 (blue squares), and 0.005 (green diamonds). The dashed line corresponds to the theoretical lim… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The scaled Ricci curvature, the incompatible part of the metric, and components of the homeostatic stress and Cauchy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Incompatibility-driven growth and size control during development

    Erlich, A., Zurlo, G., 2024. Incompatibility-driven growth and size control during development. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 105660

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Growth of form in thin elastic structures

    Al Mosleh, S., Gopinathan, A., Santangelo, C., 2018. Growth of form in thin elastic structures. Soft matter 14, 8361–8371

    work page 2018

  3. [2]

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

    Ambrosi, D., Ben Amar, M., Cyron, C.J., DeSimone, A., Goriely, A., Humphrey, J.D., Kuhl, E., 2019. Growth and remodelling of living tissues: perspectives, challenges and opportunities. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 16, 20190233

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Stress-modulated growth

    Ambrosi, D., Guana, F., 2007. Stress-modulated growth. Mathematics and mechanics of solids 12, 319–342

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    Growth and dissipation in biological tissues

    Ambrosi, D., Guillou, A., 2007. Growth and dissipation in biological tissues. Continuum Mechanics and Thermodynamics 19, 245–251

    work page 2007

  6. [5]

    Onthemechanicsofagrowingtumor

    Ambrosi, D., Mollica, F., 2002. Onthemechanicsofagrowingtumor. Internationaljournalofengineering science 40, 1297–1316

    work page 2002

  7. [6]

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

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

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Continuum theory of dislocations revisited

    Berdichevsky, V., 2006. Continuum theory of dislocations revisited. Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. 18, 195–222. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00161-006-0024-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s00161-006-0024-7 2006

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    The influence of external free energy and homeostasis on growth and shape change

    Buskohl, P.R., Butcher, J.T., Jenkins, J.T., 2014. The influence of external free energy and homeostasis on growth and shape change. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 64, 338–350

    2014

  2. [9]

    An introduction to general relativity: spacetime and geometry

    Carroll, S.M., 2004. An introduction to general relativity: spacetime and geometry. Addison Wesley 101, 102

    2004

  3. [10]

    Boundary terms of the einstein–hilbert action, in: Gravity and the Quantum: Pedagogical Essays on Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Quantum Gravity

    Chakraborty, S., 2017. Boundary terms of the einstein–hilbert action, in: Gravity and the Quantum: Pedagogical Essays on Cosmology, Astrophysics, and Quantum Gravity. Springer, pp. 43–59

    2017

  4. [11]

    Residual stress in arteries, in: Frontiers in biomechanics

    Chuong, C.J., Fung, Y.C., 1986. Residual stress in arteries, in: Frontiers in biomechanics. Springer, pp. 117–129

    1986

  5. [12]

    Experimental estimation of stored stress within spherical microtissues

    Colin, T., Dechristé, G., Fehrenbach, J., Guillaume, L., Lobjois, V., Poignard, C., 2018. Experimental estimation of stored stress within spherical microtissues. Journal of mathematical biology 77, 1073–1092. URL: 10.1007/s00285-018-1243-9

    2018 doi

  6. [13]

    From claude bernard to walter cannon

    Cooper, S.J., 2008. From claude bernard to walter cannon. emergence of the concept of homeostasis. Appetite 51, 419–427. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.06.005. epub 2008 Jun 26

    2008 doi

  7. [14]

    Growth and remodeling of load-bearing biological soft tissues

    Cyron, C.J., Humphrey, J.D., 2017. Growth and remodeling of load-bearing biological soft tissues. Meccanica 52, 645–664. REFERENCES 23

    2017

  8. [15]

    Existence results for a morphoelastic model

    Davoli, E., Nik, K., Stefanelli, U., 2023. Existence results for a morphoelastic model. ZAMM-Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics/Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik 103, e202100478

    2023

  9. [16]

    Growthandbalance

    DiCarlo, A., Quiligotti, S., 2002. Growthandbalance. MechanicsResearchCommunications29, 449–456

    2002

  10. [17]

    The thermodynamics of irreversible processes

    Eckart, C., 1948. The thermodynamics of irreversible processes. iv. the theory of elasticity and anelas- ticity. Physical Review 73, 373

    1948

  11. [18]

    Thermomechanics of volumetric growth in uniform bodies

    Epstein, M., Maugin, G.A., 2000. Thermomechanics of volumetric growth in uniform bodies. Interna- tional Journal of Plasticity 16, 951–978

    2000

  12. [19]

    Are homeostatic states stable? dynamical stability in morphoelasticity

    Erlich, A., Moulton, D.E., Goriely, A., 2019. Are homeostatic states stable? dynamical stability in morphoelasticity. Bulletin of mathematical biology 81, 3219–3244

    2019

  13. [20]

    Mechanical feedback in regulating the size of growing multicellular spheroids

    Erlich, A., Recho, P., 2023. Mechanical feedback in regulating the size of growing multicellular spheroids. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids , 105342

    2023

  14. [22]

    The elastic energy-momentum tensor

    Eshelby, J., 1975. The elastic energy-momentum tensor. Journal of elasticity 5, 321–335

    1975

  15. [23]

    The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing

    Farhadifar, R., Röper, J.C., Aigouy, B., Eaton, S., Jülicher, F., 2007. The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing. Current biology 17, 2095–2104

    2007

  16. [24]

    Cells competition in tumor growth poroelasticity

    Fraldi, M., Carotenuto, A.R., 2018. Cells competition in tumor growth poroelasticity. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 112, 345–367

    2018

  17. [25]

    Mechanicalmodelingofgrowthconsideringdomainvariation—partii: volumetric and surface growth involving eshelby tensors

    Ganghoffer, J.F., 2010. Mechanicalmodelingofgrowthconsideringdomainvariation—partii: volumetric and surface growth involving eshelby tensors. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 58, 1434– 1459

    2010

  18. [26]

    Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity

    Gibbons, G.W., Hawking, S.W., 1977. Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity. Physical Review D 15, 2752

    1977

  19. [27]

    The mathematics and mechanics of biological growth

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

    2017

  20. [28]

    The zero-stress state of the gastrointestinal tract

    Gregersen, H., Kassab, G., Fung, Y., 2000. The zero-stress state of the gastrointestinal tract. Digestive diseases and sciences 45, 2271–2281

    2000

  21. [29]

    Boundary term in metric f (r) gravity: field equations in the metric formalism

    Guarnizo, A., Castaneda, L., Tejeiro, J.M., 2010. Boundary term in metric f (r) gravity: field equations in the metric formalism. General Relativity and Gravitation 42, 2713–2728

    2010

  22. [30]

    Characterization of the physical properties of tumor-derived spheroids reveals critical insights for pre-clinical studies

    Guillaume, L., Rigal, L., Fehrenbach, J., Severac, C., Ducommun, B., Lobjois, V., 2019. Characterization of the physical properties of tumor-derived spheroids reveals critical insights for pre-clinical studies. Scientific reports 9, 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43090-0

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Three-manifolds with positive ricci curvature

    Hamilton, R.S., 1982. Three-manifolds with positive ricci curvature. Journal of Differential geometry 17, 255–306

    1982

  24. [32]

    Residual strains in porcine and canine trachea

    Han, H., Fung, Y., 1991. Residual strains in porcine and canine trachea. Journal of biomechanics 24, 307–315

    1991

  25. [33]

    Growth anisotropy of the extracellular matrix shapes a developing organ

    Harmansa, S., Erlich, A., Eloy, C., Zurlo, G., Lecuit, T., 2023. Growth anisotropy of the extracellular matrix shapes a developing organ. Nature Communications 14, 1220

    2023

  26. [34]

    A constrained mixture model for growth and remodeling of soft tissues

    Humphrey, J.D., Rajagopal, K., 2002. A constrained mixture model for growth and remodeling of soft tissues. Mathematical models and methods in applied sciences 12, 407–430

    2002

  27. [35]

    Theory of defects in solids and three-dimensional gravity

    Katanaev, M., Volovich, I., 1992. Theory of defects in solids and three-dimensional gravity. Annals of Physics 216, 1–28. REFERENCES 24

    1992

  28. [36]

    Finite strains of viscoelastic muscle tissue

    Kondaurov, V., Nikitin, L., 1987. Finite strains of viscoelastic muscle tissue. Journal of Applied Math- ematics and Mechanics 51, 346–353. URL:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 0021892887901110, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8928(87)90111-0

    1987 doi

  29. [37]

    Mechanobiological stability of biological soft tissues

    Latorre, M., Humphrey, J.D., 2019. Mechanobiological stability of biological soft tissues. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 125, 298–325

    2019

  30. [38]

    On the mechanics of solids with a growing mass

    Lubarda, V.A., Hoger, A., 2002. On the mechanics of solids with a growing mass. International journal of solids and structures 39, 4627–4664

    2002

  31. [39]

    Mathematical foundations of elasticity

    Marsden, J.E., Hughes, T.J., 2012. Mathematical foundations of elasticity. Courier Corporation

    2012

  32. [40]

    Nonlinear morphoelastic plates ii: Exodus to buckled states

    McMahon, J., Goriely, A., Tabor, M., 2011. Nonlinear morphoelastic plates ii: Exodus to buckled states. Mathematics and mechanics of solids 16, 833–871

    2011

  33. [41]

    Geometry and mechanics of growing, nonlinearly elastic plates and membranes

    McMahon, J.B., 2009. Geometry and mechanics of growing, nonlinearly elastic plates and membranes

    2009

  34. [42]

    Complex distributions of residual stress and strain in the mouse left ventricle: experimental and theoretical models

    Omens, J., McCulloch, A., Criscione, J., 2003. Complex distributions of residual stress and strain in the mouse left ventricle: experimental and theoretical models. Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiol- ogy 1, 267–277

    2003

  35. [43]

    A relativist’s toolkit: the mathematics of black-hole mechanics

    Poisson, E., 2004. A relativist’s toolkit: the mathematics of black-hole mechanics. Cambridge university press

    2004

  36. [44]

    The dynamics of root growth: a geometric model

    Pulwicki, J., Hobill, D., 2017. The dynamics of root growth: a geometric model. Bulletin of mathematical biology 79, 1820–1845

    2017

  37. [45]

    Elastocapillarity-driven surface growth in tumour spheroids

    Riccobelli, D., . Elastocapillarity-driven surface growth in tumour spheroids

  38. [46]

    Visualizing ricci flow of manifolds of revolution

    Rubinstein, J.H., Sinclair, R., 2005. Visualizing ricci flow of manifolds of revolution. Experimental Mathematics 14, 285–298. doi:doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2005.10128930

    2005

  39. [47]

    Quadratic gravity

    Salvio, A., 2018. Quadratic gravity. Frontiers in Physics 6, 77

    2018

  40. [48]

    Compatibility and the genesis of residual stress by volumetric growth

    Skalak, R., Zargaryan, S., Jain, R.K., Netti, P.A., Hoger, A., 1996. Compatibility and the genesis of residual stress by volumetric growth. Journal of mathematical biology 34, 889–914

    1996

  41. [49]

    Modified actions for gravity: theory and phenomenology

    Sotiriou, T.P., 2007. Modified actions for gravity: theory and phenomenology. arXiv preprint arXiv:0710.4438

    2007 arXiv

  42. [50]

    f (r) theories of gravity

    Sotiriou, T.P., Faraoni, V., 2010. f (r) theories of gravity. Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 451

    2010

  43. [51]

    Causes, consequences, and remedies for growth-induced solid stress in murine and human tumors

    Stylianopoulos, T., Martin, J.D., Chauhan, V.P., Jain, S.R., Diop-Frimpong, B., Bardeesy, N., Smith, B.L., Ferrone, C.R., Hornicek, F.J., Boucher, Y., et al., 2012. Causes, consequences, and remedies for growth-induced solid stress in murine and human tumors. Proceedings of th...

    2012

  44. [52]

    Theoreticalstudyofbeloussovśhyper-restorationhypothesisformechanicalregulation of morphogenesis

    Taber, L.A., 2008. Theoreticalstudyofbeloussovśhyper-restorationhypothesisformechanicalregulation of morphogenesis. Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology 7, 427–441

    2008

  45. [53]

    Towards a unified theory for morphomechanics

    Taber, L.A., 2009. Towards a unified theory for morphomechanics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 367, 3555–3583

    2009

  46. [54]

    Stress-modulated growth, residual stress, and vascular heterogeneity

    Taber, L.A., Humphrey, J.D., 2001. Stress-modulated growth, residual stress, and vascular heterogeneity. J. Biomech. Eng. 123, 528–535

    2001

  47. [55]

    The chemical-potential tensor

    Truskinovskiy, L., 1983. The chemical-potential tensor. Geokhimiya,(12) , 1730–1744

    1983

  48. [56]

    Nonlinear elasticity of incompatible surface growth

    Truskinovsky, L., Zurlo, G., 2019. Nonlinear elasticity of incompatible surface growth. Physical Review E 99, 053001. REFERENCES 25

    2019

  49. [57]

    Optimization of the stored energy and coaxiality of strain and stress in finite elasticity

    Vianello, M., 1996. Optimization of the stored energy and coaxiality of strain and stress in finite elasticity. Journal of Elasticity 44, 193–202. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00042131, doi:10. 1007/BF00042131

    1996 doi

  50. [58]

    General relativity

    Wald, R.M., 2010. General relativity. University of Chicago press

    2010

  51. [59]

    Biochemomechanical poroelastic theory of avascular tumor growth

    Xue, S.L., Li, B., Feng, X.Q., Gao, H., 2016. Biochemomechanical poroelastic theory of avascular tumor growth. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 94, 409–432

    2016

  52. [60]

    A geometric theory of growth mechanics

    Yavari, A., 2010. A geometric theory of growth mechanics. Journal of Nonlinear Science 20, 781–830

    2010

  53. [61]

    Printing non-euclidean solids

    Zurlo, G., Truskinovsky, L., 2017. Printing non-euclidean solids. Physical review letters 119, 048001

    2017

  54. [62]

    Inelastic surface growth

    Zurlo, G., Truskinovsky, L., 2018. Inelastic surface growth. Mechanics Research Communications 93, 174–179

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.