Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Traction and Stress Control Formation and Motion of +1/2 Topological Defects in Epithelial Cell Monolayers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In MDCK monolayers, +1/2 defects move either tail-to-head (traction-driven) or head-to-tail (stress-driven), and the deciding force patterns exist before the defect forms.

desk verdict A novel observation of coexisting defect motion directions with a clear traction-propulsion mechanism, but the stress-based half of the story leans on a constitutive assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04827 v2 pith:7FMU47F7 submitted 2025-01-08 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft

Pradip K. Bera , Molly McCord , Jun Zhang , Jacob Notbohm This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.soft
keywords topologicaldefectsepithelialmonolayerscollectivecellmigrationtractionforcemicroscopymonolayerstressenergyinjectionanddissipationactivenematicdefectformation
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

Epithelial cells in a confluent monolayer contain comet-shaped flaws in their alignment, called +1/2 topological defects. This paper reports that these defects move in both directions—tail-to-head and head-to-tail—within the same island, and that the direction is set by which interface supplies the energy of motion. When cell-substrate tractions align with cell velocity, they act as a propulsive source and drive defects tail-to-head against the stress gradient; when tractions act as friction, intercellular stresses transmitted by neighboring cells drive defects head-to-tail. The same spatial patterns of strain rate, stress, traction, and power density are present an hour before a defect forms, implying that coordinated force fields cause defect formation rather than merely responding to it. If true, this refocuses theories of collective cell migration on force patterns as the origin of nematic order.

What carries the argument

The analysis rests on a bookkeeping identity for energy flow, Clapeyron's theorem in the form $\int_\Omega P_S\,dA + \int_\Omega P_T\,dA = \oint_\Gamma \sigma \hat{\mathbf{n}}\cdot\mathbf{v}\,ds$, with $P_S = \sigma : \dot{\varepsilon}$ the stress power density and $P_T = -\mathbf{t}\cdot\mathbf{v}/h$ the traction power density. It converts separate measurements of velocity, strain rate, traction, and reconstructed stress into signed local rates of energy injection and dissipation, letting each defect be classified as traction-dominated or stress-dominated. The companion structural readout is the angle $\beta$ between actin stress fibers and the defect tail, which differs by about $90^\circ$ between the two motion classes.

What would settle it

Measure the stress gradient along the defect tail with a probe that does not assume passive rheology—for example, FRET-based molecular tension sensors in cell-cell adhesions or direct measurement of junction forces—and check whether the gradient remains positive for both head-to-tail and tail-to-head defects. Alternatively, in time-lapse data, ask whether the sign of the average power density in a $100\times100$ $\mu$m region one hour before formation predicts each defect's subsequent direction; if it predicts no better than chance, the pre-pattern claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that +1/2 defects have no unique direction of motion; the balance of energy injection at the cell-substrate interface versus transmission through cell-cell stresses decides. Using velocity fields, traction force microscopy, monolayer stress microscopy, and the power densities $P_S = \sigma : \dot{\varepsilon}$ and $P_T = -\mathbf{t}\cdot\mathbf{v}/h$, the authors find that head-to-tail defects dissipate energy along the tail and are pulled forward by stress transmitted from neighboring cells, whereas tail-to-head defects are propelled by substrate tractions and move against the local stress gradient. They further show that the traction-stress-power patterns pre-exist defect formation by at least one hour, and that actin stress fibers align along the tail only for head-to-tail defects, matching the energy-flow picture. The paper therefore claims that traction is an active, propulsive input and that coordinated patterns of force and motion, rather than preexisting nematic order, are what create +1/2 defects.

Load-bearing premise

The computed intercellular stress fields are trusted, even though they are reconstructed from traction data by assuming a linear, passive relation between stress and strain rate; if real active stresses differ near defects, the stress-gradient and stress-power classification could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A +1/2 defect's direction of motion cannot be used as a readout of whether the monolayer is extensile or contractile; the same stress state accompanies both directions.
  • Cell-substrate traction must be treated as an active, energy-injecting field in models of epithelial monolayers, not merely as passive friction.
  • Patterns of force, strain rate, and energy injection present before defect formation imply that defects arise from coordinated cell motion rather than from a preexisting tendency for nematic alignment.
  • Energy flows along defect tails, so defects act as local conduits that either receive power from neighbors (head-to-tail) or send power out to neighbors (tail-to-head).
  • Actin stress fiber orientation at the defect tail distinguishes the two regimes and may serve as a structural marker of which energy source dominates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct predictive experiment would be to measure local power densities continuously and register, before any defect appears, whether the sign of the pre-pattern at each future defect location forecasts its eventual direction; the $t=-1$ hr averages imply such forecasts should succeed.
  • The same energy-balance argument could be applied to $-1/2$ defects and to defects at island boundaries, where the three-fold symmetry or boundary constraints may alter the traction-stress competition.
  • If traction is an active source near defects, changing substrate stiffness or adhesion ligand density should bias the fraction of tail-to-head defects, a testable mechanical handle not explored here.
  • The claim that force patterns cause nematic order inverts the usual active-nematic causal arrow; a minimal test would be to ask whether monolayers with randomized initial orientation still nucleate defects when subjected to artificially imposed coordinated traction patterns.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies +1/2 topological defects in confluent MDCK epithelial islands, reporting that defects move in both tail-to-head and head-to-tail directions within the same monolayer. From image correlation velocity fields, traction force microscopy, and monolayer stress microscopy, the authors compute strain rates, stresses, traction-velocity angles, and stress- and traction-based power densities. They find that tail-to-head defects move against the stress gradient with traction aligned to velocity, while head-to-tail defects move with the stress gradient and with traction opposed to velocity. Using a Clapeyron-type power balance over a region of interest, they classify tail-to-head defects as traction-dominated (energy injected via tractions, flowing outward) and head-to-tail defects as stress-dominated (energy flowing inward via stresses and dissipated by tractions). They further report that these strain-rate, stress, traction, and power patterns are already present one hour before defect formation, and that actin stress-fiber orientation differs between the two classes. The central claim is that defect motion direction is controlled by whether energy is injected by tractions or by intercellular stresses, and that coordinated force patterns cause defect formation.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper would provide a notable advance: direct evidence that cell-substrate tractions can act as a propulsive, energy-injecting mechanism rather than a purely passive friction in active nematic models, and a proposal that defect formation is caused by pre-existing coordinated force and motion patterns. The coexistence of both defect-motion directions in the same monolayer is an interesting experimental observation. The paper also ships useful quantitative tools: velocity, traction, and stress fields are computed with standard, openly available code, and the power-balance derivation in Supplemental Note 1 is clear. The main limitations are that the stress field is reconstructed under a passive linear constitutive assumption, and that the pre-formation patterns rely on retrospective alignment to defects identified later. These issues bear directly on the stress-dominated half of the classification and on the formation claim, so the significance is real but conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Quantification of Tractions and Stresses; Results, Energy Injection and Dissipation (Fig. 4)] The stress reconstruction is load-bearing for the claim that head-to-tail defects are stress-dominated, because the signs of PS and EΓ are computed from a reconstructed stress field obtained from a compatibility equation that 'assumes a linear, passive relationship between stress and strain rate' with a chosen shear-to-bulk ratio of 0.54. The Clapeyron balance ES + ET = EΓ is an identity for any symmetric stress field satisfying equilibrium ∇·σ = −t/h; therefore, the reported closure to within a couple percent does not validate the physical interpretation of the sign of EΓ. The cited Zimmermann error analysis bounds global reconstruction errors, not local active-stress errors near defects, where strain-rate gradients and contractile activity are largest. I request robustness tests: (i) repeat the power-density analysis for a range of the ratio around 0.54, (ii) compare the stress-power sign with traction-only measures or with a reconstruction that includes an explicit active stress term, and (iii) apply the Zimmermann-type error model to the actual defect-tail regions with local traction and stress magnitudes. Without such tests, the 'stress-dominated' half of the central dichotomy is not independently established.
  2. [Results, Strain Rates and Stresses near Topological Defects; Methods, Defect Identification] The claim that strain rate, stress, traction, and power patterns exist at t = −1 hr before defect formation is based on aligning fields to the eventual defect axis and to the eventual direction of motion. This retrospective alignment can create apparent pre-patterns even from random or weakly structured fields if the selection criterion is correlated with the future defect orientation or motion direction. The manuscript does not report controls such as averaging fields around random positions with the same selection criteria, or around defects whose orientation axes are randomly rotated. I ask for explicit null controls and, if possible, a forward-in-time analysis that does not use information about the defect that forms later. This is necessary to support the conclusion that the patterns cause defect formation rather than merely accompany it.
  3. [Results, Energy Injection and Dissipation (definitions of PS and PT)] The classification of defects as 'traction-dominated' versus 'stress-dominated' is partly circular: PT = −t·v/h has a sign fixed by whether traction is aligned or anti-aligned with velocity, which is exactly the criterion used to separate tail-to-head from head-to-tail defects, and PS = σ:ε has a sign fixed by the strain-rate sign that already distinguishes the two classes in Fig. 2. The paper should state explicitly which conclusions are direct kinematic observations (traction-velocity alignment and strain-rate signs) and which require the reconstructed stress. As written, the energy-injection narrative risks restating the classification rather than providing an independent mechanistic explanation. I recommend quantifying how well PS and PT magnitudes and the balance terms predict defect speed or direction beyond the sign of the input fields, and using the actin-stress-fiber data as a more independent test of the proposed mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Fig. S6] The caption states that <vx> varies from 0 to 20 µm/min, but the main text reports speeds of a few µm/hr; this is likely a units typo and should be corrected to µm/hr.
  2. [Fig. 1f and main text] The fraction of head-to-tail and tail-to-head defects is shown per treatment, but the number of defects per treatment is not stated; please add n values for the Control, CN02, and CN03 groups so the reader can assess the balance across treatments.
  3. [Supplemental Note 2 and Fig. S11] The caption of panel b lists both ES/V and ET/V but the plotted curve appears to be (ES+ET)/V; the caption should be clarified and the individual contributions shown if they are intended.
  4. [Methods, Quantification of Cell Velocity and Orientation] The verification criterion for keeping a +1/2 defect is described as 'two counter-rotating vortices on either side of the tail'; please provide quantitative thresholds (e.g., vorticity magnitude and sign at specific positions) so the selection rule is reproducible.
  5. [Supplemental Note 1] The term 'Clapeyron's theorem' is unusual for a power balance of this kind and may be confused with the thermodynamic Clapeyron relation; consider calling it a 'power balance' or 'rate-of-work balance' for clarity.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Clapeyron 'balance' and the divergence-based stress gradient are force-balance identities; central traction/actin observations remain independent, so circularity is limited.

  1. other [Results, 'Energy Injection and Dissipation near Topological Defects' (Fig. 4j,k); Supplemental Note 1]
    "Numerical values for ES, ET, and EΓ are shown in Fig. 4j,k, and they balance to within a couple percent, meaning errors in the measurement are small ... The right hand side of Eq. 2 can be simplified by using the divergence theorem and noting that, by equilibrium, ∇ · σ = −t/h ... Note that no constitutive relationship is assumed in deriving Eq. 3."

    Monolayer stress microscopy reconstructs σ from tractions by imposing ∇·σ=-t/h (Methods: 'Two of the three equations required are force equilibrium in the two in-plane directions'). With ES=h∫σ:εdot dA, ET=-∫t·v dA, and EΓ=h∫σ n·v ds, the Clapeyron relation is an algebraic rearrangement of that same equilibrium equation, containing no new constitutive or measurement content. The 'couple percent' balance therefore checks numerical consistency of the same fields; it cannot independently demonstrate that errors in the power measurements are small or validate the energy-flow interpretation. The central traction-vs-stress classification is not forced by this identity, but the paper overstates the identity as error evidence.

  2. other [Results, 'Strain Rates and Stresses near Topological Defects'; Supplemental Fig. S7]
    "We also computed the gradient of stress more rigorously. As equilibrium is mathematically written as the divergence of stress, we computed the expression corresponding to equilibrium in the x direction, ∂ σxx/∂ x + ∂ σxy/∂ y. Again, the sign was positive for both head-to-tail and tail-to-head moving defects (Supplemental Fig. S7). These data confirmed that tail-to-head defects moved against gradients in stress."

    Since the reconstructed stress satisfies ∇·σ=-t/h identically, the quantity ∂σxx/∂x+∂σxy/∂y equals -t_x/h up to numerical error. The traction field near the defects points in -x, so this 'rigorous' stress-gradient sign is the traction data rewritten through force balance. Calling it a confirmation of motion against the stress gradient is therefore an internal-consistency restatement rather than an independent stress measurement. It does not undermine the direct traction-velocity alignment evidence, but it should not be counted as a separate confirmation.

full rationale

The paper's main observations are largely direct measurements: traction-force microscopy gives t, image correlation gives v, and the histograms of the traction-velocity angle, the coexistence of both defect-motion directions, and the actin-fiber angle differences are not encoded in the definitions of PS or PT. The stress-dependent half is conditional on monolayer stress microscopy, whose Methods explicitly concedes that 'the active component of the stresses is not accounted for in the compatibility equation used in monolayer stress microscopy'; this is a stated model limitation and a correctness risk for the signs of PS and EΓ, not a circular reduction of the claim to its own inputs. Two force-balance identities are, however, presented as validations: the Clapeyron balance ES+ET=EΓ and the divergence form ∂σxx/∂x+∂σxy/∂y=-t_x/h are both algebraic consequences of reconstructing σ from t, so they provide internal consistency only, not independent error estimates or independent stress-gradient evidence. Additionally, labeling PT<0 as 'energy injection by tractions' is the sign convention applied to the measured t·v product, so the energy narrative partly restates the alignment observation rather than proving causation. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found; the authors' prior software and context citations are not what forces the defect-motion dichotomy. Overall, the central claims are not forced by construction, but the paper's use of identity checks as validation warrants a modest circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central energy accounting rests on standard continuum mechanics (force equilibrium), but the stress reconstruction carries a passive constitutive assumption with a chosen stiffness ratio (0.54) and a uniform cell height (5 µm). The ROI definition affects the reported absolute power values, though not the sign-based classification. No new physical entities are introduced; the stress fibers and actomyosin contractility are established biological components whose orientation is measured, not postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Shear-to-bulk modulus ratio used in monolayer stress microscopy = 0.54
    Assumed constant in the compatibility equation; chosen from prior work rather than measured, and the paper argues results depend weakly on it.
  • Cell layer height h = 5 µm
    Assumed uniform to convert 2D stress to 3D and to report power in Watts; heterogeneity in height would affect absolute magnitudes but not the sign-based classification.
  • ROI for Clapeyron integration = 100 µm x 100 µm square centered at (25 µm, 0)
    Choice of integration region determines the reported ES, ET, and EGamma values; the paper does not test sensitivity to this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Force equilibrium: ∇·σ = -t/h in the monolayer
    Used in monolayer stress microscopy and to derive Clapeyron's theorem (Supplemental Note 1); standard continuum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Passive linear constitutive closure for stress reconstruction
    Methods state the compatibility equation 'assumes a linear, passive relationship between stress and strain rate'; active stress components are not included, and accuracy is argued via ref 45 when traction magnitude is at least one third of stress.
  • domain assumption Power sign convention: positive PS and PT are dissipation, negative are injection
    Standard convention but the label 'injection' interprets the sign of σ:epsilon_dot and -t·v as active power; it is a modeling choice, not a direct measurement.
  • domain assumption Event-aligned averaging at t=-1 hr uses the eventual defect axis
    Fields one hour before formation are rotated into the coordinate system of the defect that appears at t=0; this assumes the orientation at t=-1 is correlated with the future defect axis, otherwise averaging would wash out patterns.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Traction and Stress Control Formation and Motion of +1/2 Topological Defects in Epithelial Cell Monolayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7FMU47F7

@misc{pith2026250104827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Traction and Stress Control Formation and Motion of +1/2 Topological Defects in Epithelial Cell Monolayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7FMU47F7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04827}
}
read the original abstract

In confluent cell monolayers, patterns of cell forces and motion are systematically altered near topological defects in cell shape. In turn, defects have been proposed to alter cell density, extrusion, and invasion, but it remains unclear how the defects form and how they affect cell forces and motion. Here, we studied +1/2 defects, and, in contrast to prior studies, we observed the concurrent occurrence of both tail-to-head and head-to-tail defect motion in the same cell monolayer. We quantified the cell velocities, the tractions at the cell-substrate interface, and the stresses within the cell layer near +1/2 defects. Results revealed that both traction and stress are sources of activity and dissipation within the epithelial cell monolayer, with the direction of motion of +1/2 defects depending on whether energy is injected by stresses or tractions. Interestingly, patterns of motion, traction, stress, and energy injection near +1/2 defects existed before defect formation, suggesting that defects form as a result of spatially coordinated patterns in cell forces and motion. These findings introduce a new focus, on coordinated patterns of force and motion that lead to defect formation and motion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Topological defects in MDCK cell layers. (a) Phase contrast image of a confluent MDCK cell island. (b) Cell orientation plot with yellow lines indicating local orientation. +1/2 and -1/2 defects are indicated by the comet tails and tripods, respectively. Scale bar is 250 µm. (c, d) Representative +1/2 defects in MDCK cell layers moving in the tail-to-head direction (c) and head-to-tail direction (d). Yellow lines in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Strain rate and stress fields near +1/2 defects. (a–d) For head-to-tail moving defects, the strain rate ε˙xx and the normal stress σxx were averaged over all 58 defects and plotted at t = −1 hr (1 hr before defect formation) and t = 0 hr (the first time point after defect formation). (e–h) For tail-to-head moving defects, ε˙xx and σxx were averaged over 53 defects and shown for t = −1 hr and t = 0. For all plots, th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Traction applied by the substrate to the cells near +1/2 defects. (a) Phase contrast images over time of a representative +1/2 tail-to-head moving defect. Lines indicate cell orientation. (b) Vector plots of velocity (white arrows) and traction (red arrows) at the same time points as in panel a. The arrows typically point in the same direction, indicating a tendency for alignment between velocity and traction for ta… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Power flow near +1/2 defects. (a, b) Power densities associated with stress (PS) and traction (PT ) for a representative 1 mm cell island. (c) The spatial autocorrelation of power density C(r). Markers show the average over 27 different cell islands; error bars indicat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Orientation of stress fibers near +1/2 defects. (a, b) Confocal images of stress fibers captured at the basal (bottom) of the cell layer for representative head-to-tail and tail-to-head defects. Cell boundaries were segmented using images collected at the apical (top) …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reffay, M., Petitjean, L., Coscoy, S., Grasland-Mongrain, E., Amblard, F., Buguin, A., and Silberzan, P. (2011). Orientation and polarity in collectively migrating cell structures: statics and dynamics. Bio- phys. J. 100, 2566–2575

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Saw, T.B., Doostmohammadi, A., Nier, V ., Kocgozlu, L., Thampi, S., Toyama, Y ., Marcq, P., Lim, C.T., Yeomans, J.M., and Ladoux, B. (2017). Topological defects in epithelia govern cell death and extrusion. Nature 544, 212–216

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Maroudas-Sacks, Y ., Garion, L., Shani-Zerbib, L., Livshits, A., Braun, E., and Keren, K. (2021). Topological defects in the nematic order of actin fibres as organization centres of hydra morphogenesis. Nat. Phys. 17, 251–259

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Guillamat, P., Blanch-Mercader, C., Pernollet, G., Kruse, K., and Roux, A. (2022). Integer topological defects organize stresses driving tissue morphogenesis. Nat. Mater. 21, 588–597

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Kawaguchi, K., Kageyama, R., and Sano, M. (2017). Topological defects control collective dynamics in neural progenitor cell cultures. Nature 545, 327–331. 23

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Copenhagen, K., Alert, R., Wingreen, N.S., and Shaevitz, J.W. (2021). Topological defects promote layer formation in myxococcus xanthus colonies. Nat. Phys. 17, 211–215

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Zhang, J., Yang, N., Kreeger, P.K., and Notbohm, J. (2021). Topological defects in the mesothelium suppress ovarian cancer cell clearance. APL Bioeng. 5, 036103

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Duclos, G., Erlenk ¨amper, C., Joanny, J.F., and Silberzan, P. (2017). Topological defects in confined populations of spindle-shaped cells. Nat. Phys. 13, 58–62

    work page 2017

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Blanch-Mercader, C., Yashunsky, V ., Garcia, S., Duclos, G., Giomi, L., and Silberzan, P. (2018). Turbulent dynamics of epithelial cell cultures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 208101

    2018

  2. [10]

    Balasubramaniam, L., Doostmohammadi, A., Saw, T.B., Narayana, G.H.N.S., Mueller, R., Dang, T., Thomas, M., Gupta, S., Sonam, S., Yap, A.S., Toyama, Y ., M`ege, R.M., Yeomans, J.M., and Ladoux, B. (2021). Investigating the nature of active forces in tissues reveals how contract...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Le Toquin, Y ., Dubey, S., Ardaseva, A., Balasubramaniam, L., Delaune, E., Morin, V ., Doostmo- hammadi, A., Marcelle, C., and Ladoux, B. (2024). Mechanical stresses govern myoblast fusion and myotube growth. bioRxiv pp. 11.22.624831

    2024

  4. [12]

    Marenduzzo, D., Orlandini, E., Cates, M., and Yeomans, J. (2007). Steady-state hydrodynamic insta- bilities of active liquid crystals: Hybrid lattice boltzmann simulations. Phys. Rev. E 76, 031921

    2007

  5. [13]

    Marchetti, M.C., Joanny, J.F., Ramaswamy, S., Liverpool, T.B., Prost, J., Rao, M., and Simha, R.A. (2013). Hydrodynamics of soft active matter. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143

    2013

  6. [14]

    Giomi, L., Bowick, M.J., Mishra, P., Sknepnek, R., and Cristina Marchetti, M. (2014). Defect dynam- ics in active nematics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 372, 20130365

    2014

  7. [15]

    Thampi, S.P., Golestanian, R., and Yeomans, J.M. (2014). Active nematic materials with substrate friction. Phys. Rev. E 90, 062307

    2014

  8. [16]

    Duclos, G., Blanch-Mercader, C., Yashunsky, V ., Salbreux, G., Joanny, J.F., Prost, J., and Silberzan, P. (2018). Spontaneous shear flow in confined cellular nematics. Nat. Phys. 14, 728–732

    2018

  9. [17]

    Kumar, N., Zhang, R., De Pablo, J.J., and Gardel, M.L. (2018). Tunable structure and dynamics of active liquid crystals. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat7779

    2018

  10. [18]

    Shankar, S., Ramaswamy, S., Marchetti, M.C., and Bowick, M.J. (2018). Defect unbinding in active nematics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 108002

    2018

  11. [19]

    Angheluta, L., Chen, Z., Marchetti, M.C., and Bowick, M.J. (2021). The role of fluid flow in the dynamics of active nematic defects. New J. Phys. 23, 033009

    2021

  12. [20]

    Han, E., Fei, C., Alert, R., Copenhagen, K., Koch, M.D., Wingreen, N.S., and Shaevitz, J.W. (2025). Local polar order controls mechanical stress and triggers layer formation in myxococcus xanthus colonies. Nat. Commun. 16, 952

    2025

  13. [21]

    Saraswathibhatla, A., and Notbohm, J. (2020). Tractions and stress fibers control cell shape and rear- rangements in collective cell migration. Phys. Rev. X 10, 011016. 24

    2020

  14. [22]

    Vafa, F., Bowick, M.J., Shraiman, B.I., and Marchetti, M.C. (2021). Fluctuations can induce local nematic order and extensile stress in monolayers of motile cells. Soft Matter 17, 3068–3073

    2021

  15. [23]

    Killeen, A., Bertrand, T., and Lee, C.F. (2022). Polar fluctuations lead to extensile nematic behavior in confluent tissues. Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 078001

    2022

  16. [24]

    Lee, P., and Wolgemuth, C.W. (2011). Crawling cells can close wounds without purse strings or sig- naling. Plos computational biology 7, e1002007

    2011

  17. [25]

    Basan, M., Elgeti, J., Hannezo, E., Rappel, W.J., and Levine, H. (2013). Alignment of cellular motility forces with tissue flow as a mechanism for efficient wound healing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 2452–2459

    2013

  18. [26]

    Notbohm, J., Banerjee, S., Utuje, K.J., Gweon, B., Jang, H., Park, Y ., Shin, J., Butler, J.P., Fredberg, J.J., and Marchetti, M.C. (2016). Cellular contraction and polarization drive collective cellular motion. Biophys. J. 110, 2729–2738

    2016

  19. [27]

    Bi, D., Yang, X., Marchetti, M.C., and Manning, M.L. (2016). Motility-driven glass and jamming transitions in biological tissues. Phys. Rev. X 6, 021011

    2016

  20. [28]

    Kim, J.H., Serra-Picamal, X., Tambe, D.T., Zhou, E.H., Park, C.Y ., Sadati, M., Park, J.A., Krishnan, R., Gweon, B., Millet, E., Butler, J.P., Trepat, X., and Fredberg, J.J. (2013). Propulsion and navigation within the advancing monolayer sheet. Nat. Mater. 12, 856–863

    2013

  21. [29]

    Saraswathibhatla, A., Henkes, S., Galles, E.E., Sknepnek, R., and Notbohm, J. (2021). Coordinated tractions increase the size of a collectively moving pack in a cell monolayer. Extreme Mech. Lett. 48, 101438

    2021

  22. [30]

    Jipp, M., Wagner, B.D., Egbringhoff, L., Teichmann, A., R¨ubeling, A., Nieschwitz, P., Honigmann, A., Chizhik, A., Oswald, T.A., and Janshoff, A. (2024). Cell-substrate distance fluctuations of confluent cells enable fast and coherent collective migration. Cell Rep 43

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zhang, D.Q., Chen, P.C., Li, Z.Y ., Zhang, R., and Li, B. (2022). Topological defect-mediated morpho- dynamics of active–active interfaces. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2122494119

    2022

  24. [32]

    Bar-Kochba, E., Toyjanova, J., Andrews, E., Kim, K.S., and Franck, C. (2015). A fast iterative digital volume correlation algorithm for large deformations. Exp. Mech. 55, 261–274

    2015

  25. [33]

    Nejad, M.R., Ruske, L.J., McCord, M., Zhang, J., Zhang, G., Notbohm, J., and Yeomans, J.M. (2024). Stress-shape misalignment in confluent cell layers. Nat. Commun. 15, 3628

    2024

  26. [34]

    Tambe, D.T., Corey Hardin, C., Angelini, T.E., Rajendran, K., Park, C.Y ., Serra-Picamal, X., Zhou, E.H., Zaman, M.H., Butler, J.P., Weitz, D.A., Fredberg, J.J., and Trepat, X. (2011). Collective cell guidance by cooperative intercellular forces. Nat. Mater. 10, 469–475

    2011

  27. [35]

    Tambe, D.T., Croutelle, U., Trepat, X., Park, C.Y ., Kim, J.H., Millet, E., Butler, J.P., and Fredberg, J.J. (2013). Monolayer stress microscopy: limitations, artifacts, and accuracy of recovered intercellular stresses. Plos One 8, e55172

    2013

  28. [36]

    Saraswathibhatla, A., Galles, E.E., and Notbohm, J. (2020). Spatiotemporal force and motion in col- lective cell migration. Sci. Data 7, 197

    2020

  29. [37]

    Dembo, M., and Wang, Y .L. (1999). Stresses at the cell-to-substrate interface during locomotion of fibroblasts. Biophys. J. 76, 2307–2316. 25

    1999

  30. [38]

    Butler, J.P., Tolic-Nørrelykke, I.M., Fabry, B., and Fredberg, J.J. (2002). Traction fields, moments, and strain energy that cells exert on their surroundings. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 282, C595–C605

    2002

  31. [39]

    Del Alamo, J.C., Meili, R., Alonso-Latorre, B., Rodr ´ıguez-Rodr´ıguez, J., Aliseda, A., Firtel, R.A., and Lasheras, J.C. (2007). Spatio-temporal analysis of eukaryotic cell motility by improved force cytometry. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13343–13348

    2007

  32. [40]

    Trepat, X., Wasserman, M.R., Angelini, T.E., Millet, E., Weitz, D.A., Butler, J.P., and Fredberg, J.J. (2009). Physical forces during collective cell migration. Nat. Phys. 5, 426–430

    2009

  33. [41]

    Zhang, G., and Yeomans, J.M. (2023). Active forces in confluent cell monolayers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 038202

    2023

  34. [42]

    Nejad, M.R., Yeomans, J.M., and Thampi, S.P. (2025). Cellular dynamics emerging from turbulent flows steered by active filaments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05971

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vazquez, K., Saraswathibhatla, A., and Notbohm, J. (2022). Effect of substrate stiffness on friction in collective cell migration. Sci. Rep. 12, 2474

    2022

  36. [44]

    Chiang, M., Hopkins, A., Loewe, B., Marchetti, M.C., and Marenduzzo, D. (2024). Intercellular friction and motility drive orientational order in cell monolayers. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2319310121

    2024

  37. [45]

    Zimmermann, J., Hayes, R.L., Basan, M., Onuchic, J.N., Rappel, W.J., and Levine, H. (2014). Inter- cellular stress reconstitution from traction force data. Biophys J 107, 548–554

    2014

  38. [46]

    Stringer, C., Wang, T., Michaelos, M., and Pachitariu, M. (2021). Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segmentation. Nat. Methods 18, 100–106

    2021

  39. [47]

    Bera, P.K., McCord, M., Zhang, J., and Notbohm, J. (2025). Energy dynamics powered by traction and stress control formation and motion of +1/2 topological defects in epithelial cell monolayers. figshare. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28774310.v1. 26

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.