Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Quantitative analysis of cell size control mechanisms

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives exact time-dependent and steady-state solutions for sizer, timer, and adder cell-size control models, with explicit conditions for stability of the sizer steady state.

desk verdict Exact characteristic solutions for the three size-control PDEs are a genuine contribution, but the advertised stability theorem is never instantiated and the manuscript has enough typos in key formulas to need a serious revision before I'd trust it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19416 v1 pith:WCOBD55S submitted 2025-05-26 q-bio.CB

Shuqi Fan , Jinzhi Lei This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.CB MSC 92C3735F1535C05
keywords cellsizecontrolsizermechanismtimeraddermethodofcharacteristicshomeostasisstochasticsimulationsteady-statedistribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The authors develop a single first-order partial differential equation model in which the three classic cell-size control strategies—sizer, timer, and adder—enter only through different boundary conditions. Using the method of characteristics, they derive exact time-dependent formulas for the cell size distribution under each mechanism, closed-form steady-state distributions for linear and logistic growth laws, and a stability criterion for the sizer steady state. The formulas reveal that the daughter-size inheritance rule, rather than the growth rate alone, largely determines the steady-state distribution. This matters because the equations turn cell-size homeostasis into quantitative, testable predictions, and the model reproduces experimental E. coli size distributions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear transport equation $\partial f/\partial t+\partial f/\partial a+\partial(v f)/\partial s=-(\alpha+\phi)f$, where $f$ is the normalized density of cells of size $s$ and cycle age $a$, $v$ is the growth rate, $\phi$ the division rate, and $\alpha$ the population growth rate. Each control mechanism is enforced only through the boundary condition at birth ($a=0$) and through the singular division rate, and the solutions are built from the characteristic first integrals $t-a$ and $u(s,a)$, with the auxiliary functions $\gamma$, $\psi$, and the kernels $K_0,K_1$ encoding how initial size is transported to later ages.

What would settle it

Measure mother–daughter size pairs in a population controlled by a sizer: if the two daughters of one mother show correlations beyond the fixed kernel $p(s,s')$, or if the observed homeostatic marginal distribution does not match $\tilde f(s)=2\alpha/v(s)\int_0^s p(u)K_0(\alpha,s,u)\,du$ with $\alpha$ from $2\int_0^1 p(u)K_0(\alpha,1,u)\,du=1$, the renewal boundary condition that carries the whole derivation is empirically false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a proliferating population with growth law $v(s,a)$ and daughter-size kernel $p(s,s')$, the full time-dependent cell size distribution can be written explicitly. For the sizer, the distribution along a characteristic is the boundary history $2p(\gamma_0(s,a))\alpha(t-a)$ times an exponential decay factor; for the timer it is the analogous renewal integral against $f(s',T,t-a)$; for the adder it is given in the birth-added-size coordinates $(s,\varsigma)$ by a similar characteristic formula. At steady state these reduce to closed forms such as $\tilde f(s)=2\alpha/v(s)\int_0^s p(u)K_0(\alpha,s,u)\,du$ for linear growth, with the population growth rate $\alpha$ fixed by $2\int_0^1 p(u)K_0(\alpha,1,u)\,du=1$. The paper further claims that the sizer steady state is asymptotically stable whenever $2\alpha>B$ and $AQ-(2\alpha-B)(1-4AP)<0$. These results give direct formulas connecting observable size statistics to the underlying division rule.

Load-bearing premise

The boundary condition at birth assumes each mother produces two statistically independent daughters with sizes drawn from a fixed probability rule that does not depend on mother age or growth history; if daughter sizes are correlated or the rule varies with age, the exact solutions and stability theorem no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the sizer with linear growth $v=v_0+v_1s$, the steady-state distribution depends on the ratio $v_1/\alpha$ and the inheritance kernel $p(u)$, and the absolute growth rate drops out in the purely linear ($v_1=0$) and purely exponential ($v_0=0$) limits.
  • A pure timer with exponential growth ($v_0=0$) cannot maintain a stable positive cell size; under linear growth $v_0+v_1s$ a stable positive size requires $1<e^{v_1T}<2$ and $v_0>0$.
  • The adder model converges to a steady-state distribution that is insensitive to the growth rate, and with a truncated beta inheritance kernel it fits the measured E. coli size distributions at different temperatures, with $\Delta s$ as the main temperature-dependent parameter.
  • Soft probabilistic division yields smoother steady-state distributions with tails beyond the hard threshold, while hard sizer and timer controls give strict cutoffs.
  • The exact characteristic formulas provide a direct iterative scheme to compute the time-dependent distribution from an arbitrary initial condition and the boundary history.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the characteristic construction carries over to mixed strategies (division rate a sum of delta peaks), the same formalism would give exact solutions for hybrid sizer–timer controls without new mathematics.
  • The steady-state formulas suggest a data-inversion protocol: from measured birth and division size distributions one could reconstruct the inheritance kernel $p(u)$ nonparametrically, giving a direct test of which control mechanism a population uses.
  • The stability criterion $2\alpha>B$ is checkable from lineage data if $\alpha$ is estimated from population growth and $B$ is bounded by the age variation of the growth rate; this would separate stable from unstable sizer regimes empirically.
  • The paper's own discussion notes that sibling correlations are ignored; incorporating them would replace the scalar birth boundary condition with a joint two-daughter kernel, which would likely alter both the exact formulas and the stability threshold.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a first-order PDE model for the joint cell size-age distribution under three size-control strategies: sizer, timer, and adder, encoded through distinct boundary conditions. The authors derive characteristic-based exact solution representations for each mechanism (Theorems 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6), state a sufficient condition for asymptotic stability of the sizer steady state (Theorem 3.2), rederive the Collins-Richmond formula, and support the analytical results with individual-cell-based stochastic simulations and a fit to E. coli size distributions. The central mathematical claims are the exact time-dependent solutions, the closed-form marginal steady-state distributions for linear and logistic growth under sizer control, and the stability theorem for the sizer mechanism.

Significance. If the derivations are correct after fixing the issues below, the paper would be a useful contribution to the quantitative cell-size-control literature: it unifies the three classical mechanisms in one PDE framework, provides explicit characteristic representations and, for the sizer, closed-form marginals with verified normalization, and it transparently rederives a classical experimental formula. The stochastic simulations corroborating the analytic formulas and the application to E. coli data are also valuable. The main strengths are the self-contained derivations, the explicit parameter dependence of the steady-state distributions, and the fact that the analytic predictions are directly testable by simulation. However, the stability theorem and some theorem statements currently overstate what is proven, and these points must be corrected before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2.4, Theorem 3.4] The stability theorem's hypotheses are never verified for any concrete parameter set, and for the exponential growth v(s)=2s used in Section 3.2.3 and Figure 2, the quantity A defined as the maximum first-passage time to s=1 is infinite (s(a;0)=0 for all a, and the hitting time for sb>0 diverges as sb→0). Consequently, the bounds involving sqrt(A) in Eqs. (83)-(84) are not meaningful and Delta is not a well-defined finite expression. For the linear case v(s)=v0+v1s with v0>0, A is finite, but the paper does not evaluate the conditions 2α>B and Delta<0 for any parameter set; with the Beta(96,96) kernel used throughout and e.g. v0=1, v1=0.1, one has 4AP>1, so 1-4AP<0 and Delta>0, making the theorem inapplicable. The Discussion's statement that stability is "rigorously established under biologically realistic assumptions" (Section 4, paragraph 2) is therefore unsupported. The authors should either prove the conditions for a concrete biologically realistic parameter set or substantially soften the stability claim and state it only as a sufficient condition of unverified applicability.
  2. [Section 3.2.4, Theorem 3.4] The Discussion (Section 4, paragraph 3) claims that for the sizer, "the size distribution at steady state is largely determined by p(s), and is independent of the detailed form of the cell growth rate v(s,a)." This is contradicted by the paper's own Theorem 3.3 and Figure 3d: for v(s)=v0+v1s with both parameters nonzero, the steady-state distribution (100) depends on v(s) explicitly through v(s) and through α, and Figure 3d shows different distributions for different (v0,v1). Independence holds only in the special cases v1=0 (Eq. 107) and v0=0 (Eq. 109). The Discussion should be rephrased to state the precise parameter regimes in which the distribution is growth-rate-independent.
  3. [Section 2.2, Eq. (22); Section 4, last paragraph] The boundary condition assumes that each mother produces two statistically independent daughters with a size distribution p(s,s') that does not depend on the mother's age or growth history. This assumption is load-bearing: the exact solution representations (Theorems 3.1, 3.5, 3.6) and the stability theorem (Theorem 3.2) all rely on the factorization of the birth kernel. The manuscript acknowledges this limitation in the Discussion, but it should be stated more prominently in Section 2 and the E. coli fit should not be interpreted as validating the independence assumption, since the fit only adjusts p(s,s') and Δs. This is a caveat, not a rejection, but it materially affects the biological interpretation of the derived distributions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3.3, Eq. (136)] The soft-control timer division probability is written as ϕ(a)=1/(sqrt(2π)σ) e^{-(s-T)^2/(2σ²)}; the exponent should be (a-T)^2, consistent with the argument ϕ(a) and with Eq. (137).
  2. [Figure 3 captions] In Figure 3(b), the solid line for constant growth v(s)=v0 should reference Eq. (107), not Eq. (109); in Figure 3(d), the theory line should reference Eq. (100), not Eq. (109).
  3. [Section 3.4.2, Table 1] The text says "we adjusted the parameters c0, c1, and Δs" and "listed in (1)"; it should say "r, ā, b̄, and Δs" and "listed in Table 1."
  4. [Throughout] Numerous typos need a careful proofreading pass: "esquation" in Section 2.1, "satifies" in Lemma 3.1, "asymtotically" in Theorem 3.2, "sort control" in Figures 5 and 7 captions, "ell size" in Section 3.3.2, "Chepman-Kolmogorov" in the Introduction, and reference errors such as "J Asut Math Soc."

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exact solutions and steady-state distributions follow from the stated PDEs via the method of characteristics, and the E. coli comparison is explicitly labeled as a fit rather than an independent prediction.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained mathematical consequences of the model equations. The sizer, timer, and adder PDEs are stated with their boundary conditions, and Theorems 3.1, 3.3–3.6 provide characteristic-based solution formulas that follow algebraically from those equations; no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The population growth rate α is determined by an implicit self-consistency equation such as Eq. (99), which is a genuine solvability condition rather than a prescribed input. The stochastic simulations reproduce the analytic curves because both use the same daughter-size kernel p(s), but this is a consistency check, not a circular validation: the theory and the simulation start from the same model ingredients. For the E. coli data (Section 3.4.2), the authors state that they 'adjusted' the parameters and the figure caption says 'Fitting the experimental cell size distributions,' so the fit is presented as a fit, not as an independent prediction. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The only notable gap is a rigor concern: the stability conditions of Theorem 3.2 are not instantiated for the paper's examples, and for v(s)=2s the quantity A is infinite, so the theorem does not apply there. That is a verification/applicability gap, not a circular reduction, and therefore it does not affect the circularity score.

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

The central derivations assume deterministic growth and hard division thresholds. The only fitted numbers in the paper are the four parameters in the E. coli application; they do not feed back into the exact-solution theorems, so the core derivation is parameter-free. The axioms above are the modeling assumptions that carry the load.

free parameters (4)
  • r = 0.25 at 25°C, 0.35 at 27°C, 0.35 at 37°C
    Lower bound on daughter/mother size ratio in the E. coli fit (Table 1). Fitted to the experimental distributions.
  • Delta_s = 2.7 at 25°C, 2.1 at 27°C, 2.6 at 37°C
    Added size increment in the adder model fit to E. coli data (Table 1). Fitted to the experimental distributions.
  • Beta shape parameters (a_bar, b_bar) = a_bar=3 for all; b_bar=12 at 25°C, 25 at 27°C, 25 at 37°C
    Shape parameters of the division kernel p(u) used in the E. coli fit (Table 1). Fitted to the experimental distributions.
  • Beta parameters in illustrative simulations = a_bar=b_bar=96
    Chosen by hand for the illustrative simulations in Figs. 3-7; not fitted to data but selected for a narrow daughter size distribution.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Each size control mechanism is represented by a Dirac delta division rate: phi(s,a)=delta(s-sd) for sizer, phi=delta(a-T) for timer, and division exactly when added size ς=Δs for adder.
    This hard-control assumption makes the PDE solvable by characteristics. Real cells divide stochastically; the paper only treats soft control numerically.
  • domain assumption Daughter cell size distribution p(s,s') is fixed, independent of mother age a, and daughter cells are statistically independent.
    Used in all birth boundary conditions (Eqs. 22, 30, 41). The paper lists sibling correlation as future work, so this assumption is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption No cell death or removal (mu=0) and a well-defined differentiable population size N(t).
    Needed for the derivation of α(t) in Eq. (15) and for the normalization condition. The model ignores cell death throughout.
  • standard math Standard method of characteristics and existence of smooth first integrals u and w.
    The proof of Theorem 3.1 and analogous theorems relies on the implicit function theorem and characteristic curves.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative analysis of cell size control mechanisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCOBD55S

@misc{pith2026250519416,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative analysis of cell size control mechanisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCOBD55S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19416}
}
read the original abstract

Cell size control is crucial for maintaining cellular function and homeostasis. In this study, we develop a first-order partial differential equation model to examine the effects of three key size control mechanisms: the sizer, timer, and adder. Each mechanism is incorporated into the model through distinct boundary conditions. Exact solutions for these mechanisms are derived using the method of characteristics, allowing us to explore how the steady-state size distribution depends on control parameters. Additionally, individual-cell-based stochastic simulations are performed to validate our theoretical findings and investigate the size distribution under various conditions. This study provides new insights into the quantitative dynamics of cell size regulation, highlighting the underlying mechanisms and laying the groundwork for future theoretical and experimental work on size homeostasis in biological systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19416 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Steady-state cell size distribution. (a) Initial condition g(s, a) defined by (103). (b) Initial condition g(s, a) defined by (104). (c) The steady￾state solutions obtained from (95) under different initial conditions (marked by distinct markers). In the simulations, v0 = 0, v1 = 2, and p(s) is taken as beta￾distribution (102) with ¯a = ¯b = 96. To examine how changes in v0 and v1 affect the steady-state distributio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Numerical simulation of linear growth rates. (a) The relation￾shi between v1 α and v0 α . (b) Cell size distribution. The solid line represents the theoretical density function (109). The dots are obtained from cell-based stochastic simulation with growth rate v(s) = v0 and v0 = 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5. (c) Cell size distribution. The solid line represents the theoretical density func￾tion (109). The dots are obtained fro… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Size distribution with logistic cell growth rate (110). (a) Parameters v0 = 2 and v1 = 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2. (b) Parameters v1 = 0.5 and v0 = 5, 10, 15, 20. (c) Parameters (v0, v1) = (2000, 0.1),(20, 0.5),(200, 1),(2, 10). probability follows a normal distribution with a mea…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Size distribution. (a) Steady-state cell distributions under hard sizer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cell lineage data and size distribution. (a) Evolution of cell size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Size distribution. (a) Cell size distributions under hard timer and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Stochastic simulation of the adder mechanism. The cell growth rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fitting the experimental cell size distributions. Points represent exper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. A. Amodeo and J. M. Skotheim , Cell-size control. , Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol, 8 (2016), p. a019083, https://doi.org/10.1101/ 44 cshperspect.a019083

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Barber, A

    F. Barber, A. Amir, and A. W. Murray , Cell-size regulation in bud- ding yeast does not depend on linear accumulation of Whi5, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 117 (2020), pp. 14243–14250, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 2001255117

    doi:10.1073/pnas 2020

  3. [3]

    G. I. Bell, Cell growth and division. 3. Conditions for balanced exponential growth in a mathematical model , Biophys J, 8 (1968), pp. 431–444, https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(68)86498-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(68)86498-7 1968

  4. [4]

    G. I. Bell and E. C. Anderson , Cell growth and division , Biophys J, 7 (1967), pp. 329–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(67) 86592-5

    work page doi:10.1016/s0006-3495(67 1967

  5. [5]

    Bernard and P

    T. Bernard and P. Gabriel , Asynchronous exponential growth of the growth-fragmentation equation with unbounded fragmentation rate , J Evol Equ, 20 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1007/s00028-019-00526-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00028-019-00526-4 2020

  6. [6]

    Cadart, S

    C. Cadart, S. Monnier, J. Grilli, P. J. S ´aez, N. Srivastava, R. Attia, E. Terriac, B. Baum, M. Cosentino-Lagomarsino, and M. Piel , Size control in mammalian cells involves modulation of both growth rate and cell cycle duration. , Nat Commun, 9 (2018), p. 3275, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05393-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05393-0 2018

  7. [7]

    Campos, I

    M. Campos, I. V. Surovtsev, S. Kato, A. Paintdakhi, B. Bel- tran, S. E. Ebmeier, and C. Jacobs-W agner, A constant size exten- sion drives bacterial cell size homeostasis , Cell, 159 (2014), pp. 1433–1446, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.022 2014

  8. [8]

    Chadha, A

    Y. Chadha, A. Khurana, and K. M. Schmoller , Eukaryotic cell size regulation and its implications for cellular function and dysfunction. , Phys- iol Rev, 104 (2024), pp. 1679–1717, https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev. 00046.2023

    work page arXiv 2024

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Chandler-Brown, K

    D. Chandler-Brown, K. M. Schmoller, Y. Winetraub, and J. M. Skotheim, The adder phenomenon emerges from independent control of pre-and post-start phases of the budding yeast cell cycle , Curr Biol, 27 (2017), pp. 2774–2783, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.08.015

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    J. F. Collins and M. H. Richmond , Rate of growth of bacillus cereus between divisions, J Gen Microbiol, 28 (1962), p. 15, https://doi.org/ 10.1099/00221287-28-1-15

    1962 doi

  3. [11]

    Diekmann, H

    O. Diekmann, H. J. A. M. Heijmans, and H. R. Thieme , On the stability of the cell size distribution , J Math Biology, 19 (1984), pp. 227– 248, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00277748. 45

    1984 doi

  4. [12]

    DONACHIE and D. W. , Relationship between Cell Size and Time of Initiation of DNA Replication , Nature, 219 (1968), pp. 1077–1079, https: //doi.org/10.1038/2191077a0

    1968 doi

  5. [13]

    Donnan and P

    L. Donnan and P. C. John , Cell cycle control by timer and sizer in Chlamydomonas, Nature, 304 (1983), pp. 630–633, https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1038/304630a0

    1983 doi

  6. [14]

    F acchetti, F

    G. F acchetti, F. Chang, and M. Howard, Controlling cell size through sizer mechanisms., Curr Opin Syst Biol, 5 (2017), pp. 86–92,https://doi. org/10.1016/j.coisb.2017.08.010

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    Gabriel and H

    P. Gabriel and H. Martin, Steady distribution of the incremental model for bacteria proliferation, Netw Heterog Media, (2019), https://doi.org/ 10.3934/NHM.2019008

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    M. B. Ginzberg, R. Kafri, and M. Kirschner , On being the right (cell) size. , Science, 348 (2015), p. 1245075, https://doi.org/https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.1245075

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    Gong and M

    A. Gong and M. Min , Measuring the size and growth of single cells , Biophys Rep, 8 (2022), pp. 150–157, https://doi.org/10.52601/bpr. 2022.210036

    2022

  10. [18]

    A. J. Hall and G. W ake , A functional differential equation arising in modelling of cell growth , J Asut Math Soc, 30 (1989), pp. 424–435, https: //doi.org/10.1017/s0334270000006366

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    Iyer-Biswas, C

    S. Iyer-Biswas, C. S. Wright, J. T. Henry, K. Lo, S. Burov, Y. Lin, G. E. Crooks, S. Crosson, A. R. Dinner, and N. F. Scherer, Scaling laws governing stochastic growth and division of sin- gle bacterial cells , Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 111 (2014), pp. 15912–15917, https://doi.o...

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    330–335, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1934592

    James, W., Sinko, William, and Streifer , A model for population reproducing by fission, Ecology, 52 (1971), pp. 330–335, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1934592

    1971 doi

  13. [21]

    C. Jia, A. Singh, and R. Grima , Cell size distribution of lineage data: analytic results and parameter inference , iScience, 24 (2021), p. 102220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2021.102220

    2021

  14. [22]

    C. Jia, A. Singh, and R. Grima, Characterizing non-exponential growth and bimodal cell size distributions in fission yeast: An analytical approach , PLoS Comput Biol, 18 (2022), p. e1009793, https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pcbi.1009793. 46

    2022

  15. [23]

    Jones, L

    I. Jones, L. Dent, T. Higo, T. Roumeliotis, M. Arias Garcia, H. Shree, J. Choudhary, M. Pedersen, and C. Bakal , Char- acterization of proteome-size scaling by integrative omics reveals mecha- nisms of proliferation control in cancer , Sci Adv, 9 (2023), p. eadd0636, https://d...

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Jun and S

    S. Jun and S. Taheri-Araghi , Cell-size maintenance: universal strat- egy revealed, Trends Microbiol, 23 (2015), pp. 4–6, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tim.2014.12.001

    2015

  17. [25]

    Koch and M

    A. Koch and M. Schaechter , A model for statistics of the cell divi- sion process, J Gen Microbiol, 29 (1962), pp. 435–454, https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-29-3-435

    1962 doi

  18. [26]

    C. H. Kwon, X. Zhu, J. Zhang, L. L. Knoop, R. Tharp, R. J. Smeyne, C. G. Eberhart, P. C. Burger, and S. J. Baker , Pten regulates neuronal soma size: a mouse model of Lhermitte-Duclos disease. , Nat Genet, 29 (2001), pp. 404–411, https://doi.org/10.1038/ng781

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    Laplante and D

    M. Laplante and D. Sabatini , mTOR signaling in growth control and disease , Cell, 149 (2012), pp. 274–293, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cell.2012.03.017

    2012

  20. [28]

    M. V. G. Latronico, S. Costinean, M. L. Lavitrano, C. Peschle, and G. Condorelli , Regulation of cell size and contractile function by AKT in cardiomyocytes. , Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1015 (2004), pp. 250–260, https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1302.021

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    A. C. Lloyd, The regulation of cell size. , Cell, 154 (2013), pp. 1194–1205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.053

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    Locasale, Jason and C

    W. Locasale, Jason and C. Cantley, Lewis , Metabolic flux and the regulation of mammalian cell growth. , Cell Metab, 14 (2011), pp. 443–451, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2011.07.014

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    M. L. Meizlish, R. A. Franklin, X. Zhou, and R. Medzhi- tov, Tissue Homeostasis and Inflammation , Annu Rev Im- munol, 39 (2021), pp. 557–581, https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-immunol-061020-053734

    2021

  24. [32]

    Miotto, S

    M. Miotto, S. Scalise, M. Leonetti, G. Ruocco, G. Peruzzi, and G. Gosti , A size-dependent division strategy accounts for leukemia cell size heterogeneity. , Commun Phys, 7 (2024), p. 248, https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s42005-024-01743-1

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    M’kendrick, Applications of Mathematics to Medical Problems , P Ed- inburgh Math Soc, 44 (1925), pp

    A. M’kendrick, Applications of Mathematics to Medical Problems , P Ed- inburgh Math Soc, 44 (1925), pp. 98–130, https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0013091500034428. 47

    1925

  26. [34]

    S. Modi, C. A. V argas-Garcia, K. R. Ghusinga, and A. Singh , Analysis of noise mechanisms in cell-size control. , Biophys J, 112 (2017), pp. 2408–2418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2017.04.050

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    R. D. Monds, T. K. Lee, A. Colavin, T. Ursell, S. Quan, T. F. Cooper, and K. C. Huang, Systematic perturbation of cytoskeletal func- tion reveals a linear scaling relationship between cell geometry and fitness. , Cell Rep, 9 (2014), pp. 1528–1537, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cel...

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    Nieto, C

    C. Nieto, C. V argas-Garcia, and J. M. Pedraza , Continuous rate modeling of bacterial stochastic size dynamics , Phys Rev E, 104 (2021), p. 044415, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.104.044415

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    P. E. O. , A Note on Koch and Schaechter’s Hypothesis about Growth and Fission of Bacteria, J Gen Microbiol, 37 (1964), p. 231, https://doi.org/ 10.1099/00221287-37-2-231

    1964 doi

  30. [39]

    Palumbo, M

    P. Palumbo, M. V anoni, V. Cusimano, S. Busti, F. Marano, C. Manes, and L. Alberghina , Whi5 phosphorylation embedded in the G1/S network dynamically controls critical cell size and cell fate , Nat Com- mun, 7 (2016), p. 11372, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11372

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    Philipp, Analysis of cell size homeostasis at the single-cell and popula- tion level , Front Phys, 6 (2018), p

    T. Philipp, Analysis of cell size homeostasis at the single-cell and popula- tion level , Front Phys, 6 (2018), p. 64, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy. 2018.00064

    2018

  32. [41]

    Proulx-Giraldeau, J

    F. Proulx-Giraldeau, J. M. Skotheim, and P. Franc ¸ois, Evolution of cell size control is canalized towards adders or sizers by cell cycle struc- ture and selective pressures., eLife, 11 (2022), https://doi.org/10.7554/ eLife.79919

    2022

  33. [42]

    Rhind , Cell-size control

    N. Rhind , Cell-size control. , Curr Biol, 31 (2021), pp. R1414–R1420, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.09.017

    2021 doi

  34. [43]

    Schaechter, O

    M. Schaechter, O. Maaloe, and N. O. Kjeldgaard , Dependency on medium and temperature of cell size and chemical composition during balanced growth of Salmonella typhimurium , J Gen Microbiol, 19 (1958), pp. 592–606, https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-19-3-592

    1958 doi

  35. [44]

    Serbanescu, N

    D. Serbanescu, N. Ojkic, and S. Banerjee, Nutrient-dependent trade- offs between ribosomes and division protein synthesis control bacterial cell size and growth , Cell Rep, 32 (2020), p. 108183, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.celrep.2020.108183. 48

    2020

  36. [45]

    Soifer, L

    I. Soifer, L. Robert, and A. Amir , Single-Cell Analysis of Growth in Budding Yeast and Bacteria Reveals a Common Size Regulation Strat- egy, Curr Biol, 26 (2016), pp. 356–361,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub. 2015.11.067

    2016 doi

  37. [46]

    Taheri-Araghi, S

    S. Taheri-Araghi, S. Bradde, J. T. Sauls, N. S. Hill, P. A. Levin, J. Paulsson, M. Vergassola, and S. Jun , Cell-size con- trol and homeostasis in bacteria. , Curr Biol, 25 (2015), pp. 385–391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.009

    2015 doi

  38. [47]

    S. D. Talia, J. M. Skotheim, J. M. Bean, E. D. Siggia, and F. R. Cross, The effects of molecular noise and size control on variability in the budding yeast cell cycle , Nature, 448 (2007), pp. 947–951, https://doi. org/10.1038/nature06072

    2007 doi

  39. [48]

    Tanouchi, A

    Y. Tanouchi, A. Pai, H. Park, S. Huang, R. Stamatov, N. E. Buchler, and L. You , A noisy linear map underlies oscillations in cell size and gene expression in bacteria , Nature, 523 (2015), pp. 357–360, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14562

    2015 doi

  40. [49]

    Tchouanti , Well posedness and stochastic derivation of a diffusion- growth-fragmentation equation in a chemostat , Stoch Partial Differ, 12 (2024), pp

    J. Tchouanti , Well posedness and stochastic derivation of a diffusion- growth-fragmentation equation in a chemostat , Stoch Partial Differ, 12 (2024), pp. 466–524, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40072-023-00288-8

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    Teimouri, R

    H. Teimouri, R. Mukherjee, and A. B. Kolomeisky , Stochas- tic mechanisms of cell-size regulation in bacteria. , J Phys Chem Lett, 11 (2020), pp. 8777–8782, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpclett. 0c02627

    2020 doi

  42. [51]

    J. J. Turner, J. C. Ewald, and J. M. Skotheim , Cell size control in yeast., Curr Biol, 22 (2012), pp. R350–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cub.2012.02.041

    2012 doi

  43. [52]

    A. Tzur, R. Kafri, V. S. Lebleu, G. Lahav, and M. W. Kirschner, Cell growth and size homeostasis in proliferating animal cells. , Science, 325 (2009), pp. 167–171, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1174294

    2009 doi

  44. [53]

    van Brunt, A

    B. van Brunt, A. Almalki, T. Lynch, and A. Zaidi, On a cell division equation with a linear growth rate , ANZIAM J, 59 (2018), pp. 293–312, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1446181117000591

    2018 doi

  45. [54]

    C. A. V argas-Garcia, K. R. Ghusinga, and A. Singh, Cell size con- trol and gene expression homeostasis in single-cells , Curr Opin in Syst Biol, 8 (2018), pp. 109–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coisb.2018. 01.002

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    W ake, S

    G. W ake, S. Cooper, H. Kim, and B. V an-Brunt, Functional differ- ential equations for cell-growth models with dispersion , Communications in Applied Analysis, 4 (2000), pp. 561–574. 49

    2000

  47. [56]

    C. S. Westfall and P. A. Levin , Bacterial cell size: Multifactorial and multifaceted , Annu Rev Microbiol, 71 (2017), pp. 499–517, https: //doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-090816-093803

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    Willis and K

    L. Willis and K. C. Huang , Sizing up the bacterial cell cycle , Nat Rev Microbiol, 15 (2017), pp. 606–620, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro. 2017.79

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    Wood and P

    E. Wood and P. Nurse , Pom1 and cell size homeostasis in fission yeast, Cell Cycle, 12 (2013), pp. 3417–3425, https://doi.org/10.4161/ cc.26462

    2013

  50. [59]

    M. Xia, C. D. Greenman, and T. Chou , PDE models of adder mach- anisms in cellular proliferation , SIAM J Appl Math, 80 (2020), pp. 1307– 1335, https://doi.org/10.1137/19M1246754

    2020 doi

  51. [60]

    A. A. Zaidi, B. V an Brunt, and G. C. W ake, A model for asymmetrical cell division, Math Biosci Eng, 12 (2014), pp. 491–501, https://doi.org/ 10.3934/mbe.2015.12.491. 50

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.