Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Modelling bulk mechanical effects in a planar cellular monolayer

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A 3D vertex model of prismatic cells reduces to a 2D model in which cell height couples apical area and perimeter through volume and surface-area effects.

desk verdict A careful 3D-to-2D vertex-model reduction with genuinely new couplings; the uniform-height assumption makes the disordered-monolayer claims provisional, not the central derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23935 v2 pith:GUNCI5HN submitted 2025-05-29 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.softq-bio.TO

Natasha Cowley , Sarah Woolner , Oliver E. Jensen This is my paper
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.softq-bio.TO MSC 92C1092C37
keywords vertexmodelepithelialmonolayercellmechanicsrigiditytransitionheightbulkmechanicaleffectsprismaticcellsapical-basalsymmetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that a three-dimensional vertex model of a planar epithelial sheet, treating cells as prisms with a shared height, can be reduced to a two-dimensional model without discarding bulk mechanics. The reduction produces an effective apical pressure and cortical tension that depend on both apical area and apical perimeter through cell volume and total surface area, so height changes feed back into in-plane forces. The paper identifies five independent dimensionless parameters that can push the monolayer through a rigidity transition, and shows that the classical 2D vertex model is recovered only in a special limit where height is fixed and area-tension coupling is absent. This matters because it broadens the possible biological routes to tissue fluidisation or stiffening beyond the single perimeter-tension mechanism usually studied.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced 2D energy of a prismatic cell $U_h(A_h,L_h,H)$ (Eq. 8), whose derivatives give the composite apical pressure $P^{2D}_h$ and cortical tension $T^{2D}_h$ (Eqs. 14a,b). These are the effective in-plane forces conjugate to apical area and perimeter; because both contain the cell height $H$, and $H$ is determined by the global vertical balance $\partial U/\partial H=0$ (Eq. 14c), bulk volume and total-surface-area effects become in-plane couplings. In the classical 2D vertex model these conjugate quantities reduce to $A_h-1$ and $\Gamma_{2D}(L_h-L_0)$, making the new model a genuine extension rather than a rescaling.

What would settle it

Run a full 3D vertex simulation of the same energy without apical-basal symmetry, letting apical and basal vertices move independently, and compare the rigidity boundary: the reduction predicts that for identical hexagons eight Hessian modes vanish at $T^{2D}=0$ near $L_0\approx2.83$ at baseline parameters; if the boundary shifts, or if a relaxing monolayer reaches a height distribution violating the global balance (14c), the reduction is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for a confluent planar monolayer of prismatic cells, meaning cells with identical apical and basal vertex positions, the three-dimensional vertex energy can be reduced to a two-dimensional model in which the in-plane force balance is set by two composite quantities, the effective apical pressure $P^{2D}_h$ and cortical tension $T^{2D}_h$ of Eqs. (14a,b), each coupling apical area $A_h$, apical perimeter $L_h$, and cell height $H$. Height is not prescribed: it is the solution of the global vertical force balance (14c), which is what injects cell volume and total surface area into the in-plane mechanics. The classical 2D vertex model, in which pressure depends only on area and tension only on perimeter, is recovered only in the special case of fixed height and $\Gamma_a=0$. With height free, the paper maps out a five-dimensional parameter space, $a_0$, $\Gamma_a$, $\Gamma_A$, $\Gamma_L$, $L_0$, showing several distinct routes to loss of in-plane rigidity, and it shows that in disordered monolayers the transition is gradual, with isolated stiff islands corresponding to connected components of a tension-thresholded network.

Load-bearing premise

The reduction rests on apical-basal symmetry: every cell is a prism whose top and bottom faces are mirror images and whose height is uniform across the monolayer, fixed by a single global vertical force balance; if real cells have asymmetric adhesion or height differences between neighbours, the two-dimensional couplings (14a,b) do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If cells can regulate height, tissue rigidity can be lost or gained by changing adhesion strength ($\Gamma_A$), total-surface-area stiffness ($\Gamma_a$), preferred perimeter ($L_0$), cortical perimeter tension ($\Gamma_L$), or target surface area ($a_0$), not just apical perimeter tension.
  • The classical 2D vertex model should be treated as a limiting case: it holds only when cell height is fixed and the total-surface-area tension $\Gamma_a$ is zero, so simulations that omit bulk effects may misattribute rigidity changes to perimeter tension alone.
  • Lateral compression of a rigid monolayer is predicted to produce a strongly anisotropic response: apical area shrinks while height rises markedly under modest load, meaning bulk stress and in-plane stress are distinct readouts.
  • In growing disordered monolayers, crowding generates centre-directed in-plane compression that elongates cells towards the monolayer centre in the rigid regime.
  • Loss of rigidity in a disordered monolayer is gradual and spatially heterogeneous: isolated stiff patches, often four-sided cells, persist after most cells become floppy, and the count of these patches tracks connected components of a tension-thresholded vertex Laplacian.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because rigidity is governed by five parameters rather than one, experiments that perturb only cortical actomyosin may miss rigidity changes driven by volume or adhesion; a direct test would measure height and apical area simultaneously while varying adhesion strength.
  • Beyond the paper: the Laplacian-based fragmentation picture suggests the floppy transition in disordered monolayers could be inferred from static cell geometry alone, using a network of edges predicted to carry tension above a threshold, offering an image-based diagnostic from segmented monolayers.
  • Beyond the paper: the apical-basal symmetry assumption could be relaxed in a hierarchy, allowing basal vertices to lag apical vertices in scutoid-like shapes; the five-parameter phase diagram provides a baseline against which the resulting extra shear modes could be measured.
  • Beyond the paper: the predicted strong height increase under lateral compression is a testable signature; confining a monolayer in-plane while tracking apical area should show a nearly volume-preserving columnar transformation before the rigidity transition.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a three-dimensional vertex model for a planar monolayer of prismatic cells with apical-basal symmetry, in which cell height is a single global degree of freedom set by vertical force balance. The authors reduce the 3D energy to an effective 2D model with apical pressure P2D_h and cortical tension T2D_h (Eqs. 14a,b) that couple apical area, perimeter, and height through cell volume and total surface area. They identify five dimensionless parameters, map rigidity transitions for identical hexagonal prisms, derive cell-level and tissue-level stress decompositions, and use 500-cell disordered monolayer simulations to study the rigidity transition and to connect persistent stiff patches to zero modes of a pruned vertex Laplacian. The classical 2D vertex model is recovered only when height is prescribed and Γa=0 (Appendix C).

Significance. The paper is a serious and mostly transparent theory contribution. If the reduction is valid, it provides a systematic route from a 3D energy to a 2D vertex model that retains bulk effects such as cell volume, total surface area, and lateral adhesion, and it identifies several distinct mechanisms for loss of in-plane rigidity beyond the standard apical-perimeter mechanism. The algebraic core is explicit and checkable: the volume/area identities (4), the reduction (5), the height balance (14c), the hexagon equilibrium condition (16a), the traceless bulk deviatoric stress (23), and the eigenvalue decomposition (25) are all derived in sufficient detail. The asymptotic limits in Appendix E and the parameter maps in Figs. 6 and 14 are useful reference results, and the paper is candid about its main modelling assumptions, including apical-basal symmetry and the threshold dependence of the network-pruning analysis. The use of a public simulation package (VertexModel.jl) and the reproducible parameter sweeps are additional strengths.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III C / Appendix D / Eqs. (14), (20a)] The disordered-monolayer simulations and the Hessian analysis impose a single global height H* from Eq. (14c) on every cell, while the local vertical imbalance ∂U_h/∂H is nonzero for disordered cells and is kept only in the stress expression (20a), not in the in-plane relaxation or in the rigidity analysis. Appendix D shows that allowing height differences between neighbours with a finite penalty Λ generates long-range height perturbations H(1) of order 0.02 (Fig. 8), but these perturbations are not fed back into P2D_h and T2D_h. Because P2D_h and T2D_h depend on H through terms such as H(A_hH−1) and Γa(2A_h + L_hH −1)H, even small local height deviations can shift the effective pressure and tension per cell, and therefore the value of L0 at which floppy modes appear, the width of the transition in Fig. 9(a), and the persistence of the four-sided-cell stiff islands. I would ask the authors either to relax local height in the disordered simulations (for example using the Λ-penalized model of Appendix D) or to provide a quantitative sensitivity estimate showing that the uniform-H approximation does not change the qualitative conclusions in the transition region.
  2. [Sec. III C / Eqs. (F4)-(F5) / Fig. 9(c,d)] The identification of persistent stiff patches with connected components of the pruned Laplacian Lε depends on an arbitrary tension threshold ε, and no quantitative comparison is made between the spectrum of Lε and the low-lying part of the full Hessian spectrum. The authors acknowledge the ε-dependence of the peak location, but the claim that the growing number of near-zero Hessian modes can be interpreted primarily as modes of individual vertices that become isolated would be much stronger if the same analysis were repeated for a range of ε (say one or two orders of magnitude) and if Nε_cc(L0) were compared directly with the number of near-zero Hessian eigenvalues. As it stands, the connection is suggestive rather than demonstrated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page / affiliations] There is a typo in the second affiliation: 'Unviersity of Manchester' should be 'University of Manchester'.
  2. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption contains 'evaluted', which should be 'evaluated'.
  3. [Appendix G, text after Eq. (G1)] In the sentence 'across which the vertical force is distrubuted', 'distrubuted' should be 'distributed'.
  4. [Appendix D, Eq. (D3)] The notation 'n LH(1) o_h' in Eq. (D3) is awkward; please write (L H(1))_h.
  5. [Fig. 9(b) and surrounding text] The phrase 'the largest Nc modes of the Hessian's spectrum are dilational [35]' is unclear; it should specify whether 'largest' refers to eigenvalues or to mode index, and how this statement is read from the plotted spectrum.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reduced 2D model is derived directly from the stated 3D energy by differentiating and imposing global vertical force balance; no parameter is fitted to data and the cited prior work provides independent machinery.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: Eq. (8) is an explicit constitutive ansatz (volume, total area, apical/basal perimeter and lateral adhesion terms), and Eqs. (14a,b) are obtained by direct differentiation ∂U_h/∂A_h and ∂U_h/∂L_h together with the global vertical balance ∂U/∂H=0 (Eq. 14c). The baseline parameter values (Γa=ΓL=0.1, ΓA=-0.5, L0=2, a0=1) are illustrative, not fitted, so no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The recovery of the classical 2D vertex model in Appendix C is a limiting check (H=1, Γa=0, with Γ2D=2ΓL and L2D_0=L0-ΓA/(4ΓL)) rather than an input of the derivation. The rigidity criterion T2D=0 is earned from the Hessian analysis in Appendix F and the stiffness calculation in Appendix H (the in-plane shear stiffness contains the geometric term L U_L), not imposed by hand. Self-citations to [35], [36], [38], [39], [43] and [44] supply previously published spectral, stress and numerical machinery that is independently available and code-based; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled through these citations, and no self-citation is the sole support for a load-bearing claim. The uniform-height treatment of disordered monolayers is a stated simplification, explicitly flagged in the Discussion ('Our findings rest on an assumption of apical-basal symmetry...') and in Appendix D, where height perturbations H^(1) are computed but not fed back into the in-plane relaxation; this is a modeling caveat affecting correctness and scope, not a circular reduction, because it does not use the predicted 2D couplings as an input. Overall, the paper's derivation chain is forward and self-contained, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citation, giving a circularity score of 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central results rest on five constitutive parameters (Γa, ΓL, ΓA, L0, a0) chosen illustratively at baseline values, plus the ad hoc threshold ε used to define the pruned tension network. The structural axioms are: apical-basal symmetry, a uniform monolayer height set by a global vertical balance, the specific energy ansatz (6), standard discrete-mesh geometry, the standard zero-mode count of graph Laplacians, and the identification of rigidity loss with T2D = 0 (confirmed for hexagons by the Hessian). No new physical entities are introduced; P2D and T2D are derived quantities, not postulated ones.

free parameters (6)
  • Γa = 0.1 (baseline)
    Relative strength of the total-surface-area term in the energy (6); varied across parameter sweeps. Chosen illustratively, not fitted to data.
  • ΓL = 0.1 (baseline)
    Cortical line tension coefficient for apical and basal perimeters in (6). Chosen illustratively.
  • ΓA = -0.5 (baseline)
    Adhesion coefficient on lateral faces in (6); negative values promote adhesion. Chosen illustratively.
  • L0 = 2 (baseline)
    Target apical perimeter scaled by V0^(1/3). Controls the classical rigidity transition; chosen illustratively.
  • a0 = 1 (baseline)
    Target total surface area scaled by V0^(2/3). Chosen illustratively.
  • ε = 0.0005
    Ad hoc tension threshold defining the pruned network L_ε in (F5); the paper states that the precise value of L0 at which N_ε_cc peaks depends on ε.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Apical-basal symmetry (r+_k = r-_k), reducing the 3D prismatic model to 2D
    Invoked after Eq. (3). The Discussion says findings 'are likely to be of less relevance to epithelia that adhere strongly to a basement membrane'.
  • domain assumption Uniform monolayer height H set by the global vertical force balance ∂U/∂H = 0, justified by a large height-variation penalty Λ in Eq. (D1)
    Gives (12) and (14c). Individual cells in a disordered monolayer are not in vertical equilibrium, so the reduced model relies on this global condition.
  • domain assumption Constitutive energy (6): quadratic in volume and total area, quadratic in apical and basal perimeters, linear in lateral contact area weighted by |C^l_hi|
    The form of U determines P2D and T2D in (14a,b) and hence the rigidity criteria; it follows conventions in refs [5,6,11] but is a modeling choice.
  • standard math Prismatic mesh geometry with signed incidence matrices satisfying CB = 0 and BA = 0
    Appendix A-B; standard polyhedral mesh algebra used to write V_h = H A_h and a_h = 2A_h + H L_h.
  • standard math Graph Laplacian zero-mode count: N_v0 isolated vertices plus N_cc connected components give N_v0 + N_cc zero eigenvalues
    Used in Sec. III C to interpret stiffness islands as spectral data of L_ε.
  • domain assumption T2D = 0 marks the in-plane rigidity transition, with all 8 symmetry-breaking Hessian modes of a hexagon becoming unstable together
    Confirmed numerically in Fig. 12 for hexagonal cells; for disordered monolayers the transition is gradual and is read off from eigenvalue collapse rather than a sharp criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling bulk mechanical effects in a planar cellular monolayer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GUNCI5HN

@misc{pith2026250523935,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling bulk mechanical effects in a planar cellular monolayer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GUNCI5HN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23935}
}
read the original abstract

We use a three-dimensional formulation of the cell vertex model to describe the mechanical properties of a confluent planar monolayer of prismatic cells. Treating cell height as a degree of freedom, we reduce the model to a two-dimensional form. We show how bulk effects, associated with cell volume and total surface area, lead to coupling between energy variations arising from changes in cell apical area and apical perimeter, a feature missing from standard implementations of the two-dimensional vertex model. The model identifies five independent mechanisms by which cells can lose in-plane rigidity, relating to variations in total cell surface area, the strength of lateral adhesion, and constrictive forces at the apical cortex. The model distinguishes bulk from in-plane stresses, and identifies two primary measures of cell shear stress. In the rigid regime, the model shows how lateral crowding in a disordered isolated monolayer can lead to cell elongation towards the monolayer centre. We examine loss of in-plane rigidity in a disordered monolayer and connect isolated patches of stiffness that persist during the rigidity transition to the spectrum of a Laplacian matrix. This approach enables bulk mechanical effects in an epithelium to be captured within a two-dimensional framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23935 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic illustrating the four contributions to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows how the cell shape, pressures and ten￾sions change with L0, with other parameters held at their baseline values. In the rigid regime, increasing L0 leads, intuitively, to an increase in apical area and perimeter and a decrease in height (Fig. 2a), making cells more squamous. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Impact of variation of Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Impact of varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) offers an example where rigid solutions are lost either because the apical area vanishes (by decreas￾ing L0 from the baseline value, for fixed −ΓA), or be￾cause of the termination of a steady solution branch at a saddle-node bifurcation (by simultaneous reduction o…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Hexagonal cells in the baseline configuration (black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Distributions of cell height perturbations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Simulations of a monolayer with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) The ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Eigenmodes (a) and eigenvalues of the Hessian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (22b) Thus only 2/3 of P eff,2D h /H contributes to P eff h

    Taking the trace of (20a), it follows that the 3D isotropic stress is P eff h = 1 3Vh 2P 2D h Ah + T 2D h Lh + ∂Uh ∂H H (22a) = 2 3H P eff,2D + 1 3Ah ∂Uh ∂H . (22b) Thus only 2/3 of P eff,2D h /H contributes to P eff h . The bulk deviatoric stress is Vhσd h = 1 3 P 2D h Ah − T 2D h Lh − ∂Uh ∂H H I⊥ +T 2D h LhQ⊥h+ 1 3 2 ∂Uh ∂H H − 2P 2D h Ah − T 2D h Lh ˆz...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Then, in the limit ΓA → −∞, H ≈ 2Γ2 a − ΓL 2Γa(Γa − ΓLL0) ΓA, L ≈ Γa − ΓLL0 2Γ2a − ΓL , (E7a) A ≈ 2ΓaΓL(2ΓaL0 − 1)(Γa − ΓLL0) ΓA (2Γ2a − ΓL)2

    + 1 2 ΓA)L, and is then combined with (14b) to become 0 = HA(AH − 1) +L(T 2D − 2ΓL(L − L0)). Then, in the limit ΓA → −∞, H ≈ 2Γ2 a − ΓL 2Γa(Γa − ΓLL0) ΓA, L ≈ Γa − ΓLL0 2Γ2a − ΓL , (E7a) A ≈ 2ΓaΓL(2ΓaL0 − 1)(Γa − ΓLL0) ΓA (2Γ2a − ΓL)2 . (E7b) This represents the dominant balance 0 ≈ H(AH − 1) + 2ΓaLH in (14a), 0 ≈ ΓaLH 2 + 1 2 ΓAH in (14b) and AH(AH − 1) ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Farhadifar, J.-C

    R. Farhadifar, J.-C. R¨ oper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. J¨ ulicher, The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell in- teractions, and proliferation on epithelial packing, Curr. Biol. 17, 2095 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    G´ omez-G´ alvez, P

    P. G´ omez-G´ alvez, P. Vicente-Munuera, S. Anbari, J. Buceta, and L. M. Escudero, The complex three- dimensional organization of epithelial tissues, Develop- ment 148, dev195669 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    T. Sego, T. Comlekoglu, S. M. Peirce, D. W. Desimone, and J. A. Glazier, General, open-source vertex modeling in biological applications using tissue forge, Sci. Rep. 13, 17886 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Runser, R

    S. Runser, R. Vetter, and D. Iber, SimuCell3D: 3D simu- lation of tissue mechanics with cell polarization, BioRxiv , 2023 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Honda, M

    H. Honda, M. Tanemura, and T. Nagai, A three- dimensional vertex dynamics cell model of space-filling polyhedra simulating cell behavior in a cell aggregate, J. Theor. Biol. 226, 439 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Okuda, Y

    S. Okuda, Y. Inoue, M. Eiraku, Y. Sasai, and T. Adachi, Reversible network reconnection model for simulating large deformation in dynamic tissue morphogenesis, Biomech. Modeling Mechanobiol. 12, 627 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    O. M. Drozdowski and U. S. Schwarz, Morphological instability at topological defects in a three-dimensional vertex model for spherical epithelia, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L022045 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Hannezo, J

    E. Hannezo, J. Prost, and J.-F. Joanny, Theory of ep- ithelial sheet morphology in three dimensions, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 111, 27 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    P. Sahu, J. Schwarz, and M. L. Manning, Geometric sig- natures of tissue surface tension in a three-dimensional model of confluent tissue, New J. Phys. 23, 093043 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Villeneuve, A

    C. Villeneuve, A. Hashmi, I. Ylivinkka, E. Lawson- Keister, Y. A. Miroshnikova, C. P´ erez-Gonz´ alez, S.-M. Myllym¨ aki, F. Bertillot, B. Yadav, T. Zhang, et al., Mechanical forces across compartments coordinate cell shape and fate transitions to generate tissue architecture,...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Merkel and M

    M. Merkel and M. L. Manning, A geometrically con- trolled rigidity transition in a model for confluent 3D tissues, New J. Phys. 20, 022002 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Ioannou, M

    F. Ioannou, M. A. Dawi, R. J. Tetley, Y. Mao, and 19 J. J. Mu˜ noz, Development of a new 3D hybrid model for epithelia morphogenesis, Front. Bioeng. Biotech. 8, 405 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    A. K. Khan, G. Mu˜ noz-Castro, and J. J. Mu˜ noz, Sin- gle and two-cells shape analysis from energy functionals for three-dimensional vertex models, Int. J. Num. Meth. Biomed. Eng. 39, e3766 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    C. H. Durney and J. J. Feng, A three-dimensional vertex model for Drosophila salivary gland invagination, Phys. Biol. 18, 046005 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    X. Du, M. Osterfield, and S. Y. Shvartsman, Com- putational analysis of three-dimensional epithelial mor- phogenesis using vertex models, Phys. Biol. 11, 066007 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    N. Noll, S. J. Streichan, and B. I. Shraiman, Variational method for image-based inference of internal stress in epithelial tissues, Phys. Rev. X 10, 011072 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ogita, T

    G. Ogita, T. Kondo, K. Ikawa, T. Uemura, S. Ishihara, and K. Sugimura, Image-based parameter inference for epithelial mechanics, PLOS Comp. Biol. 18, e1010209 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    D. Bi, J. Lopez, J. Schwarz, and M. Manning, A density- independent rigidity transition in biological tissues, Na- ture Physics 11, 1074 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Zhang and J

    T. Zhang and J. Schwarz, Topologically-protected inte- rior for three-dimensional confluent cellular collectives, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043148 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    K. Kim, T. Zhang, and J. Schwarz, Mean-field elastic moduli of a three-dimensional, cell-based vertex model, New J. Phys. 26, 043009 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Mao and B

    Y. Mao and B. Baum, Tug of war—the influence of op- posing physical forces on epithelial cell morphology, Dev. Biol. 401, 92 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Kondo and S

    T. Kondo and S. Hayashi, Mechanisms of cell height changes that mediate epithelial invagination, Dev. Growth Differen. 57, 313 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    J. M. Gomez, Y. Wang, and V. Riechmann, Tao controls epithelial morphogenesis by promoting fasciclin 2 endo- cytosis, J. Cell Biol. 199, 1131 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    R. P. Ray, P. S. Ganguly, S. Alt, J. R. Davis, A. Hoppe, N. Tapon, G. Salbreux, and B. J. Thompson, Apical and basal matrix remodeling control epithelial morphogene- sis, Dev. Cell 46, 23 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Khandelwal, S

    P. Khandelwal, S. N. Abraham, and G. Apodaca, Cell bi- ology and physiology of the uroepithelium, Am. J. Phys- iol. - Renal Physiol. 297, F1477 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Harmansa and T

    S. Harmansa and T. Lecuit, Mechanical regulation of cuboidal-to-squamous epithelial transition in the drosophila developing wing, bioRxiv , 2024 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    S. J. Chisolm, E. Guo, V. Subramaniam, K. D. Schulze, and T. E. Angelini, Elastic modulus versus cell pack- ing density in mdck epithelial monolayers, J. Biomech. , 112648 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Barone, A

    V. Barone, A. Tagua, J. ´A. Rom´ an, A. Hamdoun, J. Garrido-Garc ´ ıa, D. C. Lyons, and L. M. Escudero, Local and global changes in cell density induce reorgani- sation of 3d packing in a proliferating epithelium, Devel- opment 151 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    G´ omez-G´ alvez, P

    P. G´ omez-G´ alvez, P. Vicente-Munuera, A. Tagua, C. Forja, A. M. Castro, M. Letr´ an, A. Valencia-Exp´ osito, C. Grima, M. Berm´ udez-Gallardo, ´O. Serrano-P´ erez- Higueras, et al., Scutoids are a geometrical solution to three-dimensional packing of epithelia, Nature Commun...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Rozman, M

    J. Rozman, M. Krajnc, and P. Ziherl, Basolateral me- chanics prevents rigidity transition in epithelial mono- layers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 168401 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sarkar and M

    T. Sarkar and M. Krajnc, Reentrant rigidity transition in planar epithelia with volume-and area elasticity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12558 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    De Marzio, A

    M. De Marzio, A. Das, J. J. Fredberg, and D. Bi, Epithe- lial layer fluidization by curvature-induced unjamming, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 138402 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Harmand, A

    N. Harmand, A. Huang, and S. H´ enon, 3d shape of epithelial cells on curved substrates, Phys. Rev. X 11, 031028 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Chiang, A

    M. Chiang, A. Hopkins, B. Loewe, D. Marenduzzo, and M. C. Marchetti, Multiphase field model of cells on a substrate: From three dimensional to two dimensional, Phys. Rev. E 110, 044403 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Cowley, C

    N. Cowley, C. K. Revell, E. Johns, S. Woolner, and O. E. Jensen, Spectral approaches to stress relaxation in ep- ithelial monolayers, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 480, 20240224 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. K. Revell and O. E. Jensen, VertexModel.jl, https://github.com/chris-revell/VertexModel (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Kursawe, R

    J. Kursawe, R. E. Baker, and A. G. Fletcher, Impact of implementation choices on quantitative predictions of cell-based computational models, J. Comp. Phys. 345, 752 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Nestor-Bergmann, G

    A. Nestor-Bergmann, G. Goddard, S. Woolner, and O. E. Jensen, Relating cell shape and mechanical stress in a spatially disordered epithelium using a vertex-based model, Math. Med. Biol. 35, i1 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    O. E. Jensen, E. Johns, and S. Woolner, Force net- works, torque balance and airy stress in the planar vertex model of a confluent epithelium, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 476, 20190716 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    O. K. Damavandi, V. F. Hagh, C. D. Santangelo, and M. L. Manning, Energetic rigidity. i. a unifying theory of mechanical stability, Phys. Rev. E 105, 025003 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    O. K. Damavandi, V. F. Hagh, C. D. Santangelo, and M. L. Manning, Energetic rigidity. ii. applications in examples of biological and underconstrained materials, Phys. Rev. E 105, 025004 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    S. Tong, R. Sknepnek, and A. Koˇ smrlj, Linear viscoelas- tic response of the vertex model with internal and exter- nal dissipation: Normal modes analysis, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013143 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    O. E. Jensen and C. K. Revell, Couple stresses and dis- crete potentials in the vertex model of cellular monolay- ers, Biomech. Modeling Mechanobiol. 22, 1465 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Nestor-Bergmann, E

    A. Nestor-Bergmann, E. Johns, S. Woolner, and O. E. Jensen, Mechanical characterization of disordered and anisotropic cellular monolayers, Phys. Rev. E 97, 052409 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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