Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Change of bifurcation type in 2D free boundary model of a moving cell with nonlinear diffusion

T0 review · 4 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 The paper proves that nonlinear diffusion can flip a 2D free-boundary cell-motility model from a direct to an inverse pitchfork bifurcation, and derives an explicit curvature formula that locates the switch.

desk verdict Novel direct Crandall-Rabinowitz framework for a quasilinear free boundary problem, but the advertised 1D pitchfork-switch corollary is currently an unproved claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03138 v2 pith:KF5KAGIB submitted 2025-06-03 math.AP

Leonid Berlyand , Oleksii Krupchytskyi , Tim Laux This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 35B3270K5092C17
keywords freeboundaryproblemnonlineardiffusionpitchforkbifurcationcellmotilitytravelingwavesCrandall-RabinowitztheoremvanderWaalsactivematter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper shows that adding nonlinear diffusion to a two-dimensional free-boundary model of a crawling cell changes the way motion begins. In the linear-diffusion case only a direct (supercritical) pitchfork bifurcation appears, but the authors prove that with nonlinear diffusion the bifurcation can become inverse (subcritical), allowing bistability between a resting and a moving cell. To establish this, they apply the Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem directly to the quasilinear PDE system and extract the curvature of the bifurcating branch via a test-function trick. A closed formula expresses this curvature in terms of the diffusion coefficient and its derivatives at the steady state, and a 1D application to a van der Waals diffusion coefficient predicts a switch at a critical parameter value, matching numerical observations.

What carries the argument

The protagonist is the curvature $K_2$ of the bifurcating curve of traveling waves, defined through the expansion $K(V) = K_0 + K_2 V^2 + \dots$. The machinery is a third-order asymptotic expansion of the PDE system in the small speed $V$, combined with a specially constructed test function: a solution of the formal adjoint Helmholtz-type equation $Z\Delta u + (\alpha/R_0)^2 u = 0$ with boundary value $\cos\theta$ on the disk. Testing the overdetermined third-order system with this function turns the solvability condition into an explicit equation for $K_2$, avoiding the Fredholm alternative that is difficult to apply in the presence of the free boundary.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to numerically compute the traveling-wave branch of the full 2D system for the van der Waals diffusion coefficient at $P=0.1$, $Z=1.25$ across $e_A$ from 0.55 to 0.65 and verify whether the sign of the numerically extracted branch curvature at the bifurcation point crosses zero near $e_A \approx 0.5990$; if it does not, the quantitative prediction of Corollary 1 fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the type of pitchfork bifurcation in this 2D free-boundary cell-motility model is controlled by an explicit formula for the curvature of the traveling-wave branch. Expanding the Peclet number as $K = K_0 + K_2 V^2 + \dots$, the paper proves that $K_2 = A_1 \frac{D''(m_0)}{D(m_0)^2} + A_2 \frac{D'(m_0)^2}{D(m_0)^3} + A_3 \frac{D'(m_0)}{D(m_0)^2} + A_4 \frac{1}{D(m_0)}$, where the coefficients $A_i$ depend only on the physical parameters $P, Z, \gamma$, not on the diffusion function $D$. The sign of $K_2$ determines the bifurcation type: positive $K_2$ gives a direct (supercritical) pitchfork, negative $K_2$ gives an inverse (subcritical) pitchfork. The paper also proves existence of the traveling-wave branch through a direct application of the Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem under a stated non-degeneracy condition, and it applies a 1D analogue of the curvature formula to the van der Waals diffusion coefficient to predict a switch at $e_A^* \approx 0.5990$.

Load-bearing premise

The 1D application of the curvature formula rests on an unstated 1D analogue of the 2D formula (19) with a specific sign pattern for the coefficients $A_i$, and this reduction is not derived in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nonlinear myosin diffusion can produce a subcritical pitchfork bifurcation, meaning the onset of cell motion can be abrupt and can coexist with a stable resting state, a behavior impossible in the linear-diffusion model.
  • The explicit formula for $K_2$ lets one predict the direct-versus-inverse character of the bifurcation from the shape of the diffusion coefficient $D(m)$ and the physical parameters $P, Z, \gamma$, without solving the full nonlinear problem.
  • For the van der Waals diffusion coefficient with the stated parameters, the model predicts a sharp transition at $e_A^* \approx 0.5990$, below which motion begins supercritically and above which it begins subcritically.
  • The test-function method provides a route for determining bifurcation type in free-boundary problems where the standard solution-operator approach and the Fredholm alternative are not available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the coefficient signs stated for the 1D van der Waals case suggest a general heuristic that decreasing diffusion at the resting density ($D'(m_0) < 0$) is what drives the switch to an inverse pitchfork; testing this against other diffusion profiles would clarify how universal the mechanism is.
  • Editorial inference: the same curvature formula could be used to detect whether alternative bifurcation branches, such as higher-mode or asymmetric traveling waves, become preferred when $K_2$ changes sign, since the sign of the curvature controls the local geometry of the branch.
  • Editorial inference: a direct numerical computation of the 2D traveling-wave branch for the van der Waals coefficient would provide a check of whether the 1D critical value $e_A^* \approx 0.5990$ persists in 2D, which the paper does not explicitly compute.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-dimensional free boundary model of cell motility with nonlinear myosin diffusion, extending the linear-diffusion model of Rybalko et al. It proves, via a direct application of the Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem to the quasilinear PDE system, the existence of traveling wave solutions bifurcating from the stationary radial solution, and derives an explicit formula for the curvature K2 of the bifurcating branch. This curvature determines whether the pitchfork bifurcation is direct or inverse. The authors then apply a claimed one-dimensional version of this formula to the van der Waals diffusion coefficient and predict a switch between direct and inverse bifurcation at eA ≈ 0.5990, matching numerical observations of Drozdowski et al. The paper's advertised contribution is the rigorous derivation of the 2D bifurcation-type formula and its physical consequence.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would provide a novel rigorous framework for the Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem in quasilinear free-boundary problems, bypassing the solution-operator construction, and would give the first mathematically derived formula for the change of pitchfork bifurcation type in a 2D moving-cell model. The proposed test-function trick for extracting the curvature without a full Fredholm alternative is an interesting methodological idea, and the explicit dependence of K2 on the nonlinear diffusion coefficient D(m) would be a useful quantitative tool. However, the advertised physical application rests on a one-dimensional reduction that is neither stated as a theorem nor proved, and the coefficients in the general formula are not evaluated. These gaps substantially reduce the current significance of the paper's main claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [§1.3, Corollary 1] Corollary 1 asserts that for P=0.1, Z=1.25, m∞=10, the curvature K2(eA) is given by a '1D version of (19)' with A1, A3, A4 > 0 and A2 < 0, and that the bifurcation switches from direct to inverse at eA* = 0.5990. No one-dimensional analogue of Theorem 2, Lemma 3, Lemma 4, or Lemma 5 is stated or proved. The 2D derivation in Appendix B uses Fourier modes on the disk, the Bessel test function U(r) of (169), and boundary conditions involving curvature and the Hanzawa transform; it is not a routine restriction. Moreover, the coefficients A_i in (42) are not evaluated anywhere, the numerical value eA* = 0.5990 is not accompanied by any computation, and the non-degeneracy condition (16) is not checked for the stated parameters. Since the change-of-bifurcation-type claim is the paper's headline result, this unsupported link is load-bearing.
  2. [§3, Step 2 (Fredholm property and codimension-one range)] The proof that F_x(x0,K0) has one-dimensional kernel and codimension-one range is only sketched. After reducing to the system (58), the text asserts that 'from the ellipticity of the problem' one can solve for m in terms of σ and that the resulting problem (61) has a solution 'provided compatibility conditions that are linear in V', and that one can always choose V so that a solution exists except for a special case deferred to Step 3. This does not establish the claimed codim(Range(F_x))=1, which is needed for condition (iii) of the Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem. The argument also does not address the Fredholm index of F_x in the chosen spaces X and Y in (95)-(96). This is a central technical step and requires a complete proof.
  3. [§3, Eqs. (70)-(71)] The transversality argument rests on the explicit solution (70) and then asserts the derivative formula (71). The transition from (70) to (71) is not shown, and the formula involves the constant B whose definition is not made explicit in the displayed equations. Since the contradiction with the boundary condition (69d) is exactly what forces the non-degeneracy condition (16), this omitted computation is not cosmetic. The authors should provide the detailed differentiation and account for all terms, including the A(V) term, before invoking (16).
  4. [§2, Lemma 5 and Eq. (42)] The claim that formula (19) is explicit is undercut by the fact that the functions f_i(r) in (161)-(164) depend on m20A, m20B, m22A, m22B, σ20A, σ22A, σ22B, which are introduced in Lemma 4 through the systems (149)-(150) but are never solved or even shown to exist uniquely. Consequently the 'explicitly given' coefficients A_i in (42) remain formal integrals over unknown functions. The proof of Lemma 4 in Appendix C stops after writing the systems (149)-(150); no closed-form or qualitative information about these second-order coefficients is provided. The sign pattern asserted in Corollary 1 therefore cannot be derived from the material in the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] There are several typos: 'BIFURCA TION' in the title, 'superctitical' in the abstract, and 'qualitative of solution behavior' should be 'qualitative change of solution behavior'.
  2. [§1.3, Eq. (20)] For the van der Waals diffusion coefficient D(m) = m∞^2/(m∞−m)^2 − eA m, the paper does not specify the admissible range of m relative to m∞, nor does it state the value of m0 for the parameters used in Corollary 1. Since D becomes singular at m = m∞, this is needed to verify positivity and the differentiability assumptions of Theorem 2.
  3. [Fig. 3] Figure 3 plots K2(eA) but contains no data points or reproducible numerical values; it cannot serve as a substitute for the missing computation of the coefficients and the critical value eA*.
  4. [§2, Lemma 5] The integration by parts leading to (171) produces boundary terms at r = 0; the paper does not justify their vanishing, e.g., by stating the regularity of σ31 near the origin. This should be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the K2 formula is derived from the PDE expansion, not fitted; the 1D van der Waals corollary is under-derived but that is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central claim, Theorem 2, is derived by substituting the traveling wave expansion (21)-(24) into the PDE system (8)-(12), solving the first-order system (Lemma 3) and the second-order system (Lemma 4), and extracting K2 from the third-order compatibility condition by testing equation (168) against the function U defined in (26)/(169). The D-dependence in formula (19) is obtained by algebraic bookkeeping: first-order coefficients scale as 1/D(m0), second-order coefficients as 1/D(m0)^2, and f(r) has the decomposition (35), so the final formula's structure is produced by collecting powers rather than by imposing the result. The coefficients Ai are defined in (42) by quadratures (36)-(41) over lower-order objects; although their numerical evaluation is not carried out in the paper, they are not fitted constants. The statement that the van der Waals corollary is in agreement with the numerical observation of Drozdowski et al. is validation, not input: no parameter is fitted to reproduce eA* = 0.5990. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [8], [33], [34]) are used for model provenance, linear-diffusion context, and spectral background; none of these citations carries the proof of Theorem 2 or formula (19). The skeptical concerns about Corollary 1 are genuine but are not circularity: the paper asserts a 1D version of (19) without stating or proving the 1D analogue, and it does not check the non-degeneracy condition (16) for P = 0.1, Z = 1.25. These are gaps in derivation and verification, not cases where a prediction is equivalent by construction to an input or where a fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Under the supplied circularity criteria, no step satisfies the required reduction test.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to data in this paper; the inputs P, Z, gamma, m_infinity, eA are either bifurcation parameters or inherited physical constants. The quantities A_i are computed from the model, although they are not evaluated numerically. The main unproved premises are the applicability of the Crandall-Rabinowitz framework, the well-posedness of the auxiliary systems, and the validity of the 1D reduction used in Corollary 1.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem is applicable to the constructed operator F(x,K).
    Used throughout Section 3 to obtain the bifurcating branch; the theorem is classical but its hypotheses must be verified.
  • standard math The auxiliary elliptic systems defining the second-order coefficients m20A, m22A, m20B, m22B are well-posed.
    Theorem 2 assumes these coefficients exist and are regular enough for the formula (19) to be meaningful; existence is not proved in the appendix.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-degeneracy condition (16) holds for the parameter values used in the corollaries.
    Theorems 1 and 2 require (16), but Corollary 1 does not verify it for P = 0.1, Z = 1.25.
  • domain assumption The van der Waals form D(m) = m_infinity^2/(m_infinity - m)^2 - eA m with m_infinity = 10 and P, Z from Drozdowski et al. is an acceptable physical model.
    The switch is computed for this specific diffusion coefficient, with parameter values inherited from prior physical literature.
  • ad hoc to paper A one-dimensional restriction of the two-dimensional Theorem 2 is valid and inherits the formula (19).
    Corollary 1 uses a '1D version' of (19), but the paper never states or proves such a reduction theorem.
  • domain assumption D is positive and four times continuously differentiable at m0.
    This regularity is explicitly assumed in Theorems 1 and 2 and is needed for the third-order expansion.
  • standard math The linearized operator F_x is Fredholm of index 0 between the chosen spaces X and Y.
    Crandall-Rabinowitz requires this; Section 3 sketches solvability but does not fully prove closedness of the range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Change of bifurcation type in 2D free boundary model of a moving cell with nonlinear diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KF5KAGIB

@misc{pith2026250603138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Change of bifurcation type in 2D free boundary model of a moving cell with nonlinear diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KF5KAGIB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03138}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce a 2D free boundary problem with nonlinear diffusion that models a living cell moving on a substrate. We prove that this nonlinearity results in a qualitative of solution behavior compared to the linear diffusion case (Rybalko et al. TAMS 2023), namely the switch between direct and inverse pitchfork bifurcation. Our objectives are twofold: (i) develop a rigorous framework to prove existence of bifurcation and determine its type (subcritical vs. superctitical) and (ii) the derivation of explicit analytical formulas that control the change of bifurcation type in terms of physical parameters and explain the underlying biophysical mechanisms. While the standard way of applying the Crandall-Rabinowitz theorem via the solution operator seems difficult in our quasilinear PDE system, we apply the theorem directly, by developing a multidimensional, vectorial framework. To determine the bifurcation type, we extract the curvature of the bifurcating curve from the expansion of the solutions around the steady state. The formula for the curvature is obtained via a solvability condition where instead of the Fredholm alternative, we propose a test function trick, suited for free boundary problems. Our rigorous analytical results are in agreement with numerical observations from the physical literature in 1D (Drozdowski et al. Comm. Phys. 2023) and provide the first extension of this phenomenon to a 2D free boundary model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Graph of D(m) given by (20) for different choices of eA and m∞ = 10. The second-order coefficient K2 – the curvature of the bifurcation curve at the bifurcation point – is the protagonist of this work as it determines the bifurcation type, cf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Bifurcation diagram for traveling waves (TWs). Change of bifurcation type from direct (blue) to inverse (green) pitchfork at critical eA = e ∗ A. Bifurcation type depends on K2: blue - K2 > 0, green K2 < 0. Corollary 1 (Change of bifurcation type in van-der-Waals model). Consider prob￾lem (8)–(12) in dimension 1 with P = 0.1, Z = 1.25 and the nonlinear diffusion coefficient D(m) given by (20) with m∞ = 10. Then K2 =… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Graph of K2(eA) for D(m) given by (20) for P = 0.1, Z = 1.25, m∞ = 10. derive the PDE systems solved by the respective terms. Our protagonist K2 does not appear before the third-order expansion of the system (8)–(12), see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Existence of traveling wave for a coupled incompressible Darcy's free boundary model with undercooling effect and surface tension

    Claire Alamichel and Nicolas Meunier. Existence of traveling wave for a cou- pled incompressible Darcy’s free boundary model with undercooling effect and surface tension. 2025. arXiv: 2501.04576 [math.AP]. url: https://arxiv. org/abs/2501.04576

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Traveling wave solution for a coupled incompressible Darcy's free boundary problem with surface tension

    Thomas Alazard, Martina Magliocca, and Nicolas Meunier. “Traveling wave solution for a coupled incompressible Darcy’s free boundary problem with surface tension”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.04365 (2022)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Active fin- gering instability in tissue spreading

    Ricard Alert, Carles Blanch-Mercader, and Jaume Casademunt. “Active fin- gering instability in tissue spreading”. In: Physical review letters 122.8 (2019), p. 088104

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Bacterial active matter

    Igor S Aranson. “Bacterial active matter”. In: Reports on Progress in Physics 85.7 (2022), p. 076601

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Adhesion-dependent wave generation in crawling cells

    Erin L Barnhart et al. “Adhesion-dependent wave generation in crawling cells”. In: Current Biology 27.1 (2017), pp. 27–38

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    An adhesion-dependent switch between mechanisms that determine motile cell shape

    Erin L Barnhart et al. “An adhesion-dependent switch between mechanisms that determine motile cell shape”. In: PLoS biology 9.5 (2011), e1001059

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Phase-field model of cell motility: Traveling waves and sharp interface limit

    Leonid Berlyand, Mykhailo Potomkin, and Volodymyr Rybalko. “Phase-field model of cell motility: Traveling waves and sharp interface limit”. In:Comptes Rendus. Math´ ematique354.10 (2016), pp. 986–992

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Nonlinear stability in a free boundary model of active locomotion

    Leonid Berlyand, C Alex Safsten, and Lev Truskinovsky. “Nonlinear sta- bility in a free boundary model of active locomotion”. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21196 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Bifurcation of finger-like structures in traveling waves of epithelial tissues spreading

    Leonid Berlyand et al. “Bifurcation of finger-like structures in traveling waves of epithelial tissues spreading”. In: Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 538.1 (2024), p. 128338

    2024

  2. [10]

    Spontaneous motility of actin lamellar fragments

    Carles Blanch-Mercader and J Casademunt. “Spontaneous motility of actin lamellar fragments”. In: Physical review letters 110.7 (2013), p. 078102

    2013

  3. [11]

    Symmetry-breaking bifurcations for free boundary problems

    Andrei Borisovich and Avner Friedman. “Symmetry-breaking bifurcations for free boundary problems”. In: Indiana University mathematics journal (2005), pp. 927–947

    2005

  4. [12]

    Noise-driven bifurcations in a nonlinear Fokker–Planck system describing stochastic neural fields

    Jos´ e A Carrillo, Pierre Roux, and Susanne Solem. “Noise-driven bifurcations in a nonlinear Fokker–Planck system describing stochastic neural fields”. In: Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 449 (2023), p. 133736

    2023

  5. [13]

    Well-posedness and sta- bility of a stochastic neural field in the form of a partial differential equation

    Jos´ e A Carrillo, Pierre Roux, and Susanne Solem. “Well-posedness and sta- bility of a stochastic neural field in the form of a partial differential equation”. In: Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees193 (2025), p. 103623

    2025

  6. [14]

    Cell motility as an energy minimization process

    Haythem Chelly and Pierre Recho. “Cell motility as an energy minimization process”. In: Physical Review E 105.6 (2022), p. 064401

    2022

  7. [15]

    A hybrid stochastic–deterministic mechanochem- ical model of cell polarization

    Calina Copos and Alex Mogilner. “A hybrid stochastic–deterministic mechanochem- ical model of cell polarization”. In: Molecular biology of the cell 31.15 (2020), pp. 1637–1649. 20 REFERENCES

    2020

  8. [16]

    Bifurcation from simple eigen- values

    Michael G Crandall and Paul H Rabinowitz. “Bifurcation from simple eigen- values”. In: Journal of Functional Analysis 8.2 (1971), pp. 321–340

    1971

  9. [17]

    Free and Moving Boundary Problems

    John Crank. Free and Moving Boundary Problems . Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1984

    1984

  10. [18]

    A Cahn–Hilliard Model for Cell Motility

    Alessandro Cucchi, Antoine Mellet, and Nicolas Meunier. “A Cahn–Hilliard Model for Cell Motility”. In: SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis 52.4 (2020), pp. 3843–3880

    2020

  11. [19]

    Self polarization and traveling wave in a model for cell crawling migration

    Alessandro Cucchi, Antoine Mellet, and Nicolas Meunier. “Self polarization and traveling wave in a model for cell crawling migration”. In: Discrete Con- tin. Dyn. Syst 42.5 (2022), pp. 2381–2407

    2022

  12. [20]

    Optogenetic control of migration of contractile cells predicted by an active gel model

    Oliver M Drozdowski, Falko Ziebert, and Ulrich S Schwarz. “Optogenetic control of migration of contractile cells predicted by an active gel model”. In: Communications Physics 6.1 (2023), p. 158

    2023

  13. [21]

    Asymptotic stability for a free boundary prob- lem arising in a tumor model

    Avner Friedman and Bei Hu. “Asymptotic stability for a free boundary prob- lem arising in a tumor model”. In: Journal of Differential Equations 227.2 (2006), pp. 598–639

    2006

  14. [22]

    Traveling Motility of Actin Lamellar Fragments Under spontaneous symmetry breaking

    Claudia Garc ´ ıa, Martina Magliocca, and Nicolas Meunier. Traveling Motility of Actin Lamellar Fragments Under spontaneous symmetry breaking . 2025. arXiv: 2409.05762 [math.AP]. url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05762

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The 2020 motile active matter roadmap

    Gerhard Gompper et al. “The 2020 motile active matter roadmap”. In: Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32.19 (2020), p. 193001

    2020

  16. [24]

    Conformal and Potential Anal- ysis in Hele-Shaw cells

    Bj¨ orn Gustafsson and Alexander Vasil’ev. “Conformal and Potential Anal- ysis in Hele-Shaw cells”. In: Advances in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. Stockholm-Valparaiso, Sweden (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Mechanism of shape determination in motile cells

    Kinneret Keren et al. “Mechanism of shape determination in motile cells”. In: Nature 453.7194 (2008), pp. 475–480

    2008

  18. [26]

    Free boundary problems for Stokes flow, with applications to the growth of biological tissues

    John R King and Chandrasekhar Venkataraman. “Free boundary problems for Stokes flow, with applications to the growth of biological tissues”. In: Interfaces and Free Boundaries 23.4 (2021), pp. 433–458

    2021

  19. [27]

    Emergence of large-scale cell morphology and move- ment from local actin filament growth dynamics

    Catherine I Lacayo et al. “Emergence of large-scale cell morphology and move- ment from local actin filament growth dynamics”. In:PLoS biology 5.9 (2007), e233

    2007

  20. [28]

    Hydrodynamics of soft active matter

    M Cristina Marchetti et al. “Hydrodynamics of soft active matter”. In: Re- views of modern physics 85.3 (2013), pp. 1143–1189

    2013

  21. [29]

    Mechanical stress as a regulator of cell motility

    Thibaut Putelat, Pierre Recho, and Lev Truskinovsky. “Mechanical stress as a regulator of cell motility”. In: Physical Review E 97.1 (2018), p. 012410

    2018

  22. [30]

    Contraction-driven cell motility

    Pierre Recho, Thibaut Putelat, and Lev Truskinovsky. “Contraction-driven cell motility”. In: Physical review letters 111.10 (2013), p. 108102

    2013

  23. [31]

    Mechanics of motility initiation and motility arrest in crawling cells

    Pierre Recho, Thibaut Putelat, and Lev Truskinovsky. “Mechanics of motility initiation and motility arrest in crawling cells”. In: Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 84 (2015), pp. 469–505

    2015

  24. [32]

    Polarization and motility of one-dimensional multi- cellular trains

    Jonathan E Ron et al. “Polarization and motility of one-dimensional multi- cellular trains”. In: Biophysical journal 122.23 (2023), pp. 4598–4613

    2023

  25. [33]

    Emergence of traveling waves and their stability in a free boundary model of cell motility

    Volodymyr Rybalko and Leonid Berlyand. “Emergence of traveling waves and their stability in a free boundary model of cell motility”. In: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 376 (2023), pp. 1799–1844.doi: 10.1090/ tran/8824

    2023

  26. [34]

    Asymptotic sta- bility of contraction-driven cell motion

    C Alex Safsten, Volodmyr Rybalko, and Leonid Berlyand. “Asymptotic sta- bility of contraction-driven cell motion”. In: Physical Review E 105.2 (2022), p. 024403

    2022

  27. [35]

    Cancer therapy with immune check- point inhibitor and CSF-1 blockade: A mathematical model

    Nourridine Siewe and Avner Friedman. “Cancer therapy with immune check- point inhibitor and CSF-1 blockade: A mathematical model”. In: Journal of Theoretical Biology 556 (2023), p. 111297

    2023

  28. [36]

    Bifurcation for a free-boundary problem modeling small plaques with reverse cholesterol transport

    Xiaohong Zhang, Bei Hu, and Zhengce Zhang. “Bifurcation for a free-boundary problem modeling small plaques with reverse cholesterol transport”. In: Jour- nal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications 517.1 (2023), p. 126604

    2023

  29. [37]

    Computational approaches to substrate- based cell motility

    Falko Ziebert and Igor S Aranson. “Computational approaches to substrate- based cell motility”. In: npj Computational Materials 2.1 (2016), pp. 1–16. 21 Appendix A. Change of coordinates to fixed boundary The original system of the equations (8)-(12) is posed on the moving dom...

    2016

  30. [38]

    Expansion of (10) in V : First, we must expand the unit normal vector ν(θ)

    + e1 · ∇m2 (125) − K2m0∆σ1 − K0∇ ·(m2∇σ1 + M1∇σ2 + m0∇σ3) B.1.3. Expansion of (10) in V : First, we must expand the unit normal vector ν(θ). The unit vector normal to the cell domain Ω( θ) is given by: ν(θ) = Ω(θ)p Ωθ(θ)2 + Ω(θ)2 er − Ωθ(θ)p Ωθ(θ)2 + Ω(θ)2 eθ, (126) where er, ...

  31. [39]

    + e1 · ∇m2− −K2m0∆σ1 − K0∇ ·(m2∇σ1 + m1∇σ2 + m0∇σ3) m3r(R0, θ) = −m1rr(R0, θ)ρ2(θ) − 1 R2 0 m1θ(R0, θ)ρ2θ(θ) σ3(R0, θ) = −σ1r(R0, θ)ρ2 − γ R2 0 (ρ3 + ρ3θθ) K0(σ3r(R0, θ) + σ1rr(R0, θ)ρ2(θ) + 1 R2 0 σ2θ(R0, θ)ρ2θ(θ)) + K2σ1r = 0 (157) After that we use the ansatz for m3, σ3, an...

Pith tools

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