Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Self-organization drives symmetry-breaking, scaling, and critical growth transitions in stem cell-derived organoids

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A minimal two-component Turing system with reactive boundaries explains size-dependent symmetry-breaking, power-law scaling, and biphasic growth arrest in 2D gastruloids.

desk verdict A data-rich organoid study with a credible qualitative story and a real internal inconsistency in the model's own scaling exponents—worth refereeing, but the quantitative match as reported does not hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18887 v1 pith:WXJ7JRYK submitted 2025-07-25 q-bio.TO physics.bio-ph

Daniel Aguilar-Hidalgo , Joel Ostblom , M Mona Siu , Divy Raval , Ajinkya Ghagre , Tiam Heydari , Benjamin McMaster , Jonathan Gui
show 3 more authors
Nicolas Werschler Mukul Tewary Peter W. Zandstra
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.TOphysics.bio-ph MSC 92C1592C4235Q92
keywords self-organizationsymmetry-breakingTuringpatternreaction-diffusionsystemgastruloidscalinglawcriticaltransitionstem-cellorganoid
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

2D adherent gastruloids—flat stem-cell colonies grown on micropatterned discs—organize their mesodermal (Brachyury+) domain according to colony size: small colonies (radius 50–150 µm) break symmetry into a bilateral pattern, while large colonies (radius >200 µm) stay centro-symmetric. The domain area follows a power law in colony area, with exponent $\alpha = 0.93 \pm 0.13$ ($0.95 \pm 0.03$ in live imaging), across a 20-fold density range. Time-lapse growth of the pattern is biphasic: an early power-law expansion gives way to exponential arrest, with the switch at $t^\dagger = 22{-}27$ h, which the authors read as a dynamical phase transition. The paper argues that all three phenomena come from one mechanism: a two-component Turing activator–repressor system with concentration-dependent reactive boundaries, where dimensionless radius and diffusion-penetration lengths set the regimes. If right, this gives a minimal physical explanation for how tissues sense size and self-arrest growth without external gradients.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a minimal two-component reaction–diffusion system on a disc: an activator $A$ and repressor $B$ with equations $\partial_t A = \nabla\cdot(D_A\nabla A) - k_A A + \nu_A P$ and $\partial_t B = \nabla\cdot(D_B\nabla B) - k_B B + \nu_B P$, where $P = A^h/(A^h+B^h)$ is a sharp switch. The twist is the boundary condition: instead of fixed concentrations or zero flux, fluxes are reactive, $D_A\nabla A\cdot\hat{n} = \sigma_A A$ and $D_B\nabla B\cdot\hat{n} = \sigma_B B$, so the edge feeds back on the bulk. In dimensionless form the system is controlled by $\hat{R} = R/\lambda$ and $\hat{\delta}_i = D_i/(\sigma_i \lambda)$; these two ratios determine whether the colony polarizes and how the pattern area scales with colony area. The machinery works by letting the production domain itself grow, scale, and arrest, coupling patterning to size and to the boundary without an imposed gradient.

What would settle it

Measure the actual decay length and degradation rate of the activator/repressor morphogens in this system—for example by fluorescently tagged ligands or local photobleaching—and check whether $\lambda \approx 50$ µm and $k_A \approx 0.14$ h$^{-1}$; if either differs substantially, the predicted symmetry transition at $R \approx 150{-}200$ µm, the scaled transition time $t^\dagger$, and the derived $D_A = 0.10$ µm$^2$/s would not hold. A second falsifier: block boundary reactivity, for example by changing the micropattern chemistry so that $\sigma_i \to 0$, and observe whether small colonies that currently break symmetry instead stay centro-symmetric.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that size, not external cues, determines the mode and extent of mesodermal patterning in 2D gastruloids. A symmetry score $\chi$ separates small colonies ($\chi \approx 0.6$, bilateral) from large ones ($\chi \approx 0.2$, centro-symmetric), and the same boundary-feedback model that produces this phase diagram also produces the observed power-law scaling $S_p \sim S_c^{\alpha}$ and the biphasic growth law with a size-invariant transition time. The model's dimensionless numbers—normalized radius $\hat{R} = R/\lambda$ and normalized penetration lengths $\hat{\delta}_i = D_i/(\sigma_i \lambda)$—predict that crossing a size threshold moves the system from symmetry-breaking to centro-symmetric patterns, that the repressor's penetration depth $\hat{\delta}_B$ sets the scaling exponent ($\alpha \approx 0.9$ for $\hat{\delta}_B \in [2,4]$), and that pattern area at arrest scales as $S_p^{\max} \sim R^{\epsilon}$ with $\epsilon = 1.92 \pm 0.19$ experimentally versus $1.44 \pm 0.06$ in simulations. The authors further argue that the fate domain is set by the morphogen production region, $P = A^h/(A^h+B^h)$, rather than by a fixed threshold on concentration, so the source itself is the dynamic patterning agent.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative match stands on the assumed morphogen decay length $\lambda = 50$ µm and the fitted degradation rate $k_A = 0.14 \pm 0.12$ h$^{-1}$, which convert the model's dimensionless radius and time into physical radius and time but are not independently measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spontaneous axis formation does not require 3D tissue organization; 2D colonies are sufficient when they are small enough.
  • Cells collectively estimate colony size through a diffusible morphogen whose penetration depth relative to colony radius sets the pattern, giving a mechanistic basis for positional information.
  • Growth arrest is self-organized rather than timed externally: the same feedback that forms the pattern slows its own expansion, with a common transition time $t^\dagger \approx 22{-}27$ h across colony sizes.
  • The scaling exponent $\alpha$ is set by the repressor's normalized penetration depth $\hat{\delta}_B$, so perturbations that change $\hat{\delta}_B$ (for example, altering cell density or boundary reactivity) should move $\alpha$ in a predictable direction.
  • The model predicts that the mesodermal fate domain tracks the morphogen production region, so visualizing production dynamics of BMP4/Wnt/Nodal-type ligands should show source-region expansion and arrest matching the Bra+ domain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Treating the biphasic growth as a critical transition suggests a testable signature: near $t^\dagger$, the variance of growth rates across colonies or the response to small perturbations should peak if the system is genuinely critical; the paper's derivative analysis hints at this but does not measure susceptibility directly.
  • The same reactive-boundary Turing mechanism may explain size-invariant scaling in other organoid systems, since the dimensionless ratios $R/\lambda$ and $D/(\sigma\lambda)$ are generic; one prediction is that changing substrate adhesiveness ($\sigma_i$) alone should switch the symmetry regime at fixed $R$.
  • Because the unit conversion rests on assumed $\lambda = 50$ µm and fitted $k_A = 0.14$ h$^{-1}$, the reported dimensional diffusion coefficient $D_A = 0.10$ µm$^2$/s should be treated as a model estimate, not a measurement; direct measurement of morphogen decay length would decide how much of the quantitative agreement is real.
  • The model's identification of the production region as the instructive signal suggests a new experimental handle: inducible ligand secretion or ligand biosensors could distinguish source-based from threshold-based fate specification in the same colony.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines high-throughput fixed and live imaging of 2D adherent mouse PSC gastruloids on micropatterned substrates with a two-component Turing activator-repressor model (Eqs. 1-4) with reactive boundary fluxes. It reports three central findings: (i) colony size controls the symmetry of the Bra+ mesodermal pattern, with small colonies (R≈50-150 µm) breaking symmetry (χ≈0.6) and large colonies (R>200 µm) remaining centro-symmetric (χ≈0.2); (ii) the pattern area obeys a power-law scaling Sp ~ Sc^α with α=0.93±0.13 in fixed samples (N=15,305) and α=0.95±0.03 in live imaging (N=520), independent of seeding density; and (iii) pattern growth is biphasic, with an early power-law expansion (exponent γ) followed by exponential arrest (rate β), with a transition at t†≈22-27 h that the authors interpret as a dynamical phase transition. The model is argued to reproduce these behaviors when the morphogen decay length is λ=50 µm, the repressor penetration length is δ_B∈[2,4], and the degradation rate is kA=0.14 h⁻¹. The manuscript claims a unified self-organizing mechanism for symmetry-breaking, scaling, and growth control in organoids.

Significance. If the quantitative claims held, the paper would be a significant contribution to developmental biophysics and organoid engineering: it uses an unusually large dataset, provides time-resolved scaling and growth exponents, and demonstrates that a minimal reaction-diffusion model with reactive boundaries can qualitatively connect symmetry-breaking, size scaling, and growth arrest. The distinction between the morphogen concentration field and the morphogen production region as the instructive patterning cue is an interesting and testable hypothesis. The strengths include the explicit reporting of sample sizes and fit statistics, the master-curve collapse analysis, and the clear operational definitions of the symmetry score and scaling exponents. However, the manuscript currently contains a load-bearing internal inconsistency in the simulated exponents and a calibration procedure that overlaps with the validation data. These issues prevent the current version from establishing the claimed quantitative match.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2d vs Fig. 3b; §3–§4] The two simulated scaling exponents reported for the same model are mutually inconsistent. Because the colony is a disc, Sc = πR², so Eq. (6), Sp∼Sc^α, is equivalent to Sp∼R^{2α}. The text in §3 states that simulations with δ_B∈[2,4] reach steady-state values α≈0.9 (Fig. 2d), which implies Smax_p∼R^{1.8}. Fig. 3b's inset instead reports Smax_p∼R^ε with ε=1.44±0.06. Since both exponents describe the final pattern area as a function of colony size in the same simulations, they cannot both be correct. This is not merely a presentational slip: the experimental maximum-area exponent is ε=1.92±0.19 (Fig. 3f inset), and the difference from the simulated 1.44 is about 2.4 combined standard errors, so the stated 'match' between experiment and simulation is not supported. The authors should recompute both exponents from the same simulation outputs and either correct ε or explicitly explain why Smax_p and the steady-state S_p plotted in Fig. 2d are different observables.
  2. [§2–§3, calibration of λ, kA, and δ_B] The model's agreement with experiment is weakened by the fact that the same data are used for calibration and validation. The decay length λ=50 µm is assumed to place the simulated symmetry transition at the observed colony sizes, δ_B is restricted to [2,4] explicitly to reproduce the experimental scaling exponent α≈0.9, and kA is fitted from the τ*–t* regression in Fig. 1j (R²=0.64, kA=0.14±0.12 h⁻¹). Consequently, the 'match' between the simulated and experimental α values in Fig. 2 is not an independent test of the model. To make the comparison informative, the authors should report the model's predicted α(δ_B, δ_A) before calibration with the experimental value, show the sensitivity of the predicted ε and β to the uncertainty in λ and kA, or provide an out-of-sample prediction (e.g., a perturbation experiment) that does not depend on the tuned parameters.
  3. [§4, 'Power-law growth and critical arrest…', Fig. 3e–g] The biphasic growth law and the claim of exponential arrest are based on data that are censored at both ends. The text explicitly excludes R≈50 µm colonies from the scaling because they 'misalign with the overall scaling trend,' and restricts the live-imaging analysis to t<40 h because the Bra+ domain shrinks beyond that time. The exponential relaxation exponent β and the transition time t† are extracted from these truncated trajectories. Without a sensitivity analysis (e.g., refitting γ and β with the truncation point varied between 30 and 40 h, and with R=50 colonies either included or excluded), it is not clear whether the reported biphasic law and the 'critical' transition are robust features or artifacts of censoring. This matters because the central claim of a dynamical phase transition rests on the existence and sharpness of t†.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1, Fig. 1e] The symmetry scores for small and large colonies (χ=0.6±0.2 vs 0.2±0.2) are reported without a statistical test, confidence interval, or effect size; please add a formal comparison at least for the low-density condition.
  2. [§2, Fig. 1j] The text reports kA=0.14 h⁻¹ from a linear fit with R²=0.64, but the caption gives kA=0.14±0.12 h⁻¹; the dimensional conversion and all derived quantities (DA=0.10 µm²/s, β in h⁻¹) should be accompanied by propagated uncertainties.
  3. [§3, Fig. 2f] The text says the scaling spans 'two orders of magnitude in gastruloid size,' but radii from 50 to 400 µm correspond to a 64-fold range in area, not two orders of magnitude; the claim should be reworded or the relevant variable specified.
  4. [§2, Eq. (5)] The production domain S_s is defined by an integral of the production function P, but the text later refers to 'source region' and 'non-source region' without stating the threshold used to segment the simulated domain; please define the operational threshold.
  5. [§4] The use of 'dynamical phase transition' would benefit from a quantitative criterion; the current evidence rests on peaks in higher derivatives of the growth rate, which are not a standard order-parameter or scaling-collapse test. Consider softening the terminology or adding such a test.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Quantitative agreement is partially calibrated: δB, kA, and λ are selected or fitted to the same data the model is then said to predict.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Emergent scaling laws in mesodermal pattern formation, after Eq. (6), Fig. 2d–g]
    "The best agreement occurred for intermediate values of δ̂B ∈ [2, 4], where simulations showed steady-state exponents of α≈ 0.9, consistent with experiments. ... we found that the experimentally determined scaling factors closely matched our model predictions (Fig. 2b,c,f)."

    δ̂B (the normalized repressor penetration length) is a free model parameter. The paper scans it and keeps the range δ̂B ∈ [2,4] precisely because it produces α≈0.9, matching the measured α=0.93±0.13 (fixed colonies) and α=0.95±0.03 (live imaging). The later statement that the experiment 'closely matched our model predictions' is therefore a report of a parameter choice, not an independent prediction: the model's scaling exponent was tuned to the target value observed in the same dataset.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Size-dependent symmetry-breaking, Fig. 1j caption; Power-law growth and critical arrest, Fig. 3g–h]
    "Matching this timescale between simulations and experiments enabled estimation of the degradation rate kA = 0.14 h−1 (Fig. 1j). ... The critical transition between these regimes occurred at t† = 22–27 h, consistent with simulation predictions when scaled using kA = 0.14 h−1."

    kA is obtained from a linear fit between simulated and experimental symmetry-decision times (τ* = 0.14 t* − 0.19, R² = 0.64). This same fitted kA is then used to convert simulated timescales (τ†, β̂) into physical units and to claim agreement with experimental t† and β. Thus the 'predicted' transition time and arrest rates inherit the previously fitted conversion factor rather than providing an independent test; the low R² makes this mapping particularly weak.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Size-dependent symmetry-breaking, Fig. 1f–j; Emergent scaling laws, diffusion-coefficient paragraph]
    "These results match experimental data assuming λ = 50 µm, consistent with reported morphogen diffusion length scales. ... Combined with the decay length λ = 50 µm, previously identified in symmetry-breaking analysis (Fig. 1), this yields a diffusion coefficient DA = 0.10 µm2/s—within reported ranges for endogenous morphogens [34–37]."

    λ is the free unit-conversion length that maps the dimensionless model radii R̂ = 1–3 onto the experimental small-colony range 50–150 µm. Choosing λ = 50 µm is what places the simulated symmetry-breaking boundary at the measured transition, and the same λ is then reused to express R, β, and DA in physical units. The size-symmetry agreement is set by this assumed value rather than independently predicted by the model, although λ does have external order-of-magnitude support.

full rationale

Most of the modeling is not circular in the self-referential sense: the reaction–diffusion system (Eqs. 1–4) is explicitly stated, integrated from random initial conditions, and the existence of size-dependent symmetry-breaking and of a biphasic growth curve are genuine outputs of the equations. The citations to prior work [20–24] are not load-bearing in a self-citation chain; the reactive-boundary model is defined in the paper itself. However, the advertised quantitative matches reduce in part to parameter choice. The scaling exponent α≈0.9 is obtained by selecting δ̂B∈[2,4], i.e., the paper scans a free parameter and keeps the range that reproduces the measured α. The timescale conversion kA=0.14 h−1 is fit from a noisy regression between simulated and experimental symmetry-decision times and then reused to convert the predicted transition time and arrest rates to physical units, so the agreement at t†=22–27 h is built into the fitted mapping. λ=50 µm is assumed rather than measured and is what places the symmetry transition at R=50–150 µm; although consistent with literature values, it is not an independently predicted length. These are calibrations, not predictions, so the central claim that the model predicts the observed scaling and critical growth transitions is only partially independent. The reported simulation value ε=1.44±0.06 versus experimental ε=1.92±0.19 is a quantitative mismatch and overclaim rather than a circularity, but it further weakens the model–experiment agreement. Overall: partial circularity, score 6.

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

The model has at least six free parameters or calibration choices. The most consequential are λ, kA, and δ_B, which are set (or fit) after seeing the experimental data. The central scaling-law and time-to-arrest 'predictions' therefore depend on calibrated inputs, weakening the claim of independent prediction. No new physical entities are postulated; the proposed reactive boundary is a modeling construct rather than a new substance.

free parameters (6)
  • morphogen decay length lambda (λ) = 50 µm (assumed)
    Used to convert dimensionless radius R_hat to physical R; chosen so the simulated symmetry transition falls at experimental sizes; not measured in this paper.
  • activator degradation rate kA = 0.14 ± 0.12 h^-1
    Fitted from linear regression between simulated and experimental symmetry decision times (τ* = 0.14 t* - 0.19, R² = 0.64); converts model timescales and yields DA = 0.10 µm²/s.
  • repressor penetration length δ_B = 2-4 (dimensionless)
    Chosen post hoc to match the experimental scaling exponent α ≈ 0.9; not measured independently.
  • activator penetration length δ_A = 2-10 (dimensionless, scanned)
    Varies across simulations; scaling exponent is insensitive to it, but it remains a model freedom.
  • Hill exponent h in production switch = large (unspecified)
    P = A^h/(A^h + B^h) is set to act as a binary switch; value not stated.
  • boundary flux coefficients σ_A, σ_B = absorbed into δ_i
    Appear in Eqs. 3-4 and set the reactive boundary condition; not measured, only indirectly constrained via δ_i.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pattern formation is governed by two diffusing morphogens with activator-repressor kinetics (Eqs. 1-2).
    Assumes Brachyury expression is a readout of a two-component reaction-diffusion system, omitting other signals, mechanics, and cell mobility.
  • domain assumption Production function P(A,B) = A^h/(A^h + B^h) acts as a sharp switch.
    Used to define the mesodermal source region; assumes threshold-like gene activation.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary fluxes are proportional to local concentrations (Eqs. 3-4).
    This 'reactive boundary' is the paper's central modeling innovation; it is not derived from cell biology and is introduced to reproduce size-dependent behavior.
  • domain assumption Initial conditions are low-amplitude random fluctuations.
    Reasonable for noisy gene expression but not justified from data; symmetry-breaking outcome may depend on fluctuation amplitude.
  • domain assumption Model pattern area S_hat_p corresponds to the measured Bra+ area and colony area to the micropatterned disc.
    Assumes segmentation and model geometry match, including that the micropattern area is the effective system size.
  • ad hoc to paper Time conversion between model and experiment is linear with rate kA.
    The mapping τ = kA t is fitted to noisy data and applied to all time-dependent comparisons.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-organization drives symmetry-breaking, scaling, and critical growth transitions in stem cell-derived organoids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXJ7JRYK

@misc{pith2026250718887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-organization drives symmetry-breaking, scaling, and critical growth transitions in stem cell-derived organoids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXJ7JRYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18887}
}
read the original abstract

The emergence of spatial patterns and organized growth is a hallmark of developing tissues. While symmetry-breaking and scaling laws govern these processes, how cells coordinate spatial patterning with size regulation remains unclear. Here, we combine quantitative imaging, a Turing activator-repressor model with self-organized reactive boundaries, and in vitro models of early mouse development to study mesodermal pattern formation in two-dimensional (2D) gastruloids. We show that colony size dictates symmetry: small colonies (radius approximately 100 micrometers) spontaneously break symmetry, while larger ones remain centro-symmetric, consistent with size-dependent positional information and model predictions. The mesodermal domain area scales robustly with colony size following a power law, independent of cell density, indicating that cells sense and respond to gastruloid size. Time-lapse imaging reveals a biphasic growth law: an early power-law expansion followed by exponential arrest, marking a dynamical phase transition. These dynamics, conserved across sizes, reflect features of criticality seen in physical systems, where self-organization, scaling, and boundary feedback converge. Our findings uncover a minimal mechanism for size-dependent pattern formation and growth control. This framework enables quantitative investigation of symmetry-breaking and scaling in self-organizing tissues, offering insights into the physical principles underlying multicellular organization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bak and M

    P. Bak and M. Paczuski, 92, 6689

    work page

  2. [2]

    Zillio, J

    T. Zillio, J. R. Banavar, J. L. Green, J. Harte, and A. Maritan, 105, 18714

    work page

  3. [3]

    Valverde, S

    S. Valverde, S. Ohse, M. Turalska, B. J. West, and J. Garcia-Ojalvo 6, 10.3389/fphys.2015.00127

    work page arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Depersin and M

    J. Depersin and M. Barthelemy, 115, 2317

    work page

  5. [5]

    M. A. Mu˜ noz, 90, 031001

    work page

  6. [6]

    Lenne and V

    P.-F. Lenne and V. Trivedi, 13, 664

    work page

  7. [7]

    Lewis, 322, 399, number: 5900 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    J. Lewis, 322, 399, number: 5900 Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    work page

  8. [8]

    M. A. Lancaster, M. Renner, C.-A. Martin, D. Wenzel, L. S. Bicknell, M. E. Hurles, T. Homfray, J. M. Pen- ninger, A. P. Jackson, and J. A. Knoblich, 501, 373

    work page

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Serra, U

    D. Serra, U. Mayr, A. Boni, I. Lukonin, M. Rempfler, L. Challet Meylan, M. B. Stadler, P. Strnad, P. Papa- saikas, D. Vischi, A. Waldt, G. Roma, and P. Liberali, 569, 66

  2. [10]

    K. T. Lawlor, J. M. Vanslambrouck, J. W. Higgins, A. Chambon, K. Bishard, D. Arndt, P. X. Er, S. B. Wil- son, S. E. Howden, K. S. Tan, F. Li, L. J. Hale, B. Shep- herd, S. Pentoney, S. C. Presnell, A. E. Chen, and M. H. Little, 20, 260

  3. [11]

    D. A. Turner, M. Girgin, L. Alonso-Crisostomo, V. Trivedi, P. Baillie-Johnson, C. R. Glodowski, P. C. Hayward, J. Collignon, C. Gustavsen, P. Serup, 9 B. Steventon, M. P. Lutolf, and A. M. Arias, 144, 3894

  4. [12]

    S. C. Van Den Brink, A. Alemany, V. Van Baten- burg, N. Moris, M. Blotenburg, J. Vivi´ e, P. Baillie- Johnson, J. Nichols, K. F. Sonnen, A. Martinez Arias, and A. Van Oudenaarden, 582, 405

  5. [13]

    Merle, L

    M. Merle, L. Friedman, C. Chureau, A. Shoushtarizadeh, and T. Gregor 10.48550/ARXIV.2303.17522, publisher: arXiv Version Number: 2

    doi

  6. [14]

    Anla¸ s, N

    K. Anla¸ s, N. Gritti, F. Nakaki, L. Salam´ o Palau, S. L. Tlili, D. Oriola, K. Arat´ o, J. Le Lim, J. Sharpe, and V. Trivedi, 151, dev202171

  7. [15]

    S. E. Harrison, B. Sozen, N. Christodoulou, C. Kypri- anou, and M. Zernicka-Goetz, 356, eaal1810

  8. [16]

    S. M. Morgani, J. J. Metzger, J. Nichols, E. D. Siggia, and A.-K. Hadjantonakis, 7, e32839

  9. [17]

    Amadei, C

    G. Amadei, C. E. Handford, C. Qiu, J. De Jonghe, H. Greenfeld, M. Tran, B. K. Martin, D.-Y. Chen, A. Aguilera-Castrejon, J. H. Hanna, M. B. Elowitz, F. Hollfelder, J. Shendure, D. M. Glover, and M. Zernicka-Goetz, 610, 143

  10. [18]

    L. H. Lee, R. Peerani, M. Ungrin, C. Joshi, E. Ku- macheva, and P. Zandstra, 2, 155

  11. [19]

    Warmflash, B

    A. Warmflash, B. Sorre, F. Etoc, E. D. Siggia, and A. H. Brivanlou, 11, 847

  12. [20]

    Deglincerti, F

    A. Deglincerti, F. Etoc, M. C. Guerra, I. Martyn, J. Met- zger, A. Ruzo, M. Simunovic, A. Yoney, A. H. Brivanlou, E. Siggia, and A. Warmflash, 11, 2223

  13. [21]

    F. Etoc, J. Metzger, A. Ruzo, C. Kirst, A. Yoney, M. Z. Ozair, A. H. Brivanlou, and E. D. Siggia 10.1016/j.devcel.2016.09.016

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Tewary, J

    M. Tewary, J. Ostblom, L. Prochazka, T. Zulueta- Coarasa, N. Shakiba, R. Fernandez-Gonzalez, and P. W. Zandstra, , dev.149658 ()

  15. [23]

    Tewary, D

    M. Tewary, D. Dziedzicka, J. Ostblom, L. Prochazka, N. Shakiba, T. Heydari, D. Aguilar-Hidalgo, C. Wood- ford, E. Piccinini, D. Becerra-Alonso, A. Vickers, B. Louis, N. Rahman, D. Danovi, M. Geens, F. M. Watt, and P. W. Zandstra, 17, e3000081 (), number: 10

  16. [24]

    H. Kaul, N. Werschler, R. D. Jones, M. M. Siu, M. Tewary, A. Hagner, J. Ostblom, D. Aguilar-Hidalgo, and P. W. Zandstra, 18, 377, number: 1

  17. [25]

    Manfrin, Y

    A. Manfrin, Y. Tabata, E. R. Paquet, A. R. Vuaridel, F. R. Rivest, F. Naef, and M. P. Lutolf, 16, 640

  18. [26]

    Brauns, G

    F. Brauns, G. Pawlik, J. Halatek, J. Kerssemakers, E. Frey, and C. Dekker, 12, 3312

  19. [27]

    Burkart, B

    T. Burkart, B. J. M¨ uller, and E. Frey, 110, 034412

  20. [28]

    Turing Alan Mathison, 237, 37

  21. [29]

    Dillon, P

    R. Dillon, P. K. Maini, and H. G. Othmer, 32, 345

  22. [30]

    Erban and S

    R. Erban and S. J. Chapman, 4, 16

  23. [31]

    Werner, T

    S. Werner, T. St¨ uckemann, M. Beir´ an Amigo, J. C. Rink, F. J¨ ulicher, and B. M. Friedrich,114, 138101

  24. [32]

    W¨ urthner, F

    L. W¨ urthner, F. Brauns, G. Pawlik, J. Halatek, J. Kersse- makers, C. Dekker, and E. Frey, 119, e2206888119

  25. [33]

    Aguilar-Hidalgo, S

    D. Aguilar-Hidalgo, S. Werner, O. Wartlick, M. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an, B. M. Friedrich, and F. J¨ ulicher, 120, 198102 ()

  26. [34]

    Kicheva, P

    A. Kicheva, P. Pantazis, T. Bollenbach, Y. Kalaidzidis, T. Bittig, F. J¨ ulicher, and M. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an,315, 521

  27. [35]

    M¨ uller, K

    P. M¨ uller, K. W. Rogers, B. M. Jordan, J. S. Lee, D. Rob- son, S. Ramanathan, and A. F. Schier, Science 336, 721 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    Zhou, W.-C

    S. Zhou, W.-C. Lo, J. L. Suhalim, M. A. Digman, E. Gratton, Q. Nie, and A. D. Lander, Current Biology 22, 668 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Romanova-Michaelides, Z

    M. Romanova-Michaelides, Z. Hadjivasiliou, D. Aguilar- Hidalgo, D. Basagiannis, C. Seum, M. Dubois, F. J¨ ulicher, and M. Gonzalez-Gaitan, 602, 287

  30. [38]

    Gregor, E

    T. Gregor, E. F. Wieschaus, A. P. McGregor, W. Bialek, and D. W. Tank, 130, 141

  31. [39]

    Wartlick, P

    O. Wartlick, P. Mumcu, A. Kicheva, T. Bittig, C. Seum, F. J¨ ulicher, and M. Gonz´ alez-Gait´ an,331, 1154

  32. [40]

    Aguilar-Hidalgo, M

    D. Aguilar-Hidalgo, M. A. Dom´ ınguez-Cejudo, G. Amore, A. Brockmann, M. C. Lemos, A. C´ ordoba, and F. Casares, 140, 82 ()

  33. [41]

    J. B. A. Green and J. Sharpe, 142, 1203

  34. [42]

    Mora and W

    T. Mora and W. Bialek, 144, 268

  35. [43]

    Oriola, G

    D. Oriola, G. Torregrosa-Cort´ es, K. Arat´ o, D. Fern´ andez- Munuera, E. M. Hahn, K. Anla¸ s, J. Garcia-Ojalvo, and V. Trivedi, Cell-cell communication controls the timing of gastruloid symmetry-breaking

  36. [44]

    Gsell, S

    S. Gsell, S. Tlili, M. Merkel, and P.-F. Lenne, 21, 644

  37. [45]

    R. D. J. G. Ho, K. Kishi, M. Majka, A. Kicheva, and M. Zagorski, 20, e1012508

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.