Cellular Flow Architecture Exposes the Hidden Mechanics of Biological Matter

Amin Doostmohammadi; Robin V. B\"olsterli; Tianxiang Ma; Valeriia Grudtsyna

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Cellular Flow Architecture Exposes the Hidden Mechanics of Biological Matter

T0 review · 4 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 Cell trajectories alone can expose where compressive and tensile stress build up in a tissue, because the hidden attractors and repellers of cell flow mark stress hotspots and future extrusion sites.

desk verdict Trajectory-only LCS/FTLE analysis gives a striking and mostly convincing correlation with stress enrichment and packing in epithelial monolayers, but the causal 'precede and drive' framing is not supported by the evidence and the material-point assumption in the LGR step needs an explicit artifact check before the extrusion result is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17974 v1 pith:BGVBIX6O submitted 2025-08-25 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft

Tianxiang Ma , Valeriia Grudtsyna , Robin V. Bölsterli , Amin Doostmohammadi This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.soft

keywords Lagrangiancoherentstructuresfinite-timeLyapunovexponentcollectivecellmigrationintercellularstressextrusionpackingepithelialmonolayersbiomechanicalinference

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 claims that the hidden architecture of collective cell motion—attractors and repellers in the Lagrangian flow—marks where compressive and tensile stress accumulate in a cell sheet, and that these structures appear before the stress does. If true, the biomechanical state of a tissue could be read off from ordinary cell trajectories without invasive stress probes. The paper supports this by showing that top-20% attraction and repulsion regions show more than tenfold enrichment of compressive and tensile stress, that the association persists across adhesion and substrate perturbations, that short-term structures track stress reorganization lasting hours, and that attractors mark future cell extrusion sites.

What carries the argument

The central object is the finite-time Lyapunov exponent (FTLE) field: the time-normalized logarithm of the largest singular value of the flow-map Jacobian, computed forward (fwFTLE, repellers) and backward (bwFTLE, attractors) over a time window. Because cell positions are sparse, the flow-map Jacobian is estimated by Lagrangian Gradient Regression—a regularized least-squares fit of the local linearized displacement map over short subintervals, chained across the window—to build the right Cauchy–Green strain tensor $C=(\nabla F)^\top \nabla F$ and extract its largest eigenvalue. That regression-produced deformation field is what converts raw trajectories into the hidden skeleton later correlated with stress enrichment, cell packing, and extrusion.

What would settle it

Simulate a monolayer with known intercellular stress and frequent cell divisions and extrusions, compute FTLE from the simulated tracks with the same regression settings, and test whether top-20% attractor and repeller regions still align with more-than-tenfold stress enrichment; if the alignment degrades or division/extrusion artifacts dominate, the central claim is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in epithelial monolayers, the attractors and repellers of the Lagrangian cell flow are not passive echoes of mechanics but early markers and drivers of stress reorganization: the top 20% backward-FTLE (attracting) regions develop compressive stress enrichment and the top 20% forward-FTLE (repelling) regions develop tensile stress enrichment, with mean amplifications of 3.91 and 3.94 Pa·µm/min versus 0.38 Pa·µm/min in residual regions—more than a tenfold contrast. The association holds across FTLE windows from 30 minutes to 5 hours and under E-cadherin knockdown and substrate-stiffness changes. Short-term (30-minute) FTLE patterns correlate with stress enrichment lasting at least 5 hours, and the temporal lag between coherent motion and stress change grows when cell-cell junctions are weakened. Finally, backward-FTLE fields computed before an extrusion show elevated values at the future extrusion site, with a lead time of roughly 20–30 minutes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that tracked cell motion over short windows behaves like material points of a continuous flow, so the local displacement map can be approximated as linear; if cell division, extrusion, or tracking errors break that assumption, the FTLE fields are contaminated by tracking artifacts rather than true coherent motion, and the downstream stress and packing correlations would be compromised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Cell trajectories alone could serve as a non-invasive readout of where compressive and tensile stress are building up, reducing the need for force microscopy or fluorescent stress probes.
Short 30-minute trajectory windows predict stress enrichment that persists for hours, giving the method genuine forecasting power for tissue-level mechanical reorganization.
Attracting LCSs mark future cell extrusion sites, so flow kinematics could flag cell-elimination events tens of minutes before they occur.
The framework transfers to systems where individual tracks are unavailable, since trajectories reconstructed from velocity fields yield the same FTLE patterns.
Because the stress associations survive E-cadherin knockout and substrate-stiffness changes, the approach should work across varied mechanical microenvironments.

Reading between the lines

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

The time lag between FTLE patterns and stress enrichment, which lengthens when cell-cell junctions are weakened, could itself be quantified as a non-invasive index of effective intercellular adhesion strength.
The proof-of-concept stress prediction from FTLE fields could likely be extended into a full mapping from trajectory-derived kinematics to stress maps, turning the reported tenfold contrast into a quantitative substitute for stress microscopy.
A direct test using computational epithelial models with known stress fields would independently verify the causal claim that attractors and repellers precede and drive stress reorganization rather than merely correlate with it.
The cited parallel between LCSs and polymeric stress fields suggests the attractor-repeller/stress coupling may generalize to other active and viscoelastic materials, which could be tested in simulation or experiments on non-biological active fluids.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear X,

The thing to know: this paper gives the most convincing demonstration I've seen that LCS/FTLE fields computed from sparse cell trajectories track stress enrichment and packing heterogeneities in MDCK monolayers. The link to future extrusion is a nice payoff. But the title and discussion oversell the causal direction: the data are correlational, and the 'precede and drive' wording isn't backed by the analysis. The other real soft spot is the material-point assumption in the LGR step, which the stress-test note flags correctly.

What's genuinely new: prior LCS work in cell layers focused on migration fronts and morphogenesis; here they systematically compare attractor/repeller regions against BISM stress enrichment across multiple time windows, perturbations (E-cad knockdown, substrate stiffness), and thresholds. The >10-fold enrichment claim is striking, and the robustness checks (top 30% to 10%, neighborhood size 5–60) are more thorough than most papers of this type. The machine-learning predictor is a stub, but it's honest as a proof of concept. The packing correlations and the junction-dependent lag in stress realignment make sense given what we know about force transmission.

Soft spots, in proportion: (1) The material-point issue is real. LGR assumes the nearest-neighbor set is a fixed material patch over the regression interval. In a dividing/extruding monolayer, divisions and extrusions introduce source/sink effects that the least-squares fit will read as deformation. The paper never states how trajectories are truncated at these events, and the extrusion analysis (Fig. 5) is exactly where you'd expect the artifact to bite: the future loss of a cell creates convergent motion of neighbors by construction. The elevated bwFTLE before extrusion could be partly a kinematic reflection of the upcoming removal, not a 'hidden skeleton' that predicts it. They need a control—e.g., removing the extruding cell from the trajectory set and recomputing, or comparing to a simulation with synthetic division/extrusion. (2) The 'precede' claim is weaker than presented. Fig. 2 uses the same window T = Δt for LCS and stress enrichment; that's a correlation, not a prediction. Fig. 4 does use short LCS intervals against longer enrichment windows, which is better, but the 'drive' language still implies causation from kinematics to stress, whereas both could be driven by a common mechanical process. (3) No code or data. For a methods-heavy paper, that's a big gap. The LGR hyperparameters (K_n, γ, T) are hand-chosen; the robustness checks help, but I couldn't reproduce the exact magnitudes without code.

The math itself is standard LCS/FTLE, correctly applied. The citation pattern is fair—they cite the LGR method, earlier LCS biology work, and the BISM source. No circularity: stress and motion are independently measured.

Who's it for: anyone working on collective cell migration, monolayer mechanics, or trying to infer stress from kinematics. It deserves a serious referee—the core correlation is likely robust, and the extrusion finding is interesting enough that the material-point artifact needs to be sorted out in the literature, not desk-rejected. I'd send it to review with a request for the trajectory-truncation analysis and a sharper distinction between same-window and lagged correlations.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a framework for inferring mesoscale biomechanical reorganization in MDCK monolayers from Lagrangian coherent structures (LCSs) computed solely from cell trajectories. Using Lagrangian Gradient Regression (LGR) to estimate finite-time Lyapunov exponent (FTLE) fields, the authors report that top-20% attractors (backward FTLE) and repellers (forward FTLE) mark regions of compressive and tensile stress enrichment, respectively, with enrichment magnitudes exceeding tenfold over residual regions. They further report that short-term LCSs are associated with long-term stress enrichment, that the persistence of enrichment is modulated by E-cadherin expression and substrate stiffness, and that backward FTLE is elevated at future cell extrusion sites. A proof-of-concept machine learning model is used to predict stress enrichment maps from FTLE fields. The authors conclude that the hidden 'flow skeleton' precedes and drives long-term intercellular stress reorganization and offers a new route to infer biomechanical metrics from motion data.

Significance. If the central correlations hold, the work offers a practical, purely kinematic route to infer mesoscale biomechanical quantities from cell motion, which is substantially easier to measure than stress via traction force microscopy or fluorescent probes. The paper is notable for its extensive robustness checks: multiple FTLE integration times, threshold variations, five independent experiments, mechanical perturbations, and a comparison against Eulerian metrics. The extrusion analysis is a biologically meaningful endpoint that could extend to tissue homeostasis and disease contexts. The LGR methodology is current and the analysis pipeline is clearly described. However, the central causal claim ('precede and drive') is not supported by the correlational design, and the material-point assumption underlying LGR is not validated against cell division and extrusion, both of which are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusions.

major comments (4)

[Extracting Lagrangian Coherent Structures (LCSs) from Sparse Cell Trajectories (Eqs. 3-7)] The LGR framework assumes that the K_n nearest neighbors form a fixed material neighborhood over each short subinterval. The manuscript does not state how cell division and extrusion events are handled in the trajectory data or in the local regression. A dividing or extruding cell inside the ~80 µm regression window will appear as an apparent local expansion or contraction, and the least-squares fit in Eq. (7) will absorb that non-material event as deformation. The extrusion analysis in Fig. 5B is particularly exposed: the imminent loss of a cell is itself a sink that will produce elevated bwFTLE by construction. Because the same FTLE fields feed the stress-enrichment statistics (Fig. 2C) and the temporal-lag analysis (Fig. 4), the reported correlations could be contaminated by source/sink artifacts. The authors should either explicitly exclude or mask division/extrusion events in the trajectory data, or provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the results are unchanged when such events are removed.
[Abstract and Discussion] The statement that LCSs 'precede and drive long-term intercellular stress reorganization' is stronger than the evidence presented. Fig. 2 compares FTLE and stress enrichment over the same time window (T = Δt), which is a synchronous correlation. Fig. 4 shows that short-term LCSs are correlated with later stress enrichment, but this remains a predictive, not causal, relationship. The E-cadherin and substrate-stiffness perturbations alter the entire mechanical state of the monolayer, so they do not isolate LCSs as the driver. The authors should either soften the causal language to 'predict' or 'are associated with', or provide an intervention that specifically manipulates LCSs while holding other variables fixed.
[Attractors and Repellers Mark Hotspots for Mechanical Stress Enrichment (Supplementary Fig. S3)] The comparison between LCSs and Eulerian metrics is not matched in temporal processing. The FTLE fields integrate deformation over a time interval T, whereas the Eulerian fields (velocity magnitude, divergence, vorticity) appear to be instantaneous quantities. The claim that Eulerian metrics show 'only subtle relationships' with stress enrichment could reflect this time-window mismatch rather than a fundamental advantage of Lagrangian descriptors. The authors should time-average or time-integrate the Eulerian metrics over the same window T before comparing their association with stress enrichment.
[Attractors and Repellers Mark Hotspots for Mechanical Stress Enrichment (Fig. 2C)] The central tenfold enrichment claim requires an explicit definition of the stress enrichment metric. The main text only says 'time rate of stress change within a time window Δt' and reports units of Pa·µm/min, but it is not clear whether the enrichment is a spatial gradient, a temporal derivative, or an average change over the window. Without this definition, the reported magnitudes (3.91 Pa·µm/min versus 0.38 Pa·µm/min) cannot be reproduced or interpreted. The authors should provide the exact formula in the main text or a clearly referenced equation in the Supplementary Methods, and state explicitly how regions are pooled across samples and time intervals.

minor comments (5)

[Machine Learning Framework (Supplementary Fig. S7)] The proof-of-concept ML section reports that predicted maps 'closely matched' experimental measurements, but no quantitative accuracy metric (e.g., R², Pearson correlation) is given in the main text; please add a quantitative measure of prediction quality.
[Clustering Visualization (Fig. 2D)] The description of the cluster-tracking method refers to a 'spatial alignment metric' without defining it in the main text; a concise definition or a clear pointer to the Supplementary Methods equation would improve reproducibility.
[Terminology (Throughout)] The terms 'LCS attractors' and 'LCS repellers' are operationally defined as regions in the top 20% of bwFTLE and fwFTLE, rather than by rigorous ridge extraction of the FTLE field. Please clarify that 'LCS' in this work refers to thresholded FTLE regions, and discuss any implications for comparison with prior LCS studies.
[Trajectory Tracking (Methods)] The main text describes the use of Cellpose and Trackmate but does not state how track splits and merges (associated with division and extrusion) are handled in the trajectory linking. A brief statement in the main text or a clear reference to the relevant Supplementary Methods section is needed, given the material-point assumption in Eqs. (3)-(7).
[Residual Regions (Fig. 2C)] The definition of the 'residual regions' used as the baseline for the tenfold comparison should be stated explicitly (e.g., the complement of the union of top-20% attracting and repelling regions).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LCS-stress correlations use independent measurements; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation extracts FTLE fields from tracked cell trajectories via LGR (Eqs. 1–7) and compares them with intercellular stress from BISM and packing from Cellpose segmentations. The stress and packing measurements are independent of the trajectory-derived FTLE fields; no equation in the paper defines stress enrichment in terms of FTLE or vice versa. The LGR hyperparameters (Kn=40, γ≪r) are set from the velocity correlation length and varied in robustness checks, not fitted to the stress field; the tenfold enrichment and lag analyses are therefore empirical correlations rather than constructed outputs. The self-citations [41,42,44,57,66] are used for interpretive context and background, not as the proof of the central claim. A possible confound exists in the endpoint-inclusive bwFTLE/extrusion association (Fig. 5B/C), where the extruded cell's disappearance can itself produce convergence in the centroid field; however, the paper's future-extrusion analysis (Fig. 5D) uses intervals ending before extrusion and is not subject to that construction. No step reduces the paper's main findings to their inputs, so the circularity score is low.

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

No new physical entities are introduced; LCSs, FTLE, and BISM stress are existing constructs. The main prescribed content is methodological: LGR hyperparameters, thresholds, and the material-point assumption. The paper's strongest empirical content comes from correlating independent measurements, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (4)

Nearest-neighbor count K_n for LGR = 40 (tested 5 to 60)
Controls regression radius for the flow-map Jacobian; chosen from the velocity correlation length, not fitted to the stress field.
LCS threshold = Top 20% of FTLE (tested 10% to 30%)
Defines attractor and repeller regions; affects effect magnitudes, but trends are consistent across thresholds.
Integration time T and stress enrichment window Delta t = 30 min to 5 h
FTLE interval and stress enrichment window are scanned, but the same-window comparison in Fig. 2C mixes short and long scales.
LGR regularization gamma = Small, gamma much less than mean intercellular distance; exact value in Supplementary Methods
Stabilizes the least-squares regression but is not reported in the main text.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Local flow is linear over short subintervals
LGR reconstructs the flow-map Jacobian from sparse trajectories via Eq. (7); if nonlinearity dominates over the subinterval, the Jacobian estimates are biased. Invoked in the LCS extraction section.
domain assumption Cell trajectories behave as material points of a continuum
FTLE treats tracked cells as fluid particles; cell division, extrusion, and T1 rearrangements violate the material-point assumption. This is assumed throughout and not directly tested.
domain assumption BISM intercellular stress maps are accurate
All stress correlations depend on Bayesian inversion from traction forces; systematic error in the stress inference would propagate into the enrichment comparisons.
ad hoc to paper The top-20% FTLE threshold cleanly separates attractors and repellers
Regions with both high backward and forward FTLE are excluded as saddles; the threshold is conventional and tested only over a 10% to 30% range.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cellular Flow Architecture Exposes the Hidden Mechanics of Biological Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BGVBIX6O

@misc{pith2026250817974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cellular Flow Architecture Exposes the Hidden Mechanics of Biological Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BGVBIX6O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17974}
}

read the original abstract

Understanding how biomechanical reorganization governs key biological processes, such as morphogenesis and development, requires predictive insights into stress distributions and cellular behavior. While traditional approaches focused on cell motion as a response to stress, we demonstrate that Lagrangian coherent structures (LCSs) -- robust attractors and repellers in cellular flows -- precede and drive long-term intercellular stress reorganization, physically governed by the mechanical properties of intercellular junctions. We show that this hidden flow skeleton correlates strongly with biomechanical metrics, bridging microscopic cell motion with mesoscopic biomechanics. Specifically, attractors and repellers mark hotspots of compressive and tensile stress enrichment (exceeding tenfold), alongside heterogeneities in cell packing. Notably, these connections remain robust across varying strengths of cell-cell and cell-substrate force transmission. Finally, by linking the attracting regions in the flow skeleton to future cell extrusion spots, we establish a direct link between cell motion and biologically significant outcomes. Together, these findings establish a framework for using cell motion to independently infer biomechanical metrics and bridge the scale mismatch between cell motion and biomechanics, potentially offering a new route to interpret mechanosensitive biological processes directly from cell trajectories.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[28]

Serra, L

M. Serra, L. Lemma, L. Giomi, Z. Dogic, and L. Mahade- van, Defect-mediated dynamics of coherent structures in active nematics, Nature Physics 19, 1355 (2023)

work page 2023
[29]

R. M. Lee and W. Losert, Dynamics phenotyping across length and time scales in collective cell migration, in Seminars in cell & developmental biology, Vol. 93 (Else- vier, 2019) pp. 69–76

work page 2019
[30]

Serra, G

M. Serra, G. Serrano N´ ajera, M. Chuai, A. M. Plum, S. Santhosh, V. Spandan, C. J. Weijer, and L. Ma- hadevan, A mechanochemical model recapitulates dis- tinct vertebrate gastrulation modes, Science Advances 9, eadh8152 (2023)

work page 2023
[31]

R. M. Lee, D. H. Kelley, K. N. Nordstrom, N. T. Ouel- lette, and W. Losert, Quantifying stretching and rear- rangement in epithelial sheet migration, New journal of physics 15, 025036 (2013)

work page 2013
[32]

R. M. Lee, C. H. Stuelten, C. A. Parent, and W. Losert, Collective cell migration over long time scales reveals dis- tinct phenotypes, Convergent science physical oncology 2, 025001 (2016)

work page 2016
[33]

T. D. Harms, S. L. Brunton, and B. J. McKeon, La- grangian gradient regression for the detection of coher- ent structures from sparse trajectory data, Royal Society Open Science 11, 240586 (2024)

work page 2024
[34]

S. L. Brunton and C. W. Rowley, Fast computation of finite-time lyapunov exponent fields for unsteady flows, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 20 (2010)

work page 2010
[35]

M. R. Fenelon, Y. Zhang, P. J. Schmid, and L. N. C. III, Kinematic decomposition of multi- pulse volumetric particle tracking velocimetry data, in 15th International Symposium on Particle Image Velocimetry,(1) (2023)

work page 2023

Show all 43 references

[36]

K. Onu, F. Huhn, and G. Haller, Lcs tool: A computa- tional platform for lagrangian coherent structures, Jour- nal of Computational Science 7, 26 (2015)

2015
[37]

Trepat, M

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

2009
[38]

Stringer, T

C. Stringer, T. Wang, M. Michaelos, and M. Pachitariu, Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segmenta- tion, Nature methods 18, 100 (2021)

2021
[39]

Tinevez, N

J.-Y. Tinevez, N. Perry, J. Schindelin, G. M. Hoopes, G. D. Reynolds, E. Laplantine, S. Y. Bednarek, S. L. Shorte, and K. W. Eliceiri, Trackmate: An open and extensible platform for single-particle tracking, Methods 115, 80 (2017)

2017
[40]

Rockwood, Y

M. Rockwood, Y. Huang, and M. Green, Tracking co- herent structures in massively-separated and turbulent flows, Physical Review Fluids 3, 014702 (2018)

2018
[41]

Balasubramaniam, A

L. Balasubramaniam, A. Doostmohammadi, T. B. Saw, G. H. N. S. Narayana, R. Mueller, T. Dang, M. Thomas, S. Gupta, S. Sonam, A. S. Yap, et al., Investigating the nature of active forces in tissues reveals how contractile cells can form extensile monolayers, Nature materials 20,...

2021
[42]

T. B. Saw, A. Doostmohammadi, V. Nier, L. Kocgozlu, S. P. Thampi, Y. Toyama, P. Marcq, C. T. Lim, J. M. Yeomans, and B. Ladoux, Topological defects in epithelia govern cell death and extrusion, Nature544, 212 (2017)

2017
[43]

Guillamat, C

P. Guillamat, C. Blanch-Mercader, G. Pernollet, K. Kruse, and A. Roux, Integer topological defects or- ganize stresses driving tissue morphogenesis, Nature ma- terials 21, 588 (2022)

2022
[44]

Balasubramaniam, S

L. Balasubramaniam, S. Monfared, A. Ardaˇ seva, C. Rosse, A. Schoenit, T. Dang, C. Maric, M. Haute- feuille, L. Kocgozlu, R. Chilupuri, et al., Dynamic forces shape the survival fate of eliminated cells, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

2025
[45]

Charras and A

G. Charras and A. S. Yap, Tensile forces and mechan- otransduction at cell–cell junctions, Current Biology 28, R445 (2018)

2018
[46]

Zaritsky, D

A. Zaritsky, D. Kaplan, I. Hecht, S. Natan, L. Wolf, N. S. Gov, E. Ben-Jacob, and I. Tsarfaty, Propagating waves of directionality and coordination orchestrate collective cell migration, PLoS computational biology 10, e1003747 (2014)

2014
[47]

M. S. Schmitt, J. Colen, S. Sala, J. Devany, S. Seethara- man, A. Caillier, M. L. Gardel, P. W. Oakes, and V. Vitelli, Machine learning interpretable models of cell mechanics from protein images, Cell 187, 481 (2024)

2024
[48]

Santhosh, C

S. Santhosh, C. Zhu, B. Fencil, and M. Serra, Coherent structures in active flows on dynamic surfaces, bioRxiv , 2025 (2025)

2025
[49]

G. E. Neurohr and A. Amon, Relevance and regulation of cell density., Trends in cell biology (2020)

2020
[50]

Pajic-Lijakovic, M

I. Pajic-Lijakovic, M. Milivojevic, and P. V. McClintock, Epithelial cell-cell interactions in an overcrowded envi- ronment: jamming or live cell extrusion, Journal of Bio- logical Engineering 18, 47 (2024)

2024
[51]

McEvoy, Y

E. McEvoy, Y. L. Han, M. Guo, and V. B. Shenoy, Gap junctions amplify spatial variations in cell volume in pro- liferating tumor spheroids, Nature communications 11, 6148 (2020)

2020
[52]

Yang and H

Y. Yang and H. Jiang, Shaping the stress field in cell monolayers via intercellular water flows, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 159, 104756 (2022)

2022
[53]

Bazelli` eres, V

E. Bazelli` eres, V. Conte, A. Elosegui-Artola, X. Serra- Picamal, M. Bintanel-Morcillo, P. Roca-Cusachs, J. J. Mu˜ noz, M. Sales-Pardo, R. Guimer` a, and X. Trepat, Control of cell–cell forces and collective cell dynamics by the intercellular adhesome, Nature cell biology 17,...

2015
[54]

Y.-A. Yang, E. Nguyen, G. H. N. Sankara Narayana, M. Heuz´ e, C. Fu, H. Yu, R.-M. M` ege, B. Ladoux, and M. P. Sheetz, Local contractions regulate e-cadherin rigidity sensing, Science advances 8, eabk0387 (2022)

2022
[55]

Vazquez, A

K. Vazquez, A. Saraswathibhatla, and J. Notbohm, Ef- fect of substrate stiffness on friction in collective cell mi- gration, Scientific Reports 12, 2474 (2022)

2022
[56]

B. Wang, P. Qin, H. Zhao, T. Xia, J. Wang, L. Liu, L. Zhu, J. Xu, C. Huang, Y. Shi, et al., Substrate stiff- ness orchestrates epithelial cellular heterogeneity with controlled proliferative pattern via e-cadherin/β-catenin mechanotransduction, Acta biomaterialia 41, 169 (2016)

2016
[57]

Schoenit, S

A. Schoenit, S. Monfared, L. Anger, C. Rosse, V. Venkatesh, L. Balasubramaniam, E. Marangoni, P. Chavrier, R.-M. M` ege, A. Doostmohammadi, et al., Force transmission is a master regulator of mechanical cell competition, Nature Materials , 1 (2025)

2025
[58]

Kocgozlu, T

L. Kocgozlu, T. B. Saw, A. P. Le, I. Yow, M. Sha- girov, E. Wong, R.-M. M` ege, C. T. Lim, Y. Toyama, and B. Ladoux, Epithelial cell packing induces distinct modes of cell extrusions, Current Biology 26, 2942 (2016)

2016
[59]

Fadul and J

J. Fadul and J. Rosenblatt, The forces and fates of extruding cells, Current opinion in cell biology 54, 66 (2018). 13

2018
[60]

Granero-Moya, V

I. Granero-Moya, V. Venturini, G. Belthier, B. Groe- nen, M. Molina-Jord´ an, M. Gonz´ alez-Mart´ ın, X. Trepat, J. van Rheenen, I. Andreu, and P. Roca-Cusachs, Nu- cleocytoplasmic transport senses mechanical forces inde- pendently of cell density in cell monolayers, Journal o...

2024
[61]

K. L. Mui, C. S. Chen, and R. K. Assoian, The mechan- ical regulation of integrin–cadherin crosstalk organizes cells, signaling and forces, Journal of cell science 129, 1093 (2016)

2016
[62]

De Pascalis and S

C. De Pascalis and S. Etienne-Manneville, Single and col- lective cell migration: the mechanics of adhesions, Molec- ular biology of the cell 28, 1833 (2017)

2017
[63]

A. F. Mertz, Y. Che, S. Banerjee, J. M. Goldstein, K. A. Rosowski, S. F. Revilla, C. M. Niessen, M. C. Marchetti, E. R. Dufresne, and V. Horsley, Cadherin-based inter- cellular adhesions organize epithelial cell–matrix traction forces, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sc...

2013
[64]

Kawaguchi, R

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

2017
[65]

Duclos, C

G. Duclos, C. Blanch-Mercader, V. Yashunsky, G. Sal- breux, J.-F. Joanny, J. Prost, and P. Silberzan, Spon- taneous shear flow in confined cellular nematics, Nature physics 14, 728 (2018)

2018
[66]

Doostmohammadi and B

A. Doostmohammadi and B. Ladoux, Physics of liquid crystals in cell biology, Trends in cell biology 32, 140 (2022)

2022
[67]

H. A. Shaban, R. Barth, L. Recoules, and K. Bystricky, Hi-d: nanoscale mapping of nuclear dynamics in single living cells, Genome biology 21, 95 (2020)

2020
[68]

Grobas, M

I. Grobas, M. Polin, and M. Asally, Swarming bacte- ria undergo localized dynamic phase transition to form stress-induced biofilms, Elife 10, e62632 (2021)

2021
[69]

S. Jain, V. M. Cachoux, G. H. Narayana, S. de Beco, J. D’alessandro, V. Cellerin, T. Chen, M. L. Heuz´ e, P. Marcq, R.-M. M` ege,et al., The role of single-cell me- chanical behaviour and polarity in driving collective cell migration, Nature physics 16, 802 (2020)

2020
[70]

Kumar, J

M. Kumar, J. S. Guasto, and A. M. Ardekani, Lagrangian stretching reveals stress topology in viscoelastic flows, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2211347120 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

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

[1] [28]

Serra, L

M. Serra, L. Lemma, L. Giomi, Z. Dogic, and L. Mahade- van, Defect-mediated dynamics of coherent structures in active nematics, Nature Physics 19, 1355 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [29]

R. M. Lee and W. Losert, Dynamics phenotyping across length and time scales in collective cell migration, in Seminars in cell & developmental biology, Vol. 93 (Else- vier, 2019) pp. 69–76

work page 2019

[3] [30]

Serra, G

M. Serra, G. Serrano N´ ajera, M. Chuai, A. M. Plum, S. Santhosh, V. Spandan, C. J. Weijer, and L. Ma- hadevan, A mechanochemical model recapitulates dis- tinct vertebrate gastrulation modes, Science Advances 9, eadh8152 (2023)

work page 2023

[4] [31]

R. M. Lee, D. H. Kelley, K. N. Nordstrom, N. T. Ouel- lette, and W. Losert, Quantifying stretching and rear- rangement in epithelial sheet migration, New journal of physics 15, 025036 (2013)

work page 2013

[5] [32]

R. M. Lee, C. H. Stuelten, C. A. Parent, and W. Losert, Collective cell migration over long time scales reveals dis- tinct phenotypes, Convergent science physical oncology 2, 025001 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [33]

T. D. Harms, S. L. Brunton, and B. J. McKeon, La- grangian gradient regression for the detection of coher- ent structures from sparse trajectory data, Royal Society Open Science 11, 240586 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [34]

S. L. Brunton and C. W. Rowley, Fast computation of finite-time lyapunov exponent fields for unsteady flows, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 20 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [35]

M. R. Fenelon, Y. Zhang, P. J. Schmid, and L. N. C. III, Kinematic decomposition of multi- pulse volumetric particle tracking velocimetry data, in 15th International Symposium on Particle Image Velocimetry,(1) (2023)

work page 2023