Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Inheritance Entropy: A Model-Independent Method to Probe the Hereditary Structure of Cell Lineage Trees

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims to prove that heritable traits, not random cell-to-cell variation, determine where bone-marrow stromal cells stop dividing, and that the inheritance is epigenetic.

desk verdict A clever topology-based entropy test for clonal heterogeneity, with a solid permutation null, but the 'proof' of epigenetic inheritance outruns the null model. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.18589 v2 pith:REMPOKZV submitted 2025-10-21 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.stat-mechq-bio.PE

Alessandro Allegrezza , Riccardo Beschi , Domenico Caudo , Andrea Cavagna , Alessandro Corsi , Antonio Culla , Samantha Donsante , Giuseppe Giannicola
show 9 more authors
Irene Giardina Giorgio Gosti Tomas S. Grigera Stefania Melillo Biagio Palmisano Leonardo Parisi Lorena Postiglione Mara Riminucci Francesco Saverio Rotondi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.stat-mechq-bio.PE
keywords celllineagetreesinheritanceentropycell-cycleexitbonemarrowstromalcellsmesenchymalstemepigenetictracingquiescence
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 heterogeneous behaviour of clonal human bone marrow stromal cell colonies is not the product of random cell-to-cell variation, but of heritable traits that regulate cell-cycle exit. To make this case, it defines an 'inheritance entropy' that measures whether inactive cells—cells that stop dividing—are clustered within a few branches of the proliferation tree or scattered evenly across it. Randomly rescrambling each colony one million times to erase mother-daughter links while preserving the number of inactive cells per generation, the authors find that 21 of 28 testable colonies have entropy lower than essentially all scrambled versions (P<0.05). A low entropy compared with the scrambled ensemble is interpreted as evidence that the propensity to become inactive is transmitted down lineages, probably through epigenetic marks, since the experiments span too few generations for genetic mutations to accumulate. If true, this would explain why colonies originating from single cells differ systematically, and would offer a path toward controlling colony heterogeneity in bone-regeneration therapies.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the pair (inactivity imbalance, inheritance entropy). At a given mitosis m, I_m is the absolute difference between the counts of missing seventh-generation leaves in the left and right sub-branches; it measures how much more destructive to the final tree one daughter lineage is than its sister. Normalising I_m over all mitoses gives weights w_m, and the inheritance entropy S = -Σ w_m log w_m condenses the whole imbalance map into a number: many similarly-sized scattered imbalances give high S, while a few dominant imbalances concentrated at a handful of nodes give low S. The test then compares S to the distribution obtained by randomly permuting all cells within each generat

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to physically separate the two sister cells at a mitosis flagged with a large imbalance and grow their progeny in identical, randomized environments; if the branch difference in inactivity propensity does not persist, the heredity claim fails. Alternatively, a single-cell molecular readout of a candidate inherited mark taken at the flagged ancestral mitosis should show a systematic difference between the two daughter branches before any inactive cell appears; if no such mark exists, the proposed epigenetic mechanism is unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the topology of BMSC lineage trees carries a detectable hereditary signal. For each mitosis, the authors compute an inactivity imbalance: the absolute difference between the number of missing seventh-generation leaves in the two daughter branches. They normalise these imbalances across the tree and define S = -Σ w_m log w_m; low S means that most of the imbalance is concentrated on a few nodes, which is the signature of a heritable change in the probability of producing inactive cells. To test significance, they scramble each biological tree by random permutations within each generation, which destroys mother-daughter relationships while keeping the per-generati

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that after mixing up each generation, the only thing that has been removed is the tendency of daughters to resemble their mothers; if cells that stop dividing also cluster in branches for reasons unrelated to inheritance—such as a shared local environment or asymmetric division effects—then low entropy does not prove heredity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If confirmed, the paper implies that colony-to-colony heterogeneity in BMSC transplants is traceable to heritable epigenetic states rather than stochastic noise, so protocols that modulate those states could reduce transplant unpredictability.
  • The method gives a branch-level map of where inactivity propensity changes; this map can be used upstream to locate the epigenetic event 3–4 generations before inactive cells appear, enabling marker discovery.
  • Since the test needs only lineage topology, not molecular readouts, it can be applied to any cell type where a fate decision prunes branches of a tree—senescence, quiescence, differentiation, or apoptosis.
  • A non-significant result is explicitly not evidence against inheritance; the test only detects heritability when there is measurable variation in inactivity propensity along the lineage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The null preserves only per-generation inactive counts; it does not randomize away all non-hereditary correlations that could cluster inactivity in branches, such as local microenvironmental niches shared by adjacent lineages or sister-cell asymmetries unrelated to heritable state. If such factors matter, some of the 21 significant clones could be false positives for inheritance.
  • The 3.1-generation average lag is directly testable: single-cell measurements of candidate epigenetic marks along a lineage should show a change at the flagged ancestral mitosis before the first inactive cell appears; absence of such a change would challenge the interpretation.
  • The entropy test's power is limited by tree depth and inactive-cell count; extending lineage tracing beyond seven generations or experimentally increasing the number of cell-cycle exits should sharpen the test and may expose heredity in the 7 currently non-significant clones, which are mostly clones with only 2–3 inactive cells.
  • The same logic could be inverted to measure non-heritable branch correlation: comparing physical proximity, division-time correlations, and the entropy signal in the same trees could separate inherited propensity from environment-driven clustering, though the paper's Appendix B only begins that separation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a topology-only measure, the 'inheritance entropy' S, to detect heritable control of cell-cycle exit in clonal BMSC colonies. For each mitosis, the imbalance is the absolute difference between the numbers of missing generation-7 leaves in the two daughter branches; S is the Shannon entropy of the normalized imbalances (Eqs. 1-3). To assess significance, the authors randomly permute cells within each generation while carrying subtrees, preserving per-generation inactive counts (Appendix A), generate 10^6 scrambled trees per clone, and compute the fraction with S_scrambled <= S_biological (Section III.C). Of 28 testable clones (4 have at most one inactive cell), 21 give P<0.05. The paper interprets this as proof of hereditary epigenetic regulation, and additionally reports a mutation lag of 3.1 generations between the inferred change in inactivity propensity and the first G0 cell (Section III.E).

Significance. The permutation test is simple, transparent, and parameter-free: it uses only the observed tree topology, preserves a natural null constraint, and is implemented with 10^6 scrambles. The definition of the null is non-circular and the P-values are straightforward. If the spatial confounder can be excluded, the method would be a useful contribution to lineage-tracing analysis. However, the central inference currently rests on an unverified assumption that all non-hereditary sources of branch-clustered inactivity are removed by within-generation scrambling, and the language 'prove' exceeds what a permutation test can establish. These issues are fixable with additional analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C; Appendix A-B; Eqs. (1)-(3)] The spatial confounder is not excluded by the current null. The scrambling procedure (Appendix A) randomly permutes cell identities within each generation and carries subtrees with them, so it also randomizes the physical dish positions of inactive cells. If a dish-level gradient (nutrients, oxygen, waste) makes G0 entry more probable in one region, cells descended from a founder in that region will tend to be inactive because they are sessile; this produces branch-clustered inactivity and low S in the biological tree, while scrambled trees spread inactive cells over space and have higher S. Appendix B's Spearman rho=0.24 between pairwise physical and topological distances for all mitoses does not test this: a large-scale gradient affects entire regions, and the pairwise scatter plot in Fig. 8 does not restrict the spatial scale of the putative G0-promoting region. Please add a spatial n
  2. [Section III.C; Fig. 5] The word 'proving' in Section III.C (and in the abstract) overstates what a permutation test can show: rejecting the scrambling null provides statistical evidence, not a proof. In addition, 28 hypothesis tests are performed without any multiple-comparison correction. Although the very small P-values for many clones suggest the aggregate conclusion would survive correction, the paper should report adjusted P-values (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg) and state how many clones remain significant. This is load-bearing because the headline result is '21 of 28 colonies are significant'.
  3. [Section III.E; Fig. 6] The mutation-lag analysis appears to be based on visual inspection of the imbalance maps rather than a pre-specified algorithm. The text says 'an inspection of the imbalance map ... shows' and Fig. 6 annotates mutations manually. The reported average lag of 3.1 generations therefore lacks an objective selection rule, uncertainty quantification, and validation on simulated trees. Since this section is presented as a quantitative result, it needs a defined procedure (e.g., threshold on normalized imbalance and a rule for resolving chains) and a sensitivity analysis.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract; Introduction; Section III.C] The phrase 'we prove' should be softened to 'provide evidence' or 'show'; the analysis is a permutation test, not a proof.
  2. [Eq. (3)] If all inactivity imbalances I_m are zero, S is undefined. State a convention for this edge case.
  3. [Fig. 5] Report exact P-values and effect sizes in a table; violin plots make small counts hard to read. Also state how many of the 28 clones remain significant after multiple-comparison correction.
  4. [Section II.A; Reference [35]] The dataset and the 84-hour G0 threshold are described in the companion preprint [35], not in this manuscript. Please clarify data availability and, if possible, move the threshold robustness analysis into this paper or a supplement.
  5. [Abstract; Section II.B] The term 'non-hereditary lineage' is stronger than 'tree generated by the scrambling null'; consider rewording to avoid the impression that the null represents all possible non-hereditary mechanisms.
  6. [Section II.A; Section IV] The 17 apoptotic cells are merged with G0 cells; since apoptosis may have a different mechanism, a sensitivity analysis excluding them would be useful. The inference from intra-colony heritable variation to inter-colony heterogeneity is also speculative and should be marked as a hypothesis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inheritance test is a self-contained permutation test; the only self-citation is data provenance.

full rationale

The derivation chain is logically self-contained: the inactivity imbalance I_m (Eq. 1), normalized weights w_m (Eq. 2), and inheritance entropy S (Eq. 3) are defined independently of the conclusion. The null ensemble is generated by within-generation scrambling of the actual tree, preserving the number of inactive cells per generation while severing mother–daughter links (Appendix A). The P-value is the fraction of scrambled trees with S_scrambled <= S_biological, a standard permutation test with no fitted parameters. The biological conclusion is therefore conditional on the exchangeability assumption of that null, which is a modeling assumption rather than a circular reduction: the null is not constructed from the conclusion, and the entropy is not tuned to produce the result. The main reliance on the authors' companion paper [35] is for the dataset, experimental details, and the G0 classification criterion; this is data provenance and reproducibility support, not a load-bearing argument that reduces the present derivation to itself. Appendix B's spatial-proximity control may be incomplete — for example, large-scale dish gradients are not explicitly excluded — but an incomplete confounder control is a correctness concern, not a form of circularity. No step in the paper equates a fitted input with a predicted output, nor does any claimed result reduce by definition to the data used to define it.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated; the paper introduces statistical constructs (inactivity imbalance, inheritance entropy) rather than particles, forces, or dimensions. The main load-bearing assumptions are the exchangeability null and the completeness of missing-generation-7 counts.

free parameters (2)
  • G0 classification threshold = 84 hours
    A cell is classified inactive (G0) if it does not divide for 84 hours; this threshold determines the inactive counts that drive the entropy. It comes from the companion paper [35] and is a hand-chosen experimental cutoff, not fitted here.
  • Maximum generation k = 7
    Colonies are grown until generation 7; all missing-leaf counts are defined relative to k=7. Chosen by design to avoid statistical bias, but the entropy values depend on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Exchangeability under the null: conditional on the number of inactive cells at each generation, all within-generation arrangements of inactive cells are equally likely if inactivity is non-hereditary.
    The scrambling null and P-values assume that the only structure destroyed by within-generation permutation is heritable mother-daughter correlation. Section III.C and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Scrambling severs all potentially hereditary mother-daughter links while preserving the topological class (same number of inactive cells per generation).
    Appendix A states this as the goal of the permutation procedure; the inference that the scrambled entropy is the non-hereditary baseline depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Missing k7 leaves are a complete and sufficient summary of the impact of inactivity on lineage topology.
    Equations (1)-(3) and Section III.A define the imbalance only through missing generation-7 leaves; this ignores potential information in intermediate generations and in division times.
  • domain assumption Dead and G0 cells can be pooled as inactive because both have the same effect on lineage topology.
    Footnote 1 in Section II.A cites standard senescence literature; pooling affects the inactive-cell counts that drive the test.
  • domain assumption Genetic mutations are negligible over the 7-generation observation window, so the inferred inheritance is epigenetic.
    Section III.C: 'Given the short timescales ... highly unlikely that such structure is determined by genetic mutations [10,32]'; supported by citations, not by direct molecular measurement.
  • domain assumption Spatial microenvironment correlations do not produce the observed branch-clustered inactivity pattern.
    Appendix B uses weak correlation between physical and topological distance to argue against spatial artifacts; this is an observational argument, not a controlled experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inheritance Entropy: A Model-Independent Method to Probe the Hereditary Structure of Cell Lineage Trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/REMPOKZV

@misc{pith2026251018589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inheritance Entropy: A Model-Independent Method to Probe the Hereditary Structure of Cell Lineage Trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/REMPOKZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.18589}
}
read the original abstract

Human bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC) include skeletal stem cells with ground-breaking therapeutic potential. However, BMSC colonies have very heterogeneous in vivo behaviour, due to their different potency; this unpredictability is the greatest hurdle to the development of skeletal regeneration therapies. Colony-level heterogeneity urges a fundamental question: how is it possible that one colony as a collective unit behaves differently from another one? If cell-to-cell variability were just an uncorrelated random process, a million cells in a transplant-bound colony would be enough to yield statistical homogeneity, hence washing out any colony-level traits. A possible answer is that the differences between two originating cells are transmitted to their progenies and collectively persist through an hereditary mechanism. But non-genetic inheritance remains an elusive notion, both at the experimental and at the theoretical level. Here, we prove that heterogeneity in the lineage topology of BMSC clonal colonies is determined by heritable traits that regulate cell-cycle exit. The cornerstone of this result is the definition of a novel entropy of the colony, which measures the hereditary ramifications in the distribution of inactive cells across different branches of the proliferation tree. We measure the entropy in 32 clonal colonies, obtained from single-cell lineage tracing experiments, and show that in the greatest majority of clones this entropy is decisively smaller than that of the corresponding non-hereditary lineage. This result indicates that hereditary epigenetic factors play a major role in determining cycle exit of bone marrow stromal cells.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.18589 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Lineage trees of four samples of BMSC clonal colonies. Red segments represent active cells and black discs represent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Illustration of how the inactivity imbalance is calcu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The distribution of the inactivity imbalance across the different mitosis is very different in biological vs. randomly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Two examples of how the hereditary structure of the inactive cells is erased by the scrambling procedure and how [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Result of the inheritance test for all colonies in the dataset for which the test can be run (i.e. for lineages with more [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: In this highly hereditary lineage, the largest part [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Visualisation of the inactivity mutation lag in four BMSC clones passing the inheritance test. Each mitosis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Illustration — using a fictitious tree — of the process of lineage scrambling used in the inheritance test. This tree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mutual distances between all mitosis in a sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    high” and “low

    to generationk, each branch can potentially produce up to 2 (7−k) descendants at generation 7. However, if inactive cells emerge downstream along these branches, theactualnumber ofk 7 descendants will be smaller (some of these leaves will be missing). Given a mitosism, we will indicate withN left m the number of missingk 7 leaves in its left branch and si...

  2. [2]

    Deichmann, Developmental biology416, 249 (2016)

    U. Deichmann, Developmental biology416, 249 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Jablonka and M

    E. Jablonka and M. J. Lamb, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences981, 82 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    V. V. Lunyak and M. G. Rosenfeld, Human molecular genetics17, R28 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Meissner, Nature biotechnology28, 1079 (2010)

    A. Meissner, Nature biotechnology28, 1079 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    R. K. Ng and J. B. Gurdon, Cell cycle7, 1173 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    E. H. Zion, C. Chandrasekhara, and X. Chen, Current opinion in cell biology67, 27 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Sandler, S

    O. Sandler, S. P. Mizrahi, N. Weiss, O. Agam, I. Simon, and N. Q. Balaban, Nature519, 468 (2015)

    2015

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Mosheiff, B

    N. Mosheiff, B. M. Martins, S. Pearl-Mizrahi, A. Gr¨ unberger, S. Helfrich, I. Mihalcescu, D. Kohlheyer, J. C. Locke, L. Glass, and N. Q. Balaban, Physical Re- view X8, 021035 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Hormoz, Z

    S. Hormoz, Z. S. Singer, J. M. Linton, Y. E. Antebi, B. I. Shraiman, and M. B. Elowitz, Cell systems3, 419 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    H. H. Chang, M. Hemberg, M. Barahona, D. E. Ingber, and S. Huang, Nature453, 544 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Plambeck, A

    M. Plambeck, A. Kazeroonian, D. Loeffler, L. Kretschmer, C. Salinno, T. Schroeder, D. H. Busch, M. Flossdorf, and V. R. Buchholz, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2116260119 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Yampolskaya, L

    M. Yampolskaya, L. Ikonomou, and P. Mehta, arXiv preprint 2506.04219 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    D. E. Wagner and A. M. Klein, Nature Reviews Genetics 21, 410 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    C. S. Baron and A. van Oudenaarden, Nature reviews molecular cell biology20, 753 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Weinreb, A

    C. Weinreb, A. Rodriguez-Fraticelli, F. D. Camargo, and A. M. Klein, Science367, eaaw3381 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Raj, inLineage Tracing: Methods and Protocols (Springer, 2025) pp

    B. Raj, inLineage Tracing: Methods and Protocols (Springer, 2025) pp. 299–310

    2025

  10. [18]

    Spanjaard, B

    B. Spanjaard, B. Hu, N. Mitic, P. Olivares-Chauvet, S. Janjuha, N. Ninov, and J. P. Junker, Nature biotech- nology36, 469 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    R. J. Ihry, K. A. Worringer, M. R. Salick, E. Frias, D. Ho, K. Theriault, S. Kommineni, J. Chen, M. Sondey, C. Ye, 13 et al., Nature medicine24, 939 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Ogrodnik, Aging cell20, e13338 (2021)

    M. Ogrodnik, Aging cell20, e13338 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    C. M. Koch, S. Joussen, A. Schellenberg, Q. Lin, M. Zenke, and W. Wagner, Aging cell11, 366 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Franzen, A

    J. Franzen, A. Zirkel, J. Blake, B. Rath, V. Benes, A. Pa- pantonis, and W. Wagner, Aging cell16, 183 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Franzen, T

    J. Franzen, T. Georgomanolis, A. Selich, C.-C. Kuo, R. St¨ oger, L. Brant, M. S. Mulabdi´ c, E. Fernandez- Rebollo, C. Grezella, A. Ostrowska,et al., Communica- tions biology4, 598 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Nachtwey and I

    D. Nachtwey and I. Cameron, inMethods in Cell Biology, Vol. 3 (Elsevier, 1969) pp. 213–259

    1969

  17. [25]

    T. H. Cheung and T. A. Rando, Nature reviews Molecu- lar cell biology14, 329 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Behl and C

    C. Behl and C. Ziegler, inCell aging: Molecular mecha- nisms and implications for disease(Springer, 2013) pp. 9–19

    2013

  19. [27]

    M. M. Mens and M. Ghanbari, Stem cell reviews and reports14, 309 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Mareddy, R

    S. Mareddy, R. Crawford, G. Brooke, and Y. Xiao, Tis- sue engineering13, 819 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Mareddy, N

    S. Mareddy, N. Dhaliwal, R. Crawford, and Y. Xiao, Tissue Engineering Part A16, 749 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    Bianco and P

    P. Bianco and P. G. Robey, Development142, 1023 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Bianco, X

    P. Bianco, X. Cao, P. S. Frenette, J. J. Mao, P. G. Robey, P. J. Simmons, and C.-Y. Wang, Nature medicine19, 35 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Kuczek and D

    T. Kuczek and D. E. Axelrod, Mathematical biosciences 79, 87 (1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    D. A. Rennerfeldt and K. J. Van Vliet, Stem cells34, 1135 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Powell, Biometrika42, 16 (1955)

    E. Powell, Biometrika42, 16 (1955)

    1955

  27. [35]

    Genthon, T

    A. Genthon, T. Nozoe, L. Peliti, and D. Lacoste, PRX Life1, 013014 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Allegrezza, R

    A. Allegrezza, R. Beschi, D. Caudo, A. Cavagna, A. Corsi, A. Culla, S. Donsante, G. Giannicola, I. Giar- dina, G. Gosti,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.21818v2 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Kirkwood and R

    T. Kirkwood and R. Holliday, Journal of Theoretical Bi- ology53, 481 (1975)

    1975

  30. [38]

    Holliday, L

    R. Holliday, L. Huschtscha, G. Tarrant, and T. Kirk- wood, Science198, 366 (1977)

    1977

  31. [39]

    C. B. Harley and S. Goldstein, Science207, 191 (1980)

    1980

  32. [40]

    S. E. Luria and M. Delbr¨ uck, Genetics28, 491 (1943)

    1943

  33. [41]

    W. A. Rosche and P. L. Foster, Methods20, 4 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics,

    D. H. Colless, “Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics,” (1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Fischer, L

    M. Fischer, L. Herbst, S. Kersting, A. L. K¨ uhn, and K. Wicke,Tree balance indices: A comprehensive survey (Springer Nature, 2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    S. F. Gull and G. J. Daniell, Nature272, 686 (1978)

    1978

  37. [45]

    Theil,Economics and information theory(Amster- dam: North-Holland,, 1967)

    H. Theil,Economics and information theory(Amster- dam: North-Holland,, 1967)

    1967

  38. [46]

    M. K. Strasser, P. S. Hoppe, D. Loeffler, K. D. Kokkaliaris, T. Schroeder, F. J. Theis, and C. Marr, Nature communications9, 2697 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Wagner, P

    W. Wagner, P. Horn, M. Castoldi, A. Diehlmann, S. Bork, R. Saffrich, V. Benes, J. Blake, S. Pfister, V. Eckstein,et al., PloS one3, e2213 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Staudte, M

    R. Staudte, M. Guiguet, and M. C. d’Hooghe, Journal of theoretical biology109, 127 (1984)

    1984

  41. [49]

    Hormoz, N

    S. Hormoz, N. Desprat, and B. I. Shraiman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112, E2281 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Froese, Experimental cell research35, 415 (1964)

    G. Froese, Experimental cell research35, 415 (1964)

    1964

  43. [51]

    Kubitschek, Experimental cell research26, 439 (1962)

    H. Kubitschek, Experimental cell research26, 439 (1962)

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.