Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-linear visco-elasto-plastic rheology of a viscous vertex model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tissue shear in the vertex model reduces to two coupled mean-field relations: stress and rearrangement rate depend only on instantaneous cell shape and shear rate.

desk verdict Useful mean-field rheology for a viscous vertex model, but the constitutive relations are fitted closures and the generality claim outruns the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.22855 v2 pith:QOMYVZAF submitted 2026-02-26 cond-mat.soft q-bio.TO

Shalabh Kumar Anand , Matthias Merkel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softq-bio.TO
keywords vertexmodeltissuerheologycellshapeanisotropyT1transitionsvisco-elasto-plasticmean-fieldconstitutiverelationactivestresslarge-amplitudeoscillatoryshear
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that the complex shear behavior of a two-dimensional vertex model of epithelial tissue—covering elasticity, viscosity, plasticity, and active stresses—can be reduced to two coupled mean-field relations. The first gives shear stress as a function of instantaneous average cell shape and shear rate, with a viscosity that grows when cells undergo T1 rearrangements. The second states that the rate of plastic rearrangements is an exponential function of cell shape, so tissue shear splits into a reversible part (cell shape change) and an irreversible part (T1 events). If these relations hold, tissue-scale rheology can be predicted from cell-level simulations, and cell shape alone is a sufficient internal state variable for the tested regimes. The authors validate the model by predicting cell shape and stress trajectories under large-amplitude oscillatory shear.

What carries the argument

The central object is the decomposition of tissue shear rate into reversible and irreversible parts, v = dQ/dt + R, where Q is the average cell-shape anisotropy tensor and R is the shear rate contributed by T1 neighbor exchanges. The load-bearing constitutive ingredient is the exponential yielding law R/v = (1/2) exp[b(v)(Q − Q0(v))], which states that the fraction of shear accommodated by rearrangements rises exponentially once cell shape exceeds a shear-rate-dependent threshold Q0(v). The stress relation combines a cubic elastic stress in Q with a viscosity that is linearly interpolated by the irreversible fraction R/v, so plastic flow is more dissipative than elastic deformation.

What would settle it

Perform a shear-reversal or step-and-hold experiment in the vertex model in which two different histories arrive at the same instantaneous (Q, v) but with different accumulated past strain, then compare the immediately subsequent R and σ; if they differ beyond statistical error, the Markov-in-Q assumption fails. Alternatively, run large-amplitude oscillatory shear at higher frequency than ω=0.1 and check whether the deviations near yield reversal grow, as they should if finite internal relaxation times matter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a closed mean-field description of the vertex model's shear response. The tissue shear rate splits as v = dQ/dt + R, where Q is the average cell-shape anisotropy and R is the shear contributed by T1 neighbor exchanges. The stress is given by σ(Q,v) = σ_el(Q) + 2η(Q,v)v − ρT_act, with σ_el(Q) a nonlinear (cubic) elastic function of Q and η(Q,v) a viscosity that is roughly three times larger when deformation is carried by T1 rearrangements than when it is carried by cell-shape change. The rearrangement rate obeys R/v = (1/2) exp[b(v)(Q − Q0(v))], an exponential yielding law with a shear-rate-dependent threshold Q0(v); activity shifts both the stress and

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the plastic rearrangement rate R at any instant depends only on the current average cell shape Q and current shear rate v—no memory of past deformation history—and this is tested against a time-varying shear protocol only once, where the model shows visible deviations near shear reversal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, tissue-scale constitutive equations for vertex models with internal dissipation can be built from two scalar relations, and cell shape Q serves as an experimentally measurable state variable.
  • The model predicts the steady-state cell shape under constant shear, Q_s = Q0 + ln 2 / b, reproducing the observed increase of Q_s with shear rate and the different behaviors of the two active mechanisms.
  • Viscosity during T1-driven plastic flow is about three times the viscosity during elastic cell-shape change, so dissipation is concentrated in cell rearrangements.
  • Active anisotropic stresses act as linear offsets: they shift the stress by a constant ρ T_act and shift the yielding threshold Q0 by T_act Δq0(v), which can reverse the direction of cell elongation for crawling activity.
  • The same two-relation scheme, with the same strain decomposition, is proposed as general enough to construct nonlinear mean-field rheology for any cell-based tissue model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the authors leave implicit: for arbitrary deformation histories, the Markov-in-Q assumption may need an additional internal variable such as the relaxation state of subcellular degrees of freedom; the deviations near shear reversal reported in the paper suggest a testable memory effect.
  • The exponential yielding law has the form of an activated process with a shape-dependent barrier; one could derive b and Q0 from a mesoscopic model of T1 rates, turning the fit into a prediction.
  • The scheme should transfer to other cell-based models as long as the strain decomposition into shape change and rearrangements can be computed; comparing the resulting coefficients across models would reveal which rheological features are universal and which depend on model details.
  • A testable extension: measuring steady-state cell shape as a function of shear rate in epithelial monolayer experiments gives a direct route to the yielding threshold Q0 and can distinguish the two active mechanisms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Anand and Merkel propose a mean-field, cell-shape-based constitutive description for a 2D vertex model with internal (Galilean-invariant) viscous friction and two active stress mechanisms. Using the strain-decomposition framework of Merkel et al. [63], they write the shear rate as v = dQ/dt + R, where Q is the average cell shape and R is the rearrangement rate. They then posit closed relations: sigma(Q,v) = sigma_el(Q) + 2 eta(Q,R,v) v - rho T_act and R/v = (1/2) exp[b(v)(Q-Q0(v))]. The parameters are fitted to small-amplitude oscillatory, step, and constant-shear simulations for passive and active tissues; they identify a viscosity enhancement during T1 events and an exponential yielding law. Finally, they integrate dQ/dt = v - R to predict Q(t) and sigma(t) in large-amplitude oscillatory shear; predictions match simulations qualitatively, with deviations near shear reversal that the authors attribute to memory not captured by Q alone.

Significance. If established, this would be a useful tool for linking cell- and tissue-level mechanics, especially because it explicitly treats internal dissipation and separates reversible cell-shape change from plastic rearrangement. The paper is transparent, uses well-defined protocols, and is unusual in systematically fitting non-linear constitutive relations for a vertex model. Its main limitation is that the central closure is tested by only one out-of-sample protocol and a self-consistency check that is not independent. The stress and yield relations contain many fitted functions, so the 'prediction' is closer to a reparametrized interpolation over the same simulation data than to a parameter-free consequence of the model. With additional independent tests and explicit validity limits, the contribution would be significant.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C and Eq. (12)] The central assumption of the paper is that the plastic rate R depends only on the instantaneous pair (Q, v), making Eq. (12) a closed ODE. The only out-of-sample test of this Markov closure is the single large-amplitude oscillatory-shear protocol in Sec. III C 2 (Fig. 9). The authors themselves state that deviations near shear reversal 'may arise from some form of memory of the past deformation history that is not fully captured by the average cell shape Q alone.' This is consistent with the 'small, but finite relaxation time' already acknowledged in Sec. III A 3 and with the frequency dependence of G' in Fig. 2(b). Because the abstract and discussion claim generality for morphogenetic histories, a single protocol with acknowledged memory deviations is insufficient. Please test the closure on additional protocols (e.g., step-rate changes, repeated LAOS at different frequencies/amplitude
  2. [Sec. III C 1, Eq. (22)] The steady-state check in Fig. 8 is not independent evidence for the model. Equation (22) is obtained by setting R/v = 1 in the already-fitted exponential (19) and solving for Q. Consequently, Fig. 8 only demonstrates that Eq. (19) is invertible in the fitted regime; it does not validate either the closure (12) or the functional form. The text calls this a 'consistency check', which is appropriate, but the discussion later uses it to support the model and the activity-dependent Q0 phenomenology. A genuine validation would use shear rates not included in the fit, or a leave-one-out procedure, or a separate measure of R from the triangulation method rather than Eq. (11).
  3. [Sec. III A 3, Eq. (16)] The proposed stress law in the visco-plastic regime relies on the viscosity interpolation eta = eta0 + (R/v)(eta_s - eta0). This is an ad hoc form: eta_s is obtained from the same constant-shear data that the model is supposed to describe (Fig. 4c), and no microscopic derivation or direct measurement in a controlled state is provided. Moreover, the time-evolution test in Fig. 4e uses R(t) 'computed using a binned average' from the simulations; it therefore tests only the stress relation conditional on the simulated R, not the closed model. The LAOS prediction does use the closed model, but the deviations near reversal are exactly where Eq. (16) is least constrained. Please supply an independent determination of eta_s (e.g., in a protocol where R is directly observed) or replace Eq. (16) with a form derived from the dissipative microdynamics, and report the transient comparison using pred
  4. [Sec. III B, Eq. (19)] The constitutive model for yielding contains free functions b(v), Q0(v), and Delta q0(v) alongside the exponential ansatz. Because these functions are extracted from constant-shear simulations, and the LAOS protocol lies inside the fitted shear-rate range, the LAOS test is a consistency check of the interpolation between fitted constant-shear states. The exponential form is chosen after seeing the data; no independent derivation is provided. I recommend adding an identifiability analysis, testing the sensitivity of predicted LAOS trajectories to the chosen fitting functions, or reducing the shear-rate dependence to a compact parameterization with few coefficients. This would make the generality claim in the abstract testable and would strengthen the paper considerably.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A 4] In the text after Eq. (18), 'rho alt = 0.96' appears to be a typo for 'rho_ait = 0.96'. Please fix.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Sec. III A 3] The phrase 'R(t) is computed using a binned average' is vague. Please specify the binning procedure (bin widths, time windows, averaging over samples) and state whether R is obtained from the triangulation method or from Eq. (11).
  3. [Eq. (10)] The notation 'ta_n' in Eq. (10) is undefined and inconsistent with Eq. (9), which uses 'ta_n' and 'T_act^n'. Please unify the notation for active tensions.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'predicting the response' is stronger than the evidence provided. The LAOS protocol is the intended validation, but all parameters are fitted to the same model and parameter sets. Consider wording such as 'validating against' or 'reproducing' the large-amplitude oscillatory-shear response.
  5. [Sec. III C] Several grammatical slips: 'plots Fig. 7' should be 'the plots in Fig. 7', and 'the b(v), Q0_passive(v), and Delta q0(v) data from plots Fig. 7' should be rephrased. These do not affect the science but should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fitted constitutive functions from simple shear protocols are used to integrate the ODE model and predict large-amplitude oscillatory shear, a test with real falsifiable content.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a mean-field closure: σ(Q,v) = σ_el(Q) + 2η(Q,v)v − ρT_act and dQ/dt = v − R(Q,v), with R/v = (1/2)exp[b(v)(Q − Q0(v))]. The parameters and functional forms are fit to constant-shear-rate and small-amplitude oscillatory simulations of the same vertex model, and then Eq. (12) is integrated to predict the Q(t) and σ(t) trajectories under large-amplitude oscillatory shear. This is a standard constitutive-modeling cycle, not circularity: the LAOS trajectories are not used to determine any of the fitted parameters, and they could in principle disagree with the model. The paper reports that they match 'relatively well' with 'some deviations before the reversal of the shear direction' (Sec. III C 2), which is exactly the signature of a non-vacuous test. The steady-state check Q_s = Q0 + log2/b (Eq. 22) is derived by inverting the fitted Eq. (19) and is explicitly labeled a 'consistency check,' not an independent prediction; it therefore does not constitute a fitted input being renamed a prediction. The Markov-in-Q assumption is openly postulated ('We postulate that R mostly depends on the average Q and the strain rate v') and its limitation is acknowledged in the text; an assumption that may fail is a correctness/validity concern, not circularity. Citations to prior work (e.g., [52,57,63]) supply the strain-decomposition and reversible-fraction methodology rather than the paper's central result, and no load-bearing result is justified solely by a self-citation. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense required here: the 'prediction' is not equivalent by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The mean-field model is a phenomenological closure: the fitting parameters G0, η0, G2, G4, ηs, ρ, b, Q0, Δq0 are all numbers chosen to match simulation data rather than derived from the vertex-model energy or friction coefficients. The axioms are the overdamped Galilean-invariant friction model plus the Markov-in-Q assumption for R. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced beyond the modeled active tensions, which are prescribed mechanisms already present in the vertex model energy/force balance. The model's generality claim (any cell-based tissue model) is not itself a parameter but an assertion about transferability of the framework, resting on the same fitted closure.

free parameters (10)
  • G0 = 0.82
    Linear shear modulus, measured from small-amplitude oscillatory shear (γ0=10^-7) in Fig. 2b and imposed in the elastic/viscous fits.
  • η0 = 1.16
    Linear shear viscosity from the same small-amplitude measurement (Fig. 2b).
  • G2 = 0.86 (first fit, Eq. 14); -0.85 (second, 5th-order fit)
    Coefficient of the non-linear elastic term 4G2Q^3. The paper shows two different fits (Fig. 3b and Fig. 4d) with conflicting signs for G2, resolved by adding a G4 term, illustrating that the elastic closure is an empirical fit, not a derived expansion.
  • G4 = 5.4
    Coefficient of the Q^5 term in the 5th-order elastic fit of Fig. 4d, needed to reconcile the constant-shear-rate data with linear-rheology viscosity.
  • ηs (steady-shear viscosity) = 3.12
    Apparent viscosity in constant-shear-rate simulations, obtained from a linear fit in Fig. 4c; the paper infers Eq. 16, which interpolates between η0 and ηs using R/v̇.
  • ρ_ait = 0.96
    Activity-stress coupling coefficient for anisotropic interface tension, from linear fit in Fig. 5a.
  • ρ_crawl = 0.8
    Activity-stress coupling coefficient for crawling forces, from linear fit in Fig. 5b.
  • b(v̇) = curves in Fig. 7a,c, ~5.5-8
    Shape parameter in the exponential yielding law Eq. 19, fitted separately at each shear rate; independent of activity within fitted range.
  • Q0(v̇) = curves in Fig. 7b,d, ~0.2-0.5
    Threshold cell shape in Eq. 19, fitted separately at each shear rate and activity.
  • Δq0_ait(v̇), Δq0_crawl(v̇) = even functions of v̇, taken from activity 0.5 data
    Linear-in-activity correction to Q0 in Eqs. 20-21; extracted from the same constant-shear-rate fits and reused in predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Overdamped force balance on each vertex (Eq. 2): elastic + friction + active forces sum to zero.
    The entire dynamics is built on this; inertia is neglected, which is appropriate for cell-scale tissue at low Reynolds number.
  • domain assumption Friction forces are generated by scalar frictional elements on cell areas, perimeters, and interfaces via Eq. (3) with (η_m, g_m) choices.
    This is the specific Galilean-invariant dissipation model, following Ref. [48]; it is a modeling choice that determines the structure of the stress and the effective viscosity.
  • domain assumption The tissue shear-rate decomposition v̇ = DQ/Dt + R (Eq. 11) with R a function only of Q and v̇.
    The Markov-in-Q closure for R is the load-bearing assumption enabling the mean-field model; its limitations are acknowledged in Fig. 9 deviations.
  • domain assumption T1 transitions are the dominant plastic mechanism and are treated as instantaneous rearrangements at a fixed cutoff; thermal fluctuations are absent.
    The model has no noise/active fluctuations; the yielding law is explicitly empirical (Eq. 19), and past work on fluctuation-driven vertex models found linear R(Q) instead.
  • domain assumption Odd-function symmetries of b(v̇), Q0(v̇) and even Δq0(v̇) under π/2 rotation of the tissue.
    Used to extend fitted functions to negative shear rates and to construct the oscillatory predictions; the paper only verifies this by the same fitting data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-linear visco-elasto-plastic rheology of a viscous vertex model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOMYVZAF

@misc{pith2026260222855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-linear visco-elasto-plastic rheology of a viscous vertex model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOMYVZAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22855}
}
read the original abstract

Morphogenesis involves complex shape changes of biological tissues. Yet, tissue shape changes depend on tissue rheology, which in turn arises from the interplay of large numbers of cells. Here, we link cell- and tissue-scale mechanics by constructing mean-field rheological relations for the vertex model. In contrast to past work in the field, we study a vertex model with an explicit viscous friction. We also include two different cellular mechanisms creating active, anisotropic stresses. Our mean-field model accounts for cell shape and the non-linear elastic and visco-plastic regimes. We validate our results by predicting the response to large-amplitude oscillatory shear. There are several vertex model variants, and comparing to results from the literature, we show that their rheology depends on a number of model details. Our approach should be sufficiently general to construct non-linear mean-field constitutive relations for any cell-based tissue model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22855 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic showing the implementation of the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Linear shear rheology. (a) Shear protocol, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Non-linear elastic regime. (a) Shear protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Non-linear elasticity with linear viscosity. (a) Shear protocol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Shear stress created by activity. The part of the shear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Parameters of the irreversible fraction function fits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Irreversible fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: for the purely passive case (panels a and d) as well as the two active cases (panels b, c, e, and f). We find that our predictions (black dashed lines) matched the re￾spective simulated trajectories (blue solid lines) relatively well in all cases. There are some deviat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Viscous vertex model for active epithelial tissues

    physics.bio-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A rotationally invariant viscous vertex model with junctional and bulk dissipation, regularized at zero substrate friction by Lagrange multipliers, predicts tissue viscosity from cell-level viscosities.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [63]

    Popovi´ c, V

    M. Popovi´ c, V. Druelle, N. A. Dye, F. J¨ ulicher, and M. Wyart, New Journal of Physics23, 033004 (2021), ISSN 1367-2630. 12

    2021

  2. [1]

    the regime for smallQand ˜v, by imposing oscillatory shear, γ(t) =γ 0 sin(ωt) (Figure 2a, blue curve)

    Linear visco-elastic regime We first study the linear regime of ˜σ(Q,˜v), i.e. the regime for smallQand ˜v, by imposing oscillatory shear, γ(t) =γ 0 sin(ωt) (Figure 2a, blue curve). We choose a sufficiently small amplitude so that there are no re- arrangements,R= 0. Thus, according to Eq. (12), Q(t) =Q 0 +γ(t) =Q 0 +γ 0 sin(ωt), whereQ 0 is a small averag...

  3. [2]

    To this end, we carry out simulations with an initial phase with a constant shear rate, ˙γ >0, followed by a relaxation phase with zero shear rate, ˙γ= 0 (Fig- ure 3a)

    Non-linear elastic regime We next extend ˜σ(Q,˜v) to the non-linear elastic regime. To this end, we carry out simulations with an initial phase with a constant shear rate, ˙γ >0, followed by a relaxation phase with zero shear rate, ˙γ= 0 (Fig- ure 3a). To allow for sufficient pure shear that can be applied to the system, we start from a vertically elon- g...

  4. [3]

    We again start from the vertically elongated state

    Non-linear elasticity with linear viscosity Next, we combine the non-linear elastic regime with a finite shear rate by carrying out constant-shear-rate sim- ulations (Figure 4a). We again start from the vertically elongated state. The resulting final values for shear stress and average cell shape are plotted in Figure 4b. Probing the depen- dence of ˜σon ...

  5. [4]

    Activity We next study how the shear stress ˜σ(Q,˜v) is changed when including two different active, anisotropic forces 7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tact ait −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 ̃σ(Q, ̃v) − ̃σpassive(Q, ̃v) fit ̃v = 0 ̃v = 0.01 ̃v = 0.1 ̃v = 0.3 ̃v = 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Tact crawl −1.50 −1.25 −1.00 −0.75 −0.50 −0.25 0.00 ̃...

  6. [5]

    For each simulation run and time point, we use theQandR data, and bin them with respect toQ, while averagingR within each bin

    Without activity To probe the dependence ofRonQand ˜v, we use the constant-shear-rate simulations from section III A 3. For each simulation run and time point, we use theQandR data, and bin them with respect toQ, while averagingR within each bin. The resulting data is shown in Figure 6a and inset. In past work, where sufficiently strong fluctuations were ...

  7. [6]

    Here, we thus focus on small activity parameters,T act ait <1 andT act crawl <1

    With activity When including activity, we find again thatR/˜vcan be fitted by exponentials (Figure 6b, c), at least as long as the activity is not too large. Here, we thus focus on small activity parameters,T act ait <1 andT act crawl <1. We find that the values ofbare largely independent of activ- ity (Figure 7a and c), whileQ 0 doesdepend on activity (F...

  8. [7]

    At long times, under steady shear, all of the shear will be accommo- dated by cell rearrangements, i.e

    Steady-state cell shape First, as a consistency check for the obtainedRfunc- tions, we predict the steady-state value for cell shape,Qs, for the constant-shear-rate simulations. At long times, under steady shear, all of the shear will be accommo- dated by cell rearrangements, i.e. the irreversible fraction isR/˜v= 1. Insertion into Eq. (19) and inverting ...

Show all 89 references
  1. [8]

    For frequencyω= 0.1 and the ampli- tudeγ 0 = 1, we plot the trajectories forQ(t) and ˜σ(t) in Fig

    Large-amplitude oscillatory shear After this consistency check, we predict the result of a completely different type of simulation – large-amplitude oscillatory shear. For frequencyω= 0.1 and the ampli- tudeγ 0 = 1, we plot the trajectories forQ(t) and ˜σ(t) in Fig. 9 for the ...

  2. [9]

    A. R. Harris, L. Peter, J. Bellis, B. Baum, A. J. Kabla, and G. T. Charras, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 16449 (2012)

    2012

  3. [10]

    Serwane, A

    F. Serwane, A. Mongera, P. Rowghanian, D. A. Keal- hofer, A. A. Lucio, Z. M. Hockenbery, and O. Camp` as, Nature Methods14, 181 (2017), ISSN 15487105

    2017

  4. [11]

    Mongera, P

    A. Mongera, P. Rowghanian, H. J. Gustafson, E. Shelton, D. A. Kealhofer, E. K. Carn, F. Serwane, A. A. Lucio, J. Giammona, and O. Camp` as, Nature561, 401 (2018), ISSN 0028-0836

    2018

  5. [12]

    Khalilgharibi, J

    N. Khalilgharibi, J. Fouchard, N. Asadipour, R. Bar- rientos, M. Duda, A. Bonfanti, A. Yonis, A. Harris, P. Mosaffa, Y. Fujita, et al., Nature Physics15, 839 (2019), ISSN 1745-2473

    2019

  6. [13]

    G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, E

    M. G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, E. Latorre, M. Arroyo, and X. Trepat, Nature Reviews Physics2, 300 (2020), ISSN 2522-5820

    2020

  7. [14]

    S. L. Tlili, F. Graner, and H. Delano¨ e-Ayari, Devel- opment149, dev200774 (2022), ISSN 0950-1991, 1477- 9129

    2022

  8. [15]

    Guillamat, W

    P. Guillamat, W. Mirza, P. K. Bal, M. G´ omez-Gonz´ alez, P. Roca-Cusachs, M. Arroyo, and X. Trepat,Guidance of cellular nematics into shape-programmable living surfaces (2025)

    2025

  9. [16]

    D. Bi, J. Lopez, J. M. Schwarz, and M. L. Manning, Nature Physics11, 1074 (2015)

    2015

  10. [17]

    Popovi´ c, A

    M. Popovi´ c, A. Nandi, M. Merkel, R. Etournay, S. Eaton, F. J¨ ulicher, and G. Salbreux, New Journal of Physics19, 033006 (2017), ISSN 1367-2630

    2017

  11. [18]

    Merkel, K

    M. Merkel, K. Baumgarten, B. P. Tighe, and M. L. Man- 11 ning, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 6560 (2019), ISSN 0027-8424, 1809.01586

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Bonfanti, J

    A. Bonfanti, J. Fouchard, N. Khalilgharibi, G. Charras, and A. Kabla, Royal Society Open Science7(2020), ISSN 20545703

    2020

  13. [20]

    Etournay, M

    R. Etournay, M. Popovi´ c, M. Merkel, A. Nandi, C. Blasse, B. Aigouy, H. Brandl, G. Myers, G. Salbreux, F. J¨ ulicher, et al., eLife4, e07090 (2015), ISSN 2050084X

    2015

  14. [21]

    N. I. Petridou, B. Corominas-Murtra, C.-p. Heisenberg, and E. Hannezo, Cell pp. 1–15 (2021), ISSN 00928674

    2021

  15. [22]

    Serra, G

    M. Serra, G. Serrano N´ ajera, M. Chuai, A. M. Plum, S. Santhosh, V. Spandan, C. J. Weijer, and L. Mahade- van, Science Advances9, eadh8152 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    C. A. Dessalles, N. Cuny, A. Boutillon, P. F. Salipante, A. Babataheri, A. I. Barakat, and G. Salbreux, Nature Physics pp. 1–10 (2025), ISSN 1745-2481

    2025

  17. [24]

    Merkel and M

    M. Merkel and M. L. Manning, Seminars in Cell & De- velopmental Biology67, 161 (2017), ISSN 10849521

    2017

  18. [25]

    D. A. Matoz-Fernandez, K. Martens, R. Sknepnek, J. L. Barrat, and S. Henkes, Soft Matter13, 3205 (2017), ISSN 1744-683X, 1610.09340

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Germann, M

    P. Germann, M. Marin-Riera, and J. Sharpe, Cell Sys- tems8, 261 (2019), ISSN 2405-4712, 2405-4720

    2019

  20. [27]

    Graner and J

    F. Graner and J. A. Glazier, Physical Review Letters69, 2013 (1992), ISSN 00319007

    2013

  21. [28]

    A. F. M. Mar´ ee, V. A. Grieneisen, and P. Hogeweg, in Single-Cell-Based Models in Biology and Medicine, edited by A. R. A. Anderson, M. A. J. Chaplain, and K. A. Rejniak (Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2007), pp. 107–136, ISBN 978-3-7643-8123-3

    2007

  22. [29]

    Honda, R

    H. Honda, R. Kodama, T. Takeuchi, H. Yamanaka, K. Watanabe, and G. Eguchi, Journal of embryology and experimental morphology83 Suppl, 313 (1984), ISSN 0022-0752

    1984

  23. [30]

    Farhadifar, J

    R. Farhadifar, J. C. R¨ oper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. J¨ ulicher, Current Biology17, 2095 (2007), ISSN 09609822, 1112.5905v1

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    S. Alt, P. Ganguly, and G. Salbreux, Philosophical Trans- actions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences372, 20150520 (2017), ISSN 0962-8436

    2017

  25. [32]

    Mueller, J

    R. Mueller, J. M. Yeomans, and A. Doostmoham- madi, Physical Review Letters122, 48004 (2019), ISSN 10797114, 1811.05040

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Loewe, M

    B. Loewe, M. Chiang, D. Marenduzzo, and M. C. Marchetti, Physical review letters125, 038003 (2020), ISSN 10797114, 1912.10549

    2020 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Duclut, J

    C. Duclut, J. Paijmans, M. M. Inamdar, C. D. Modes, and F. J¨ ulicher, The European Physical Journal E45, 29 (2022), ISSN 1292-895X

    2022

  28. [35]

    O. K. Damavandi, S. Arzash, E. Lawson-Keister, and M. L. Manning, PRX Life3, 033001 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    S. Tong, N. K. Singh, R. Sknepnek, and A. Koˇ smrlj, PLOS Computational Biology18, e1010135 (2022), ISSN 1553-7358

    2022

  30. [37]

    S. Tong, R. Sknepnek, and A. Koˇ smrlj, Physical Review Research5, 013143 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Henkes, K

    S. Henkes, K. Kostanjevec, J. M. Collinson, R. Sknep- nek, and E. Bertin, Nature Communications11, 1 (2020), ISSN 20411723, 1901.04763

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    D. B. Staple, R. Farhadifar, J.-C. R¨ oper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. J¨ ulicher, The European physical jour- nal. E, Soft matter33, 117 (2010), ISSN 1292-895X, 21082210

    2010

  33. [40]

    Moshe, M

    M. Moshe, M. J. Bowick, and M. C. Marchetti, Physi- cal Review Letters120, 268105 (2017), ISSN 0031-9007, 1708.07848

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    D. M. Sussman and M. Merkel, Soft Matter14, 3397 (2018), ISSN 1744-683X, 1708.03396

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Merkel and M

    M. Merkel and M. L. Manning, New Journal of Physics 20, 022002 (2018), ISSN 1367-2630, 1706.02656

    2018 arXiv

  36. [43]

    X. Wang, M. Merkel, L. B. Sutter, G. Erdemci-Tandogan, M. L. Manning, and K. E. Kasza, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 13541 (2020), ISSN 0027-8424, 2005.07283

    2020 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Huang, J

    J. Huang, J. O. Cochran, S. M. Fielding, M. C. Marchetti, and D. Bi, Physical Review Letters128, 178001 (2022), ISSN 10797114, 2109.10374

    2022 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Hernandez, M

    A. Hernandez, M. F. Staddon, M. J. Bowick, M. C. Marchetti, and M. Moshe, Physical Review E105, 064611 (2022)

    2022

  39. [46]

    Lee and M

    C.-T. Lee and M. Merkel,Generic elasticity of thermal, under-constrained systems(2023), 2304.07266

    2023 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Lee and M

    C.-T. Lee and M. Merkel,Partition sum of thermal, under-constrained systems(2023), 2304.07264

    2023 arXiv

  41. [48]

    K. Kim, T. Zhang, and J. M. Schwarz, New Journal of Physics26, 043009 (2024), ISSN 1367-2630

    2024

  42. [49]

    S. Kim, R. Amini, S.-T. Yen, P. Posp ´ ıˇ sil, A. Boutillon, I. A. Deniz, and O. Camp` as, Nature Materials23, 1592 (2024), ISSN 1476-4660

    2024

  43. [50]

    Gsell, S

    S. Gsell, S. Tlili, M. Merkel, and P.-F. Lenne, Nature Physics21, 644 (2025), ISSN 1745-2481

    2025

  44. [51]

    Okuda, Y

    S. Okuda, Y. Inoue, M. Eiraku, T. Adachi, and Y. Sasai, Biomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology14, 413 (2015), ISSN 16177940

    2015

  45. [52]

    Tlili, J

    S. Tlili, J. Yin, J.-F. Rupprecht, M. A. Mendieta- Serrano, G. Weissbart, N. Verma, X. Teng, Y. Toyama, J. Prost, and T. E. Saunders, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 116, 25430 (2019)

    2019

  46. [53]

    Rozman, K

    J. Rozman, K. V. S. Chaithanya, J. M. Yeomans, and R. Sknepnek, Nature Communications16, 530 (2025), ISSN 2041-1723

    2025

  47. [54]

    Koyama and Y

    H. Koyama and Y. Inoue, Biophysics and Physicobiology p. e230007 (2026), ISSN 2189-4779

    2026

  48. [55]

    G. W. Brodland, D. Viens, and J. H. Veldhuis, Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering 10, 121 (2007), ISSN 1025-5842

    2007

  49. [56]

    D. B. Staple, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at Dres- den (2012)

    2012

  50. [57]

    Nestor-Bergmann, E

    A. Nestor-Bergmann, E. Johns, S. Woolner, and O. E. Jensen, Physical Review E97, 052409 (2018), ISSN 2470- 0045, 1711.02909v2

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    C. Fu, F. Dilasser, S.-Z. Lin, M. Karnat, A. Arora, H. Rajendiran, H. T. Ong, N. Mui Hoon Brenda, S. W. Phow, T. Hirashima, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2405560121 (2024)

    2024

  52. [59]

    S.-Z. Lin, S. Tlili, and J.-F. Rupprecht,Viscous vertex model for active epithelial tissues(2026), 2602.13049

    2026 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Merkel, Ph.D

    M. Merkel, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at Dresden (2014)

    2014

  54. [61]

    Duclut, J

    C. Duclut, J. Paijmans, M. M. Inamdar, C. D. Modes, and F. J¨ ulicher, Cells & Development168, 203746 (2021), ISSN 2667-2901

    2021

  55. [62]

    D. Bi, J. H. Lopez, J. M. Schwarz, and M. L. Manning, Soft Matter10, 1885 (2014), ISSN 1744-683X, 24652538

    2014

  56. [64]

    S. Kim, M. Pochitaloff, G. A. Stooke-Vaughan, and O. Camp` as, Nature Physics17, 859 (2021), ISSN 1745- 2473, 1745-2481

    2021

  57. [65]

    Guigue, M

    Q. Guigue, M. Besse, R. Voituriez, A. M. Prevost, E. Wandersman, M. Merkel, and L.-L. Pontani,Adhesion differentials control the rheology of biomimetic emulsions (2025), 2503.18782

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D. Bi, X. Yang, M. C. Marchetti, and M. L. Manning, Physical Review X6, 021011 (2016), ISSN 2160-3308

    2016

  59. [67]

    D. M. Sussman, M. Paoluzzi, M. Cristina Marchetti, and M. Lisa Manning, EPL (Europhysics Letters)121, 36001 (2018), ISSN 0295-5075, 1712.05758

    2018 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Y.-W. Li, L. L. Y. Wei, M. Paoluzzi, and M. P. Ciamarra, Physical Review E103, 022607 (2021), ISSN 2470-0045, 2470-0053

    2021

  61. [69]

    C. Li, M. Merkel, and D. M. Sussman, Physical Review Letters134, 048203 (2025), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, 2409.18949

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Pandey, S

    S. Pandey, S. Kolya, P. Devendran, S. Sadhukhan, T. Das, and S. K. Nandi, Soft Matter21, 269 (2025), ISSN 1744-6848

    2025

  63. [71]

    Merkel, R

    M. Merkel, R. Etournay, M. Popovi´ c, G. Salbreux, S. Eaton, and F. J¨ ulicher, Physical Review E95, 032401 (2017), ISSN 24700053, 1607.00357

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    D. L. Barton, S. Henkes, C. J. Weijer, and R. Sknepnek, PLoS computational biology13, e1005569 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Krajnc, S

    M. Krajnc, S. Dasgupta, P. Ziherl, and J. Prost, Phys- ical Review E98, 022409 (2018), ISSN 2470-0045, 1805.06500

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Sknepnek, I

    R. Sknepnek, I. Djafer-Cherif, M. Chuai, C. Weijer, and S. Henkes, eLife12, e79862 (2023), ISSN 2050-084X

    2023

  67. [75]

    S.-Z. Lin, M. Merkel, and J.-F. Rupprecht, Physical Re- view Letters130, 058202 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Rozman and J

    J. Rozman and J. M. Yeomans, Physical Review Letters 133, 248401 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    Barrett, S

    K. Barrett, S. Anand, V. Thome, L. Kodjabachian, M. Merkel, and P.-F. Lenne, Development pp. dev– 204344 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    Shindo, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Develop- mental Biology7, e293 (2018), ISSN 17597684

    A. Shindo, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Develop- mental Biology7, e293 (2018), ISSN 17597684

    2018

  71. [79]

    G. K. Batchelor, Journal of Fluid Mechanics41, 545 (1970), ISSN 0022-1120

    1970

  72. [80]

    N. Noll, M. Mani, I. Heemskerk, S. J. Streichan, and B. I. Shraiman, Nature Physics13, 1221 (2017), ISSN 1745-2473, 1508.00623

    2017 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Grossman and J.-F

    D. Grossman and J.-F. Joanny, Physical Review Letters 129, 048102 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Grossman and J.-F

    D. Grossman and J.-F. Joanny, Physical Review Re- search7, 013039 (2025), ISSN 2643-1564

    2025

  75. [83]

    Guirao, S

    B. Guirao, S. U. Rigaud, F. Bosveld, A. Bailles, J. L´ opez-Gay, S. Ishihara, K. Sugimura, F. Graner, and Y. Bella ¨ ıche, eLife4(2015), ISSN 2050-084X

    2015

  76. [84]

    Tlili, M

    S. Tlili, M. Durande, C. Gay, B. Ladoux, F. Graner, and H. Delano¨ e-Ayari, Physical Review Letters125, 88102 (2020), ISSN 10797114, 1811.05001

    2020 arXiv

  77. [85]

    R. A. Simha and S. Ramaswamy, Physical review letters 89, 058101 (2002), ISSN 00319007, cond-mat/0108301v2

    2002 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Voituriez, J

    R. Voituriez, J. F. Joanny, and J. Prost, Europhysics Letters70, 404 (2005), ISSN 02955075, q-bio/0503022

    2005 arXiv

  79. [87]

    M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 1143 (2013), ISSN 0034-6861, 1207.2929v1

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ibrahimi and M

    M. Ibrahimi and M. Merkel, New Journal of Physics25, 013022 (2023), ISSN 1367-2630, 2206.12850

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ibrahimi and M

    M. Ibrahimi and M. Merkel, PRX Life3, 043013 (2025), 2412.15774

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.