pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13827 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · ❄️ cond-mat.soft · physics.bio-ph· physics.comp-ph

Beads, springs and fields: particle-based vs continuum models in cell biophysics

Valerio Sorichetti , Juraj M\'ajek , Ivan Palaia , Fernanda P\'erez-Verdugo , Christian Vanhille-Campos , Edouard Hannezo , An{\dj}ela \v{S}ari\'c This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.soft physics.bio-phphysics.comp-ph
keywords particle-based modelscontinuum modelscell biophysicscytoskeletonmembraneschromatinbiomolecular condensatestissues
0
0 comments X

The pith

Particle-based models and continuum models each have distinct strengths for describing cell biophysics at different scales.

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

This review compares particle-based models, which explicitly track discrete components and their interactions, with continuum models, which describe systems through smooth spatially varying fields. It examines the two approaches in five central systems—the cytoskeleton, membranes, chromatin, biomolecular condensates, and tissues—to map their respective strengths, limitations, and best domains of use. A sympathetic reader would care because modern experiments now yield data from molecular to tissue scales, making the right modeling choice essential for matching observations without excess computational cost. The paper aims to give theorists and experimentalists a practical way to decide between the two paradigms and to outline next steps in biophysical modeling.

Core claim

The paper claims that particle-based models, built from discrete elements such as beads and springs, are most useful when local heterogeneities, stochastic events, and explicit molecular interactions matter, while continuum models, expressed through continuous fields, are preferable when large-scale averages and collective behaviors dominate; by mapping these trade-offs onto the cytoskeleton, membranes, chromatin, biomolecular condensates, and tissues, the authors supply a decision framework for selecting the appropriate modeling strategy in cell biophysics.

What carries the argument

The direct comparison of discrete particle representations versus continuous field descriptions, evaluated for applicability across five representative biological systems.

If this is right

  • Particle-based models are required when explicit discrete components and local fluctuations drive the phenomena of interest.
  • Continuum models become advantageous once spatial averaging over many components is valid and computational resources are limited.
  • The choice between approaches can be made by matching the scale of the experimental observables to the level of detail retained in each model type.
  • Future modeling work should focus on identifying transition points where one paradigm loses accuracy relative to the other.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decision criteria could be tested on additional systems such as organelles or multicellular aggregates to check whether the framework generalizes.
  • Hybrid models that switch between particle and field descriptions within a single simulation may be needed at intermediate scales.
  • Experimental groups could use the review's criteria to design measurements that directly distinguish which modeling class reproduces key statistics.

Load-bearing premise

The five chosen systems are representative enough of cell biophysics to support general guidance on model selection.

What would settle it

Demonstration that one of the five systems is better described by the modeling approach the review assigns to the other four would undermine the claimed domains of applicability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13827 by An{\dj}ela \v{S}ari\'c, Christian Vanhille-Campos, Edouard Hannezo, Fernanda P\'erez-Verdugo, Ivan Palaia, Juraj M\'ajek, Valerio Sorichetti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic illustration of particle-based and continuum models for the cell mem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Models for the cytoskeleton. (a) Left: In a bead-spring description, filaments are represented as beads connected by elastic bonds. These models can be used to resolve filament growth and shrinkage during treadmilling at the monomer level. Right: Collective nematic alignment of treadmilling filaments, simulated with the model of Reference (259) (color coding reflects filament orientation). (b) Left: In the… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Models for biological membranes. (a) Lipids modeled as 3-bead polymers. Head and tails are beads of different types, interacting with each other (arrows). A bending potential (dashed lines) straightens the lipid (4). (b) Left: In fluid one-bead models, a bending penalty opposes the mutual misalignment of oriented beads (arrows), encoding rigidity. Right: A fluid vesicle constricted by an external force, si… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Models for chromatin. (a) Bead-spring model of two mitotic sister chro￾matids (red and blue), connected by the centromere and individualized by the action of loop extruders, modeled as harmonic bonds that "walk" along the chain. Panel adapted from Reference 89 (CC BY 4.0). (b) Chromatin fiber with active extensile dipolar forces with red segments showing instantaneous dipole locations. Panel adapted with p… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Models for biomolecular condensates. (a-b) Schematics of a polymer (a) and patchy particle (b) model of a protein, and phase coexistence simulations with slab geometry employing the two different models. Panels adapted with permission from Reference 68. (c) RNA (green, − charge) forms bridges between two protein brushes on the surface of chromosomes (purple, + charge), generating an attractive force betwee… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Models for biological tissues. (a-e): Particle-based models with increasing cell shape resolution from left to right, where each cell is represented as a disk (a), two joined beads (b), a polygon emerging from tessellation of cell centers (c), a polygon defined by all its vertices (d), or a set of lattice sites (e), respectively. (f) Tissue under cell turnover, with division rate kd and apoptosis rate ka. … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: General comparison of particle-based and continuum models, highlighting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Quantitative modeling has become an essential tool in modern biophysics, driven by advances in both experimental techniques and theoretical frameworks. Powerful high-resolution techniques now provide detailed datasets spanning molecular to tissue scales, allowing to visualize cellular structures with unprecedented detail. In parallel, developments in soft and active matter physics have established a robust theoretical basis for describing biological systems. In this context, two main modeling paradigms have emerged: particle-based models, which explicitly represent discrete components and their interactions, and continuum models, which describe systems through spatially varying fields. We compare these approaches across biological scales, highlighting their respective strengths, limitations, and domains of applicability. To keep our discussion biologically relevant, we focus on five systems of fundamental importance: the cytoskeleton, membranes, chromatin, biomolecular condensates and tissues. With this Review, we thus aim to provide a framework for both theorists and experimentalists to select appropriate modeling strategies, and highlight future directions in biophysical modeling.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a review comparing particle-based models (explicitly representing discrete components and interactions) with continuum models (using spatially varying fields) in cell biophysics. It focuses on five systems of fundamental importance—the cytoskeleton, membranes, chromatin, biomolecular condensates, and tissues—across biological scales to highlight respective strengths, limitations, and domains of applicability, with the aim of providing a framework for theorists and experimentalists to select modeling strategies.

Significance. If the literature synthesis is balanced and representative, the review could offer practical value by organizing existing knowledge on modeling choices in cell biophysics and identifying future directions. Its significance stems from the multi-scale coverage and the explicit goal of guiding model selection rather than from any new theorems, predictions, or empirical results.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract's claim that the five systems suffice to 'provide a framework' for modeling decisions across cell biophysics would benefit from a short explicit statement in the introduction on selection criteria or acknowledged scope limitations.
  2. Consider adding a summary table (perhaps in the conclusion) that tabulates key strengths, limitations, and example applications for particle-based versus continuum approaches in each of the five systems to improve readability and utility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their summary of our manuscript and for recommending minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review paper with no original derivations or predictions exhibits no circularity

full rationale

The manuscript is a comparative review synthesizing literature on particle-based versus continuum models for five standard systems in cell biophysics (cytoskeleton, membranes, chromatin, condensates, tissues). It advances no original theorem, quantitative prediction, empirical fit, or derivation chain. The stated goal is to provide a framework for selecting modeling strategies by highlighting strengths and limitations from existing work. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce claims to inputs by construction are present. The comparison is illustrative and draws on external literature without internal reduction to the paper's own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a review paper with no original derivations, so it introduces no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5505 in / 992 out tokens · 45906 ms · 2026-05-10T12:09:07.807248+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

274 extracted references · 274 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alert R, Blanch-Mercader C, Casademunt J. 2019. Active fingering instability in tissue spread- ing.Physical review letters122(8):088104

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Alipour E, Marko JF. 2012. Self-organization of domain structures by DNA-loop-extruding enzymes.Nucleic acids research40(22):11202–11212

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    2017.Computer simulation of liquids (2nd ed.))

    Allen MP, Tildesley DJ. 2017.Computer simulation of liquids (2nd ed.)). Oxford university press

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Amaral M, Frey F, Jiang X, Baum B, Šarić A. 2025. Stability vs flexibility: reshaping archaeal membranes in silico.eLife14

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Ayton GS, Lyman E, Krishna V, Swenson RD, Mim C, et al. 2009. New Insights into BAR Domain-Induced Membrane Remodeling.Biophysical Journal97(6):1616–1625

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Azadbakht A, Meadowcroft B, Májek J, Šarić A, Kraft DJ. 2024. Nonadditivity in interactions between three membrane-wrapped colloidal spheres.Biophysical Journal123(3):307–316

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Balasubramaniam L, Doostmohammadi A, Saw TB, Narayana GHNS, Mueller R, et al. 2021. Investigating the nature of active forces in tissues reveals how contractile cells can form ex- tensile monolayers.Nature materials20(8):1156–1166

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Banerjee S, Utuje KJ, Marchetti MC. 2015. Propagating stress waves during epithelial expan- sion.Physical review letters114(22):228101

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Basan M, Elgeti J, Hannezo E, Rappel WJ, Levine H. 2013. Alignment of cellular motility forces with tissue flow as a mechanism for efficient wound healing.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America110(7):2452–2459

    work page 2013

  10. [10]

    Basan M, Prost J, Joanny JF, Elgeti J. 2011. Dissipative particle dynamics simulations for biological tissues: Rheology and competition.Physical Biology8(2)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Belmonte JM, Leptin M, Nédélec F. 2017. A theory that predicts behaviors of disordered cytoskeletal networks.Molecular Systems Biology13(9):941

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Belousov R, Savino S, Moghe P, Hiiragi T, Rondoni L, Erzberger A. 2024. Poissonian cel- lular potts models reveal nonequilibrium kinetics of cell sorting.Physical Review Letters 132(24):248401

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    BerthinR,FriesJD,JardatM,DahirelV,IllienP.2025.Microscopicandstochasticsimulations of chemically active droplets.Physical Review E111(2):L023403

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Bi D, Yang X, Marchetti MC, Manning ML. 2016. Motility-driven glass and jamming transi- tions in biological tissues.Physical Review X6(2)

    work page 2016

  15. [15]

    Bintu B, Mateo LJ, Su JH, Sinnott-Armstrong NA, Parker M, et al. 2018. Super-resolution chromatin tracing reveals domains and cooperative interactions in single cells.Science 362(6413):eaau1783

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Biswas S, Potoyan DA. 2024. Molecular drivers of aging in biomolecular condensates: Desol- vation, rigidification, and sticker lifetimes.PRX life2(2):023011

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Bitbol AF, Constantin D, Fournier JB. 2018. Membrane-Mediated Interactions. InPhysics of Biological Membranes. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 311–350

    work page 2018

  18. [18]

    BittigT,WartlickO,KichevaA,González-GaitánM,JülicherF.2008.Dynamicsofanisotropic tissue growth.New Journal of Physics10(6):063001

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    Blanch-Mercader C, Guillamat P, Roux A, Kruse K. 2021. Quantifying material properties of cell monolayersby analyzinginteger topological defects.Physical Review Letters126(2):028101

    work page 2021

  20. [20]

    Böddeker TJ, Rosowski KA, Berchtold D, Emmanouilidis L, Han Y, et al. 2022. Non-specific adhesive forces between filaments and membraneless organelles.Nature physics18(5):571–578

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Bois JS, Jülicher F, Grill SW. 2011. Pattern Formation in Active Fluids.Physical Review Letters106(2):028103

    work page 2011

  22. [22]

    Bonato A, Michieletto D. 2021. Three-dimensional loop extrusion.Biophysical Journal 120(24):5544–5552

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Boocock D, Hirashima T, Hannezo E. 2023. Interplay between mechanochemical patterning and glassy dynamics in cellular monolayers.PRX Life1(1):013001 24 Sorichetti et al

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Brakke KA. 1992. The surface evolver.Experimental mathematics1(2):141–165

    work page 1992

  25. [25]

    Brangwynne CP, Tompa P, Pappu RV. 2015. Polymer physics of intracellular phase transitions. Nature Physics11(11):899–904

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    Brauns F, Claussen N, Lefebvre M, Wieschaus E, Shraiman B. 2024. The geometric basis of epithelial convergent extension, elife 13.RP9552110

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Bremer A, Farag M, Borcherds WM, Peran I, Martin EW, et al. 2022. Deciphering how naturally occurring sequence features impact the phase behaviours of disordered prion-like domains.Nature chemistry14(2):196–207

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Brückner DB, Ronceray P, Broedersz CP. 2020. Inferring the dynamics of underdamped stochastic systems.Physical review letters125(5):058103

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    Brugués J, Needleman D. 2014. Physical basis of spindle self-organization.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(52):18496–18500

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    BruinsmaR,GrosbergAY,RabinY,ZidovskaA.2014.Chromatinhydrodynamics.Biophysical journal106(9):1871–1881

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Bussi C, Mangiarotti A, Vanhille-Campos C, Aylan B, Pellegrino E, et al. 2023. Stress granules plug and stabilize damaged endolysosomal membranes.Nature623(7989):1062–1069

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Cagnetta F, Škultéty V, Evans MR, Marenduzzo D. 2022. Universal properties of active mem- branes.Physical Review E105(1):L012604

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Cahn JW, Hilliard JE. 1958. Free energy of a nonuniform system. i. interfacial free energy. The Journal of chemical physics28(2):258–267

    work page 1958

  34. [34]

    Camley BA, Rappel WJ. 2017. Physical models of collective cell motility: from cell to tissue. Journal of physics D: Applied physics50(11):113002

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Canham PB. 1970. The minimum energy of bending as a possible explanation of the biconcave shape of the human red blood cell.Journal of Theoretical Biology26(1):61–81

    work page 1970

  36. [36]

    Cao F, von Bülow S, Tesei G, Lindorff-Larsen K. 2024. A coarse-grained model for disordered and multi-domain proteins.Protein Science33(11):e5172

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    CaoY,LiangS.2025.Stochasticthermodynamicsforbiologicalfunctions.Quantitative Biology 13(1):e75

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Catala-Castro F, Schäffer E, Krieg M. 2022. Exploring cell and tissue mechanics with optical tweezers.Journal of cell science135(15):jcs259355

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    2012.Principles of condensed matter physics, vol

    Chaikin PM, Lubensky TC, Witten TA. 2012.Principles of condensed matter physics, vol. 10. Cambridge university press Cambridge

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Chan B, Rubinstein M. 2024. Activity-driven chromatin organization during interphase: com- paction, segregation, and entanglement suppression.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121(21):e2401494121

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Chew WX, Nédélec F, Surrey T. 2025. Molecular design principles for bipolar spindle organization by two opposing motors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(12):e2422190122

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Choi JM, Dar F, Pappu RV. 2019. LASSI: A lattice model for simulating phase transitions of multivalent proteins.PLOS Computational Biology15(10):e1007028

    work page 2019

  43. [43]

    Choi JM, Holehouse AS, Pappu RV. 2020. Physical Principles Underlying the Complex Biology of Intracellular Phase Transitions.Annual Review of Biophysics49(1)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    Choi JM, Hyman AA, Pappu RV. 2020. Generalized models for bond percolation transitions of associative polymers.Physical review. E102(4-1):042403

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Chugh P, Clark AG, Smith MB, Cassani DA, Dierkes K, et al. 2017. Actin cortex architecture regulates cell surface tension.Nature Cell Biology19(6):689–697

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    Cooke IR, Deserno M. 2005. Solvent-free model for self-assembling fluid bilayer membranes: Stabilization of the fluid phase based on broad attractive tail potentials.The Journal of chemical physics123(22)

    work page 2005

  47. [47]

    Cooke IR, Kremer K, Deserno M. 2005. Tunable generic model for fluid bilayer membranes. Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics72(1):011506 www.annualreviews.org • Beads, springs and fields: particle-basedvscontinuum models in cell biophysics 25

    work page 2005

  48. [48]

    Cooper FR, Baker RE, Bernabeu MO, Bordas R, Bowler L, et al. 2020. Chaste: cancer, heart and soft tissue environment.Journal of open source software5(47):1848

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Coshic K, Maffeo C, Winogradoff D, Aksimentiev A. 2024. The structure and physical prop- erties of a packaged bacteriophage particle.Nature627(8005):905–914

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Curran S, Strandkvist C, Bathmann J, De Gennes M, Kabla A, et al. 2017. Myosin ii controls junction fluctuations to guide epithelial tissue ordering.Developmental cell43(4):480–492

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    Cuvelier D, Chiaruttini N, Bassereau P, Nassoy P. 2005. Pulling long tubes from firmly adhered vesicles.Europhysics Letters (EPL)71(6):1015–1021

    work page 2005

  52. [52]

    Dar S, Moreno RT, Palaia I, Gopalan AB, Sun ZG, et al. 2024. Caging of membrane-to- cortex attachment proteins can trigger cellular symmetry breaking.bioRxiv preprint bioRxiv: 2024.10.14.618153

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Das S, Lin YH, Vernon RM, Forman-Kay JD, Chan HS. 2020. Comparative roles of charge, π, and hydrophobic interactions in sequence-dependent phase separation of intrinsically dis- ordered proteins.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(46):28795–28805

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Del Bono LM, Ricci-Tersenghi F, Zamponi F. 2025. Performance of machine-learning- assisted Monte Carlo in sampling from simple statistical physics models.Physical Review E112(4):045307

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Derényi I, Jülicher F, Prost J. 2002. Formation and Interaction of Membrane Tubes.Physical Review Letters88(23):4

    work page 2002

  56. [56]

    Descovich CP, Cortes DB, Ryan S, Nash J, Zhang L, et al. 2018. Cross-linkers both drive and brake cytoskeletal remodeling and furrowing in cytokinesis.Molecular Biology of the Cell 29(5):622–631

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Deserno M. 2004. Elastic deformation of a fluid membrane upon colloid binding.Physical Review E69(3):031903

    work page 2004

  58. [58]

    Deserno M. 2004. When do fluid membranes engulf sticky colloids?Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter16(22):S2061–S2070

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    Deserno M. 2015. Fluid lipid membranes: From differential geometry to curvature stresses. Chemistry and physics of lipids185:11–45

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Dignon GL, Zheng W, Kim YC, Best RB, Mittal J. 2018. Sequence determinants of protein phase behavior from a coarse-grained model.PLoS computational biology14(1):e1005941

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    2013.Soft matter physics

    Doi M. 2013.Soft matter physics. Oxford University Press

    work page 2013

  62. [62]

    Drozdowski OM, Ziebert F, Schwarz US. 2023. Optogenetic control of migration of contractile cells predicted by an active gel model.Communications Physics6(1):158

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Duclos G, Blanch-Mercader C, Yashunsky V, Salbreux G, Joanny JF, et al. 2018. Spontaneous shear flow in confined cellular nematics.Nature Physics14(7):728–732

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Duman Ö, Isele-Holder RE, Elgeti J, Gompper G. 2018. Collective dynamics of self-propelled semiflexible filaments.Soft matter14(22):4483–4494

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Durand M, Guesnet E. 2016. An efficient cellular potts model algorithm that forbids cell fragmentation.Computer Physics Communications208:54–63

    work page 2016

  66. [66]

    Erlenkämper C, Johann D, Kruse K. 2012. Impact of motor molecules on the dynamics of treadmilling filaments.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 86(5):051906

    work page 2012

  67. [67]

    Eshghi I, Zidovska A, Grosberg AY. 2023. Activity-Driven Phase Transition Causes Coherent Flows of Chromatin.Physical Review Letters131(4):048401

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Espinosa JR, Joseph JA, Sanchez-Burgos I, Garaizar A, Frenkel D, Collepardo-Guevara R

    work page

  69. [69]

    Liquid network connectivity regulates the stability and composition of biomolecu- lar condensates with many components.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(24):13238–13247

    work page

  70. [70]

    Evans EA. 1974. Bending Resistance and Chemically Induced Moments in Membrane Bilayers. Biophysical Journal14(12):923–931

    work page 1974

  71. [71]

    mal transitions, elasticity, rigidity, cohesion and colloidal interactions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry91(16):4219–4228

    EvansEvan, NeedhamDavid.1987.Physicalpropertiesofsurfactantbilayermembranes: Ther- 26 Sorichetti et al. mal transitions, elasticity, rigidity, cohesion and colloidal interactions.The Journal of Physical Chemistry91(16):4219–4228

    work page 1987

  72. [72]

    Farhadifar R, Röper JC, Aigouy B, Eaton S, Jülicher F. 2007. The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing.Current Biology17(24):2095–2104

    work page 2007

  73. [73]

    Farr SE, Woods EJ, Joseph JA, Garaizar A, Collepardo-Guevara R. 2021. Nucleosome plastic- ity is a critical element of chromatin liquid–liquid phase separation and multivalent nucleosome interactions.Nature communications12(1):2883

    work page 2021

  74. [74]

    Feric M, Vaidya N, Harmon TS, Mitrea DM, Zhu L, et al. 2016. Coexisting Liquid Phases Underlie Nucleolar Subcompartments.Cell165(7):1686–1697

    work page 2016

  75. [75]

    Fernández-Rico C, Style RW, Heyden S, Wang S, Olmsted PD, Dufresne ER. 2026. Thermody- namics of microphase separation in a swollen, strain-stiffening polymer network.Soft Matter 22(2):330–342

    work page 2026

  76. [76]

    Fletcher AG, Osterfield M, Baker RE, Shvartsman SY. 2014. Vertex models of epithelial mor- phogenesis.Biophysical journal106(11):2291–2304

    work page 2014

  77. [77]

    Foethke D, Makushok T, Brunner D, Nédélec F. 2009. Force- and length-dependent catastro- phe activities explain interphase microtubule organization in fission yeast.Molecular Systems Biology5(1):241

    work page 2009

  78. [78]

    long-range forces in heterogeneous fluid mem- branes

    Fournier J, Dommersnes P. 1997. Comment on" long-range forces in heterogeneous fluid mem- branes”.EPL (Europhysics Letters)39(6):681–682

    work page 1997

  79. [79]

    Fournier JB. 2022. Field-mediated interactions of passive and conformation-active particles: Multibody and retardation effects.Soft Matter18(13):2634–2645

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    Freedman SL, Banerjee S, Hocky GM, Dinner AR. 2017. A Versatile Framework for Simulating the Dynamic Mechanical Structure of Cytoskeletal Networks.Biophysical Journal113(2):448– 460

    work page 2017

Showing first 80 references.