pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15364 · v1 · pith:HC2TV4HWnew · submitted 2026-05-14 · 🧬 q-bio.QM · math.GM

A geometry-dependent, force balance-driven model of Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm cell cluster detachment

Yuehui Xu , Jasmine A.F. Kreig , Zhuoran Wang , Elizabeth J. Stewart , Rayanne A. Luke , Sarah D. Olson This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 15:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.QM math.GM
keywords biofilm detachmentStaphylococcus epidermidisextracellular polymeric substanceforce balancecluster geometrymathematical modelEPS disruption
0
0 comments X p. Extension
pith:HC2TV4HW Add to your LaTeX paper What is a Pith Number? 
\usepackage{pith}
\pithnumber{HC2TV4HW}

Prints a linked pith:HC2TV4HW badge after your title and writes the identifier into PDF metadata. Compiles on arXiv with no extra files. Learn more

The pith

A force-balance model shows that cluster geometry and local EPS adhesion control which bacterial groups detach from S. epidermidis biofilms.

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

This paper presents a mathematical model for how groups of bacteria break off from a biofilm. The model tracks specific sections of the biofilm based on their shape and the positions of cells and the sticky matrix around them. It calculates whether drag from fluid flow overcomes the adhesive forces holding the section in place. A single parameter adjusts how sticky the matrix is, allowing simulation of what happens when the matrix is weakened. The work uses data from real 24-hour biofilms to set up the simulation and then looks at how weakening the matrix changes the detached pieces. If the model holds, it would give a way to forecast the size and shape of bacterial clusters that enter the blood and start new infections.

Core claim

The detachment of cell clusters from a Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm is driven by a force balance between fluid drag and adhesion forces that act on tagged sections whose boundaries are set by the cluster geometry and the local arrangement of bacteria and extracellular polymeric substance. A stickiness parameter is introduced to control the strength of local EPS adhesion, and this parameter is varied to represent disruption of the EPS biomass. The simulated biofilm is first benchmarked against experimental microstructural features from 24-hour growth, after which the effects on detached cluster frequency, size, and shape are examined under different levels of EPS disruption.

What carries the argument

geometry-dependent tagging of biofilm sections combined with a stickiness parameter that sets local EPS adhesion strength in a force balance calculation

If this is right

  • Different levels of EPS disruption lead to changes in the frequency of cluster detachment.
  • The size and shape of detached clusters vary with the stickiness parameter and reflect the underlying geometry.
  • Compromised EPS results in distinct detachment dynamics compared to intact matrices.
  • The model offers mechanistic understanding of how matrix disruption affects the properties of released bacterial clusters.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the model to include fluid flow variations could reveal how shear rates influence cluster release in different environments.
  • Validating against more experimental conditions might allow the approach to guide strategies for preventing secondary infections from detached biofilm fragments.
  • The framework could apply to other biofilm-forming bacteria if their microstructural data is available for benchmarking.

Load-bearing premise

The structure of the simulated biofilm matches the microstructural features observed in actual 24-hour S. epidermidis biofilms closely enough that adjusting the stickiness parameter yields accurate forecasts for detached cluster properties.

What would settle it

Measuring the sizes, shapes, and frequencies of clusters that detach from laboratory-grown S. epidermidis biofilms when the EPS is experimentally disrupted and comparing those measurements to the model's outputs for matching disruption levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15364 by Elizabeth J. Stewart, Jasmine A.F. Kreig, Rayanne A. Luke, Sarah D. Olson, Yuehui Xu, Zhuoran Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of biofilm detachment modeling framework. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: iDynoMiCS results for a 24-hour S. epidermidis biofilm in 2-d utilizing 4 different Parameter Sets ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 24 hours of S. epidermidis biofilm growth that are simulated by iDynoMiCS in a single run (Run=1). (a) Average biofilm height over 1 µm intervals for 2-d and 4 µm2 for 3-d. (b) Surface plot showing the height of the 3-d biofilim at 24 hours utilizing Parameter Set 1. (c) Density of cells over time (with equivalent initial cell densities in 2-d and 3-d). (d) Quantifying cellular organization by the ratio of… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example biofilm undergoing Algorithm 3.2 using Parameter Set 1 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example for clustering in 3-d setting with Parameter Set 1 (Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fit of Eq. (12) in (a) and Eq. (16) in (b) to the data from Ting et al. in [33] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detachment decisions for example biofilms generated by Parameter Set 4, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Example of the cluster formation and detachment models applied in sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Characterizing clusters that detach from 2-d biofilms with different percent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time dependence of clusters and single agents breaking off from the 2-d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Linearity of clusters that detach as a function of cluster diameter for 2-d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Properties of detached clusters across cluster size groups for 2-d biofilms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Cluster properties for 2-d biofilms using Parameter Sets 1-4 (Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Cluster properties of 3-d biofilms using Parameter Sets 1 (P1) and 3 (P3). (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Biofilms, bacteria cells surrounded by a self-produced polymeric matrix, are common on medical devices and lead to many hospital infections. The biofilm lifecycle includes disassembly and dispersion, where bacteria clusters detach from the biofilm, circulate in the bloodstream, and potentially colonize secondary infection sites. Existing models often simplify detachment to a function of biofilm thickness or extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) density, without tracking properties of detached clusters that impact their biological fate, including cluster size and morphology. Addressing this gap, our detachment model accounts for drag and adhesion in tagged sections of the biofilm determined by the cluster geometry and local arrangement of bacteria and EPS. A stickiness parameter controls local EPS adhesion strength, which is modulated to disrupt (or compromise) EPS biomass. We specifically model the detachment of clusters from a Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilm grown for 24 hours. Experimental data for biofilm microstructural features are utilized to benchmark the simulated biofilm, which is then subjected to different EPS disruption levels. We examine parameters that influence detached biofilm cell cluster frequency, size, and shape, providing mechanistic insights into how compromised EPS influences detachment dynamics. This integrated modeling framework is a significant advance in the predictive capabilities for biofilm detachment processes.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a geometry-dependent, force balance-driven model for detachment of cell clusters from Staphylococcus epidermidis biofilms. Drag and local adhesion forces are computed in tagged biofilm sections based on cluster geometry and the spatial arrangement of bacteria and EPS. A single stickiness parameter modulates EPS adhesion strength to simulate disruption; the initial 24-hour biofilm microstructure is benchmarked against experimental data, after which detached-cluster frequency, size, and shape are examined under varying EPS compromise levels.

Significance. If the central mapping from stickiness modulation to detachment statistics holds, the work supplies mechanistic insight into how compromised EPS alters cluster properties that govern downstream infection risk. It improves on thickness- or density-only simplifications by tracking geometry-dependent outcomes. The explicit use of experimental microstructural features to benchmark the simulated initial structure is a clear strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model and Results sections (detachment predictions)] The central claim that the single-parameter model yields reliable, mechanistically grounded predictions of detached-cluster statistics rests on an unvalidated extrapolation: experimental data are used only to benchmark the static 24-hour microstructure, with no quantitative comparison (size, shape, or frequency distributions) reported between simulated and measured detached clusters under EPS disruption.
  2. [Methods (parameter definition and modulation)] The stickiness parameter is introduced and modulated without independent calibration data or sensitivity analysis shown; because this parameter directly controls the force-balance outcome that is the paper's main output, its lack of grounding undermines the claim that the model is physics-based rather than effectively fitted.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] Clarify in the abstract and introduction whether the stickiness parameter has any direct experimental counterpart or is purely phenomenological.
  2. [Results figures and tables] Add error bars or uncertainty quantification to any reported detached-cluster statistics and state the number of simulation replicates.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of model validation and parameter grounding. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made or planned.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model and Results sections (detachment predictions)] The central claim that the single-parameter model yields reliable, mechanistically grounded predictions of detached-cluster statistics rests on an unvalidated extrapolation: experimental data are used only to benchmark the static 24-hour microstructure, with no quantitative comparison (size, shape, or frequency distributions) reported between simulated and measured detached clusters under EPS disruption.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative comparison of simulated detached-cluster statistics (size, shape, frequency) to experimental measurements under EPS disruption would provide stronger validation. The present study uses experimental data solely to benchmark the initial 24-hour biofilm microstructure, as detailed time-resolved detachment data under controlled matrix disruption were not available. We have added a dedicated limitations paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly states this gap and outlines the experimental requirements for future validation. The model remains a mechanistic framework whose predictions can be tested once such data exist. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Methods (parameter definition and modulation)] The stickiness parameter is introduced and modulated without independent calibration data or sensitivity analysis shown; because this parameter directly controls the force-balance outcome that is the paper's main output, its lack of grounding undermines the claim that the model is physics-based rather than effectively fitted.

    Authors: The stickiness parameter is a single effective coefficient that lumps together the net adhesive contribution of EPS under disruption; it is not claimed to be independently measured. To address the concern we have added a new sensitivity-analysis subsection (and corresponding figure) that varies the parameter over a physiologically plausible range and reports the resulting changes in detachment frequency, size, and shape distributions. The analysis shows that the qualitative trends remain robust within a factor of two around the nominal value, supporting the mechanistic interpretation while acknowledging the parameter's phenomenological nature. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Direct experimental measurements of detached-cluster size, shape, and frequency distributions under graded EPS disruption are not present in the current dataset and cannot be supplied without new experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; force-balance simulation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper constructs a simulation framework that initializes biofilm geometry from 24-hour experimental microstructural data, then applies explicit drag and local adhesion forces (modulated by a stickiness parameter) to compute cluster detachment. No derivation step reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction, nor does any central result rely on a self-citation chain or fitted quantity renamed as output. The stickiness modulation is an explicit control variable used to explore EPS disruption effects rather than a fitted parameter whose value is presupposed in the detachment statistics. Because the model outputs (cluster size, shape, frequency) are generated from the geometry-dependent force balance rather than rearranged from the benchmark inputs, the derivation remains independent of the target quantities.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a force-balance assumption and an introduced stickiness parameter whose value is modulated without shown external calibration.

free parameters (1)
  • stickiness parameter
    Controls local EPS adhesion strength and is modulated to simulate disruption of EPS biomass.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Detachment occurs when drag exceeds adhesion in geometry-tagged biofilm sections
    Core modeling premise stated in the abstract for determining cluster detachment.
invented entities (1)
  • stickiness parameter no independent evidence
    purpose: To represent and modulate local EPS adhesion strength
    New parameter introduced to control EPS disruption levels in the model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5761 in / 1321 out tokens · 55936 ms · 2026-05-19T15:18:12.070537+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Jonblat, F

    S. Jonblat, F. As-Sadi, K. Zibara, M. Sabban, V . Dermesrobian, A. Khoury, M. Kallassy, A. Chokr, Int Microbiol 27(3), 831 (2024). DOI 10.1007/s10123-023-00433-2. Epub 2023 Oct 12

    work page doi:10.1007/s10123-023-00433-2 2024

  2. [2]

    Assefa, A

    M. Assefa, A. Amare, Infect Drug Resis 15, 5061 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Otto, Nat Rev Microbiol 7, 555 (2009)

    M. Otto, Nat Rev Microbiol 7, 555 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Alhede, M

    M. Alhede, M. Lorenz, B. Fritz, P . Jensen, H. Ring, L. Bay, T. Bjarnsholt, Med Microbiol Immunol 209, 669 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Flemming, J

    H. Flemming, J. Wingender, Water Sci Technol 43(6), 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Stewart, Microbiol Spectr3(3) (2015)

    P . Stewart, Microbiol Spectr3(3) (2015). DOI 10.1128/microbiolspec.MB-0010-2014

    work page doi:10.1128/microbiolspec.mb-0010-2014 2015

  7. [7]

    Bjarnsholt, M

    T. Bjarnsholt, M. Alhede, S. Eickhardt-Sørensen, C. Moser, M. Kuhl, P . Jensen, N. Hoiby, Trends Microbiol 21(9) (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Schilcher, A.R

    K. Schilcher, A.R. Horswill, Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 84(e00026-19) (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Fleming, K

    D. Fleming, K. Rumbaugh, Sci Rep 8, 10738 (2018). DOI doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-018-29121-2

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Wille, T

    J. Wille, T. Coenye, Biofilm 2, 100027 (2020). DOI 10.1016/j.bioflm.2020.100027

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bioflm.2020.100027 2020

  11. [11]

    Vahidkhah, P

    K. Vahidkhah, P . Bagchi, Soft Matter11, 2097 (2015)

    work page 2097

  12. [12]

    Franca, V

    A. Franca, V . Carvalhais, M. Vilanova, G. Pier, N. Cerca, AMB Express 6(23) (2016). DOI 10.1186/s13568-016-0197-9

    work page doi:10.1186/s13568-016-0197-9 2016

  13. [13]

    Erskine, C

    E. Erskine, C. MacPhee, N. Stanley-Wall, J Mol Biol 430, 3642 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Okshevsky, R.L

    M. Okshevsky, R.L. Meyer, Crit Rev Microbiol 41, 341 (2015)

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    Panlilio, C

    H. Panlilio, C. Rice, Biotechnol Bioeng 118, 2129 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Z. Qin, Y . Ou, L. Y ang, Y . Zhu, T. Tolker-Nielsen, S. Molin, D. Qu, Microbiol 153, 2083 (2007). DOI 10.1099/mic.0.2007/006031-0

    work page doi:10.1099/mic.0.2007/006031-0 2083

  17. [17]

    Dzianach, G

    P . Dzianach, G. Dykes, N. Strachan, K. Forbes, F. Pérez-Reche, J R Soc Interface 16(155), 20190042 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Klapper, J

    I. Klapper, J. Dockery, SIAM Rev 52(2), 221 (2010). DOI 10.1137/080739720

    work page doi:10.1137/080739720 2010

  19. [19]

    Mattei, L

    M. Mattei, L. Frunzo, B. D’ Acunto, Y . Pechaud, F. Pirozzi, G. Esposito, J Math Biol 76, 945 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Picioreanu, J

    C. Picioreanu, J. Xavier, M. van Loosdrecht, Biofilms 1, 337– (2004)

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Q. Wang, T. Zhang, Solid State Commun 150(21), 1009 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Lardon, B

    L. Lardon, B. Merkey, S. Martins, A. Dotsch, C. Picioreanu, J. Kreft, B. Smets, Environ Mi- crobiol 13, 2416 (2011)

    work page 2011

  23. [23]

    Cockx, T

    B. Cockx, T. Foster, R. Clegg, K. Alden, S. Arya, D. Stekel, B. Smets, J. Kreft, PLOS Comp Biol 20, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  24. [24]

    Hammond, E

    J. Hammond, E. Stewart, J. Y ounger, M. Solomon, D. Bortz, J Comp Phys98, 295 (2014). DOI 10.3970/cmes.2014.098.295

    work page doi:10.3970/cmes.2014.098.295 2014

  25. [25]

    C. Li, J. Nijjer, L. Feng, Q. Zhang, J. Y an, S. Zhang, Soft Matter 20, 3401 (2024). DOI 10.1039/D3SM01535A

    work page doi:10.1039/d3sm01535a 2024

  26. [26]

    Chambless, P .S

    J.D. Chambless, P .S. Stewart, Biotechnol Bioeng 97(6), 1573 (2007). DOI 10.1002/bit.21363 36 Y . Xu, J.A.F. Kreig, Z. Wang, E.J. Stewart, R.A. Luke, and S.D. Olson

    work page doi:10.1002/bit.21363 2007

  27. [27]

    Xavier, C

    J.B. Xavier, C. Picioreanu, S.A. Rani, M.C. van Loosdrecht, P .S. Stewart, Microbiol 151(12), 3817 (2005)

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Xavier, C

    J. Xavier, C. Picioreanu, M. van Loosdrecht, Biotechnol Bioeng 91(6), 651 (2005)

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Xavier, C

    J.B. Xavier, C. Picioreanu, M.C. Van Loosdrecht, Environ Microbiol 7(8), 1085 (2005)

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    Sudarsan, S

    R. Sudarsan, S. Ghosh, J.M. Stockie, H.J. Eberl, Commun Comput Phys 19(3), 682 (2016)

    work page 2016

  31. [31]

    H.Z. Ting, P . Bedrikovetsky, Z.F. Tian, T. Carageorgos, Chem Eng Sci241, 116658 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    H.Z. Ting, Y . Y ang, Z.F. Tian, T. Carageorgos, P . Bedrikovetsky, Colloids Surf A: Physicochem Eng Asp 650, 129451 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    H.Z. Ting, Y . Y ang, Z.F. Tian, T. Carageorgos, P . Bedrikovetsky, Powder Technol427, 118754 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Karygianni, Z

    L. Karygianni, Z. Ren, H. Koo, T. Thurnheer, Trends Microbiol 28(8), 668 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    J. Jo, A. Price-Whelan, L. Dietrich, Nat Rev Microbiol 20, 593 (2022). DOI 10.1038/ s41579-022-00692-2

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Packard, G

    S.R. Packard, G. Bulacan, B. Peiris, R. Paffenroth, E.J. Stewart, bioRxiv (2026). DOI 10. 64898/2026.01.28.701379. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2026/01/ 28/2026.01.28.701379

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    Cerca, F

    N. Cerca, F. Gomes, S. Pereira, et al., BMC Res Notes 5, 244 (2012)

    work page 2012

  38. [38]

    Stewart, A.E

    E.J. Stewart, A.E. Satorius, J.G. Y ounger, M.J. Solomon, Langmuir29(23), 7017 (2013). DOI 10.1021/la401322k

    work page doi:10.1021/la401322k 2013

  39. [39]

    Stewart, D.E

    E.J. Stewart, D.E. Payne, T.M. Ma, J.S. VanEpps, B.R. Boles, J.G. Y ounger, M.J. Solomon, Ap- plied and Environmental Microbiology 83(12), e03483 (2017). DOI 10.1128/AEM.03483-16

    work page doi:10.1128/aem.03483-16 2017

  40. [40]

    S. Wang, H. Zhu, G. Zheng, F. Dong, C. Liu, Appl Environ Microbiol 88(22), e01072 (2022). DOI 10.1128/aem.01072-22

    work page doi:10.1128/aem.01072-22 2022

  41. [41]

    Alden, M

    K. Alden, M. Read, J. Timmis, P . Andrews, H. Veiga-Fernandes, M. Coles, PLoS Comput Biol 9(2), e1002916 (2013). DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002916

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002916 2013

  42. [42]

    Ganesan, E.J

    M. Ganesan, E.J. Stewart, J. Szafranski, A.E. Satorius, J.G. Y ounger, M.J. Solomon, Biomacro- molecules 14(5), 1474 (2013). DOI 10.1021/bm400149a

    work page doi:10.1021/bm400149a 2013

  43. [43]

    Clegg, J

    R. Clegg, J. Kreft, J Theor Biol 21(423), 26 (2017). DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.04.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.04.016 2017

  44. [44]

    URL https://www.mathworks.com

    Density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (dbscan) (r2025a) (2025). URL https://www.mathworks.com. The MathWorks Inc

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Petrova, K

    O.E. Petrova, K. Sauer, Current Opinion in Microbiology 30, 67 (2016). DOI 10.1016/j.mib. 2016.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mib 2016

  46. [46]

    Kaplan, J Dent Res 89(3), 205 (2010)

    J. Kaplan, J Dent Res 89(3), 205 (2010). DOI 10.1177/0022034509359403

    work page doi:10.1177/0022034509359403 2010

  47. [47]

    S. Wang, Y . Zhao, A. Breslawec, T. Liang, Z. Deng, L. Kuperman, Q. Yu, NPJ Biofilms Mi- crobiomes 9(63) (2023). DOI 10.1038/s41522-023-00427-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41522-023-00427-y 2023

  48. [48]

    URLhttps: //www.mathworks.com

    Polygons and polyhedra from points in 2-d and 3-d (alphashape) (r2025a) (2025). URLhttps: //www.mathworks.com. The MathWorks Inc.; Natick, Massachusetts, United States

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    URL https://www.mathworks

    Control random number generator (rng) (r2025a) (2025). URL https://www.mathworks. com. The MathWorks Inc.; Natick, Massachusetts, United States

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Maramizonouz, S

    S. Maramizonouz, S. Nadimi, Powder Technol 412, 117964 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Ganser, Powder Technol 77(2), 143 (1993)

    G.H. Ganser, Powder Technol 77(2), 143 (1993)

    work page 1993

  52. [52]

    Leith, Aerosol Sci Tech 6(2), 153 (1987)

    D. Leith, Aerosol Sci Tech 6(2), 153 (1987)

    work page 1987

  53. [53]

    J. Doke. Grabit (2016). URL https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/ fileexchange/7173-grabit. MATLAB Central File Exchange

    work page 2016

  54. [54]

    Hartmann, P .K

    R. Hartmann, P .K. Singh, P . Pearce, R. Mok, B. Song, F. Díaz-Pascual, J. Dunkel, K. Drescher, Nature Phys 15(3), 251 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Cleaver, C.M

    D.J. Cleaver, C.M. Care, M.P . Allen, M.P . Neal, Phys Rev E54(1), 559 (1996)

    work page 1996

  56. [56]

    Rawdon, J

    E. Rawdon, J. Kern, M. Piatek, P . Plunkett, A. Stasiak, K. Millett, Macromolecules 41, 8281 (2008)

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    Nunez, X

    C. Nunez, X. Kostoulias, A.Y . Peleg, F. Short, Y . Qu, Biofilm 5, 100105 (2023). DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioflm.2023.100105. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S2590207523000023

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bioflm.2023.100105 2023

  58. [58]

    Pechaud, N

    Y . Pechaud, N. Derlon, I. Queinnec, Y . Bessiere, E. Paul, Water Res250, 120985 (2024)

    work page 2024

  59. [59]

    Maramizonouz, S

    S. Maramizonouz, S. Nadimi, Powder Technol 412, 117964 (2022). DOI 10.1016/j.powtec. 2022.117964 A geometry-dependent, force-balance driven model of biofilm cell cluster detachment 37 Appendix A detailed list of all parameters utilized in iDynoMiCS are given in Tables A1 and A2. Several parameters were updated to be representative of an S. epidermidis bio...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.powtec 2022