Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Curved surfaces spontaneously pattern cell size

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 20:02 UTC pith:CMGIICN6

load-bearing objection Clean first-principles derivation of cell-size patterning on curved surfaces, with simulation and Drosophila support. The mean-field approximation is the main soft spot but is independently tested by the paper's own disordered-topology simulations. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07102 v1 pith:CMGIICN6 submitted 2026-07-08 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft

Spontaneous patterning of cell size on curved surfaces

Yuan He , Shi-Lei Xue This is my paper
classification physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft
keywords curvaturesurfacescellcellsregionssizeareabalance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper develops a vertex model for epithelial tissues on arbitrarily curved surfaces, where cell edges follow geodesic paths rather than straight lines. On ellipsoidal surfaces (relevant to embryos and organoids), the model reveals that cells in high-curvature regions consistently become larger than those in flatter regions. The mechanism is purely geometric and mechanical: positive Gaussian curvature reduces the perimeter-to-area ratio of polygonal cells, which relaxes cell-edge tension in those regions. To maintain uniform stress across the tissue, cells in high-curvature zones stretch and expand their area as compensation. The authors derive an analytical formula [Eq. 6] showing that the areal strain at any location is proportional to the local curvature deviation from the surface average, with a proportionality constant that remains positive across all physically relevant parameters. This means the size pattern is robust — polar cells are always larger than equatorial cells on prolate ellipsoids, regardless of tissue stiffness or contractility. The perimeter pattern, in contrast, can reverse: beyond a critical target shape index, polar cells end up with shorter perimeters than equatorial cells, because the intrinsic geometric shortening of perimeters by curvature overwhelms the stretching effect. The area patterning prediction is confirmed against Drosophila embryo apical cell data, where areal strain increases linearly with local Gaussian curvature.

Core claim

The central discovery is that cell size patterning on curved surfaces arises from a geometric identity embedded in Riemannian geometry: for a regular n-gon on a curved surface, the perimeter-to-area ratio decreases with positive Gaussian curvature [Eq. 1-2]. This single geometric fact, when combined with the requirement of uniform mechanical stress across a confluent tissue, forces cells in high-curvature regions to expand their area. The resulting areal strain formula δ(s) = γ(k_A, p_0) · [κ(s) − ⟨κ⟩] shows that the pattern's sign is parameter-independent (always positive for p_0 < c_n), while its magnitude depends on tissue stiffness k_A and target shape index p_0. The perimeter pattern,by

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the area-perimeter relation for regular geodesic polygons on curved surfaces [Eq. 1], which gives the shape index SI = c_n(1 − α_n κ a_i) as a function of local Gaussian curvature. This feeds into a continuum mean-field elastic energy [Eq. 3] whose stress uniformity condition [Eq. 4] partitions tension into an area-dependent part K(s)δ and a curvature-dependent edge tension T(s). Solving force balance with the global area constraint yields the closed-form areal strain formula [Eq. 6] and perimeter formula [Eq. 7], including the critical shape index p_0^f for perimeter pattern reversal [Eq. 8].

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field theory assumes cells can be approximated as regular hexagons and that local curvature is small relative to cell size. If the disordered, irregular packing of real tissues significantly alters how curvature affects the perimeter-to-area ratio beyond the regular polygon correction, the quantitative predictions would degrade.

What would settle it

If experiments on ellipsoidal tissues showed that polar cells are consistently smaller (not larger) than equatorial cells across a range of tissue stiffnesses and contractilities, or if the areal strain did not scale linearly with curvature deviation, the core mechanism would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Tissues could sense curvature through cell size changes alone, without requiring dedicated biochemical curvature sensors — the geometry of the surface itself creates a mechanical signal readable as local cell area.
  • The perimeter pattern reversal at critical shape indices suggests that tissues could switch between two distinct curvature-reading modes (area-dominant vs. perimeter-dominant) by modulating cell contractility, which is controllable by pathways like actomyosin regulation.
  • The framework extends to other curved geometries (tori, Gaussian bumps, sinusoidal surfaces), predicting curvature-dependent cell size patterns on any non-uniformly curved substrate.
  • Curvature-induced cell size variation could feed into known mechanotransduction pathways (YAP/TAZ, Wnt/β-catenin) through nuclear compression or intracellular crowding, creating a self-organized signaling gradient from geometry alone.
  • In morphogenetic contexts like gastrulation or organoid formation, the model predicts that tissue shape and cell size are coupled in a feedback loop: geometric changes drive size patterns, which in turn affect signaling and further tissue reshaping.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the area patterning mechanism operates in 3D tissues with apical-basal curvature differences, it could generate cell-size gradients across tissue depth, not just along the surface — potentially explaining fate specification in stratified epithelia.
  • The robustness of the area pattern (always positive γ) suggests that curvature-driven size patterning is a geometric inevitability rather than a tuned biological response, which would mean it operates as a baseline physical constraint on any confluent tissue on a curved substrate.
  • If active fluctuations in line tension or mechanochemical feedback were added, they could amplify or suppress the geometric patterning, potentially allowing tissues to actively modulate their curvature-sensitivity rather than passively following the geometric prediction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops a vertex model for confluent epithelial tissues on arbitrarily curved surfaces, with cell edges defined as geodesic curves. The central result is that on non-spherical surfaces (exemplified by prolate ellipsoids), cells in high-curvature (polar) regions spontaneously become larger than those in low-curvature (equatorial) regions. The authors derive this from a Riemannian-geometric relation showing that positive Gaussian curvature reduces the perimeter-to-area ratio of polygonal cells (Eq. 1), which relaxes cell-edge tension in high-curvature regions; area expansion then compensates to maintain global force balance. The key analytical prediction is Eq. (6), giving the areal strain proportional to the local curvature deviation, with a proportionality constant gamma(k_A, p_0) that remains positive for p_0 < c_n. A secondary result is that the perimeter pattern can reverse depending on parameters, with a critical shape index p_0^f given by Eq. (8). The theory is validated by vertex simulations showing data collapse onto predicted master curves, and by a qualitative comparison to Drosophila embryo apical cell area data.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question in tissue mechanics: how surface curvature is mechanically sensed by epithelial cells. Its main strengths are: (1) a first-principles derivation from Riemannian geometry through to a falsifiable analytical formula (Eq. 6) without fitting to the target result; (2) explicit simulation validation using disordered Voronoi tessellations (pentagons, hexagons, heptagons) that collapse onto the mean-field master curve (Fig. 3a), directly testing the regular-hexagon approximation; (3) a parameter-free phase diagram for perimeter pattern reversal (Fig. 4d) with a predicted boundary (Eq. 8); and (4) external biological validation using Drosophila embryo data. The perimeter reversal prediction is a non-trivial, testable claim that distinguishes the model from pure geometric arguments.

major comments (2)
  1. Appendix B, Fig. 5: The Drosophila embryo data is presented as validation of Eq. (6), but the comparison is purely qualitative — it confirms a positive linear correlation between areal strain and curvature without extracting or constraining the model parameters (k_A, p_0) from the data. The fitted slopes (27.8 to 52.0) are reported but never compared to the theoretical prediction gamma(k_A, p_0) for any parameter set. Since the central claim includes that the model 'matches observations in biological systems,' the authors should either (a) attempt a quantitative fit to extract (k_A, p_0) and check consistency with the elastic regime assumption (p_0 < p_0*), or (b) soften the claim from 'matches' to 'is consistent with the predicted functional form.' As written, the biological validation does not test the magnitude of gamma, only its sign and linearity. This is a gap between the claim and
  2. Eq. (6) and the surrounding text: the robustness claim states that gamma(k_A, p_0) > 0 'as long as p_0 < c_n.' For hexagons, c_n = 2*sqrt(3*tan(pi/6)) which evaluates to approximately 3.72. However, the simulations probe p_0 values up to 3.5 (Fig. 3b, Fig. 4d), and the jamming transition p_0* is referenced but its value is not stated. The authors should clarify: (1) the numerical value of c_n for n=6, (2) the value of p_0* for the curved geometry, and (3) whether the regime p_0 in [c_n, p_0*] is physically accessible or excluded by the elastic-regime assumption. This matters because the sign of gamma determines the direction of the area pattern, which is the paper's central prediction.
minor comments (6)
  1. Eq. (1): The expression for c_n and alpha_n is compact but the derivation is relegated to the SM. A brief parenthetical noting the numerical values for n=6 (c_n approx 3.72, alpha_n approx 0.14) would help readers assess the small-alpha_n linearization in Eq. (4).
  2. Fig. 1(c): The y-axis range and units for cell area are not clearly labeled. Clarifying whether area is normalized to the mean (as stated in the text, <a_i> = 1) would make the figure self-contained.
  3. Fig. 2: The panel labels (a), (b), (c) correspond to varying k_A, p_0, and Gamma respectively, but the caption does not explicitly state which parameter is varied in each panel without cross-referencing the axis labels. A brief phrase in each panel title would help.
  4. The phrase 'elastic regime with p_0 < p_0*' is used in the main text but p_0* is not defined until reference [30]. A one-sentence definition of p_0* as the jamming threshold would make the text more self-contained.
  5. The discussion mentions extensions to tori, Gaussian bumps, and sinusoidal undulations, but no simulation or analytical results are shown for these geometries. This is fine as outlook, but the authors should ensure the claim 'can be readily applied' is not overstated given that only ellipsoidal surfaces are demonstrated.
  6. Reference [32] (Supplemental Material) is cited multiple times for derivations and parameters but the URL is a placeholder. This should be completed in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity found; derivation is self-contained from Riemannian geometry through force balance to predictions

full rationale

The paper's central result (Eq. 6) is derived from a chain of independent steps: (1) Eq. 1 is a geometric identity for regular n-polygons on curved surfaces, computed from Riemann normal coordinates (Appendix A, Eqs. A3-A4) — not fitted or defined in terms of the target result. (2) Eq. 3 is the mean-field free energy density, constructed by substituting Eq. 1 into the standard vertex model potential. (3) Eqs. 4-5 are linearized stresses from Eq. 3 under the small-strain approximation. (4) Eq. 6 follows from imposing force balance (uniform stresses) and the global area constraint — a genuine derivation, not a definition. The perimeter result (Eq. 7) follows the same chain. The vertex simulations use disordered Voronoi tessellations (pentagons, hexagons, heptagons) and serve as independent tests of the mean-field theory, not as inputs to it. The Drosophila data (Appendix B) is used as external qualitative validation; no model parameters are fitted to it. Self-citations are to standard vertex model literature [26,29,30] and to the authors' own Supplemental Material [32], none of which form a load-bearing circular dependency. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities or forces. It uses standard vertex model parameters (k_A, p_0) and standard differential geometry. The key innovation is the application of Riemannian geometry to the vertex model framework.

free parameters (3)
  • k_A
    Area stiffness parameter; varied in simulations (0.1 to 10) and shown to affect patterning amplitude but not its existence.
  • p_0
    Target shape index; varied in simulations (2.5 to 3.5) and shown to affect patterning amplitude and perimeter reversal.
  • Γ
    Ellipsoid aspect ratio; varied in simulations (1.5 to 3.0) to control curvature variation.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Cells conform completely to the underlying surface and their edges follow geodesic paths.
    Stated in the Vertex model section; this is a modeling choice that may not hold for all tissues but is reasonable for apical surfaces.
  • domain assumption Cell size is much smaller than the characteristic radius of curvature (|κ|R² ≪ 1).
    Invoked in Appendix A to justify the local Riemann normal coordinate expansion for area and perimeter.
  • domain assumption Mean-field approximation: tissue can be coarse-grained into a continuum elastic membrane with cells approximated as regular n-polygons.
    Used to derive the continuum free energy density [Eq. 3] and the linearized stresses [Eqs. 4-5].
  • standard math Force equilibrium dictates uniform principal stresses across the ellipsoidal surface (σ_s = σ_θ = const.).
    Standard result from membrane mechanics on a surface of revolution without external tangential loads.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15714 in / 2283 out tokens · 166690 ms · 2026-07-09T20:02:05.429735+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Tissue surfaces exhibit complex curvature during embryogenesis and oncogenesis. Evidence shows that cells can actively sense curvature to regulate behavior and fate, yet the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Here, we develop a vertex model for arbitrary curved surfaces and uncover spontaneous cell size patterning on ellipsoidal surfaces: cells in high-curvature regions are consistently larger than those in low-curvature regions. This non-uniformity arises from a mechanical competition encoded in Riemannian geometry: positive Gaussian curvature reduces the perimeter-to-area ratio of polygonal cells, relaxing cell-edge tension in high-curvature regions, which is compensated by area expansion to maintain global force balance. This area pattern is robust against variations in model parameters and matches observations in biological systems. The perimeter pattern, in contrast, is governed by competition between the intrinsic geometric tendency and the deformation required by force balance, and undergoes reversal beyond a critical shape index. Together, these findings establish self-organized spatial variations in cell size as a potential physical mechanism for curvature sensing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07102 by Shi-Lei Xue, Yuan He.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Areal strain distributions. The areal strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spontaneous patterning of cell area on an ellip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of vertex simulations and mean-field the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Patterning of cell perimeter on ellipsoidal surface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Apical cell areal strain as a function of Gaussian cur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

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

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Y. Liu, X. Xue, S. Sun, N. Kobayashi, Y. S. Kim, and J. Fu, Morphogenesis beyond in vivo, Nature Reviews Physics6, 28 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Hirashima and M

    T. Hirashima and M. Matsuda, Erk-mediated curvature feedback regulates branching morphogenesis in lung ep- ithelial tissue, Current Biology34, 683 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Okuda, N

    S. Okuda, N. Takata, Y. Hasegawa, M. Kawada, Y. In- oue, T. Adachi, Y. Sasai, and M. Eiraku, Strain-triggered mechanical feedback in self-organizing optic-cup morpho- genesis, Science Advances4, eaau1354 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    D. S. Alber, S. Zhao, A. O. Jacinto, E. F. Wieschaus, S.Y.Shvartsman,andP.A.Haas,Amodelforboundary- driven tissue morphogenesis, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2505160122 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    S.-L. Xue, Q. Yang, P. Liberali, and E. Hannezo, Mechanochemical bistability of intestinal organoids en- ables robust morphogenesis, Nature Physics21, 608 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Collinet and T

    C. Collinet and T. Lecuit, Programmed and self- organized flow of information during morphogenesis, Na- ture Reviews Molecular Cell Biology22, 245 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Schamberger, R

    B. Schamberger, R. Ziege, K. Anselme, M. Ben Amar, M. Bykowski, A. P. Castro, A. Cipitria, R. A. Coles, R. Dimova, M. Eder,et al., Curvature in biological systems: its quantification, emergence, and implica- tions across the scales, Advanced Materials35, 2206110 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    J. Lee, A. A. Abdeen, K. L. Wycislo, T. M. Fan, and K. A. Kilian, Interfacial geometry dictates cancer cell tu- morigenicity, Nature Materials15, 856 (2016)

    work page 2016

  9. [9]

    H. A. Messal, S. Alt, R. M. Ferreira, C. Gribben, V. M.- Y. Wang, C. G. Cotoi, G. Salbreux, and A. Behrens, Tissue curvature and apicobasal mechanical tension im- balance instruct cancer morphogenesis, Nature566, 126 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    Wirtz, K

    D. Wirtz, K. Konstantopoulos, and P. C. Searson, The physics of cancer: the role of physical interactions and mechanical forces in metastasis, Nature Reviews Cancer 11, 512 (2011)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    W. Xi, S. Sonam, T. Beng Saw, B. Ladoux, and C. Teck Lim, Emergent patterns of collective cell migra- tion under tubular confinement, Nature communications 8, 1517 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Brandstätter, D

    T. Brandstätter, D. B. Brückner, Y. L. Han, R. Alert, M. Guo, and C. P. Broedersz, Curvature induces active 5 velocity waves in rotating spherical tissues, Nature Com- munications14, 1643 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    W. Tang, A. Das, A. F. Pegoraro, Y. L. Han, J. Huang, D. A. Roberts, H. Yang, J. J. Fredberg, D. N. Kotton, D. Bi,et al., Collective curvature sensing and fluidity in three-dimensional multicellular systems, Nature Physics 18, 1371 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Glentis, C

    A. Glentis, C. Blanch-Mercader, L. Balasubramaniam, T. B. Saw, J. d’Alessandro, S. Janel, A. Douanier, B. Delaval, F. Lafont, C. T. Lim,et al., The emergence of spontaneous coordinated epithelial rotation on cylindri- calcurvedsurfaces,ScienceAdvances8,eabn5406(2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    T. H. Tan, A. Amiri, I. Seijo-Barandiarán, M. F. Stad- don, A. Materne, S. Tomas, C. Duclut, M. Popović, A. Grapin-Botton, and F. Jülicher, Emergent chirality in active solid rotation of pancreas spheres, PRX Life2, 033006 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Happel and A

    L. Happel and A. Voigt, Coordinated motion of epithelial layers on curved surfaces, Physical Review Letters132, 078401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Krueger, W

    D. Krueger, W. K. Spoelstra, D. J. Mastebroek, R. N. Kok, S. Wu, M. Nikolaev, M. Bannier-Hélaouët, N. Gjorevski, M. Lutolf, J. van Es,et al., Epithelial tension controls intestinal cell extrusion, Science389, eadr8753 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Pieuchot, J

    L. Pieuchot, J. Marteau, A. Guignandon, T. Dos Santos, I. Brigaud, P.-F. Chauvy, T. Cloatre, A. Ponche, T. Pe- tithory, P. Rougerie,et al., Curvotaxis directs cell mi- gration through cell-scale curvature landscapes, Nature Communications9, 3995 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    A. E. Shyer, T. R. Huycke, C. Lee, L. Mahadevan, and C. J. Tabin, Bending gradients: how the intestinal stem cell gets its home, Cell161, 569 (2015)

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    F. M. Yavitt, B. E. Kirkpatrick, M. R. Blatchley, K. F. Speckl, E. Mohagheghian, R. Moldovan, N. Wang, P. J. Dempsey, and K. S. Anseth, In situ modulation of intesti- nal organoid epithelial curvature through photoinduced viscoelasticity directs crypt morphogenesis, Science Ad- vances9, eadd5668 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Y. Li, M. Chen, J. Hu, R. Sheng, Q. Lin, X. He, and M. Guo, Volumetric compression induces intracel- lular crowding to control intestinal organoid growth via wnt/β-catenin signaling, Cell Stem Cell28, 63 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Delarue, G

    M. Delarue, G. P. Brittingham, S. Pfeffer, I. Surovt- sev, S. Pinglay, K. Kennedy, M. Schaffer, J. Gutierrez, D. Sang, G. Poterewicz,et al., mtorc1 controls phase sep- aration and the biophysical properties of the cytoplasm by tuning crowding, Cell174, 338 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Koushki, A

    N. Koushki, A. Ghagre, L. K. Srivastava, C. Molter, and A. J. Ehrlicher, Nuclear compression regulates yap spa- tiotemporalfluctuationsinlivingcells,Proceedingsofthe National Academy of Sciences120, e2301285120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Kalukula, A

    Y. Kalukula, A. D. Stephens, J. Lammerding, and S. Gabriele, Mechanics and functional consequences of nuclear deformations, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Bi- ology23, 583 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Pentinmikko, R

    N. Pentinmikko, R. Lozano, S. Scharaw, S. Anders- son, J. I. Englund, D. Castillo-Azofeifa, A. Gallagher, M. Broberg, K.-Y. Song, A. Sola Carvajal,et al., Cel- lular shape reinforces niche to stem cell signaling in the small intestine, Science Advances8, eabm1847 (2022)

    work page 2022

  26. [26]

    De Marzio, A

    M. De Marzio, A. Das, J. J. Fredberg, and D. Bi, Epithe- lial layer fluidization by curvature-induced unjamming, Physical Review Letters134, 138402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    D. M. Sussman, Interplay of curvature and rigidity in shape-based models of confluent tissue, Physical Review Research2, 023417 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    Hernandez, M

    A. Hernandez, M. F. Staddon, M. Moshe, and M. C. Marchetti, Finite elasticity of the vertex model and its role in rigidity of curved cellular tissues, Soft Matter19, 7744 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Farhadifar, J.-C

    R. Farhadifar, J.-C. Röper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F.Jülicher,Theinfluenceofcellmechanics, cell-cellinter- actions, and proliferation on epithelial packing, Current Biology17, 2095 (2007)

    work page 2095

  30. [30]

    D. Bi, J. Lopez, J. M. Schwarz, and M. L. Manning, A density-independent rigidity transition in biological tis- sues, Nature Physics11, 1074 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    S. Alt, P. Ganguly, and G. Salbreux, Vertex models: from cell mechanics to tissue morphogenesis, Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sci- ences372, 20150520 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    [26, 28?]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for details of ellipsoidal vertex model simulations and mean-field formulation, which includes Refs. [26, 28?]

    work page

  33. [33]

    Huang, J.-F

    A. Huang, J.-F. Rupprecht, and T. E. Saunders, Embry- onic geometry underlies phenotypic variation in decanal- ized conditions, Elife9, e47380 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    E. W. Gehrels, B. Chakrabortty, M.-E. Perrin, M. Merkel, and T. Lecuit, Curvature gradient drives po- larized tissue flow in the drosophila embryo, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2214205120 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    D. Jia, Q. Xu, Q. Xie, W. Mio, and W.-M. Deng, Au- tomatic stage identification of drosophila egg chamber based on dapi images, Scientific Reports6, 18850 (2016)

    work page 2016

  36. [36]

    L. He, X. Wang, H. L. Tang, and D. J. Montell, Tissue elongation requires oscillating contractions of a basal ac- tomyosin network, Nature Cell Biology12, 1133 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Gjorevski, M

    N. Gjorevski, M. Nikolaev, T. E. Brown, O. Mitrofanova, N. Brandenberg, F. W. DelRio, F. M. Yavitt, P. Liber- ali, K. S. Anseth, and M. P. Lutolf, Tissue geometry drives deterministic organoid patterning, Science375, eaaw9021 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    Luciano, S.-L

    M. Luciano, S.-L. Xue, W. H. De Vos, L. Redondo- Morata, M. Surin, F. Lafont, E. Hannezo, and S. Gabriele, Cell monolayers sense curvature by exploit- ing active mechanics and nuclear mechanoadaptation, Nature Physics17, 1382 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    S. A. Mobasseri, S. Zijl, V. Salameti, G. Walko, A. Stan- nard, S. Garcia-Manyes, and F. M. Watt, Patterning of humanepidermal stem cellson undulating elastomer sub- strates reflects differences in cell stiffness, Acta Biomate- rialia87, 256 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Rizzi and S

    A. Rizzi and S. Kim, Universal persistent brownian mo- tions in confluent tissues, Physical Review Letters136, 158401 (2026)

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    S. Kim, M. Pochitaloff, G. A. Stooke-Vaughan, and O. Campàs, Embryonic tissues as active foams, Nature Physics17, 859 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    N. H. Claussen, F. Brauns, and B. I. Shraiman, A geometric-tension-dynamics model of epithelial conver- gent extension, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2321928121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Curran, C

    S. Curran, C. Strandkvist, J. Bathmann, M. De Gennes, A. Kabla, G. Salbreux, and B. Baum, Myosin ii controls junction fluctuations to guide epithelial tissue ordering, 6 Developmental Cell43, 480 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    Krajnc, Solid–fluid transition and cell sorting in ep- ithelia with junctional tension fluctuations, Soft Matter 16, 3209 (2020)

    M. Krajnc, Solid–fluid transition and cell sorting in ep- ithelia with junctional tension fluctuations, Soft Matter 16, 3209 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    P. Yu, F. Brauns, and M. C. Marchetti, Feedback- controlled epithelial mechanics: emergent soft elastic- ity and active yielding (2025), arXiv:2511.04189 [cond- mat.soft]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    S.-Z. Lin, M. Merkel, and J.-F. Rupprecht, Structure and rheology in vertex models under cell-shape-dependent active stresses, Physical Review Letters130, 058202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Rozman and J

    J. Rozman and J. M. Yeomans, Cell sorting in an ac- tive nematic vertex model, Physical Review Letters133, 248401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  48. [48]

    Maroudas-Sacks, L

    Y. Maroudas-Sacks, L. Garion, S. Suganthan, M. Popović, and K. Keren, Confinement modulates axial patterning in regenerating hydra, PRX Life2, 043007 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Sknepnek, I

    R. Sknepnek, I. Djafer-Cherif, M. Chuai, C. Weijer, and S. Henkes, Generating active t1 transitions through mechanochemical feedback, Elife12, e79862 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Boocock, N

    D. Boocock, N. Hino, N. Ruzickova, T. Hirashima, and E. Hannezo, Theory of mechanochemical patterning and optimal migration in cell monolayers, Nature Physics17, 267 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Krajnc, T

    M. Krajnc, T. Stern, and C. Zankoc, Active instability and nonlinear dynamics of cell-cell junctions, Physical Review Letters127, 198103 (2021)

    work page 2021

  52. [52]

    Hannezo, J

    E. Hannezo, J. Prost, and J.-F. Joanny, Theory of epithe- lial sheet morphology in three dimensions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111, 27 (2014)

    work page 2014

  53. [53]

    O. M. Drozdowski, B. Kocamese-Tamgac, K. E. Boonekamp, M. Boutros, and U. S. Schwarz, Cell bulging and extrusion in a three-dimensional bubbly vertex model for curved epithelial sheets, Physical Review X 16, 021023 (2026)

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    Rozman, M

    J. Rozman, M. Krajnc, and P. Ziherl, Collective cell me- chanics of epithelial shells with organoid-like morpholo- gies, Nature Communications11, 3805 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Merkel and M

    M. Merkel and M. L. Manning, A geometrically con- trolled rigidity transition in a model for confluent 3d tis- sues, New Journal of Physics20, 022002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  56. [56]

    C. F. F. Karney, Algorithms for geodesics, Journal of Geodesy87, 43 (2013)

    work page 2013

  57. [57]

    T. H. Webb and D. M. Sussman, curvedspacesim: A framework for simulating particles interacting along geodesics, Computer Physics Communications311, 109545 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    X. Li, A. Das, and D. Bi, Mechanical heterogeneity in tissues promotes rigidity and controls cellular invasion, Physical Review Letters123, 058101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  59. [59]

    Stern, S

    T. Stern, S. Y. Shvartsman, and E. F. Wieschaus, Decon- structing gastrulation at single-cell resolution, Current Biology32, 1861 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    H. Yang, G. Roy, A. Q. Nguyen, D. Bi, T. Stern, M. J. Buehler, and M. Guo, Multicell: geometric learn- ing in multicellular development, Nature Methods23, 617 (2026)

    work page 2026

  61. [61]

    Brauns, N

    F. Brauns, N. H. Claussen, M. F. Lefebvre, E. F. Wi- eschaus, and B. I. Shraiman, The geometric basis of ep- ithelial convergent extension, Elife13, RP95521 (2024). 7 End Matter Appendix A: Vertex model on arbitrary curved surfaces— In the vertex model, the changes in cell shape and ar- rangement are achieved through the movements of poly- gon vertices, w...

    work page 2024