Density-Velocity Relation Is Scale-Dependent in Epithelial Monolayers

Amin Doostmohammadi; Hengdong Lu; Tianxiang Ma

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Density-Velocity Relation Is Scale-Dependent in Epithelial Monolayers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The density–velocity relation in epithelial monolayers is not a fixed sign but a function of the observation window: positive at small scales, negative at large scales, with the crossover set by mechanical pressure segregation.

desk verdict Novel and plausible scale-dependence observation in MDCK monolayers, but the quantitative match to pressure-segregation length and the small-scale positive branch both need stronger controls before the central claim is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.19017 v1 pith:55VQPTZO submitted 2025-08-26 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Hengdong Lu , Tianxiang Ma , Amin Doostmohammadi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph PACS 87.17.Jj

keywords epithelialmonolayersdensity–velocitycorrelationscaledependencecollectivecellmigrationpressuresegregationphase-fieldmodelactivemattertractionforcemicroscopy

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

This paper claims that whether dense cell packs move fast or slow depends on the ruler used to measure them. In confluent epithelial monolayers, coarse-graining cell motion over small windows of a few cell diameters gives a positive density–velocity correlation: denser local neighborhoods move faster. Large windows of tens of cell diameters recover the familiar negative correlation in which crowding suppresses motion. The crossover occurs at roughly seven cell diameters in experiments and coincides with the spatial segregation of high- and low-pressure regions measured by traction-force microscopy and Bayesian Inversion Stress Microscopy. A minimal phase-field model whose only active ingredient is activity-induced shape deformation reproduces the crossover and the pressure-segregation length, identifying the mechanism as competition between local active force generation and global mechanical confinement. If correct, the result reconciles conflicting reports of positive and negative density–velocity coupling in the literature and makes the observation window a required parameter for interpreting collective cell dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the crossover length scale in the density–velocity correlation, defined by sweeping a square coarse-graining window of size d over the monolayer and computing at each location the local density (cell count inside the window) and local velocity (mean cell speed in the same window). A percentile ranking step removes global density fluctuations before the correlation sign is read off as d varies. On the mechanical side, the paper couples this to the pressure-segregation length: the distance at which the cross-type radial distribution function g(r) of high- and low-pressure cells first rises above unity, measured by Bayesian Inversion Stress Microscopy from traction-force d

What would settle it

Recompute the density–velocity correlation from the raw, unranked coarse-grained fields in the same monolayer movies, sweeping the window size from one to thirty cell diameters; if the small-scale correlation is not positive before percentile normalization, or flips sign under a different detrending scheme, the crossover is not established. In the simulations, the same check can be done directly on raw fields.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the density–velocity relation in epithelial monolayers is inherently scale-dependent and cannot be captured by any local functional v = v(ρ). Using coarse-graining windows from a few to tens of cell diameters on MDCK monolayers, the authors measure a positive correlation between local density and local speed at small scales and a negative correlation at large scales, with a smooth crossover between them. Traction-force measurements show that this crossover sits at the same length scale as the spatial segregation of high- and low-pressure regions, about seven cell diameters, and a minimal phase-field model with extensile shape deformations repro

Load-bearing premise

The new small-scale result — that dense neighborhoods move faster — appears only after rearranging density and velocity values by percentile ranking, and the paper does not show the raw correlations, so the sign crossover could in principle be a product of that rearrangement rather than a biological effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Reports of density-regulated migration should state the coarse-graining window; a single-scale measurement of the correlation sign is incomplete.
Contact inhibition of locomotion and activity-enhanced migration are reconciled: negative coupling dominates beyond the pressure-segregation length, positive coupling below it.
The pressure-segregation length becomes a measurable, cell-type- and environment-dependent parameter that organizes collective dynamics and can be compared across tissues.
Local constitutive relations v = v(ρ) are insufficient; any faithful theory of collective cell migration must treat density dependence as nonlocal.
Model perturbations give testable predictions: weakening activity erases the small-scale positive correlation, and weakening crowding by lowering packing fraction erases the large-scale negative one.

Reading between the lines

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

The small-scale positive correlation is the novel claim, and it emerges after percentile normalization; a natural test is whether the sign survives raw, unnormalized correlations or alternative detrending of the same movies.
If the mechanism is generic, the same sign flip with window size should appear in other confluent tissues, bacterial colonies, and particle-based models of motility-induced phase separation, and could be checked by re-analyzing existing datasets.
The crossover scale may be tunable by substrate stiffness or geometric confinement, since both should alter the mechanical confinement length without changing cell-level activity.
The diverging pressure-segregation length at low activity suggests a connection between this density–velocity crossover and the jamming or glass transition, where the balance point between the two mechanisms moves outside the observable window.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

This paper is worth engaging with, but read the central quantitative claim as suggestive rather than established. The genuinely new thing is a systematic window-size sweep of the density-velocity correlation in MDCK monolayers, showing a crossover from positive correlation at small windows to negative at large windows. That observation, if it holds up, would reconcile conflicting reports in the literature, and I don't know of a prior systematic test. The multiphase-field model is a fair forward simulation with literature-based parameters, and the perturbation experiments (reduced activity, reduced packing) give a plausible mechanistic story.

The experimental observation itself is credible in outline: four independent experiments, standard PIV and segmentation, and the global negative correlation in Fig. 1 is consistent with jamming. The problem is the small-scale positive branch, which rests entirely on the percentile-normalized correlation in Fig. 2E. Because the normalization ranks density and velocity per frame, it changes the marginal distributions and can interact with the discrete cell counts in small windows to produce a sign change that is not present in the raw fields. The paper does not show raw correlations, scatter plots, or any null-model shuffle, so the crossover could be a processing artifact. That is the load-bearing point, and it needs controls.

Second, the claimed coincidence between the crossover and the pressure-segregation length does not hold numerically. The experimental text puts the onset of negative correlation above ~14 cell diameters, while the pressure segregation scale is ~7 cell diameters, and the model crossover is ~3.5. The abstract says these coincide, but the paper never defines what 'coincide' means or gives a statistical comparison. This is a real inconsistency, not a cosmetic one.

Minor issues: error bars are SEM across four experiments, but the 70 frames per experiment are temporally correlated; treating them as independent inflates confidence. No code or data are shipped, so the analysis cannot be checked directly.

Who should read this: anyone working on collective cell migration or active matter density-velocity couplings. It is a hypothesis paper with a testable claim. I would send it to peer review, but with a request for raw analyses, null tests, and a proper length-scale comparison.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports that in confluent MDCK epithelial monolayers the correlation between local cell density and local cell speed changes sign with the size of the coarse-graining window: positive at small windows (a few cell diameters) and negative at large windows. The authors further report, using traction force microscopy and Bayesian Inversion Stress Microscopy, that this crossover coincides with a pressure-segregation length defined from the cross-correlation of high- and low-pressure cells. A multi-phase-field model with extensile active shape deformations is used to reproduce the crossover and to argue that the mechanism is a competition between local active force generation and large-scale mechanical confinement. The paper concludes that density-velocity relations in epithelia are inherently scale dependent, resolving conflicting reports in the literature.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would be an important contribution: it would reconcile apparently contradictory observations of positive and negative density-velocity correlations and introduce a mechanically meaningful length scale into the interpretation of collective cell migration. The experimental design has real strengths: four independent experiments, direct PIV and cell-segmentation measurements, independent traction/stress inference, and a forward phase-field model with parameters taken from prior literature rather than fitted to the density-velocity curve. The model also gives a falsifiable perturbation prediction. However, the experimental evidence for the novel positive small-scale branch rests on a percentile normalization step whose effect is not validated with raw correlations or null-model controls. That gap is load-bearing because the positive branch is the central new observation, and the model does not use the same measurement pipeline.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Fig. 2E; Methods (percentile normalization)] The positive small-scale density-velocity correlation is shown only after percentile normalization of both fields per frame. The text does not report raw correlations, scatter plots, binned averages, or any null-model test. Because local density counts in small windows are discrete and have many ties, a rank transform can change the sign or magnitude of the association relative to the raw fields. This is not a cosmetic issue: the claim that the sign is scale dependent depends on the small-scale positive branch. Please provide: (i) raw Pearson and Spearman correlation vs. window size, (ii) within-frame z-scored analysis, and (iii) a permutation null in which density ranks are shuffled across positions within each frame while velocity is held fixed. Without these controls the crossover could be an artifact of the normalization interacting with discrete density counts.
[Section III, Fig. 3B and text] The pressure-segregation length is defined inconsistently. The text states the characteristic length is the distance at which g_cross(r) first rises above unity, giving ~7 cell diameters; the Fig. 3B caption says 'the spacing length scale is given 7 cells as point cross g(r) reaches maximum.' These two definitions are not equivalent and can differ by a factor of two. Since the central quantitative claim is that the density-velocity crossover coincides with the pressure-segregation length, a single definition must be used, the uncertainty in the measured length should be reported, and the crossover from Fig. 2E should be overlaid with the segregation length from Fig. 3B. In the simulations the structure-factor wavelength ~7 is described as twice the segregation length (~3.5); the same convention must be applied to the experimental g_cross(r).
[Section III, Fig. 4D and model methods] The simulation is said to reproduce the experimental density-velocity relation, but the text does not state whether the simulated density and velocity fields are processed with the same percentile normalization used for the experimental data. If the experimental curve is rank-based while the simulation curve is a raw correlation, the comparison is not meaningful. Please specify the analysis pipeline for the simulation explicitly and present both raw and normalized curves (or state that the same normalization was applied). Also report the number of independent simulation runs used for the error bars in Fig. 4D and how the crossover was extracted.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix Table II, Fig. 5A row] The reduced-activity perturbation in Fig. 5A lists ζ = 1.2×10^-2, identical to the base-case value in Table I. Either the listed value or the label is wrong. This should be corrected, since Fig. 5 is used to support the mechanism.
[Fig. 1B caption] Typo: 'colar bar' should be 'color bar', and the unit 'µm/10mins' should be 'µm/10 min'.
[Fig. 2E and text] The correlation measure is not specified in the text: is Fig. 2E Pearson or Spearman correlation, and what are the numerical values and error bars? The y-axis label and range are not given in the main text.
[References] Reference [31] duplicates reference [29]; both are Nier et al., Biophysical Journal 110, 1625 (2016).
[Fig. 3B caption] 'as point cross g(r) reaches maximum' is unclear. If the intended definition is the first crossing of g_cross(r) above unity, the caption should say so explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental scale-dependence is measured directly and the model is a forward simulation with published parameters; no result reduces to its input by construction.

full rationale

The central claim—density–velocity correlations change sign with spatial scale—is obtained directly from experimental PIV velocity fields and cell-count density fields (Fig. 2), independent of the model. The pressure-segregation length is measured separately with BISM from traction forces, and its coincidence with the crossover is a post hoc comparison, not an input. The multi-phase-field model is fully specified in the paper (Eqs. 1–11) with parameters listed in Tables I–II and taken from prior work; the model is not fitted to the density–velocity data. The crossover and pressure-segregation length in the simulation are emergent outputs of the specified dynamics, and the paper does not define density–velocity correlation in terms of pressure or vice versa. The only self-citations are to the authors' earlier phase-field framework, but the present paper provides the complete model equations and does not rely on the citation as the proof of the main result, so these citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The percentile-normalization step used for Fig. 2E is a possible statistical artifact—raw correlations and null-model tests are not shown—but that is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity: no quantity is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. No self-definition, imported uniqueness, ansatz smuggled only by citation, or renaming of a known result was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental observation is nearly model-free, but the model mechanism rests on hand-chosen phase-field parameters and an activity-stress ansatz. The percentile-normalization assumption is the most fragile input to the experimental claim, and the segregation-length definition is not uniquely pinned down.

free parameters (4)

Activity strength zeta = 1.2e-2 (base); lowered in Fig. 5A
Sets active extensile stress in Eq. (10). Controls whether the small-scale positive correlation exists; chosen from physiological ranges, not fitted to the density-velocity data.
Packing fraction phi = ~1.0 (N=40107, L=2400, R=8); lowered in Fig. 5C
Controls mechanical confinement through N and L; the perturbation in Fig. 5C removes the large-scale negative correlation, showing it is load-bearing for the mechanism claim.
Passive interaction parameters (gamma, mu, kappa, omega) = 0.07, 5, 0.3, 1e-3
Free-energy coefficients in Eq. (3), adopted from prior phase-field model references [33,34]; not fit to these experiments.
Cell radius R and interface width lambda = 8 and 3 grid units
Set cell size and interface thickness in the simulation; define the length scale in cell-diameter units used throughout the paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Overdamped cell dynamics: xi v_i = F_int_i (Eq. 4)
Used in the model to connect intercellular forces to velocity; appropriate for low-Reynolds-number cellular motion.
ad hoc to paper Extensile active stress form: sigma_active = -zeta sum_i phi_i S_i (Eq. 10)
Minimal active term chosen to represent activity-induced shape changes; not independently measured in these experiments.
ad hoc to paper Percentile normalization removes global density-velocity correlations without altering the sign of local correlations
Data-processing assumption behind Fig. 2E; if rank-normalization reshapes local correlations, the small-scale positive correlation could be an artifact.
domain assumption BISM-inferred pressure reflects cell mechanical stress
Stress inference relies on traction force balance and constitutive assumptions from reference [29]; pressure fields are used to define the pressure segregation length.
ad hoc to paper The g_cross(r) threshold defines the pressure segregation length
Text defines it as the first rise of g_cross above unity, while the Fig. 3B caption says the maximum; the reported 7-cell value depends on this definition.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Density-Velocity Relation Is Scale-Dependent in Epithelial Monolayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55VQPTZO

@misc{pith2026250819017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Density-Velocity Relation Is Scale-Dependent in Epithelial Monolayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55VQPTZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19017}
}

read the original abstract

The relationship between cell density and velocity is often assumed to be negative, reflecting crowding-induced suppression of movement. However, observations across systems reveal a more nuanced picture: while some emphasize contact inhibition of locomotion, others suggest that dense regions exhibit enhanced activity due to force generation and stress buildup. Here, using experimental measurements we show that density-velocity relations in epithelial monolayers are inherently scale dependent. By coarse-graining cell trajectories over multiple spatial windows, we find that cell velocity correlates positively with local density at small scales, but negatively at large scales. Employing traction force measurements, we find that this crossover coincides with the emergence of mechanical pressure segregation, defining a characteristic length scale beyond which crowding dominates. A minimal model incorporating activity-induced shape changes reproduces this crossover and identifies the competition between active force generation and mechanical confinement as the underlying mechanism. Our results reconcile conflicting views of density-regulated migration and highlight an emergent length scale as a key factor in interpreting collective cell dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19017 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

L. Atia, J. J. Fredberg, N. S. Gov, and A. F. Pegoraro, Are cell jamming and unjamming essential in tissue de- velopment?, Cells & development 168, 203727 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

Lawson-Keister and M

E. Lawson-Keister and M. L. Manning, Jamming and arrest of cell motion in biological tissues, Current Opinion in Cell Biology 72, 146 (2021)

work page 2021
[3]

K. J. Cheung and S. Horne-Badovinac, Collective mi- gration modes in development, tissue repair and cancer, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology , 1 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

W.-J. Lin, H. Yu, and A. Pathak, Gradients in cell den- sity and shape transitions drive collective cell migration into confining environments, Soft Matter 21, 719 (2025)

work page 2025
[5]

Abercrombie, Contact inhibition in tissue culture, In vitro 6, 128 (1970)

M. Abercrombie, Contact inhibition in tissue culture, In vitro 6, 128 (1970)

work page 1970
[6]

Theveneau, L

E. Theveneau, L. Marchant, S. Kuriyama, M. Gull, B. Moepps, M. Parsons, and R. Mayor, Collective chemo- taxis requires contact-dependent cell polarity, Develop- mental cell 19, 39 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

Puliafito, L

A. Puliafito, L. Hufnagel, P. Neveu, S. Streichan, A. Si- gal, D. K. Fygenson, and B. I. Shraiman, Collective and single cell behavior in epithelial contact inhibition, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 739 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

Zimmermann, B

J. Zimmermann, B. A. Camley, W.-J. Rappel, and H. Levine, Contact inhibition of locomotion determines cell–cell and cell–substrate forces in tissues, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 2660 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 43 references

[9]

L. Li, Y. He, M. Zhao, and J. Jiang, Collective cell migra- tion: Implications for wound healing and cancer invasion, Burns & trauma 1, 2321 (2013)

2013
[10]

C. Tian, Y. Wang, M. Su, Y. Huang, Y. Zhang, J. Dou, C. Zhao, Y. Cai, J. Pan, S. Bai, et al., Motility and tu- mor infiltration are key aspects of invariant natural killer t cell anti-tumor function, Nature communications 15, 1213 (2024)

2024
[11]

J.-A. Park, J. H. Kim, D. Bi, J. A. Mitchel, N. T. Qazvini, K. Tantisira, C. Y. Park, M. McGill, S.-H. Kim, B. Gweon, et al., Unjamming and cell shape in the asthmatic airway epithelium, Nature materials 14, 1040 (2015)

2015
[12]

Xu and Y

H. Xu and Y. Wu, Self-enhanced mobility enables vor- tex pattern formation in living matter, Nature 627, 553 (2024)

2024
[13]

S. J. Chisolm, E. Guo, V. Subramaniam, K. D. Schulze, and T. E. Angelini, Transitions between cooperative and crowding-dominated collective motion in non-jammed mdck monolayers, Cells & Development 181, 203989 (2025)

2025
[14]

Ruider, K

I. Ruider, K. Thijssen, D. R. Vannier, V. Paloschi, A. Sciortino, A. Doostmohammadi, and A. R. Bausch, Topological excitations govern ordering kinetics in en- dothelial cell layers, bioRxiv , 2024 (2024)

2024
[15]

Serra-Picamal, V

X. Serra-Picamal, V. Conte, R. Vincent, E. Anon, D. T. Tambe, E. Bazellieres, J. P. Butler, J. J. Fredberg, and X. Trepat, Mechanical stress and cell density control cell proliferation in epithelial tissues, Nature Cell Biology 14, 540 (2012)

2012
[16]

Shahin-Shamsabadi and P

A. Shahin-Shamsabadi and P. Selvaganapathy, Tissue-in- a-tube: three-dimensional in vitro tissue constructs with integrated multimodal environmental stimulation, Mate- rials Today Bio 7, 100070 (2020)

2020
[17]

A. J. Loza, S. Koride, G. V. Schimizzi, B. Li, S. X. Sun, and G. D. Longmore, Cell density and actomyosin con- tractility control the organization of migrating collectives within an epithelium, Molecular Biology of the Cell 27, 3459 (2016)

2016
[18]

S. P. Thampi, A. Doostmohammadi, R. Golestanian, and J. M. Yeomans, Intrinsic free energy in active nematics, Europhysics Letters 112, 28004 (2015)

2015
[19]

Doostmohammadi, S

A. Doostmohammadi, S. P. Thampi, T. B. Saw, C. T. Lim, B. Ladoux, and J. M. Yeomans, Celebrating soft matter’s 10th anniversary: Cell division: a source of ac- tive stress in cellular monolayers, Soft Matter 11, 7328 (2015)

2015
[20]

Fu, L.-H

X. Fu, L.-H. Tang, C. Liu, J.-D. Huang, T. Hwa, and P. Lenz, Stripe formation in bacterial systems with density-suppressed motility, Physical review letters 108, 198102 (2012)

2012
[21]

M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Motility-induced phase sep- aration, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 6, 219 (2015)

2015
[22]

M. E. Cates, D. Marenduzzo, I. Pagonabarraga, and J. Tailleur, Arrested phase separation in reproducing bac- teria creates a generic route to pattern formation, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 11715 (2010)

2010
[23]

M. C. Marchetti, J.-F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Hydrody- namics of soft active matter, Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1143 (2013)

2013
[24]

Roycroft and R

A. Roycroft and R. Mayor, Molecular basis of contact in- hibition of locomotion, Cellular and Molecular Life Sci- ences 73, 1119 (2016)

2016
[25]

Mueller, J

R. Mueller, J. M. Yeomans, and A. Doostmohammadi, Emergence of active nematic behavior in monolayers of isotropic cells, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 048004 (2019)

2019
[26]

T. E. Angelini, E. Hannezo, X. Trepat, M. Marquez, J. J. Fredberg, and D. A. Weitz, Glass-like dynamics of collec- tive cell migration, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 4714 (2011)

2011
[27]

L. Atia, D. Bi, Y. Sharma, J. A. Mitchel, B. Gweon, S. A. Koehler, S. J. DeCamp, B. Lan, J. H. Kim, R. Hirsch, et al., Geometric constraints during epithelial jamming, Nature physics 14, 613 (2018)

2018
[28]

Thielicke, Pivlab –towards user friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in mat- lab, Journal of Open Research Software 2, 30 (2014)

W. Thielicke, Pivlab –towards user friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in mat- lab, Journal of Open Research Software 2, 30 (2014)

2014
[29]

V. Nier, S. Jain, C. T. Lim, S. Ishihara, B. Ladoux, and P. Marcq, Inference of internal stress in a cell monolayer, Biophysical journal 110, 1625 (2016). 8

2016
[30]

Li, The image stabilizer plugin for imagej, https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kangli/code/Image_ Stabilizer.html (2008)

K. Li, The image stabilizer plugin for imagej, https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~kangli/code/Image_ Stabilizer.html (2008)

2008
[31]

V. Nier, S. Jain, C. T. Lim, S. Ishihara, B. Ladoux, and P. Marcq, Inference of internal stress in a cell monolayer, Biophysical journal 110, 1625 (2016)

2016
[32]

Mueller and A

R. Mueller and A. Doostmohammadi, Phase field mod- els of active matter, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.05557 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[33]

Monfared, A

S. Monfared, A. Ardaˇ seva, and A. Doostmohammadi, Multi-phase-field models of biological tissues, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.05053 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[34]

Chiang, A

M. Chiang, A. Hopkins, B. Loewe, D. Marenduzzo, and M. C. Marchetti, Multiphase field model of cells on a substrate: From three dimensional to two dimensional, Phys. Rev. E 110, 044403 (2024)

2024
[35]

Palmieri, Y

B. Palmieri, Y. Bresler, D. Wirtz, and M. Grant, Multi- ple scale model for cell migration in monolayers: elastic mismatch between cells enhances motility, Scientific Re- ports 5, 11745 (2015)

2015
[36]

Peyret, R

G. Peyret, R. Mueller, J. d’Alessandro, S. Begnaud, P. Marcq, R.-M. M` ege, J. M. Yeomans, A. Doostmoham- madi, and B. Ladoux, Sustained oscillations of epithelial cell sheets, Biophysical Journal 117, 464 (2019)

2019
[37]

M. E. Cates and E. Tjhung, Theories of binary fluid mix- tures: from phase-separation kinetics to active emulsions, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 836, P1 (2018)

2018
[38]

Garcia, E

S. Garcia, E. Hannezo, J. Elgeti, J.-F. Joanny, P. Sil- berzan, and N. S. Gov, Physics of active jamming during collective cellular motion in a monolayer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 15314 (2015)

2015
[39]

S. M. Zehnder, M. K. Wiatt, J. M. Uruena, A. C. Dunn, W. G. Sawyer, and T. E. Angelini, Multicellular density fluctuations in epithelial monolayers, Physical Review E 92, 032729 (2015)

2015
[40]

Vishwakarma and J

M. Vishwakarma and J. Di Russo, Why does epithelia display heterogeneity? bridging physical and biological concepts, Biophysical Reviews 11, 683 (2019)

2019
[41]

D. T. Tambe, C. C. Hardin, T. E. Angelini, K. Rajen- dran, C. Y. Park, X. Serra-Picamal, E. H. Zhou, M. H. Zaman, J. P. Butler, D. A. Weitz, J. J. Fredberg, and X. Trepat, Collective cell guidance by cooperative inter- cellular forces, Nature Materials 10, 469 (2011)

2011
[42]

A. C. Bra´ nka and D. M. Heyes, Pair correlation function of soft-sphere fluids, The Journal of Chemical Physics 134, 064115 (2011)

2011
[43]

M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, When are active brown- ian particles and run-and-tumble particles equivalent? consequences for motility-induced phase separation, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 101, 20010 (2013). 9 Appendix A: Implementation of multi-phase field model We numerically ev...

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L. Atia, J. J. Fredberg, N. S. Gov, and A. F. Pegoraro, Are cell jamming and unjamming essential in tissue de- velopment?, Cells & development 168, 203727 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Lawson-Keister and M

E. Lawson-Keister and M. L. Manning, Jamming and arrest of cell motion in biological tissues, Current Opinion in Cell Biology 72, 146 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [3]

K. J. Cheung and S. Horne-Badovinac, Collective mi- gration modes in development, tissue repair and cancer, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology , 1 (2025)

work page 2025

[4] [4]

W.-J. Lin, H. Yu, and A. Pathak, Gradients in cell den- sity and shape transitions drive collective cell migration into confining environments, Soft Matter 21, 719 (2025)

work page 2025

[5] [5]

Abercrombie, Contact inhibition in tissue culture, In vitro 6, 128 (1970)

M. Abercrombie, Contact inhibition in tissue culture, In vitro 6, 128 (1970)

work page 1970

[6] [6]

Theveneau, L

E. Theveneau, L. Marchant, S. Kuriyama, M. Gull, B. Moepps, M. Parsons, and R. Mayor, Collective chemo- taxis requires contact-dependent cell polarity, Develop- mental cell 19, 39 (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [7]

Puliafito, L

A. Puliafito, L. Hufnagel, P. Neveu, S. Streichan, A. Si- gal, D. K. Fygenson, and B. I. Shraiman, Collective and single cell behavior in epithelial contact inhibition, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 739 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Zimmermann, B

J. Zimmermann, B. A. Camley, W.-J. Rappel, and H. Levine, Contact inhibition of locomotion determines cell–cell and cell–substrate forces in tissues, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 2660 (2016)

work page 2016