Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Reaction kinetics of membrane receptors: a spatial modeling approach

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a spatial correction showing that classical well-mixed Michaelis–Menten rates overestimate membrane-receptor uptake, with the gap largest at low substrate and high receptor trapping.

desk verdict Solid, clearly written extension of boundary-homogenization kinetics to four receptor schemes; the math checks out, but the exact correction factors are not tested against discrete-receptor simulations in the regime where they matter most. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13837 v1 pith:CQ654NSL submitted 2025-01-23 q-bio.QM physics.bio-ph

Anil Cengiz , Sean D Lawley This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMphysics.bio-ph MSC 92C4535B2735Q92
keywords membranereceptorsMichaelis-Mentenkineticsboundaryhomogenizationreaction-diffusionequationssubstratecompetitioncompetitiveinhibitionuncompetitivenutrientuptake
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 tries to show that the textbook reaction-rate laws for membrane-bound receptors—Michaelis–Menten kinetics, substrate competition, competitive inhibition, and uncompetitive inhibition—are systematically too optimistic because they ignore the fact that receptors are packed on a two-dimensional surface. The authors replace discrete receptor disks with a homogenized boundary condition and solve the coupled diffusion-reaction problem at steady state. The result is that the classical rate laws keep their overall shape, but the half-saturation constant must be multiplied by a function $\phi(S/K)$ that is always greater than 1. At low substrate or high receptor trapping $\kappa$, the well-mixed rate can exceed the true spatial rate by up to a factor $1+\kappa$; at high substrate, the correction disappears. If correct, this gives a parameter-based test for when spatial modeling matters and when the classical formulas can be trusted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dimensionless trapping rate $\kappa = \varepsilon N/\pi$, the effective rate at which the homogenized cell surface consumes diffusing molecules, together with the correction function $$\$\varphi$(x) = \frac12\left(1+\kappa - x + \sqrt{(1+\kappa + x)^2 - 4\kappa x}\right).$$ The function $\phi$ arises as the algebraic root of the steady-state boundary-closure equation and multiplies the classical half-saturation constant $K$; it encodes receptor competition on the surface. Because $\phi$ decreases monotonically from $1+\kappa$ at $x=0$ to $1$ at $x=\infty$, it tells exactly when spatial correlations matter: for $x \gg \kappa$ the reaction is catalysis-limited and classical, while for $x \lesssim \kappa$ the arrival of substrate is rate-limiting and the surface geometry cuts the rate.

What would settle it

Run a three-dimensional Brownian-dynamics or finite-element simulation of the discrete problem—$N$ absorbing receptor disks of radius $\varepsilon R$ on a sphere, reversible binding with catalytic conversion at rate $k_c$, far-field substrate $S$—and compare the measured steady-state influx with Eq. (19) across the regime $S/K \lesssim \kappa$, $\kappa \gg 1$; if the simulated influx matches the classical well-mixed rate rather than the corrected rate, the homogenization correction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a spherical cell with $N$ receptors of radius $\varepsilon R$, the paper's central discovery is that the steady-state molecular influx follows the classical Michaelis–Menten form $V = V_{\max} S / (\phi(S/K)K + S)$, with the same $V_{\max}$ and $K$ as the well-mixed theory but a dimensionless half-saturation correction $\phi(S/K) \in (1, 1+\kappa)$, where $\kappa = \varepsilon N/\pi$ is the surface trapping rate. The correction comes from the positive root of a quadratic equation that couples bulk diffusion to surface receptor state equations. The paper proves that $V < \overline{V}$ for every positive substrate concentration and trapping rate, and shows the gap is largest when $S/K$ is not much larger than $\kappa$ and $\kappa \gg 1$: in the low-substrate limit, the relative error approaches $\kappa$. The same structure repeats for two competing substrates, competitive inhibition, and uncompetitive inhibition, with the ratio $S/K$ replaced by the relevant combination of substrate and inhibitor concentrations.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the homogenization step in which many small receptor disks are replaced by a uniform boundary condition with trapping rate $\kappa = \varepsilon N/\pi$, combined with the assumption that occupied receptors only reduce the flux by the mean available fraction $u/u_0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wherever receptors are dense on a small cell ($\kappa \gg 1$) and substrate is scarce ($S/K \lesssim \kappa$), classical Michaelis–Menten uptake can overestimate the true influx by up to a factor $1+\kappa$; for the paper's illustrative bacterial parameters, $\kappa \approx 3.2$ and the overestimate appears below roughly 1 $\mu$M substrate.
  • In the opposite limit, $S/K \gg \kappa$ or $\kappa \ll 1$, the classical formulas are safe: the correction $\phi \to 1$ and the well-mixed rate is recovered.
  • For substrate competition, the same correction applies with $x = S_1/K_1 + S_2/K_2$, so it is the combined substrate load that determines when spatial effects matter.
  • Both competitive and uncompetitive inhibitors shrink the parameter region in which the well-mixed rate badly overestimates, because inhibitor occupancy lowers the effective catalytic demand on the surface.
  • The derivation gives a mechanistic route to the empirical bacterial growth–nutrient uptake law: the uptake rate is the corrected Michaelis–Menten form, not the classical one.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: simulate the discrete receptor problem with random versus clustered receptor placements; if clustering changes the flux beyond what the mean available-receptor fraction predicts, the homogenized correction would need arrangement-dependent modifications.
  • Beyond the paper, fitting classical Michaelis–Menten curves to spatial uptake data would produce a substrate-dependent apparent $K$; interpreting that dependence through $\phi$ could let experimentalists estimate the effective trapping rate $\kappa$ from dose–response data.
  • The analysis assumes isolated cells; for dense cell clusters, shielding between neighboring cells would likely compound the overestimate, making the well-mixed rate even less reliable than the single-cell correction indicates.
  • The same boundary-homogenization machinery should extend to non-spherical or corrugated membranes by redefining $\kappa$ through local geometry, although the paper does not address that case.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a spatial model for the steady-state influx of diffusing substrate molecules into membrane-bound receptors. Using boundary homogenization, the authors replace discrete receptor disks on a spherical cell by a uniform Robin boundary condition and couple the resulting bulk diffusion PDE to surface ODEs for receptor occupancy. For Michaelis-Menten kinetics, substrate competition, competitive inhibition, and uncompetitive inhibition, they derive closed-form reaction rates that have the same functional form as the classical well-mixed rates but with a concentration-dependent correction factor (φ or ψ) multiplying the half-saturation constant. They show that the spatial rate is always below the well-mixed rate, identify parameter regimes in which the well-mixed rate overestimates uptake, and illustrate the effect with biophysical parameters.

Significance. The derivations are systematic and the steady-state algebra is verifiable: each scenario reduces to a quadratic whose relevant root yields the stated rate formula, and no parameters are fitted to the target results. The paper provides a unified analytical treatment of four common receptor-kinetic schemes and makes falsifiable predictions that could be tested against discrete-receptor simulations or experiments. If the homogenized model is valid in the strong-competition regime, the correction factors in Eqs. (19), (26), (30), and (34) give a practical way to extend classical enzyme kinetics to membrane-bound receptors. The main caveats are that the parameter regime for the headline overestimate is stated too broadly and that the mean-field closure underlying the model is not numerically validated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 1; Section 3.1, Eq. (23)] The parameter regime for the headline overestimate is misstated. The paper claims V ≪ Vbar if S/K is not much larger than κ and κ ≫ 1, but this is not sufficient. For example, if S/K = κ with κ ≫ 1, Eq. (20) gives φ ≈ sqrt(κ), so Vbar/V → 1 and there is no strong overestimate. A sufficient condition is more restrictive: roughly S/K ≪ κ, and for S/K ≫ 1 actually S/K ≪ sqrt(κ) is needed for the ratio Vbar/V to grow. Please correct the statements in the abstract, the Introduction, Eq. (23), and the analogous conditions for competitive inhibition in Eq. (31) and uncompetitive inhibition in Eq. (35).
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (10)] The model relies on two successive approximations: boundary homogenization, which replaces discrete receptor disks by a uniform Robin condition, and a mean-field closure, which multiplies the boundary flux by the available-receptor fraction u/u0. This closure neglects spatial correlations between receptor occupancy and the local depletion field around each receptor. The regime highlighted in Eqs. (21)-(23), with κ ≫ 1 and S/K small, is precisely where receptor competition and such correlations are strongest. The manuscript does not test the homogenized PDE-ODE model against a discrete-receptor simulation or against the original mixed-boundary problem. Please either add a numerical validation (for example, Brownian dynamics with N finite-rate absorbing disks) or state explicitly that the exact correction factors in Eqs. (19), (26), (30), and (34) are conditional on this approximation and discuss the expected error.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The sentence 'an important avenue for future would is to develop' contains a grammatical error and should read 'would be to develop'.
  2. [Figures 3 and 4] The substrate concentration axis label appears as '[7M]' in the manuscript; this should render as 'µM'.
  3. [Introduction] The well-mixed case is described as receptors diffusing in three dimensions, but the association rate ka = 4εRD used for both the well-mixed and spatial rates is the rate for a disk on a reflecting plane. Please clarify that the comparison fixes the intrinsic receptor binding rate rather than using the three-dimensional diffusion-limited rate of a free disk in solution.
  4. [Section 3.1, Eq. (22)] The statement 'V ≈ Vbar if S/K ≫ κ or κ ≪ 1' could be made more precise by specifying the relevant limits, for example by writing Vbar/V → 1 as S/K → ∞ with κ fixed, or as κ → 0 with S/K fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the spatial rate corrections are derived from the stated PDE-ODE system and are not fitted to the well-mixed results.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs are the spatial rate formulas (19), (26), (30), and (34), in which the half-saturation constant is multiplied by the functions phi and psi. These functions are obtained by solving the stated PDE with the boundary condition D partial_r c = k_a u c coupled to the receptor ODEs; they are not obtained by fitting to the well-mixed rates V. The comparison V < V uses the same Vmax, K, and k_a on both sides, and the ordering follows from the explicit root phi(x) > 1 in Eq. (20), so it is an analytical consequence of the model rather than an input. The only parameter entering the spatial correction is kappa = epsilon N / pi, which is the standard Berg-Purcell and Shoup-Szabo trapping rate, cited to Refs. [18,19]; using an external benchmark for the homogenized boundary condition is legitimate support and does not make the finite-kinetics correction circular. The derivation of k_a = 4 epsilon R D in Section 2.1 is a matching of the kinetic boundary condition to the homogenized condition, and although the text says 'Adopting a similar approach to that in [20]' (a paper co-authored by S.D. Lawley), the needed calculation is reproduced in the text and does not import an unverified claim. Other references involving the same author are contextual and not load-bearing. The manuscript does not test the homogenization against discrete-receptor simulations, and the kappa >> 1, S/K small regime is where the mean-field closure is least secure, but that is a validity or robustness concern about the model assumptions, not circularity in the derivation chain. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no known result is presented as new under a new name: the low-S limit reduces to the cited Berg-Purcell result, which is acknowledged.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the model inputs are biophysical constants taken from prior literature or chosen for illustration. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The axioms are standard modeling assumptions for boundary homogenization and mass-action kinetics, with the mean-field receptor-state assumption being the most fragile.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The discrete receptor disks can be replaced by a uniform Robin boundary condition with trapping rate kappa = epsilon N / pi, valid for N >> 1, epsilon^2 N / 4 << 1, and roughly evenly distributed receptors.
    Invoked in Section 2.1, Eq. (5), and used to derive ka = 4 epsilon R D. This homogenization premise underlies all four rate formulas.
  • domain assumption Cells are well-separated so that the substrate concentration far from each cell is fixed at S (and inhibitor at I), with no cell-cell interaction.
    Stated in Section 2.2, Eq. (9), and in the appendix for each scenario; the Conclusion flags relaxing this as future work.
  • domain assumption Receptor states are spatially uniform on the membrane and evolve by mass-action ODEs using the homogenized surface concentration c(R).
    Section 2.2 ODEs for u and b; spatial correlations among occupied receptors are not modeled, which is the main mean-field approximation.
  • domain assumption The receptor association rate is the diffusion-limited rate ka = 4 epsilon R D, with no separate intrinsic binding rate.
    Derived by matching the homogenized boundary condition in Eq. (8); defines K = kc / ka and sets the baseline for the well-mixed comparison.
  • standard math The classical well-mixed rate laws for Michaelis-Menten, substrate competition, competitive inhibition, and uncompetitive inhibition are correct baselines.
    Standard enzyme kinetics from Refs. [7-9]; the paper compares its spatial formulas against these expressions.
  • domain assumption Inhibitors bind reversibly and are not consumed, so their steady-state surface concentration equals their prescribed far-field concentration I.
    Used in Appendices A.2 and A.3 to set a2 = 0 for the inhibitor; follows from zero net inhibitor flux in the ODE model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reaction kinetics of membrane receptors: a spatial modeling approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQ654NSL

@misc{pith2026250113837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reaction kinetics of membrane receptors: a spatial modeling approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQ654NSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13837}
}
read the original abstract

The interactions between diffusing molecules and membrane-bound receptors drive numerous cellular processes. In this work, we develop a spatial model of molecular interactions with membrane receptors by homogenizing the cell membrane and describing the evolution of both molecular diffusion and molecule-receptor interactions. By analyzing a resulting partial differential equation coupled to ordinary differential equations, we derive analytical expressions for the steady-state molecular influx rate in four prototypical interaction scenarios: Michaelis-Menten kinetics, Substrate Competition, Competitive Inhibition, and Uncompetitive Inhibition. For each scenario, we show how to modify the classical well-mixed reaction rate theory to resolve spatial features inherent to receptors bound to cell membranes. We find that naive well-mixed calculations significantly overestimate reaction rates in certain biophysical parameter regimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Panel A: Substrate molecules (blue spheres) and receptors (red disks) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Kinetic schemes for (a) Michaelis-Menten Kinetics, (b) Substrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Michaelis-Menten kinetics. Panel A: The solid curves show the spatial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The effects of inhibition. Panel A: For Competitive Inhibition de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Berg and E.M

    H.C. Berg and E.M. Purcell. Physics of chemoreception. Biophysical Jour- nal, 20(2):193–219, November 1977

    work page 1977

  2. [1]

    Lauffenburger and Jennifer J

    Douglas A. Lauffenburger and Jennifer J. Linderman. Receptors: models for binding, trafficking, and signaling . Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY,

    work page

  3. [2]

    issued as an oxford paperback edition, 1996. 22

    work page 1996

  4. [3]

    Cellular and Molecular Neurophysiology

    Constance Hammond. Cellular and Molecular Neurophysiology . Academic Press, 4th edition edition, January 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Quorum Sensing Molecular Mechanism and Biotechnological Application

    Giuseppina Tommonaro. Quorum Sensing Molecular Mechanism and Biotechnological Application. Academic Press, 1st edition edition, April 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Sharma, and David B

    Nisha Mohanan, Zahra Montazer, Parveen K. Sharma, and David B. Levin. Microbial and Enzymatic Degradation of Synthetic Plastics. Frontiers in Microbiology, 11:580709, November 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Die Kinetik der Invertinwirkung

    Leonor Michaelis and Maud Leonora Menten Menten. Die Kinetik der Invertinwirkung. Biochemische Zeitschrift, 49:333–369, 1913

    work page 1913

  8. [7]

    Johnson and Roger S

    Kenneth A. Johnson and Roger S. Goody. The Original Michaelis Con- stant: Translation of the 1913 Michaelis–Menten Paper. Biochemistry, 50(39):8264–8269, October 2011

    work page 1913

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    A Note on the Kinetics of Enzyme Action

    George Edward Briggs and John Burdon Sanderson Haldane. A Note on the Kinetics of Enzyme Action. Biochemical Journal, 19(2):338–339, January 1925

    1925

  2. [9]

    Pocklington and J

    T. Pocklington and J. Jeffery. Competition of two substrates for a single enzyme. A simple kinetic theorem exemplified by a hydroxy steroid dehy- drogenase reaction. Biochemical Journal, 112(3):331–334, April 1969

    1969

  3. [10]

    M. Dixon. The determination of enzyme inhibitor constants. Biochemical Journal, 55(1):170–171, August 1953

    1953

  4. [11]

    Weis and Brian K

    William I. Weis and Brian K. Kobilka. The Molecular Basis of G Protein–Coupled Receptor Activation. Annual Review of Biochemistry , 87(1):897–919, June 2018

    2018

  5. [12]

    Michaelis-Menten quantification of ligand signalling bias applied to the promiscuous Vasopressin V2 receptor

    Franziska Marie Heydenreich, Bianca Plouffe, Aurelien Rizk, Dalibor Milic, Joris Zhou, Billy Breton, Christian Le Gouill, Asuka Inoue, Michel Bou- vier, and Dmitry Veprintsev. Michaelis-Menten quantification of ligand signalling bias applied to the promiscuous Vasopressin V2 r...

    2022

  6. [13]

    Dynamics of Glucose Uptake by Single Escherichia coli Cells

    Arvind Natarajan and Friedrich Srienc. Dynamics of Glucose Uptake by Single Escherichia coli Cells. Metabolic Engineering, 1(4):320–333, October 1999

    1999

  7. [14]

    Carre´ on-Rodr ´ ıguez, Guillermo Gosset, Adelfo Escalante, and Francisco Bol ´ ıvar

    Ofelia E. Carre´ on-Rodr ´ ıguez, Guillermo Gosset, Adelfo Escalante, and Francisco Bol ´ ıvar. Glucose Transport in Escherichia coli: From Basics to Transport Engineering. Microorganisms, 11(6):1588, June 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Berg, Hang Lu, and Stanislav Y

    Yoosik Kim, Mar ´ ıa Jos´ e Andreu, Bomyi Lim, Kwanghun Chung, Mark Terayama, Gerardo Jim´ enez, Celeste A. Berg, Hang Lu, and Stanislav Y. Shvartsman. Gene Regulation by MAPK Substrate Competition. Develop- mental Cell , 20(6):880–887, June 2011. 23

    2011

  9. [16]

    Statin Therapy: Review of Safety and Potential Side Effects

    Satish Ramkumar, Satish Ramkumar, Ajay Raghunath, and Sudhakshini Raghunath. Statin Therapy: Review of Safety and Potential Side Effects. Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 32(6), November 2016

    2016

  10. [17]

    HIV protease inhibitors: a review of molecular selectivity and toxicity

    Yong Wang, Zhengtong Lv, and Yuan Chu. HIV protease inhibitors: a review of molecular selectivity and toxicity. HIV/AIDS - Research and Palliative Care , page 95, April 2015

    2015

  11. [18]

    Mechanism of action of memantine

    J Johnson and S Kotermanski. Mechanism of action of memantine. Current Opinion in Pharmacology , 6(1):61–67, February 2006

    2006

  12. [19]

    Shoup and A

    D. Shoup and A. Szabo. Role of diffusion in ligand binding to macro- molecules and cell-bound receptors. Biophysical Journal, 40(1):33–39, Oc- tober 1982

    1982

  13. [21]

    Gregory Handy and Sean D. Lawley. Revising Berg-Purcell for finite re- ceptor kinetics. Biophysical Journal, 120(11):2237–2248, June 2021

    2021

  14. [23]

    Pattern form- ing systems coupling linear bulk diffusion to dynamically active mem- branes or cells

    D Gomez, S Iyaniwura, F Paquin-Lefebvre, and MJ Ward. Pattern form- ing systems coupling linear bulk diffusion to dynamically active mem- branes or cells. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A , 379(2213):20200276, 2021

    2021

  15. [24]

    Dynamically active compartments coupled by a stochastically gated gap junction

    Paul C Bressloff and Sean D Lawley. Dynamically active compartments coupled by a stochastically gated gap junction. Journal of Nonlinear Sci- ence, 27:1487–1512, 2017

    2017

  16. [25]

    Physics of chemoreception

    Howard C Berg and Edward M Purcell. Physics of chemoreception. Biophys J, 20(2):193–219, 1977

    1977

  17. [26]

    A nutrient uptake role for bacterial cell envelope ex- tensions

    Jennifer K Wagner, Sima Setayeshgar, Laura A Sharon, James P Reilly, and Yves V Brun. A nutrient uptake role for bacterial cell envelope ex- tensions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(31):11772– 11777, 2006

    2006

  18. [27]

    Perelson and G´ erard Weisbuch

    Alan S. Perelson and G´ erard Weisbuch. Immunology for physicists. Rev. Mod. Phys., 69:1219–1268, Oct 1997

    1997

  19. [28]

    Metodiev, Jie Liang, Robert A

    Amber Ismael, Wei Tian, Nicholas Waszczak, Xin Wang, Youfang Cao, Dmitry Suchkov, Eli Bar, Metodi V. Metodiev, Jie Liang, Robert A. Arkowitz, and David E. Stone. G β promotes pheromone receptor polariza- tion and yeast chemotropism by inhibiting receptor phosphorylation. Sci. ...

    2016

  20. [29]

    Receptor or- ganization determines the limits of single-cell source location detection

    Sean D Lawley, Alan E Lindsay, and Christopher E Miles. Receptor or- ganization determines the limits of single-cell source location detection. Physical Review Letters, 125(1):018102, 2020

    2020

  21. [30]

    Kinetic analysis of hexose uptake in saccharomyces cerevisiae cultivated in continuous culture

    Michelle MC Meijer, Johannes Boonstra, Arie J Verkleij, and C Theo Verrips. Kinetic analysis of hexose uptake in saccharomyces cerevisiae cultivated in continuous culture. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)- Bioenergetics, 1277(3):209–216, 1996

    1996

  22. [31]

    Andreas Maier, Bernhard V¨ olker, Eckhard Boles, and G¨ unter Fred Fuhrmann. Characterisation of glucose transport in saccharomyces cere- visiae with plasma membrane vesicles (countertransport) and intact cells (initial uptake) with single hxt1, hxt2, hxt3, hxt4, hxt6, hxt7 or...

    2002

  23. [32]

    Dynamics of glucose uptake by single escherichia coli cells

    Arvind Natarajan and Friedrich Srienc. Dynamics of glucose uptake by single escherichia coli cells. Metabolic engineering, 1(4):320–333, 1999

    1999

  24. [33]

    Nutrient shielding in clusters of cells

    Maxim O Lavrentovich, John H Koschwanez, and David R Nelson. Nutrient shielding in clusters of cells. Physical Review E , 87(6):062703, 2013

    2013

  25. [34]

    Bionumbers: the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology

    Ron Milo, Paul Jorgensen, Uri Moran, Griffin Weber, and Michael Springer. Bionumbers: the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology. Nucleic acids research, 38(suppl 1):D750–D753, 2010

    2010

  26. [35]

    Membrane-bound turing patterns

    Herbert Levine and Wouter-Jan Rappel. Membrane-bound turing patterns. Physical Review E , 72(6):061912, 2005

    2005

  27. [36]

    Gomez-Marin, J

    A. Gomez-Marin, J. Garcia-Ojalvo, and J. M. Sancho. Self-Sustained Spa- tiotemporal Oscillations Induced by Membrane-Bulk Coupling. Phys Rev Lett, 98(16), 2007

    2007

  28. [37]

    Gou and M

    J. Gou and M. Ward. An asymptotic analysis of a 2-d model of dynamically active compartments coupled by bulk diffusion. J. Nonlinear Sci. , 26:979– 1029, 2016

    2016

  29. [38]

    A theory of synchrony by coupling through a diffusive chemical signal

    Jia Gou, Wei-Yin Chiang, Pik-Yin Lai, Michael J Ward, and Yue-Xian Li. A theory of synchrony by coupling through a diffusive chemical signal. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 339:1–17, 2017

    2017

  30. [39]

    The linear stability of symmetric spike patterns for a bulk-membrane coupled gierer–meinhardt model

    Daniel Gomez, Michael J Ward, and Juncheng Wei. The linear stability of symmetric spike patterns for a bulk-membrane coupled gierer–meinhardt model. SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 18(2):729–768, 2019

    2019

  31. [40]

    A novel approach to modelling the spatial spread of airborne diseases: an epidemic model with indirect transmission

    Jummy F David, Sarafa A Iyaniwura, Michael J Ward, and Fred Brauer. A novel approach to modelling the spatial spread of airborne diseases: an epidemic model with indirect transmission. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 17(4):3294, 2020. 25

    2020

  32. [41]

    Dynamically active compartments coupled by a stochastically-gated gap junction

    P C Bressloff and S D Lawley. Dynamically active compartments coupled by a stochastically-gated gap junction. J. Nonlinear Sci , 2017

    2017

  33. [42]

    Strong intracellular signal in- activation produces sharper and more robust signaling from cell membrane to nucleus

    Jingwei Ma, Myan Do, Mark A Le Gros, Charles S Peskin, Carolyn A Lara- bell, Yoichiro Mori, and Samuel A Isaacson. Strong intracellular signal in- activation produces sharper and more robust signaling from cell membrane to nucleus. PLoS computational biology, 16(11):e1008356, 2020

    2020

  34. [43]

    Reardon, Douglas C

    Kenneth F. Reardon, Douglas C. Mosteller, and Julia D. Bull Rogers. Biodegradation kinetics of benzene, toluene, and phenol as single and mixed substrates forPseudomonas putida F1. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 69(4):385–400, August 2000

    2000

  35. [44]

    Overview of some theoretical approaches for derivation of the monod equation

    Yu Liu. Overview of some theoretical approaches for derivation of the monod equation. Applied microbiology and biotechnology , 73:1241–1250, 2007

    2007

  36. [45]

    Enouy, Kenneth M

    Robert W. Enouy, Kenneth M. Walton, Ioanna I. Malton, Kanwartej S. Sra, Natasha N. Sihota, Eric J. Daniels, and Andre J. A. Unger. A mecha- nistic derivation of the Monod bioreaction equation for a limiting nutrient. Journal of Mathematical Biology , 84(7):62, June 2022

    2022

  37. [46]

    Meraz, and E

    Jose Alvarez-Ramirez, M. Meraz, and E. Jaime Vernon-Carter. A theoret- ical derivation of the monod equation with a kinetics sense. Biochemical Engineering Journal, 150:107305, October 2019. 26

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.