Emergent epithelial elasticity governed by interfacial surface mechanics and substrate interaction

Matej Krajnc; Urska Andrensek

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Emergent epithelial elasticity governed by interfacial surface mechanics and substrate interaction

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surface-tension-dominated epithelia buckle at a critical force independent of layer thickness, and a differential apico-basal tension can invert the groove-to-crest thickness-modulation phase.

desk verdict A well-derived surface-tension theory of epithelial sheets gives new scaling laws and a phase-inversion condition, but the h^0 predictions are proven only in the surface-dominated limit, and the paper's own elastocapillary estimate suggests that limit may not hold for many real tissues. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15673 v1 pith:GKYIDF3Z submitted 2025-04-22 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Urska Andrensek , Matej Krajnc This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

keywords epithelialmechanicssurfacetensionbucklingwrinklingcoarse-grainingbasementmembranethicknessmodulationmorphogenesis

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

Epithelial tissues are usually interpreted through the elasticity of solid plates, but their cells carry stresses mostly on their surfaces. This paper derives a continuum elasticity theory by coarse-graining a discrete model in which cells are incompressible fluid-filled polygons with constant tensions on their apical, basal, and lateral sides, while the layer is supported by a basement membrane and stroma. It claims that because elasticity originates at cell interfaces, the critical force for buckling is independent of layer thickness and the wrinkling wavelength is independent of thickness, in sharp contrast to solid plates; the same mechanism also makes the groove-to-crest thickness modulation flip phase when apical tension exceeds basal tension. If correct, this gives measurable signatures that tell surface-tension mechanics apart from classical plate elasticity in real epithelia.

What carries the argument

The central object is a discrete vertex model of a tissue as a chain of quadrilateral cell cross-sections with fixed area, then a coarse-graining to a one-dimensional Lagrangian density $L=L_T+L_B+L_K+L_{C_1}+L_{C_2}$ whose terms are the cell-surface energy, basement-membrane bending, stroma bulk elasticity, and two constraints (incompressibility and imposed strain). The load-bearing mathematical object is the dispersion relation $\mu(q)$ (Eq. 10): minimizing $\mu$ with respect to $q$ decides between buckling and wrinkling, and the coefficients of $\mu(q)$ encode every scaling law the conclusions rest on. The physical mechanism is that cell volume is fixed, so deformation energy lives only in the interfacial lengths that change as cells change shape, not in bulk strain of the tissue.

What would settle it

Measure the critical buckling force or wrinkling wavelength of a well-characterized epithelial monolayer, or a synthetic sheet of adhesive droplets, as a function of layer height $h$ at fixed cell area and aspect ratio. The paper predicts $\mu_c\sim h^0$ and $q_0\sim h^0$ in the surface-tension regime; observing $\mu_c\sim h^3$ or $q_0\sim h^{-1}$, the solid-plate scalings, would falsify the central claim. Alternatively, in an unsupported apico-basally symmetric tissue, any nonzero groove-to-crest thickness modulation contradicts the predicted $\tau=0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within a monolayer of such cells, the coarse-grained deformation energy is harmonic, and the elastic instability of a flat supported sheet is governed by a dispersion relation $\mu(q)$ for the applied compressive force as a function of wavenumber $q$. Minimizing $\mu(q)$ selects either buckling ($q_0=0$, or $2\pi/L$ for a sheet of length $L$) or wrinkling ($q_0>0$). For an unsupported apico-basally symmetric epithelium the critical force is $\mu_0=\pi^2/L^2\sim h^0$, while the critical strain is $\epsilon_0=\pi^2/(2h^2L^2)\sim h^{-2}$; with only the stroma supporting the tissue, $q_0^{(K)}=(2K)^{1/3}\sim h^0$, $\mu_c^{(K)}=3\cdot2^{-4/3}K^{2/3}\sim h^0$, and $\epsilon_c^{(K)}=3\cdot2^{-7/3}h^{-2}K^{2/3}\sim h^{-2}$. The theory also predicts that differential apico-basal tension $\Delta=(\Gamma_a-\Gamma_b)/\Gamma_l$ alone can wrinkle an unsupported sheet once $|\Delta|>\sqrt{2(1+4B)}$, and that the thickness modulation relative to substrate undulations switches from in-phase to anti-phase when $\Delta$ exceeds $\Delta_i=2^{-1/3}K^{2/3}/(1-4B/3)$, so grooves become thicker than crests only for apical tension stronger than basal tension.

Load-bearing premise

The cells' interiors are taken to be incompressible fluids that carry no bulk elastic stress, so all deformation energy comes from cell surfaces; the paper itself notes that the elastocapillary length $\xi\sim\gamma/E$ is comparable to cell size, so bulk elasticity may contribute and would alter the scalings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a surface-tension-dominated epithelium, making the layer thicker does not raise the force needed to buckle it; the critical force depends on the sheet's length, not its height.
When a stroma supports the tissue, the wrinkling wavelength is controlled by the stroma's stiffness $K$, not by epithelial thickness, so a thickness-independent wavelength is a signature of surface-tension mechanics.
Apico-basal differential tension alone can destabilize an unsupported flat sheet into a wrinkle pattern, something classical thin-plate theory does not allow.
The phase of groove-to-crest thickness modulation flips from in-phase to anti-phase when apical tension exceeds basal tension by a threshold fixed by substrate stiffnesses $B$ and $K$; observing this flip identifies the sign of the differential tension.
Measured static quantities, such as the wrinkling wavenumber $q$, the modulation amplitude $\tau$, and tissue length $L$, can be combined to estimate the ratios $K/\Delta$ and $B/\Delta$ from cross-section images.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: because the paper's elastocapillary estimate leaves surface stresses at the edge of dominance in living cells, the $h^0$ scalings are best treated as a limiting law that should cross over to solid-plate scalings when cell bulk elasticity is added; the crossover could be mapped in synthetic droplet sheets.
Editorial inference: the same coarse-graining should carry over to sheets of adherent lipid vesicles or immiscible microfluidic droplets with tunable interfacial tensions, where the thickness-independent buckling and phase inversion can be tested without living-cell variability.
Editorial inference: the model's prediction of zero thickness modulation for an unsupported apico-basally symmetric tissue implies that any observed modulation in such a system would be evidence for a missing ingredient such as bulk elasticity or active contractility.

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

You should know two things about arXiv:2504.15673. First, the paper delivers a clean coarse-grained elasticity theory for epithelial sheets where cell mechanics is dominated by interfacial tensions, with basement membrane bending and stroma compression added. The genuinely new results are the supported-tissue scalings: wrinkling wavenumber q0 ~ K^{1/3} independent of layer thickness h, critical strain ϵc ~ K^{2/3} h^{-2}, critical force µc ~ K^{2/3} h^0, a combined buckling threshold, and a phase-inversion formula for groove-to-crest thickness modulation. These are nontrivial outputs of the Euler–Lagrange equations, not built-in assumptions, and they match vertex-model simulations across the parameter ranges in Figures 2–4. The unsupported cases reduce to the authors' earlier PRL, which is properly cited.

Second, the paper is honest about its main limitation: cell interiors are modeled as incompressible fluid with no bulk elasticity. The Discussion even gives the elastocapillary length ξ ≈ 0.1–10 μm against cell sizes of 1–10 μm and concedes that surface forces "also may not be dominant." The stress-test note is right: the h^0 scalings and the phase-inversion threshold are properties of the ξ ≪ h limit, and the vertex-model agreement cannot settle the matter because the discrete model shares the same omission. The area penalty in the vertex model constrains area change but does not introduce bulk shear or compression resistance.

That said, I do not think this is a fatal flaw. The authors explicitly frame the theory as a limiting case and propose tests in systems where bulk elasticity is negligible—adherent lipid vesicle sheets and microfluidic droplet sheets. The analytic predictions are sharp and falsifiable, which is more than many tissue-scale models offer. The phase-inversion prediction is genuinely interesting, though the experimental support is qualitative (blebbistatin organoids, cerebellum sections) rather than quantitative. The continuum derivation is careful, with approximations stated and the resulting regime limits acknowledged. The code is on GitHub, which is a plus for reproducibility.

The weakest spot is exactly what the stress-test identifies: the elastocapillary length is comparable to cell size for many tissues, so the theory's regime of validity may be narrow. The authors could have done more to delineate where ξ ≪ h holds empirically, and a sentence on how bulk elasticity would enter the Lagrangian (e.g., adding Eh^3 and Eh terms) would sharpen the boundary of the claim. But they do not overclaim; the title says "governed by interfacial surface mechanics," which describes the model, and the Discussion flags the bulk elasticity issue.

The paper is for soft matter and biophysics readers working on tissue mechanics, buckling of thin sheets, and vertex models. It deserves a serious referee—the derivation is substantial, the scaling laws are counterintuitive and testable, and the phase-inversion mechanism is a real conceptual advance. My own verdict: accept with revisions, conditional on the authors adding a clear discussion of the ξ/h regime and how bulk elasticity would alter the predictions. I'd bring it to a reading group.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript derives a continuum elasticity theory for a two-dimensional epithelial monolayer in which cell mechanics are dominated by surface tensions on apical, basal, and lateral edges while cell interiors are treated as incompressible fluid. The authors coarse-grain a discrete vertex model, include basement-membrane bending energy and stroma bulk energy, and obtain a harmonic deformation Lagrangian. They analyze linear stability and derive (i) a thickness-independent critical buckling force, (ii) a stroma-induced wrinkling wavelength q0 ~ K^{1/3} independent of thickness, (iii) conditions for buckling-to-wrinkling transitions, and (iv) a phase inversion of groove-to-crest thickness modulation. Analytical predictions are compared with numerical minimizations of the discrete model in Figures 1-4.

Significance. If correct, the results establish a qualitatively different mechanical paradigm for epithelial sheets compared with solid-plate elasticity: critical loads and wavelengths scale differently with layer thickness, and anti-phase thickness modulation emerges without invoking system-spanning fibers. The derivation is careful and largely contained in the SI, and the paper includes concrete, falsifiable predictions (Eqs. 12, 16, 18, 26) and reproducible vertex-model software. The main limitation--neglect of bulk cellular elasticity--is acknowledged in the Discussion, but it is important enough that the paper's scope should be stated more prominently.

major comments (2)

[Wrinkling, Eq. (16)] Equation (16) as printed gives q[∆,B]_0 = 2^{5/4} sqrt(h^2 - 2/h^2) (|∆| - ∆[B]_c)^{1/2}, i.e., the square-root factor appears in the numerator. The SI derivation (Eqs. S59 and S64) gives the same expression with that factor in the denominator. The denominator version is the physical one: q0 goes to zero at the buckling-to-wrinkling threshold, and it is consistent with the vertex-model data in Fig. 2D. As printed, Eq. (16) would make q0 diverge at threshold and would also change the thickness-modulation prediction in Eq. (24). Please correct Eq. (16) and check all downstream uses.
[Discussion / domain of validity] The paper's headline scalings--µ0 ~ h^0, q0 ~ h^0, and the phase-inversion threshold Eq. (26)--are derived under the explicit assumption that cell interiors have no bulk elastic modulus. The Discussion's elastocapillary estimate gives ξ ≈ 0.1-10 µm against cell dimensions 1-10 µm, so the assumed hierarchy ξ << h is not guaranteed for the tissues cited in the Introduction. In the ξ ~ h crossover, an intracellular bulk modulus enters the effective bending and stretching channels at the same order as the surface and substrate terms, so the derived exponents and threshold are properties of a limiting model rather than of epithelia generally. The agreement with the vertex model in Figs. 2-4 cannot settle this, because the discrete model embeds the same omission. I ask the authors to state this domain of validity explicitly in the abstract and Introduction and to include a brief quantitative discussion of how a finite bulk modulus would enter the effective Lagrangian and at what ξ/h the scalings cross over to plate-like behavior.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and footnotes] There are several typos: 'embryogensis', 'correspondance', 'addresed' (footnote), 'W rinkling' (section heading), 'cen be' (Section 'Phase inversion'), and 'bucklind' (Fig. 4 caption).
[Section 'Phase inversion'] The phrase 'An inverse of modulation phase' should read 'An inversion of the modulation phase'.
[Materials and Methods, Eq. (27)] The dimensionless energy is denoted e in Eq. (27) but W elsewhere; please align the notation.
[Vertex model, Eq. (27)] The vertex model uses a finite area penalty κA = 100 rather than a hard incompressibility constraint; the paper should state explicitly that the continuum derivation assumes the hard-constraint limit and note how the finite penalty is expected to affect the comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all central scalings and thresholds are derived from the stated discrete-cell Lagrangian, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing consistency check.

full rationale

The paper's central results—µ0 = π²/L² ~ h^0, q0 = (2K)^{1/3} ~ h^0, and the phase-inversion threshold ∆i = 2^{-1/3}K^{2/3}/(1−4B/3)—are obtained by solving the Euler–Lagrange equations derived from the discrete energy in Eq. 1, with no parameters fitted to data. The quantity µ(q) in Eq. 10 is an algebraic output of that derivation, and the h-exponents and thresholds are consequences of the resulting polynomial, not inputs. The vertex-model comparisons are consistency checks of the coarse-graining procedure against the very discrete model from which the continuum theory was derived, not independent fits, so they do not constitute a circular prediction. The citation to the authors' prior work [27] for ∆c = √2 is non-load-bearing because the same result is re-derived here from Eq. 10 and SI Eq. S57. The substrate model ¯K = Kq, cited to [16], is an external modeling convention, and the K^{1/3} scaling is the distinguished limit of the derived µ(q); the thickness independence h^0 is a new result rather than an assumed input. Finally, the assumption that cell mechanics are surface-tension-dominated is stated explicitly, and the Discussion openly concedes that bulk elasticity may be comparable (ξ ≈ 0.1–10 µm versus cell sizes 1–10 µm); this is a domain-of-validity limitation, not a circular step. The derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to the paper's stated model assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a small set of stated modeling premises: cell incompressibility, surface-only elasticity, a wavenumber-dependent stroma modulus, and homogeneity. No parameters are fitted to data; the predictions (scalings, thresholds, phase inversion) are analytic outputs checked against the vertex model.

free parameters (4)

Γ (average apico-basal surface tension) = control parameter, not fitted
Sets the reference cell height h = √Γ; varied across simulations, never fitted to data.
Δ (differential apico-basal tension) = control parameter, not fitted
Drives wrinkling and phase inversion; the threshold predictions are functions of it.
B (basement membrane bending rigidity) = control parameter, not fitted
Shifts the buckling-to-wrinkling threshold and the phase-inversion condition.
K (stroma bulk modulus) = control parameter, not fitted
Determines the wrinkling wavelength scale; no data fitting is performed in the paper.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Cells are incompressible with fixed cross-sectional area A0.
Used to derive cell geometry (SI Eqs. S4-S7) and enforced by the area constraint in the Hamiltonian.
domain assumption Cell interiors support no bulk elastic stress; all elasticity emerges from surface tensions on apical, basal, and lateral edges.
Central modeling premise stated in Introduction and Discussion; defines the surface-dominated limit.
domain assumption Stroma behaves as an elastic half-space with bulk modulus proportional to wavenumber, K̄ = Kq.
Borrowed from ref [16]; enters Eq. (1) and the linear-stability analysis.
domain assumption The monolayer is homogeneous: Γ, Δ, B, and K are uniform along the tissue.
Stated before Eq. (2); enables the continuum limit.
standard math Small-strain linear stability analysis, |ϵ| ≪ 1, with small deformation amplitudes.
All expansions are to second order; the study addresses the onset of instability.
ad hoc to paper The stroma constraint y(σ) = ∫ s sin ψ dt is expanded only to first order (SI Eq. S31).
Post-hoc justified by the result Q ∝ ẏ in SI Sec. II; a potential source of higher-order error.
ad hoc to paper In the truncation of µ(q), the wavenumber is assumed to scale as q ∝ K^{1/3}, the same scaling as in supported solid plates.
Self-consistent with the derived q0, but imposed at the start of the expansion (SI Sec. III).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent epithelial elasticity governed by interfacial surface mechanics and substrate interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GKYIDF3Z

@misc{pith2026250415673,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent epithelial elasticity governed by interfacial surface mechanics and substrate interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GKYIDF3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15673}
}

read the original abstract

During the life of animals, epithelial tissues undergo extensive deformations--first to form organs during embryogensis and later to preserve integrity and function in adulthood. To what extent these deformations resemble that of non-living elastic materials is not well understood. We derive an elasticity theory of epithelia, supported by a thin layer of extracellular material and the stroma, in which the mechanics of individual cells are dominated by differential interfacial tensions stemming from cell cortical tension and adhesion. Upon coarse-graining a discrete single-cell-level mechanics model, we obtain a harmonic deformation energy and derive the critical conditions for the elastic instability, where an initially flat tissue either buckles out of plane or forms wrinkles. Due to the distinct origin of elasticity, the scaling of the critical load to induce an instability and the wrinkling wavelength with layer thickness is fundamentally different than in solid plates. The theory also naturally describes reversal of the groove-to-crest thickness-modulation phase--a recently observed epithelial shape feature which cannot be explained by the classical elasticity theory. Our work provides a guideline for understanding the relative role of cell surface tensions and the interaction of tissues with substrates during epithelial morphogenesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15673 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Instability analysis in epithelial sheets. a) Criti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Thickness modulation phase. a) Schematics of a tissue exhibiting thickness modulation in phase with substrate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Thickness modulation in epithelial sheets. a), b) Thickness modulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

[1]

The energy is minimized using gradient descent, such that each vertex rj = (xj,yj) moves with a velocity, proportional to the sum of conservative forces given by Fj =−∇je

All edge lengths and cell areas are calculated as li =|ri,head− ri,tail| and Ai = (1/2) ∑ µ (ri,µ× ri,µ+1)· (0, 0, 1), respectively, where µ denotes a internal in- dex of the cells, µ = 1...4, whereas the local squared curvature of the basement membrane is calculated as ρ−2 i = 8(1 + cosθi)/|ri+1,basal−ri−1,basal|2; the expres- sion for angle θi is given ...

work page
[2]

& Lecuit, T

Collinet, C., Rauzi, M., Lenne, P.-F. & Lecuit, T. Lo- cal and tissue-scale forces drive oriented junction growth during tissue extension. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 1247–1258 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

& Lenne, P.-F

Rauzi, M., Verant, P., Lecuit, T. & Lenne, P.-F. Nature and anisotropy of cortical forces orienting drosophila tis- sue morphogenesis. Nature Cell Biology 10, 1401–1410 (2008)

work page 2008
[4]

Hubert, M. et al. Mechanical regulation of epithelial tis- sue homeostasis. Physical Review X 11, 031029 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Rauzi, M. et al. Embryo-scale tissue mechanics during drosophila gastrulation movements. Nature Communica- tions 6, 8677 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

& Munro, E

Lecuit, T., Lenne, P.-F. & Munro, E. Force generation, transmission, and integration during cell and tissue mor- phogenesis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 27, 157–184 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

& Lenne, P.-F

Lecuit, T. & Lenne, P.-F. Cell surface mechanics and the control of cell shape, tissue patterns and morphogenesis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 633–644 (2007)

work page 2007
[8]

& Gere, J

Timoshenko, S. & Gere, J. Theory of Elastic Stability (McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1961)

work page 1961

Show all 54 references

[9]

Shyer, A. E. et al. Emergent cellular self-organization and mechanosensation initiate follicle pattern in the avian skin. Science 357, 811–815 (2017)

2017
[10]

Jiang, H. et al. Finite deformation mechanics in buck- led thin films on compliant supports. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 15607–15612 (2007)

2007
[11]

Pocivavsek, L. et al. Stress and fold localization in thin elastic membranes. Science 320, 912–916 (2008). 10

2008
[12]

& Ben Amar, M

Ackermann, J., Qu, P.-Q., LeGoff, L. & Ben Amar, M. Modeling the mechanics of growing epithelia with a bi- layer plate theory. The European Physical Journal Plus 137, 8 (2021)

2021
[13]

Y., Biggins, J

Tallinen, T., Chung, J. Y., Biggins, J. S. & Mahade- van, L. Gyrification from constrained cortical expansion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111, 12667–12672 (2014)

2014
[14]

Tallinen, T. et al. On the growth and form of cortical convolutions. Nature Physics 12, 588–593 (2016)

2016
[15]

Savin, T. et al. On the growth and form of the gut. Nature 476, 57–62 (2011)

2011
[16]

Brau, F. et al. Multiple-length-scale elastic instability mimics parametric resonance of nonlinear oscillators.Na- ture Physics 7, 56–60 (2011)

2011
[17]

& Mahadevan, L

Cerda, E. & Mahadevan, L. Geometry and physics of wrinkling. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 074302 (2003)

2003
[18]

& Joanny, J.-F

Hannezo, E., Prost, J. & Joanny, J.-F. Instabilities of monolayered epithelia: Shape and structure of villi and crypts. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 078104 (2011)

2011
[19]

Shyer, A. E. et al. Villification: How the gut gets its villi. Science 342, 212–218 (2013)

2013
[20]

Thompson, D. W. On Growth and Form . Canto (Cam- bridge University Press, 1992)

1992
[21]

Efimenko, K. et al. Nested self-similar wrinkling patterns in skins. Nature Materials 4, 293–297 (2005)

2005
[22]

& Joanny, J.-F

Hannezo, E., Prost, J. & Joanny, J.-F. Theory of ep- ithelial sheet morphology in three dimensions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, 27–32 (2013)

2013
[23]

& ˇZekˇ s, B

Derganc, J., Svetina, S. & ˇZekˇ s, B. Equilibrium mechan- ics of monolayered epithelium. Journal of Theoretical Biology 260, 333–339 (2009)

2009
[24]

Sui, L. et al. Differential lateral and basal tension drive folding of drosophila wing discs through two distinct mechanisms. Nature Communications 9, 4620 (2018)

2018
[25]

Fouchard, J. et al. Curling of epithelial monolayers re- veals coupling between active bending and tissue tension. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 117, 9377–9383 (2020)

2020
[26]

Ray, C. G. & Haas, P. A. (un)buckling mechanics of epithelial monolayers under compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07928 (2024)

2024
[27]

Fern´ andez, P. A. et al. Surface-tension-induced bud- ding drives alveologenesis in human mammary gland organoids. Nature Physics 17, 1130–1136 (2021)

2021
[28]

& Ziherl, P

Rozman, J., Krajnc, M. & Ziherl, P. Morphologies of compressed active epithelial monolayers. The European Physical Journal E 44, 99 (2021)

2021
[29]

& Krajnc, M

Andrenˇ sek, U., Ziherl, P. & Krajnc, M. Wrinkling insta- bility in unsupported epithelial sheets. Physical Review Letters 130, 198401 (2023)

2023
[30]

& H´ enon, S

Harmand, N., Dervaux, J., Poulard, C. & H´ enon, S. Thickness of epithelia on wavy substrates: measurements and continuous models. The European Physical Journal E 45, 53 (2022)

2022
[31]

Luciano, M. et al. Cell monolayers sense curvature by exploiting active mechanics and nuclear mechanoadapta- tion. Nature Physics 17 (2021)

2021
[32]

R., Hanna, J

Karzbrun, E., Kshirsagar, A., Cohen, S. R., Hanna, J. H. & Reiner, O. Human brain organoids on a chip reveal the physics of folding. Nature Physics 14, 515–522 (2018)

2018
[33]

Thickness modulation in both samples has an opposite phase compared to the undulation of the internal substrate

(panel c). Thickness modulation in both samples has an opposite phase compared to the undulation of the internal substrate. Figures in both panels are reprinted with permis- sion from Springer Nature. Contour in panel c, marking the epithelium, was added to the original image....
[34]

A., Zhang, T., Lawton, A

Engstrom, T. A., Zhang, T., Lawton, A. K., Joyner, A. L. & Schwarz, J. M. Buckling without bending: A new paradigm in morphogenesis. Phys. Rev. X 8, 041053 (2018)

2018
[35]

L., Willett, R

Joyner, A. L., Willett, R. & Lawton, A. Development of the Cerebellum from Molecular Aspects to Diseases (Springer, 2017)

2017
[36]

& Ziherl, P

Krajnc, M. & Ziherl, P. c. v. Theory of epithelial elastic- ity. Phys. Rev. E 92, 052713 (2015)

2015
[37]

& Ziherl, P

ˇStorgel, N., Krajnc, M., Mrak, P., ˇStrus, J. & Ziherl, P. Quantitative morphology of epithelial folds. Biophysical Journal 110, 269–277 (2016)

2016
[38]

& Bevilacqua, G

Riccobelli, D. & Bevilacqua, G. Surface tension controls the onset of gyrification in brain organoids. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 134, 103745 (2020)

2020
[39]

& Witten, T

Brau, F., Damman, P., Diamant, H. & Witten, T. A. Wrinkle to fold transition: influence of the substrate re- sponse. Soft Matter 9, 8177–8186 (2013)

2013
[40]

J., Zhang, T., Liu, T

Razavi, M. J., Zhang, T., Liu, T. & Wang, X. Cortical folding pattern and its consistency induced by biological growth. Sci Rep 5, 14477 (2015)

2015
[41]

Wei, M.-T. et al. A comparative study of living cell mi- cromechanical properties by oscillatory optical tweezers. Opt. Express 16, 8594–8603 (2008)

2008
[42]

Nussenzveig, H. M. Cell membrane biophysics with opti- cal tweezers. European Biophysics Journal 47, 499–514 (2018)

2018
[43]

A., J¨ ulicher, F., M¨ uller, D

Fischer-Friedrich, E., Hyman, A. A., J¨ ulicher, F., M¨ uller, D. J. & Helenius, J. Quantification of surface tension and internal pressure generated by single mitotic cells. Scientific Reports 4, 6213 (2014)

2014
[44]

K., Ouzeri, A

Bal, P. K., Ouzeri, A. & Arroyo, M. Continuum the- ory for the mechanics of curved epithelial shells by coarse-graining an ensemble of active gel cellular surfaces. bioRxiv (2025)

2025
[45]

D., Devenish, S

Kintses, B., van Vliet, L. D., Devenish, S. R. & Hollfelder, F. Microfluidic droplets: new integrated workflows for bi- ological experiments. Current Opinion in Chemical Biol- ogy 14, 548–555 (2010). Nanotechnology and Miniatur- ization/Mechanisms

2010
[46]

& Takeuchi, S

Kamiya, K., Kawano, R., Osaki, T., Akiyoshi, K. & Takeuchi, S. Cell-sized asymmetric lipid vesicles facili- tate the investigation of asymmetric membranes. Nature Chemistry 8, 881–889 (2016). Author contributions. MK designed the research, UA performed the analytical calculati...

2016 arXiv
[47]

These variables are: ψi, ψi+1, ϕi−1, ϕi, ϕi+1, δli−1 =li−1−h, δli =li−h, δli+1 =li+1−h, yi, and yi+1

The expression Ei is expressed as a function of variables, whose value is zero in the reference state. These variables are: ψi, ψi+1, ϕi−1, ϕi, ϕi+1, δli−1 =li−1−h, δli =li−h, δli+1 =li+1−h, yi, and yi+1
[48]

The expression Ei is truncated to second order in all the variables
[49]

(S9) Here the ”dot” denotes the derivative with respect to σ

The discrete variables are replaced by continuous functions in the frame of the reference state, parametrized by σ: ψi→ψ(σ) ψi+1→ψ(σ) + ˙ψ(σ)h−1 + 1 2 ¨ψ(σ)h−2 ϕi→ϕ(σ) ϕi+1→ϕ(σ) + ˙ϕ(σ)h−1 + 1 2 ¨ϕ(σ)h−2 ϕi−1→ϕ(σ)− ˙ϕ(σ)h−1 + 1 2 ¨ϕ(σ)h−2 δli =li−h→δl(σ) δli+1 =li+1−h→δl(σ) +δ...
[50]

To replace the discrete summation of Ei over all cell indices i with the integral of continuous W (σ) along reference-frame coordinate σ, Ei is multiplied by hdσ so that N∑ i=1 Ei→ ∫Nσ 0 0 he(σ)dσ , (S10) where e(σ) represents the line density of expression E. D. Boundary cond...
[51]

cell midlines change to s1 = 2a l1 cos(ϕ1−ψ1) +l2 cos(ϕ2−ψ1) and s2 = 2a l2 cos(ϕ2−ψ2) +l3 cos(ϕ3−ψ2) , (S120)
[52]

the cell height and width of cells in the reference state change to H and D, respectively,
[53]

the discrete step 1/h is replaced by D when rewriting the discrete variables as a Taylor expansion of continuum variables. 16 The system of Euler-Lagrange equation reads Γ∆ √ a7Γψ(4) +a2l(4) ( Γ3 ( a2 + 4B ) + 2aµ + 2Γ ) + 16Γ2(aΓ)3/2 + 8Γ(aµ + Γ) ( a¨l + 4Γl ) = = 4 ( a3/2Γ7/...
[54]

F. Brau, P. Damman, H. Diamant, and T. A. Witten, Soft Matter 9, 8177 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The energy is minimized using gradient descent, such that each vertex rj = (xj,yj) moves with a velocity, proportional to the sum of conservative forces given by Fj =−∇je

All edge lengths and cell areas are calculated as li =|ri,head− ri,tail| and Ai = (1/2) ∑ µ (ri,µ× ri,µ+1)· (0, 0, 1), respectively, where µ denotes a internal in- dex of the cells, µ = 1...4, whereas the local squared curvature of the basement membrane is calculated as ρ−2 i = 8(1 + cosθi)/|ri+1,basal−ri−1,basal|2; the expres- sion for angle θi is given ...

work page

[2] [2]

& Lecuit, T

Collinet, C., Rauzi, M., Lenne, P.-F. & Lecuit, T. Lo- cal and tissue-scale forces drive oriented junction growth during tissue extension. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 1247–1258 (2015)

work page 2015

[3] [3]

& Lenne, P.-F

Rauzi, M., Verant, P., Lecuit, T. & Lenne, P.-F. Nature and anisotropy of cortical forces orienting drosophila tis- sue morphogenesis. Nature Cell Biology 10, 1401–1410 (2008)

work page 2008

[4] [4]

Hubert, M. et al. Mechanical regulation of epithelial tis- sue homeostasis. Physical Review X 11, 031029 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Rauzi, M. et al. Embryo-scale tissue mechanics during drosophila gastrulation movements. Nature Communica- tions 6, 8677 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

& Munro, E

Lecuit, T., Lenne, P.-F. & Munro, E. Force generation, transmission, and integration during cell and tissue mor- phogenesis. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 27, 157–184 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [7]

& Lenne, P.-F

Lecuit, T. & Lenne, P.-F. Cell surface mechanics and the control of cell shape, tissue patterns and morphogenesis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8, 633–644 (2007)

work page 2007

[8] [8]

& Gere, J

Timoshenko, S. & Gere, J. Theory of Elastic Stability (McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1961)

work page 1961