Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Cells around the corner

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Wedge-shaped walls turn a living cell monolayer into an equilibrium nematic, and the corner angle at which splay and bend deformations are equally likely reads out the ratio of the elastic constants: one for NIH-3T3 fibroblasts.

desk verdict A clever wedge-corner assay with a clean Frank-Oseen derivation, but the central k1=k3 claim rests on a small sample and an unmeasured equilibrium assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07517 v1 pith:L7CVMFVT submitted 2025-01-13 cond-mat.soft

Aniruddh Murali , Prasoon Awasthi , Kirsten Endresen , Arkadiusz Goszczak , Francesca Serra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords cellmonolayersnematicliquidcrystalsFrank-Oseenelasticenergysplayandbendconstantsone-constantapproximationfibroblastalignmentwedgeconfinementanisotropy
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

Crowded fibroblasts in a monolayer behave like a liquid crystal, but until now it has been an open question whether the two Frank elastic constants, the splay constant and the bend constant, are equal for living cells. This paper reports a corner-based assay: cells are confined at a wedge of known angle, their alignment is classified as splay-like or bend-like, and the wedge angle at which the two deformations occur equally often is used to read off the ratio $k_1/k_3$. For NIH-3T3 fibroblasts the crossover sits at $\theta = \pi/2$, which equating the Frank-Oseen energies makes equivalent to $k_1 = k_3$. The result matters because many active-nematic tissue models simply assume equal constants, and this method offers an experimental check that does not require locating a defect core.

What carries the argument

The central object is the wedge corner used as an energy comparator: a triangular pillar with planar anchoring at its edges forces the monolayer into either a splay pattern (director pointing radially from the vertex) or a bend pattern (director rotating from edge-parallel to azimuthal at the wedge mid-line). The argument runs on the Frank-Oseen elastic energy of these two director fields and on the Boltzmann ratio of their probabilities; equating the two energies at the measured crossover angle $\theta_e$ yields Eq. (6), and at $\theta_e = \pi/2$ that ratio collapses to $k_1 = k_3$. The quantitative probability comparison also depends on an unknown prefactor $\alpha = \ln(l/\epsilon)\, k_1 / k_B T$, which the paper sets to 1.

What would settle it

Repeat the wedge assay on the same NIH-3T3 cells after chemically stopping cell division and the internal contraction that cells use to pull on their surroundings: if the wedge angle at which splay and bend are equally likely moves away from $\pi/2$, then the crossover angle is set partly by active processes and equating the energies at $\theta=\pi/2$ does not imply $k_1=k_3$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that a wedge-shaped wall is a quantitative probe of nematic elasticity in a cell monolayer. With the splay director $\hat{n}_{\mathrm{splay}} = \hat{r}$ and the bend director $\hat{n}_{\mathrm{bend}} = \cos(\pi\phi/\theta)\,\hat{r} - \sin(\pi\phi/\theta)\,\hat{\phi}$, the 2D Frank-Oseen energy integrates to $E_{\mathrm{splay}} = \tfrac{1}{2} k_1 \theta \ln(l/\epsilon)$ and $E_{\mathrm{bend}} = \frac{(1 - \pi/\theta)^2 \theta}{4} (k_1 + k_3) \ln(l/\epsilon)$. Interpreting the observed deformation fractions as Boltzmann weights and equating them at the crossover angle $\theta_e$ gives $k_1/k_3 = \frac{(1 - \pi/\theta_e)^2}{1 - \pi^2/\theta_e^2 + 2\pi/\theta_e}$. Since the experiments find equal splay and bend fractions at $\theta = \pi/2$, the paper concludes $k_1 = k_3$ for NIH-3T3 fibroblasts, and the general formula provides a way to measure elastic anisotropy in other cell types.

Load-bearing premise

The argument holds only if the live monolayer is effectively at equilibrium, so that the observed balance between splay and bend reflects elastic energy rather than active cell processes, and only if an unmeasured scale factor that converts the computed elastic energies into probabilities equals one.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing and future simulations of fibroblast monolayers that adopt the one-constant approximation are consistent with this direct measurement, since the approximation is what the data imply.
  • For other cell types, measuring the wedge angle at which splay and bend appear equally often and inserting it into Eq. (6) gives $k_1/k_3$ even when defect cores are hard to localize.
  • For any monolayer whose crossover angle lies in the roughly $77^\circ$ to $126^\circ$ range, the two constants are within an order of magnitude, so equal-constant modeling is a defensible first approximation.
  • The quantitative agreement of the Boltzmann curves with data across $\theta = \pi/6$ to $5\pi/6$ supports treating low-activity confined monolayers as equilibrium nematics, at least near a wall.

Reading between the lines

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

  • We infer that repeating the assay after stopping cell division and the internal contraction that cells use to pull would show whether the crossover angle shifts; a shift would mean active stresses contribute to the measured probability ratio and would break the equilibrium reading of $k_1/k_3$.
  • A testable extension is to vary substrate stiffness or adhesion molecule density; the paper reports only fibronectin-coated PDMS, so whether $k_1/k_3$ stays the same when the microenvironment changes is left open.
  • The fit's prefactor $\alpha$ is set to 1 rather than measured, so an independent measurement of $\alpha$ would turn the probability comparison into a real test of Eq. (6) rather than a one-parameter calibration.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies NIH-3T3 fibroblast monolayers on triangular pillars and classifies the cell arrangement near each vertex as splay, bend, or a transition between the two, using the profile of (r̂·n̂)^2 as a function of angular position. The central claim, stated in the abstract and derived in the section 'Deformation Energy', is that the wedge angle at which splay and bend deformations are equally likely is set by the ratio of the splay and bend Frank elastic constants. At θ = π/2 the data show approximately equal fractions of splay and bend, and equating the Frank–Oseen energies for the two director ansatzes yields k1 = k3 (Eq. 5), i.e. the one-constant approximation. The paper further plots the ratio of bend/splay probabilities versus wedge angle using Boltzmann weights with an assumed prefactor α = 1 (Fig. 3B), and derives Eq. (6), which gives k1/k3 as a function of the equal-probability angle θe. The authors conclude that the one-constant approximation is valid for these fibroblasts and propose the wedge-corner geometry as a method for measuring elastic anisotropy in cell monolayers.

Significance. If the equilibrium-statistical-mechanics interpretation is justified, this is a clever and potentially valuable method: it measures elastic anisotropy without requiring defect-core identification, which is often ambiguous in cell monolayers. The Frank–Oseen energy calculations are explicit and not fitted to the measured fractions, the inverse-problem framing is transparent, and the paper honestly labels the equilibrium assumption a 'crude approximation'. The claim that equal probabilities at θ = π/2 imply k1 = k3 is a concrete, falsifiable prediction, and the method could be applicable to other cell types if the equilibrium assumption is vindicated. However, the significance is conditional: the central inference rests on an untested equilibrium hypothesis, and the quantitative comparison in Fig. 3B depends on an arbitrary prefactor. These issues are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (5)
  1. [Deformation Energy, Eq. (5)] The inference k1 = k3 requires that the observed fractions of splay and bend configurations are given by Boltzmann weights P_i ∝ exp(-E_i/k_B T). The paper states 'Due to the low activity of our system, we do not incorporate dynamics' and later calls the equilibrium treatment 'a crude approximation', but no measurement of activity, effective temperature, or a fluctuation–dissipation relation is provided. NIH-3T3 fibroblasts migrate, divide, and exert traction forces, and active stresses can select splay or bend independently of Frank elasticity. Since Eq. (5) follows directly from equating energies at θ = π/2, the equilibrium assumption is load-bearing; the paper should either empirically justify it (e.g., time-independence of the fractions, comparison with a passive system, or an effective-temperature measurement) or present the result as conditional on that assumption.
  2. [SI Table I and Fig. 2E] The equal-fraction observation at θ = π/2 is based on only 21 corners. With 21 trials, a 50/50 split could easily arise from a broad binomial distribution, so the data cannot tightly constrain k1/k3. The paper should report confidence intervals for the fraction at each angle and state how the uncertainty propagates into Eq. (5) and Eq. (6). Without this, the quantitative conclusion 'k1 = k3' is not commensurate with the statistical power of the dataset.
  3. [Deformation Energy, prefactor α] In the probability comparison shown in Fig. 3B, the prefactor α = ln(l/ε) k1 / k_B T is set to 1 'for simplicity', and the subsequent paragraph estimates that this is plausible if l/ε ≈ 1.3. This assumption directly controls the theoretical curves in Fig. 3B, so the 'good agreement' between theory and experiment is partly built into the choice of α. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis (e.g., α = 0.5 or 2) and, ideally, an independent estimate of l, ε, and k1. Also note the inconsistency: the Discussion says measurements were taken at l = 315 µm, while the main text says l = 325 µm.
  4. [Splay–Bend Transition criteria] The classification rule (thresholds 0.25 and 0.75 for (r̂·n̂)^2 over three consecutive distances) is introduced as a way to avoid misclassification, but its arbitrariness is not addressed. Since the central claim hinges on the observed fraction at θ = π/2, the paper should demonstrate that the classification is robust to variations in these thresholds (e.g., 0.2/0.8 or 0.3/0.7) and ideally provide inter-annotator or bootstrap reliability statistics. Without this, it is unclear whether the 'equal' fractions are a property of the data or an artifact of the classification.
  5. [Theoretical director ansatz, Eq. (1) and SI Eq. (S3)] The bend director field n_bend = cos(π/θ ϕ) r̂ - sin(π/θ ϕ) φ̂ is imposed rather than derived from minimization of the Frank–Oseen energy. For a wedge with strong planar anchoring, this form satisfies the boundary conditions, but it is not shown to be the energy-minimizing equilibrium configuration. If the actual director profile differs from the ansatz, the energy expressions in Eqs. (3) and (4) would not be the ones selected by the system. The paper should either justify the ansatz as the equilibrium solution for a 2D nematic wedge or check its consistency with the measured director field more quantitatively, for example by reporting the residuals in SI Fig. S4 over the full range of distances and angles.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2D] The inset description in the text says 'splay to bend (blue) and bend to splay (red)', but the sentence describing the dotted and solid lines appears to assign the colors differently; please check that the color coding is consistent between text, figure, and caption.
  2. [Fig. 2C] The caption says the distribution is shown for wedge angles π/6 ≤ θ ≤ π/2, while data are plotted for 2π/3 and 5π/6 as well; please update the caption to include all angles used.
  3. [Eq. (4)] It may be worth explicitly commenting that the bend deformation energy contains both k1 and k3, which is a consequence of the ansatz and the wedge geometry; a one-sentence interpretation would help readers who expect a pure bend to involve only k3.
  4. [Fig. 3B and error bars] The error bars are described as binomial, but with counts as small as 7 or 16, the normal approximation may be poor; a Wilson interval or a direct binomial confidence interval would be more appropriate and should be described.
  5. [Discussion] The sentence 'the defect core size should be the size of a few mesogens, so in this case a few cells' is presented without direct evidence; it would be helpful to cite or describe how this estimate was obtained from image analysis, as the preceding sentence claims a coherence length measurement.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'lenght' in the Discussion, 'susbtrate' in the Methods, and 'T ransition' in the section heading; these should be corrected in a final revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the k1=k3 inference is an inverse problem from measured equal splay/bend fractions at θ=π/2, not a restatement of inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation equates the Frank-Oseen energies (main-text Eqs. (3)-(4), SI Eqs. (S8)-(S10)) at θ=π/2 because Fig. 2E shows approximately equal observed fractions (SI Table I: 21 corners). This is a legitimate inverse inference: the energy expressions are standard 2D Frank-Oseen theory with a wedge director ansatz taken from the liquid-crystal literature [46,47], not fitted to the measured fractions; the measured equality at θ=π/2 is an input datum, and the resulting k1=k3 is a derived parameter. The later Boltzmann comparison (Fig. 3B) uses an assumed prefactor α=1 (justified physically and with a non-load-bearing self-citation [44] for the defect-core estimate), but α is not tuned to the data and does not enter the θ=π/2 equality. The consistency check at other wedge angles provides independent content. The equilibrium/active assumption is a model limitation, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The model adds no new entities. The central inference uses a standard elastic energy plus several hand-set quantities: the Boltzmann prefactor alpha, the measurement distance l, the defect-core cutoff epsilon, and the classification thresholds. The main domain assumptions are equilibrium statistical mechanics for an active system and an imposed director ansatz for bend.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = ln(l/epsilon) k1 / k_B T = 1 (assumed)
    Appears in the Boltzmann ratio P_bend/P_splay; authors set it to 1 because l/epsilon ~ 1.3 and k1 ~ 4 k_B T, but it is not measured or fitted, so the theoretical curves depend on this arbitrary choice.
  • l (measurement distance from vertex) = 315 or 325 microns (text inconsistent)
    Enters through ln(l/epsilon) in the energies and through alpha; the paper gives 325 microns in the results section and 315 microns in the discussion, and this inconsistency affects the quantitative comparison.
  • epsilon (defect core radius) = 150-200 microns (estimated)
    Regularizes the divergent integral in the Frank-Oseen energy; the value is estimated by analogy with liquid crystal defect cores and previous cell work, not directly measured.
  • classification thresholds for splay/bend = 0.25, 0.75, 3 consecutive distances
    Used to assign each wedge to splay, bend, or transition; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and different thresholds could shift the fractions and the inferred equal-probability angle.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Frank-Oseen elastic energy with two constants applies to a 2D cell monolayer
    Cells are treated as a passive nematic; active stresses and dynamics are neglected as stated in the Results: 'Due to the low activity of our system, we do not incorporate dynamics in the description.'
  • domain assumption Equilibrium Boltzmann statistics for configurational probabilities
    The fraction of splay vs bend configurations is modeled by exp(-E/k_B T); the authors acknowledge this is a crude approximation for a non-equilibrium system.
  • domain assumption Strong planar anchoring with zero anchoring energy W = 0
    Based on Fig.2C showing cells align within about 10 degrees of the edges; the anchoring line term is set to zero for both splay and bend.
  • ad hoc to paper Imposed bend director ansatz n_bend = cos(pi/theta phi) rhat - sin(pi/theta phi) phihat
    Satisfies planar anchoring at walls and rotation to perpendicular at the mid-angle; it is not obtained from energy minimization, so errors in this ansatz propagate into the bend energy.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cells around the corner." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L7CVMFVT

@misc{pith2026250107517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cells around the corner},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L7CVMFVT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07517}
}
read the original abstract

The study of spindle-like cells as nematic liquid crystals has led to remarkable insights in the understanding of tissue organization and morphogenesis. In the characterization of this anomalous liquid crystal material, we focus on the energetic cost of splay and bend deformations, in order to determine the elastic anisotropy of the material, i.e. the ratio of the elastic constants associated with splay and bend. We explore the behavior of monolayers of cells in proximity to corners, where cells arrange in splay or bend configuration, strongly dependent on the amplitude of the wedge angle. The angle at which splay and bend deformations are equally likely is determined by the ratio between splay and bend elastic constants. We also show that the splay and bend deformations under confinement can be well approximated using equilibrium liquid crystal theory and statistical mechanics. Finally, our data suggest that for fibroblast cells the common approximation of equal bend and splay constant is valid.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07517 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Phase contrast image of 3T3 fibroblast cells grown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (A) Schematic of planar splay and planar bend in liquid crystals. Each individual unit (orange) represents a liquid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (A) Total energy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zwicker, R

    D. Zwicker, R. Seyboldt, C. A. Weber, A. A. Hyman, and F. Juelicher, Growth and division of active droplets provides a model for protocells, Nature Physics 2016 13:4 13, 408 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Balasubramaniam, R

    L. Balasubramaniam, R. M. Mege, and B. Ladoux, Active nematics across scales from cytoskeleton organization to tissue morphogenesis, Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 73, 101897 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Banerjee and M

    S. Banerjee and M. C. Marchetti, Continuum models of collective cell migration, Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1146, 45 (2019). 8

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Toner and Y

    J. Toner and Y. Tu, Long-range order in a two- dimensional dynamical XY model: How birds fly to- gether, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4326 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 323 (2010)

    S. Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 1, 323 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    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, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Gompper, et al.,The 2020 motile active matter roadmap, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 193001 (2020)

    G. Gompper, et al.,The 2020 motile active matter roadmap, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 32, 193001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    T. R. Elsdale, Parallel orientation of fibroblasts in vitro, Exp. Cell Res. 51, 439 (1968)

    work page 1968

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Gruler, U

    H. Gruler, U. Dewald, and M. Eberhardt, Nematic liq- uid crystals formed by living amoeboid cells, European Physical Journal B 11, 187 (1999)

    1999

  2. [10]

    Bouligand, Liquid crystals and biological morphogene- sis: Ancient and new questions, Comptes Rendus Chimie 11, 281 (2008)

    Y. Bouligand, Liquid crystals and biological morphogene- sis: Ancient and new questions, Comptes Rendus Chimie 11, 281 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Volfson, S

    D. Volfson, S. Cookson, J. Hasty, and L. S. Tsimring, Biomechanical ordering of dense cell populations, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 15346 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Copenhagen, R

    K. Copenhagen, R. Alert, N. S. Wingreen, and J. W. Shaevitz, Topological defects promote layer formation in myxococcus xanthus colonies, Nature Physics 2020 17:2 17, 211 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Duclos, S

    G. Duclos, S. Garcia, H. G. Yevick, and P. Silberzan, Perfect nematic order in confined monolayers of spindle- shaped cells, Soft Matter 10, 2346 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Duclos, C

    G. Duclos, C. Erlenkaemper, J. F. Joanny, and P. Sil- berzan, Topological defects in confined populations of spindle-shaped cells, Nature Physics 2016 13:1 13, 58 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    A. Ray, Z. M. Slama, R. K. Morford, S. A. Madden, and P. P. Provenzano, Enhanced directional migration in cancer stem cells in 3d aligned collagen matrices, Bio- physical Journal 112, 1023 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Ray and P

    A. Ray and P. P. Provenzano, Aligned forces: Origins and mechanisms of cancer dissemination guided by ex- tracellular matrix architecture, Current Opinion in Cell Biology 72, 63 (2021), cell Dynamics

    2021

  9. [17]

    Kaiyrbekov and B

    K. Kaiyrbekov and B. A. Camley, Does nematic order allow groups of elongated cells to sense electric fields bet- ter?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04723 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Morales-Navarrete, H

    H. Morales-Navarrete, H. Nonaka, A. Scholich, F. Segovia-Miranda, W. de Back, K. Meyer, R. L. Bogorad, V. Koteliansky, L. Brusch, Y. Kalaidzidis, F. Juelicher, B. M. Friedrich, and M. Zerial, Liquid- crystal organization of liver tissue, eLife 8, e44860 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Kawaguchi, R

    K. Kawaguchi, R. Kageyama, and M. Sano, Topological defects control collective dynamics in neural progenitor cell cultures, Nature 2017 545:7654 545, 327 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Doostmohammadi, S

    A. Doostmohammadi, S. P. Thampi, and J. M. Yeomans, Defect-mediated morphologies in growing cell colonies, Physical Review Letters 117, 048102 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    Shankar, A

    S. Shankar, A. Souslov, M. J. Bowick, M. C. Marchetti, and V. Vitelli, Topological active matter, Nature Reviews Physics 2022 4:6 4, 380 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    T. B. Saw, A. Doostmohammadi, V. Nier, L. Kocgozlu, S. Thampi, Y. Toyama, P. Marcq, C. T. Lim, J. M. Yeo- mans, and B. Ladoux, Topological defects in epithelia govern cell death and extrusion, Nature 544, 212 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Guillamat, C

    P. Guillamat, C. Blanch-Mercader, G. Pernollet, K. Kruse, and A. Roux, Integer topological defects or- ganize stresses driving tissue morphogenesis, Nature ma- terials 21, 588 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Balasubramaniam, A

    L. Balasubramaniam, A. Doostmohammadi, T. B. Saw, G. H. N. S. Narayana, R. Mueller, T. Dang, M. Thomas, S. Gupta, S. Sonam, A. S. Yap, Y. Toyama, R. M. Mege, J. M. Yeomans, and B. Ladoux, Investigating the nature of active forces in tissues reveals how contractile cells can fo...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Giomi, L

    L. Giomi, L. Mahadevan, B. Chakraborty, and M. F. Ha- gan, Excitable patterns in active nematics, Physical re- view letters 106, 218101 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Giomi, M

    L. Giomi, M. J. Bowick, P. Mishra, R. Sknepnek, and M. C. Marchetti, Defect dynamics in active nemat- ics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 372, 10.1098/RSTA.2013.0365 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Mueller, J

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

    2019

  20. [28]

    Perez-Gonzalez, R

    C. Perez-Gonzalez, R. Alert, C. Blanch-Mercader, M. Gomez-Gonzalez, T. Kolodziej, E. Bazellieres, J. Casademunt, and X. Trepat, Active wetting of epithe- lial tissues, Nature physics 15, 79 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Doostmohammadi, J

    A. Doostmohammadi, J. Ignes-Mullol, J. M. Yeomans, and F. Sagues, Active nematics, Nature Communications 2018 9:1 9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Blanch-Mercader, P

    C. Blanch-Mercader, P. Guillamat, A. Roux, and K. Kruse, Quantifying material properties of cell mono- layers by analyzing integer topological defects, Physical Review Letters 126, 028101 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Turiv, J

    T. Turiv, J. Krieger, G. Babakhanova, H. Yu, S. V. Shiyanovskii, Q. H. Wei, M. H. Kim, and O. D. Lavren- tovich, Topology control of human fibroblast cells mono- layer by liquid crystal elastomer, Science Advances 6, 10.1126/SCIADV.AAZ6485 (2020)

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Comelles, S

    J. Comelles, S. S. Soumya, L. Lu, E. L. Maout, S. An- vitha, G. Salbreux, F. Juelicher, M. M. Inamdar, and D. Riveline, Epithelial colonies in vitro elongate through collective effects, eLife 10, 1 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Z. Wang, M. C. Marchetti, and F. Brauns, Patterning of morphogenetic anisotropy fields, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120, e2220167120 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    L. A. Hoffmann, K. Schakenraad, R. M. Merks, and L. Giomi, Chiral stresses in nematic cell monolayers, Soft Matter 16, 764 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Kralj, M

    N. Kralj, M. Ravnik, and Z. Kos, Chirality, anisotropic viscosity and elastic anisotropy in three-dimensional ac- tive nematic turbulence, Communications Physics 7, 222 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Ferrarini, The theory of elastic constants, Liquid Crystals 37, 811 (2010),https://doi.org/10.1080/02678292.2010.484914

    A. Ferrarini, The theory of elastic constants, Liquid Crystals 37, 811 (2010),https://doi.org/10.1080/02678292.2010.484914

    2010

  29. [37]

    Cestari and A

    M. Cestari and A. Ferrarini, Curvature elasticity of ne- matic liquid crystals: simply a matter of molecular shape? insights from atomistic modeling, Soft Matter 5, 3879 (2009). 9

    2009

  30. [38]

    Leenhouts, A

    F. Leenhouts, A. Dekker, and W. de Jeu, Molecular structure and elastic constants of nematic liquid crystals, Physics Letters A 72, 155 (1979)

    1979

  31. [39]

    pure bend

    have been able to determine the ratio between elas- tic constants in active filaments, particularly by exam- ining F-actin in a quasi-2D environment through defect morphology analysis. The same method was successfully applied to myoblasts [30, 40]. For some systems, however, t...

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Zhang, N

    R. Zhang, N. Kumar, J. L. Ross, M. L. Gardel, and J. J. D. Pablo, Interplay of structure, elasticity, and dy- namics in actin-based nematic materials, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115, E124 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Blanch-Mercader, P

    C. Blanch-Mercader, P. Guillamat, A. Roux, and K. Kruse, Integer topological defects of cell monolay- ers: Mechanics and flows, Physical Review E 103, 012405 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Kurjahn, L

    M. Kurjahn, L. Abbaspour, F. Papenfuss, P. Bittihn, R. Golestanian, B. Mahault, and S. Karpitschka, Collec- tive self-caging of active filaments in virtual confinement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03093 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kaiyrbekov, K

    K. Kaiyrbekov, K. Endresen, K. Sullivan, Z. Zheng, Y. Chen, F. Serra, and B. A. Camley, Migration and division in cell monolayers on substrates with topo- logical defects, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 120, 10.1073/PNAS.2301197...

    2023 doi

  36. [44]

    N. D. Bade, R. D. Kamien, R. K. Assoian, and K. J. Stebe, Edges impose planar alignment in nematic mono- layers by directing cell elongation and enhancing migra- tion, Soft Matter 14, 6867 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    K. D. Endresen, M. S. Kim, M. Pittman, Y. Chen, and F. Serra, Topological defects of integer charge in cell monolayers, Soft Matter 17, 5878 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Puspoki, M

    Z. Puspoki, M. Storath, D. Sage, and M. Unser, Trans- forms and operators for directional bioimage analysis: A survey, Advances in Anatomy Embryology and Cell Bi- ology 219, 69 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Chandrasekhar and G

    S. Chandrasekhar and G. S. Ranganath, The structure and energetics of defects in liquid crystals, Advances in Physics 35, 507 (1986)

    1986

  40. [48]

    de Gennes and J

    P. de Gennes and J. Prost, The Physics of Liquid Crys- tals (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Kleman and O

    M. Kleman and O. D. Lavrentovich, Soft Matter Physics: An Introduction (Springer New York, 2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    Preibisch, S

    S. Preibisch, S. Saalfeld, and P. Tomancak, Globally op- timal stitching of tiled 3d microscopic image acquisitions, Bioinformatics 25, 1463 (2009). 1 Supplementary Information I. Experiments FIG. S1. Example of (A) splay (B) splay-bend (C) bend-splay (D) bend deformation that...

    2009

  43. [51]

    Statistics of different data points for various values of wedge angle ( θ) 2 II

    5 π/6 16 TABLE I. Statistics of different data points for various values of wedge angle ( θ) 2 II. Theory Splay and bend In the Fig.2C in the main text the director field has strong planar anchoring with the edges of the triangle, and since the cells are arranged in a monolaye...

Pith tools

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