pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.07847 · v1 · pith:MSRPTKHYnew · submitted 2025-11-11 · 🧬 q-bio.CB · math.DS

Matters of Life and Death in Computational Cell Biology

Connor McShaffrey , Eran Agmon , Randall D. Beer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-21 20:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.CB math.DS
keywords computational cell biologylife-death boundarycell fategeometric structurescellular viabilitybiophysical constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

Computational cell biology requires centering the life-death boundary to create a theory of cellular viability.

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

The paper argues that current cell models handle biophysical constraints inconsistently and without systematic principles for how cellular dynamics meet the limits of persistence. It claims that elevating the life-death boundary to a central role will produce a coherent framework for viability. The authors illustrate this by identifying geometric structures in their models that divide parameter space into regions sharing similar survival behaviors, which act as broad organizing principles for cell fate. They add that simple models of how distinct individuals emerge offer a practical route to exploring the boundaries life imposes on itself.

Core claim

Treating the life-death boundary as a central concept in computational cell models reveals specific geometric structures that separate regions of qualitatively similar survival outcomes, thereby supplying new global organizing principles for cell fate.

What carries the argument

Geometric structures in model space that partition regions of similar survival outcomes, generated once the life-death boundary is placed at the center of analysis.

If this is right

  • Cell fate decisions gain a geometric description rather than depending on ad hoc constraint checks.
  • Idealized models of emergent individuals become the starting point for mapping intrinsic viability limits.
  • Biophysical constraints acquire a unified framework instead of remaining case-by-case additions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same geometric approach could guide which quantities experimental biologists measure near viability thresholds.
  • Links may appear to broader questions of self-maintenance in other complex dynamical systems.
  • Extending the method to higher-resolution cell models would test whether the geometric patterns generalize.

Load-bearing premise

Biophysical constraints are implemented without systematicity in cell models, and centering the life-death boundary will produce a workable theory of cellular viability.

What would settle it

Demonstrating that geometric structures fail to separate regions of similar survival outcomes across multiple cell models would undermine the proposed organizing principles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07847 by Connor McShaffrey, Eran Agmon, Randall D. Beer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Viability space as a geometric concept in a minimal 2D-3D visualization. A. In the space of essential variables, the viability boundary (light blue) marks the edge of the viability region where a cell can still be considered alive. B. The viability region is expanded across the range of unconstrained variables, such as location in the environment, although its structure is not modified across these dimensi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The geometry of multicellular viability constraints. To generalize the geometric idea of life-death boundaries to models of more than one cell, we need to begin thinking about multicellular dynamics as playing out in the intersection of all participating cells’ viability regions. This figure shows an example of three cells’ essential variables in a unified space. When the system’s dynamics result in the gr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Schematic of viability space decomposition for a single cell. A. A single attractor (dark blue) is located within the viability region such that all of the vectors on the boundary point inward, and the entire region is asymptotically viable (green). B. The attractor is outside of the viability region, such that every initial condition leads to a trajectory that will die in finite time and will never finish… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Multicellular viability space decomposition as a hybrid dynamical system. A. It is possible to visualize a multicellular model as a type of directed graph. Each node represents the cells currently alive with the corresponding continuous state space, and edges are the transitions that take place between nodes when one or more cells simultaneously die. Colored edges correspond to specific trajectories in the… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A schematic of the intrinsic viability region of a glider in Conway’s Game of Life. The glider is defined by a pattern of on-cells (brown) and a surrounding layer of off-cells (yellow) that function as its physical boundary or membrane. As the glider moves through its environment, it encounters various environmental configurations that function as perturbations, which will either result in a viable (green)… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Scaling the complexity of idealized models with intrinsic viability constraints. We can begin to understand intrinsic viability by looking at idealized models that contain metastable systems that have the capacity of self￾maintenance. The red dashed line marks the boundary of what we are currently capable of understanding (cellular automata like GoL), and beyond are more complex systems that slowly become … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Nearly all cell models explicitly or implicitly deal with the biophysical constraints that must be respected for life to persist. Despite this, there is almost no systematicity in how these constraints are implemented, and we lack a principled understanding of how cellular dynamics interact with them and how they originate in actual biology. Computational cell biology will only overcome these concerns once it treats the life-death boundary as a central concept, creating a theory of cellular viability. We lay the foundation for such a development by demonstrating how specific geometric structures can separate regions of qualitatively similar survival outcomes in our models, offering new global organizing principles for cell fate. We also argue that idealized models of emergent individuals offer a tractable way to begin understanding life's intrinsically generated limits.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that computational cell biology lacks systematicity in implementing biophysical constraints for cell survival despite their implicit presence in models. It proposes treating the life-death boundary as a central concept to develop a theory of cellular viability. The authors claim to lay the foundation for this by demonstrating how specific geometric structures separate regions of qualitatively similar survival outcomes in their models, thereby offering new global organizing principles for cell fate. They further suggest that idealized models of emergent individuals provide a tractable route to understanding life's intrinsically generated limits.

Significance. If the geometric separation of survival regions can be rigorously shown in concrete models and generalized, the work could supply useful organizing principles that help systematize viability constraints across computational cell biology. This framing might encourage more unified approaches to modeling cell fate under biophysical limits, though its impact hinges on providing verifiable technical content rather than remaining at the conceptual level.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'specific geometric structures can separate regions of qualitatively similar survival outcomes in our models' is asserted without model equations, state-space definitions, parameter regimes, simulation protocols, or figures illustrating the claimed partitions. This absence makes the central demonstration load-bearing for the paper's foundation-laying assertion unverifiable from the provided content.
  2. [Main text] Main argument: The geometric demonstration relies exclusively on the authors' own models without external benchmarks, independent validation, or comparison to existing cell-fate frameworks, which risks circularity in defining the 'new global organizing principles' in terms of the very models under analysis.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The repeated use of 'our models' without prior specification of which models or their key assumptions reduces clarity for readers unfamiliar with the authors' prior work.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive report and for recognizing the potential value of centering the life-death boundary in computational cell biology. We address each major comment below, indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that 'specific geometric structures can separate regions of qualitatively similar survival outcomes in our models' is asserted without model equations, state-space definitions, parameter regimes, simulation protocols, or figures illustrating the claimed partitions. This absence makes the central demonstration load-bearing for the paper's foundation-laying assertion unverifiable from the provided content.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract presents the core claim at a conceptual level without the supporting technical details. The full manuscript contains descriptions of the models and geometric analyses, but to improve verifiability we will add a concise methods subsection summarizing the key equations, state-space definitions, and parameter regimes, together with a new figure that explicitly illustrates the partitioned survival regions for at least one representative model. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Main text] Main argument: The geometric demonstration relies exclusively on the authors' own models without external benchmarks, independent validation, or comparison to existing cell-fate frameworks, which risks circularity in defining the 'new global organizing principles' in terms of the very models under analysis.

    Authors: The models function as concrete, minimal illustrations of how geometric structures arise from biophysical constraints rather than as the sole source of the organizing principles. The principles themselves are framed as general features of viability boundaries that can be examined in any model respecting conservation laws and energy dissipation. To address the concern about circularity we will expand the discussion section to compare the geometric approach with established cell-fate frameworks (e.g., Boolean network models of apoptosis and continuous differential-equation descriptions of metabolic thresholds), thereby situating the contribution relative to the existing literature. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; conceptual proposal remains self-contained

full rationale

The paper is framed as a position piece that identifies a lack of systematicity in biophysical constraints across cell models and proposes treating the life-death boundary centrally, with a demonstration of geometric structures claimed in the authors' models. No load-bearing derivation chain reduces a result to its own inputs by construction: there are no equations shown that define a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no uniqueness theorems or ansatzes imported solely via self-citation that forbid alternatives. The central claim is presented as an organizing principle derived from the models rather than tautologically equivalent to them, and the argument does not rely on a self-referential loop for its validity. This is the normal finding for a conceptual manuscript without explicit self-referential reductions in its technical steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is primarily conceptual and rests on domain assumptions about biophysical constraints and the value of geometric analysis in dynamical systems models; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Nearly all cell models explicitly or implicitly deal with biophysical constraints that must be respected for life to persist.
    Stated directly in the opening of the abstract as background for the lack of systematicity.
  • domain assumption There is almost no systematicity in how these constraints are implemented and a lack of principled understanding of their interaction with cellular dynamics.
    Used to justify the need for a new theory of cellular viability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5649 in / 1403 out tokens · 37888 ms · 2026-05-21T20:06:10.976388+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pages: 26922

    Opportunities and challenges for digital twins in biomedical research: Proceedings of a workshop-in brief, 2023. Pages: 26922

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Agmon, A

    E. Agmon, A. J. Gates, and R. D. Beer. The structure of ontogenies in a model protocell. Artificial Life, 22(4):499–517, 2016

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Agmon, A

    E. Agmon, A. J. Gates, V . Churavy, and R. D. Beer. Exploring the space of viable configurations in a model of metabolism–boundary co-construction. Artificial Life, 22(2):153–171, 2016. 10 A PREPRINT - NOVEMBER 12, 2025

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Agmon and R

    E. Agmon and R. K. Spangler. A multi-scale approach to modeling e. coli chemotaxis. Entropy, 22(10):1101, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Agmon and B

    E. Agmon and B. R. Stockwell. Lipid homeostasis and regulated cell death. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 39:83–89, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Aihara and H

    K. Aihara and H. Suzuki. Theory of hybrid dynamical systems and its applications to biological and medical systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 368(1930):4893–4914, 2010

    work page 1930

  7. [7]

    A. R. A. Anderson, K. A. Rejniak, P. Gerlee, and V . Quaranta. Microenvironment driven invasion: a multiscale multimodel investigation. Journal of Mathematical Biology, 58(4):579–624, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    W. R. Ashby. Design for a Brain. Springer Netherlands, 1960

    work page 1960

  9. [9]

    Aubin, A

    J.-P. Aubin, A. M. Bayen, and P. Saint-Pierre. Viability Theory: New Directions. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    X. E. Barandiaran and M. D. Egbert. Norm-establishing and norm-following in autonomous agency. Artificial Life, 20(1):5–28, 2014

    work page 2014

  11. [11]

    Barros, T

    L. Barros, T. Hermosilla, and J. Castro. Necrotic volume increase and the early physiology of necrosis. Compara- tive Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 130(3):401–409, 2001

    work page 2001

  12. [12]

    Bartlett, A

    S. Bartlett, A. W. Eckford, M. Egbert, M. Lingam, A. Kolchinsky, A. Frank, and G. Ghoshal. Physics of life: Exploring information as a distinctive feature of living systems. PRX Life, 3(3):037003, 2025

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    R. D. Beer. A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction. Artificial Intelligence, 72(1):173– 215, 1995

    work page 1995

  14. [14]

    R. D. Beer. Characterizing autopoiesis in the game of life. Artificial Life, 21(1):1–19, 2015

    work page 2015

  15. [15]

    R. D. Beer. An integrated perspective on the constitutive and interactive dimensions of autonomy. In The 2020 Conference on Artificial Life, pages 202–209. MIT Press, 2020

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    R. D. Beer, A. Barwich, and G. J. Severino. Milking a spherical cow: Toy models in neuroscience. European Journal of Neuroscience, 60(10):6359–6374, 2024

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    R. D. Beer and E. A. Di Paolo. The theoretical foundations of enaction: Precariousness. Biosystems, 223:104823, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    R. D. Beer, C. McShaffrey, and T. M. Gaul. Deriving the intrinsic viability constraint of an emergent individual from first principles. In The 2024 Conference on Artificial Life. MIT Press, 2024

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    R. D. Beer and P. L. Williams. Animals and animats: Why not both iguanas? Adaptive Behavior, 17(4):296–302, 2009

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Bergen, M

    V . Bergen, M. Lange, S. Peidli, F. A. Wolf, and F. J. Theis. Generalizing RNA velocity to transient cell states through dynamical modeling. Nature Biotechnology, 38(12):1408–1414, 2020

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Bergsbaken, S

    T. Bergsbaken, S. L. Fink, and B. T. Cookson. Pyroptosis: host cell death and inflammation. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 7(2):99–109, 2009

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    F. J. Bock and S. W. G. Tait. Mitochondria as multifaceted regulators of cell death.Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 21(2):85–100, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    B. W.-C. Chan. Lenia - biology of artificial life. 2018. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 3

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    B. W.-C. Chan. Lenia and expanded universe. In The 2020 Conference on Artificial Life, pages 221–229. MIT Press, 2020

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    H. Cho, T. Uehara, and T. Bernhardt. Beta-lactam antibiotics induce a lethal malfunctioning of the bacterial cell wall synthesis machinery. Cell, 159(6):1300–1311, 2014

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Ciccia and S

    A. Ciccia and S. J. Elledge. The DNA damage response: Making it safe to play with knives. Molecular Cell, 40(2):179–204, 2010

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Dab, J.-P

    D. Dab, J.-P. Boon, and Y .-X. Li. Lattice-gas automata for coupled reaction-diffusion equations.Physical Review Letters, 66(19):2535–2538, 1991

    work page 1991

  28. [28]

    J. D. Davis, C. M. Kumbale, Q. Zhang, and E. O. V oit. Dynamical systems approaches to personalized medicine. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 58:168–174, 2019

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Desai, S

    J. Desai, S. R. Mulay, D. Nakazawa, and H.-J. Anders. Matters of life and death. how neutrophils die or survive along NET release and is “NETosis” = necroptosis? Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences, 73(11):2211–2219, 2016. 11 A PREPRINT - NOVEMBER 12, 2025

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Dittrich, J

    P. Dittrich, J. Ziegler, and W. Banzhaf. Artificial chemistries—a review. Artificial Life, 7(3):225–275, 2001

    work page 2001

  31. [31]

    M. D. Egbert and J. Pérez-Mercader. Methods for measuring viability and evaluating viability indicators.Artificial Life, 24(2):106–118, 2018

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Eissing, H

    T. Eissing, H. Conzelmann, E. D. Gilles, F. Allgöwer, E. Bullinger, and P. Scheurich. Bistability analyses of a caspase activation model for receptor-induced apoptosis. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 279(35):36892–36897, 2004

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    S. Elmore. Apoptosis: A review of programmed cell death. Toxicologic Pathology, 35(4):495–516, 2007

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    Elowitz and W

    M. Elowitz and W. A. Lim. Build life to understand it. Nature, 468(7326):889–890, 2010

    work page 2010

  35. [35]

    K. M. Evans. Larger than life: Digital creatures in a family of two-dimensional cellular automata. Discrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science, DMTCS Proceedings vol. AA,...:2288, 2001

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    J. Ferrell. Bistability, bifurcations, and waddington’s epigenetic landscape. Current Biology, 22(11):R458–R466, 2012

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    R. A. Gatenby, K. Smallbone, P. K. Maini, F. Rose, J. Averill, R. B. Nagle, L. Worrall, and R. J. Gillies. Cellular adaptations to hypoxia and acidosis during somatic evolution of breast cancer. British Journal of Cancer , 97(5):646–653, 2007

    work page 2007

  38. [38]

    T. M. Gaul. Autopoiesis in RealLife euclidean automata. In The 2024 Conference on Artificial Life. MIT Press, 2024

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Ghaffarizadeh, R

    A. Ghaffarizadeh, R. Heiland, S. H. Friedman, S. M. Mumenthaler, and P. Macklin. PhysiCell: An open source physics-based cell simulator for 3-d multicellular systems. PLOS Computational Biology, 14(2):e1005991, 2018

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Ghose and S

    P. Ghose and S. Shaham. Cell death in animal development. Development, 147(14):dev191882, 2020

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Granot, A

    D. Granot, A. Levine, and E. Dorhefetz. Sugar-induced apoptosis in yeast cells. FEMS Yeast Research, 4(1):7–13, 2003

    work page 2003

  42. [42]

    Y . Hao, S. Hao, E. Andersen-Nissen, W. M. Mauck, S. Zheng, A. Butler, M. J. Lee, A. J. Wilk, C. Darby, M. Zager, P. Hoffman, M. Stoeckius, E. Papalexi, E. P. Mimitou, J. Jain, A. Srivastava, T. Stuart, L. M. Fleming, B. Yeung, A. J. Rogers, J. M. McElrath, C. A. Blish, R. Gottardo, P. Smibert, and R. Satija. Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell ...

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Himeoka, S

    Y . Himeoka, S. A. Horiguchi, and T. J. Kobayashi. Theoretical basis for cell deaths.Physical Review Research, 6(4):043217, 2024

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    G. T. Johnson, E. Agmon, M. Akamatsu, E. Lundberg, B. Lyons, W. Ouyang, O. A. Quintero-Carmona, M. Riel- Mehan, S. Rafelski, and R. Horwitz. Building the next generation of virtual cells to understand cellular biology. Biophysical Journal, 122(18):3560–3569, 2023

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    Karin and U

    O. Karin and U. Alon. Biphasic response as a mechanism against mutant takeover in tissue homeostasis circuits. Molecular Systems Biology, 13(6):933, 2017

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    J. Karr, J. Sanghvi, D. Macklin, M. Gutschow, J. Jacobs, B. Bolival, N. Assad-Garcia, J. Glass, and M. Covert. A whole-cell computational model predicts phenotype from genotype. Cell, 150(2):389–401, 2012

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Kochanowski, H

    K. Kochanowski, H. Okano, V . Patsalo, J. Williamson, U. Sauer, and T. Hwa. Global coordination of metabolic pathways in Escherichia coli by active and passive regulation. Molecular Systems Biology, 17(4):e10064, 2021

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Kolchinsky and D

    A. Kolchinsky and D. H. Wolpert. Semantic information, autonomous agency and non-equilibrium statistical physics. Interface Focus, 8(6):20180041, 2018

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    Lange, V

    M. Lange, V . Bergen, M. Klein, M. Setty, B. Reuter, M. Bakhti, H. Lickert, M. Ansari, J. Schniering, H. B. Schiller, D. Pe’er, and F. J. Theis. CellRank for directed single-cell fate mapping. Nature Methods, 19(2):159–170, 2022

    work page 2022

  50. [50]

    J. T. Lennon and S. E. Jones. Microbial seed banks: the ecological and evolutionary implications of dormancy. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 9(2):119–130, 2011

    work page 2011

  51. [51]

    X. Li, P. Zhang, Z. Yin, F. Xu, Z.-H. Yang, J. Jin, J. Qu, Z. Liu, H. Qi, C. Yao, and J. Shuai. Caspase-1 and gasdermin d afford the optimal targets with distinct switching strategies in NLRP1b inflammasome-induced cell death. Research, 2022:2022/9838341, 2022

    work page 2022

  52. [52]

    J. S. Lowengrub, H. B. Frieboes, F. Jin, Y .-L. Chuang, X. Li, P. Macklin, S. M. Wise, and V . Cristini. Nonlinear modelling of cancer: Bridging the gap between cells and tumours. Nonlinearity, 23(1):R1–R91, 2010

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    Macklin, S

    P. Macklin, S. Mumenthaler, and J. Lowengrub. Modeling multiscale necrotic and calcified tissue biomechanics in cancer patients: Application to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). In A. Gefen, editor, Multiscale Computer Modeling in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, volume 14, pages 349–380. Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

    work page

  54. [54]

    12 A PREPRINT - NOVEMBER 12, 2025

    Series Title: Studies in Mechanobiology, Tissue Engineering and Biomaterials. 12 A PREPRINT - NOVEMBER 12, 2025

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Maire, T

    T. Maire, T. Allertz, M. A. Betjes, and H. Youk. Dormancy-to-death transition in yeast spores occurs due to gradual loss of gene-expressing ability. Molecular Systems Biology, 16(11):e9245, 2020

    work page 2020

  56. [56]

    Majno and I

    G. Majno and I. Joris. Apoptosis, oncosis, and necrosis. an overview of cell death. The American Journal of Pathology, 146(1):3–15, 1995

    work page 1995

  57. [57]

    H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela. Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living. Boston studies in the philosophy of science. D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980

    work page 1980

  58. [58]

    McShaffrey and R

    C. McShaffrey and R. D. Beer. Decomposing viability space. In The 2023 Conference on Artificial Life. MIT Press, 2023

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    McShaffrey and R

    C. McShaffrey and R. D. Beer. Dissecting viability in multi-agent systems. In The 2024 Conference on Artificial Life. MIT Press, 2024

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    McShaffrey and R

    C. McShaffrey and R. D. Beer. Shaking up viability space: Stochasticity and survival in the transient. In The 2025 Conference on Artificial Life. MIT Press, 2025

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    McShaffrey and R

    C. McShaffrey and R. D. Beer. Viability space: A geometric decomposition of survival outcomes in single- and multi-agent systems. In Preparation

    work page

  62. [62]

    J. D. Orth, I. Thiele, and B. Ø. Palsson. What is flux balance analysis? Nature Biotechnology, 28(3):245–248, 2010

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    Pasparakis and P

    M. Pasparakis and P. Vandenabeele. Necroptosis and its role in inflammation. Nature, 517(7534):311–320, 2015

    work page 2015

  64. [64]

    Pérez, A

    J. Pérez, A. Moraleda-Muñoz, F. J. Marcos-Torres, and J. Muñoz-Dorado. Bacterial predation: 75 years and counting! Environmental Microbiology, 18(3):766–779, 2016

    work page 2016

  65. [65]

    M. Rehm, H. J. Huber, H. Dussmann, and J. H. M. Prehn. Systems analysis of effector caspase activation and its control by x-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein. The EMBO Journal, 25(18):4338–4349, 2006

    work page 2006

  66. [66]

    D. H. Rothman and S. Zaleski. Lattice-gas models of phase separation: interfaces, phase transitions, and multiphase flow. Reviews of Modern Physics, 66(4):1417–1479, 1994

    work page 1994

  67. [67]

    Ruscone, A

    M. Ruscone, A. Checcoli, R. Heiland, E. Barillot, P. Macklin, L. Calzone, and V . Noël. Building multiscale models with PhysiBoSS, an agent-based modeling tool. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 25(6):bbae509, 2024

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Régimbeau, M

    A. Régimbeau, M. Budinich, A. Larhlimi, J. J. Pierella Karlusich, O. Aumont, L. Memery, C. Bowler, and D. Eveillard. Contribution of genome-scale metabolic modelling to niche theory. Ecology Letters, 25(6):1352– 1364, 2022

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Schink, M

    S. Schink, M. Polk, E. Athaide, A. Mukherjee, C. Ammar, X. Liu, S. Oh, Y .-F. Chang, and M. Basan. Survival dynamics of starving bacteria are determined by ion homeostasis that maintains plasmolysis. Nature Physics, 20(8):1332–1338, 2024

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    M. R. Shaebani, A. Wysocki, R. G. Winkler, G. Gompper, and H. Rieger. Computational models for active matter. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(4):181–199, 2020

    work page 2020

  71. [71]

    C. J. Skalnik, E. Agmon, R. K. Spangler, L. Talman, J. H. Morrison, S. M. Peirce, and M. W. Covert. Whole-colony modeling of escherichia coli, 2021

    work page 2021

  72. [72]

    Smallbone, R

    K. Smallbone, R. A. Gatenby, R. J. Gillies, P. K. Maini, and D. J. Gavaghan. Metabolic changes during carcinogenesis: Potential impact on invasiveness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 244(4):703–713, 2007

    work page 2007

  73. [73]

    R. Solé, C. P. Kempes, B. Corominas-Murtra, M. De Domenico, A. Kolchinsky, M. Lachmann, E. Libby, S. Saavedra, E. Smith, and D. Wolpert. Fundamental constraints to the logic of living systems. Interface Focus, 14(5):20240010, 2024

    work page 2024

  74. [74]

    Spencer and P

    S. Spencer and P. Sorger. Measuring and modeling apoptosis in single cells. Cell, 144(6):926–939, 2011

    work page 2011

  75. [75]

    Starruß, W

    J. Starruß, W. De Back, L. Brusch, and A. Deutsch. Morpheus: a user-friendly modeling environment for multiscale and multicellular systems biology. Bioinformatics, 30(9):1331–1332, 2014

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    Strogatz

    S. Strogatz. How is cell death essential to life? Quanta Magazine, 2024

    work page 2024

  77. [77]

    M. H. Swat, G. L. Thomas, J. M. Belmonte, A. Shirinifard, D. Hmeljak, and J. A. Glazier. Multi-scale modeling of tissues using CompuCell3d. In Methods in Cell Biology, volume 110, pages 325–366. Elsevier, 2012

    work page 2012

  78. [78]

    B. E. Trump, I. K. Berezesky, S. H. Chang, and P. C. Phelps. The pathways of cell death: Oncosis, apoptosis, and necrosis. Toxicologic Pathology, 25(1):82–88, 1997

    work page 1997

  79. [79]

    F. J. Varela. Principles of biological autonomy. The MIT Press, new annotated edition edition, 2025

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    E. O. V oit. A systems-theoretical framework for health and disease: Inflammation and preconditioning from an abstract modeling point of view. Mathematical Biosciences, 217(1):11–18, 2009. 13 A PREPRINT - NOVEMBER 12, 2025

    work page 2009

Showing first 80 references.