Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Rigidity and mechanical response in biological structures

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

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

Pith's one-line read One geometry draws the line between floppy and rigid in tissues

desk verdict A useful, well-written review of rigidity transitions in biomechanical networks, but the current arXiv version contains pasted unrelated text blocks and the central codimension-one universality claim is an extrapolation from central-force networks to vertex models that needs a clearer caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18432 v1 pith:MWL5LSTP submitted 2025-08-25 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Kelly Aspinwall , Tyler Hain , M. Lisa Manning This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords rigidityfluid-solidtransitionsbiomechanicalnetworkssecond-orderprestressstabilitygeometricincompatibilityvertexmodelsfiber
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review explains why many biological networks, including collagen gels, actin cytoskeletons, and sheets of epithelial cells, become rigid even when they appear to have too few connections to satisfy classical Maxwell counting. The central claim is that these underconstrained networks can become rigid through a second-order, geometry-driven mechanism: geometric incompatibility accumulates between internal constraint lengths and the network's density, and at a critical ratio the network gains a state of self-stress that stabilizes its floppy modes. For central-force spring networks, the set of critical geometries forms a manifold of codimension one, so any generic tuning of strain or internal length will eventually hit the rigidity boundary. This explains, the authors argue, why rigidity transitions are so accessible and so widely used in biology despite the apparent shortage of constraints.

What carries the argument

The central object is second-order rigidity, formalized through the rigidity matrix R, states of self-stress sigma, and the prestress matrix P_ij = sum_alpha sigma_alpha d^2 f_alpha / dx_i dx_j. A system is second-order rigid when no nontrivial linear zero mode satisfies the projected second-order condition; prestress stability, with P positive definite on the linear zero modes, is a sufficient criterion and equivalent when there is a single state of self-stress. Geometric incompatibility between an energetic length scale and an intrinsic vertex-density length scale provides the tuning parameter, and the codimension-one critical rigidity manifold in central-force networks makes generic cross

What would settle it

Simulate a disordered vertex model or deformable-particle tissue and map the floppy-rigid boundary as a function of target shape index and applied strain; if the critical configurations form isolated points or a set of codimension greater than one, generic trajectories through parameter space would miss the transition and the proposed explanation would fail. A complementary experiment: in 3D collagen networks, vary crosslink density and applied strain along random directions and test whether a sharp rigidity transition is encountered along every generic path.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion is that underconstrained biomechanical networks become rigid not by adding constraints but by tuning their geometry across a critical rigidity manifold. In the simplest example, a three-bar linkage becomes rigid when its bars are made collinear: it gains a state of self-stress, and motions that would normally be linear zero modes are stabilized at second order. The same geometric incompatibility, between an energetic length scale such as target perimeter or rest length and an intrinsic length set by vertex density, drives rigidity in fiber networks and vertex models. On the rigid side, prestress stabilizes the Hessian and elastic moduli scale with the geometric

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the codimension-one critical rigidity manifold, proven for central-force spring networks, also applies generically to all underconstrained biomechanical networks, including vertex models; the paper explicitly notes that this extension has not yet been rigorously constructed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rigidity transitions in underconstrained biological networks can be controlled by a single geometric parameter such as strain, density, or target shape index, allowing organisms to tune stiffness without rewiring connectivity.
  • Near the second-order critical point, zero modes cost energy only at fourth order, giving a vanishing shear modulus and universal scaling features across fiber networks, vertex models, and other underconstrained systems.
  • On the rigid side of the transition, prestress stabilizes the Hessian, so elastic moduli and low-frequency vibrational properties are controlled by geometric incompatibility rather than bond density.
  • Thermal fluctuations fluidize second-order rigid tissues and vertex models but stabilize central-force fiber networks, producing a finite shear modulus proportional to T^1/2 at the critical point.
  • Structurally rigid but energetically floppy states, where the shear modulus vanishes while the network remains rigid, are possible when prestress is tuned to zero, raising the question of whether biology exploits such exotic states.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the codimension-one manifold property also holds for vertex models and deformable particle models, diseases that involve aberrant tissue stiffening or fluidization could be understood as shifts in a single geometric control parameter, suggesting a common therapeutic lever.
  • The codimension-one structure suggests that active feedback loops, such as cells changing their target shape, adhesion, or rest lengths in response to stress, could robustly park a tissue near the rigidity boundary, making criticality a stable developmental attractor rather than a fine-tuned accident.
  • A testable extension is a universal collapse: plotting shear modulus versus the ratio of intrinsic to energetic length scales should give the same functional form for collagen networks, actin gels, and confluent epithelia, with only nonuniversal prefactors differing.
  • In the presence of finite activity or temperature, the critical geometry shifts; this could be checked experimentally by measuring the fluid-solid boundary of a cell monolayer under different myosin-driven contractility levels and comparing to the predicted shape-index threshold.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a review of rigidity transitions in biomechanical networks. It develops a common mathematical framework for treating cells, extracellular matrix, cytoskeletal networks, and tissues as constrained vertex-edge networks, then reviews first-order rigidity (Maxwell-Calladine counting), second-order rigidity, prestress stability, and the Hessian decomposition. The paper's central proposed mechanism is that underconstrained biological networks become rigid through geometric incompatibility: tuning a shape or length parameter crosses a codimension-one critical manifold, producing a second-order rigidity transition even when constraint counting fails. The review closes with discussions of nonlinear response, fluctuations, and open questions about developmental and evolutionary control of rigidity.

Significance. If the codimension-one critical-manifold claim could be established for the broader class of biological network models, the review would provide a genuinely unifying explanation for rigidity in fiber networks, vertex models, and tissues. The formal exposition in Sections 3 and 4.2.1 is clear and standard: the rigidity matrix, rank-nullity counting, second-order flexes, prestress stability, and the decomposition of the Hessian into Gram and prestress terms are correctly presented and effectively illustrated with the three-bar linkage. The paper also usefully distinguishes structural, prestress-stable, and energetic rigidity. Its strength is that it makes the mathematical hierarchy explicit and connects it to concrete biological examples. The main limitation is that the most novel claim—generic crossing of a codimension-one manifold—is an extrapolation beyond the regime in which it has been proven, and the paper itself acknowledges this.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and §4.3.1] The central claim that underconstrained biomechanical networks generically become rigid because tuning geometric incompatibility crosses a codimension-one critical manifold is proven only for central-force networks in squared-edge-length space (ref 48). Section 4.3 applies this conclusion to vertex models and other underconstrained networks, but §4.3.1 explicitly states: 'More work is needed to determine whether a similar critical manifold can be constructed in other second-order rigid underconstrained systems, such as vertex models.' The codimension-one property is exactly what converts a special critical configuration into a generic-crossing mechanism; if the critical set for vertex models or deformable-particle models has higher codimension or is not a manifold, then generic tuning by p0 or strain would not be guaranteed to intersect it. Since this underpins the review's universal exp
  2. [Section 1/2 (after the Introduction)] The manuscript contains large blocks of unrelated text from other sources. After the Introduction, a passage beginning 'site). Unlike networks formed...' reproduces a detailed discussion of FLNa–F-actin networks and a figure caption from Gardel et al. PNAS (2006), followed by colloid SI text ('wherec&2 compatible...', Figures S9, S10, S5) about bead simulations. These passages are not connected to the review's narrative and appear to be leftover material from another document. This is not a minor typographical issue; it prevents the manuscript from being read as a coherent review and must be removed and replaced with an appropriately integrated discussion before the paper can be evaluated for publication.
  3. [§4.3 and Eq. (21)-(22)] The paper states that at the critical point 'the prestress matrix is zero, the Hessian still has zero modes and the shear moduli vanish ... but these modes cost energy at 4th order.' This relies on Eq. (22), which is presented as a consequence of states of self-stress at zero prestress. The argument is plausible for the specific quadratic-constraint form, but the review does not address whether this energy expression remains valid for non-Hookean or geometric constraints such as area and perimeter constraints in vertex models. Because the critical-point behavior is used to infer universal rheology in Section 5.2, this gap is connected to the same central concern as the codimension-one extrapolation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2.1] Typo: 'straighforward' should be 'straightforward'; also 'non-trival' appears later in the same section.
  2. [§4.1 and §4.3] 'dilational strain' should probably be 'dilatational strain' for consistency with standard continuum-mechanics terminology.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption fragment 'C, DE, FG' appears garbled; also the Venn diagram labels in the figure are not all defined in the text.
  4. [References] The reference list contains duplicates: refs 5 and 6 are the same Angelini et al. paper; refs 90 and 91 are identical; refs 30 and 89 are the same work on universal features in vertex models. These should be consolidated.
  5. [Front matter] The manuscript still contains placeholders such as 'Xxxx. Xxx. Xxx. Xxx. YYYY' and '(please add article doi)', which need to be completed before submission.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review cites prior results (including self-authored ones) as background, and explicitly flags the one speculative extension (vertex-model critical manifold) as unproven rather than smuggling it in as a derivation.

full rationale

This is a review, not an original derivation, so the usual circularity patterns (fitted inputs called predictions, self-definitional equivalences, renaming a known result as a new unification) do not apply. The central 'key mathematical result' in Section 4.3 — that the critical rigidity manifold is co-dimension one in squared-edge-length space for central-force networks — is explicitly attributed to ref. 48, and the review does not re-derive it as if it were new. Ref. 48 is authored by two of the present authors, so the citation is a self-citation, but it is used as a citation to a specific published mathematical result, not as an unverified premise that the review treats as self-evident. The review's broader claim that 'so many underconstrained biomechanical networks are observed to be rigid' does rest on the codimension-one property, and the review itself notes in Section 4.3.1 that 'More work is needed to determine whether a similar critical manifold can be constructed in other second-order rigid underconstrained systems, such as vertex models.' This is an honest limitation statement, not a circular move: the review explicitly separates the proven central-force result from the conjectured extension to vertex models. There is no fitted parameter masquerading as a prediction, no equation that reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing argument that depends solely on an unverified self-citation while hiding that dependence. Self-citations in a review by experts in the field are normal and appropriate background citations. The only correctness concern — that the codimension-one manifold has not yet been proven for vertex models — is a scientific open question and is acknowledged by the authors, so it does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review does not introduce new free parameters or entities. It relies on prior modeling frameworks (spring networks, vertex models, particle models) and on the authors' previous mathematical results, which are cited rather than re-derived.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Biological structures can be represented as mechanical networks of vertices and constraints, with energy written as a sum of quadratic constraint functions (Eq. 5).
    Section 2 introduces this mapping for cytoskeleton, ECM, cell tissues, and condensates; it is the foundation of the entire review.
  • ad hoc to paper The codimension-one critical manifold result proven for central-force networks applies generically to other underconstrained biological networks, including vertex models.
    Section 4.3 states 'More work is needed to determine whether a similar critical manifold can be constructed in other second-order rigid underconstrained systems, such as vertex models', yet it is used to explain why 'so many underconstrained biomechanical networks are rigid'.
  • standard math For systems with a single state of self-stress, prestress stability is equivalent to second-order rigidity.
    Section 4.2.1 invokes this from Connelly and Whiteley (ref 27).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rigidity and mechanical response in biological structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MWL5LSTP

@misc{pith2026250818432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rigidity and mechanical response in biological structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MWL5LSTP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18432}
}
read the original abstract

Rigidity is an emergent property of materials - it is not a feature of individual components that comprise the structure, but instead arises from interactions between many constituent parts. Recently, it has been recognized that floppy-rigid or fluid-solid transitions are harnessed by biological systems at all scales to drive form and function. This review focuses on the different mechanisms that can drive emergent rigidity transitions in biomechanical networks, and describes how they arise in mathematical formalisms and how they are observed in practice in experiments. The goal is to aid researchers in identifying mechanisms governing rigidity in their biological systems of interest, highlight mechanical features that are universal across different systems, and help drive new scientific hypotheses for observed mechanical phenomena in biology. Looking forward, we also discuss how biological systems might tune themselves towards or away from such transitions over developmental or evolutionary timescales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18432 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. We apply a prestress, $0, to the network (Inset, single-headed filled arrow) and measure the deformation (Inset, dashed arrow) in response to an additional oscillatory stress (Inset, double-headed filled arrow). We measure the differential elastic stiffness, K&, at 0.2 Hz over a range of concentrations of actin, cA, and molar ratio of FLNa, R: cA " 36#M, R " 1!100 (open squares), cA " 48 #M, R " 1!100 (filled square… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tunable mesoscopic numerical model for bacterial biofilms

    physics.comp-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Reversible DPD–Gillespie crosslinking shows biofilm network topology is set by competition between polymer–polymer and polymer–bacteria bonds, controlled by binding energy, linker fraction, and stiffness.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abbott TG. 2008. Generalizations of Kempe’s universality theorem. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology. Accepted: 2009-01-30T16:38:56Z

    2008

  2. [2]

    Alberti S, Hyman AA. 2021. Biomolecular condensates at the nexus of cellular stress, protein aggregation disease and ageing. Nature reviews Molecular cell biology 22(3):196–213

    2021

  3. [3]

    Alshareedah I, Borcherds WM, Cohen SR, Singh A, Posey AE, et al. 2024. Sequence-specific interactions determine viscoelasticity and ageing dynamics of protein condensates. Nature Physics 20(9):1482–1491

    2024

  4. [4]

    Anderson PW. 2018. Basic notions of condensed matter physics. CRC press

    2018

  5. [5]

    Angelini TE, Hannezo E, Trepat X, Marquez M, Fredberg JJ, Weitz DA. 2011. Glass-like dynamics of col- lective cell migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(12):4714–4719

    2011

  6. [6]

    Angelini TE, Hannezo E, Trepat X, Marquez M, Fredberg JJ, Weitz DA. 2011. Glass-like dynamics of col- lective cell migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(12):4714–4719Publisher: Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2011

  7. [7]

    Angell CA. 1995. Formation of glasses from liquids and biopolymers. Science 267(5206):1924–1935

    1995

  8. [8]

    Arzash S, Gannavarapu A, MacKintosh FC. 2023. Mechanical criticality of fiber networks at a finite temper- ature. Physical Review E 108(5):054403

    2023

Show all 122 references
  1. [9]

    Arzash S, Tah I, Liu AJ, Manning ML. 2023. Tuning for fluidity using fluctuations in biological tissue models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11683

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Benayad Z, von Bulow S, Stelzl LS, Hummer G. 2020. Simulation of fus protein condensates with an adapted coarse-grained model. Journal of chemical theory and computation 17(1):525–537

    2020

  3. [11]

    Berthier L, Biroli G, Manning L, Zamponi F. 2025. Yielding and plasticity in amorphous solids. Nature Reviews Physics :1–18

    2025

  4. [12]

    Berthier L, Charbonneau P, Coslovich D, Ninarello A, Ozawa M, Yaida S. 2017. Configurational entropy measurements in extremely supercooled liquids that break the glass ceiling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(43):11356–11361

    2017

  5. [13]

    Berthier L, Flenner E, Szamel G. 2017. How active forces influence nonequilibrium glass transitions. New Journal of Physics 19(12):125006

    2017

  6. [14]

    Berthier L, Reichman DR. 2023. Modern computational studies of the glass transition. Nature Reviews Physics 5(2):102–116

    2023

  7. [15]

    Bi D, Lopez JH, Schwarz JM, Manning ML. 2014. Energy barriers and cell migration in densely packed tissues. Soft matter 10(12):1885–1890

    2014

  8. [16]

    Bi D, Lopez JH, Schwarz JM, Manning ML. 2015. A density-independent rigidity transition in biological tissues. Nature Physics 11(12):1074–1079Number: 12 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2015

  9. [17]

    Bi D, Yang X, Marchetti MC, Manning ML. 2016. Motility-Driven Glass and Jamming Transitions in Bio- logical Tissues. Physical Review X 6(2):021011Publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  10. [18]

    Bi DP, Lopez JH, Schwarz JM, Manning ML. 2015. A density-independent rigidity transition in biological tissues. Nature Physics 11(12):1074–+

    2015

  11. [19]

    Boromand A, Signoriello A, Ye F, O’Hern CS, Shattuck MD. 2018. Jamming of Deformable Polygons.Phys- ical Review Letters 121(24):248003Publisher: American Physical Society

    2018

  12. [20]

    Broedersz CP, Mao X, Lubensky TC, MacKintosh FC. 2011. Criticality and isostaticity in fibre networks. Nature Physics 7(12):983–988Number: 12 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2011

  13. [21]

    Tensegrity

    Calladine CR. 1978. Buckminster Fuller’s “Tensegrity” structures and Clerk Maxwell’s rules for the con- struction of stiff frames. International Journal of Solids and Structures 14(2):161–172

    1978

  14. [22]

    Charbonneau P, Kurchan J, Parisi G, Urbani P, Zamponi F. 2017. Glass and jamming transitions: From exact results to finite-dimensional descriptions. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 8(1):265–288

    2017

  15. [23]

    Chaudhuri O, Cooper-White J, Janmey PA, Mooney DJ, Shenoy VB. 2020. Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature 584(7822):535–546Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  16. [24]

    Claussen NH, Brauns F, Shraiman BI. 2023. A geometric tension dynamics model of epithelial convergent extension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16384

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Connelly R. 1980. The rigidity of certain cabled frameworks and the second-order rigidity of arbitrarily triangulated convex surfaces. Advances in Mathematics 37(3):272–299 www.annualreviews.org • Rigidity in biomechanical networks 19

    1980

  18. [26]

    Connelly R, Servatius H. 1994. Higher-order rigidity—What is the proper definition? Discrete & Computa- tional Geometry 11(2):193–200

    1994

  19. [27]

    Connelly R, Whiteley W. 1996. Second-Order Rigidity and Prestress Stability for Tensegrity Frameworks. SIAM J. Discret. Math

    1996

  20. [28]

    Damavandi OK, Hagh VF, Santangelo CD, Manning ML. 2021. Energetic rigidity I: A unifying theory of mechanical stability. ArXiv:2102.11310 [cond-mat, physics:physics]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Damavandi OK, Hagh VF, Santangelo CD, Manning ML. 2022. Energetic rigidity. II. Applications in ex- amples of biological and underconstrained materials. Physical Review E 105(2):025004Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  22. [30]

    Damavandi OK, Lawson-Keister E, Manning ML. 2022. Universal features of rigidity transitions in vertex models for biological tissues. Pages: 2022.06.01.494406 Section: New Results

    2022

  23. [31]

    Debenedetti P, Stillinger F. 2001. Supercooled liquids and the glass transition

    2001

  24. [32]

    Devany J, Sussman DM, Yamamoto T, Manning ML, Gardel ML. 2021. Cell cycle-dependent active stress drives epithelia remodeling. Pages: 804294 Section: New Results

    2021

  25. [33]

    Dillavou S, Stern M, Liu AJ, Durian DJ. 2022. Demonstration of Decentralized Physics-Driven Learning. Physical Review Applied 18(1):014040Publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  26. [34]

    Dix JA, Verkman A. 2008. Crowding effects on diffusion in solutions and cells. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 37(1):247–263

    2008

  27. [35]

    Durian DJ. 1995. Foam mechanics at the bubble scale. Physical review letters 75(26):4780

    1995

  28. [36]

    Farhadifar R, R ¨oper JC, Aigouy B, Eaton S, J ¨ulicher F. 2007. The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing. Current Biology 17(24):2095–2104

    2007

  29. [37]

    Fielding SM. 2014. Shear banding in soft glassy materials. Reports on Progress in Physics 77(10):102601

    2014

  30. [38]

    Fletcher DA, Mullins RD. 2010. Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton. Nature 463(7280):485–492Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2010

  31. [39]

    Galvani Cunha MA, Crocker JC, Liu AJ. 2024. Building rigid networks with prestress and selective pruning. Physical Review Research 6(4):L042020

    2024

  32. [40]

    Gardel ML, Kasza KE, Brangwynne CP, Liu J, Weitz DA. 2008. Mechanical response of cytoskeletal net- works. Methods in cell biology 89:487–519

    2008

  33. [41]

    Gardel ML, Nakamura F, Hartwig JH, Crocker JC, Stossel TP, Weitz DA. 2006. Prestressed f-actin networks cross-linked by hinged filamins replicate mechanical properties of cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(6):1762–1767

    2006

  34. [42]

    Goodrich CP, Liu AJ, Sethna JP. 2016. Scaling ansatz for the jamming transition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(35):9745–9750

    2016

  35. [43]

    Gortler SJ, Holmes-Cerfon M, Theran L. 2025. Higher order rigidity and energy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03108

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gottheil P, Lippoldt J, Grosser S, Renner F, Saibah M, et al. 2023. State of cell unjamming correlates with distant metastasis in cancer patients. Physical Review X 13(3):031003

    2023

  37. [45]

    Grigas AT, Liu Z, Logan JA, Shattuck MD, O’Hern CS. 2025. Protein folding as a jamming transition. PRX Life 3(1):013018

    2025

  38. [46]

    Grosser S, Lippoldt J, Oswald L, Merkel M, Sussman DM, et al. 2021. Cell and nucleus shape as an indicator of tissue fluidity in carcinoma. Physical Review X 11(1):011033

    2021

  39. [47]

    Hagh VF, Nagel SR, Liu AJ, Manning ML, Corwin EI. 2022. Transient learning degrees of freedom for introducing function in materials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(19):e2117622119Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2022

  40. [48]

    Hain T, Santangelo C, Manning ML. 2025. Optimizing properties on the critical rigidity manifold of under- constrained central-force networks. Physical Review E 111(1):015418Publisher: American Physical Society

    2025

  41. [49]

    Hall MS, Alisafaei F, Ban E, Feng X, Hui CY , et al. 2016. Fibrous nonlinear elasticity enables positive me- chanical feedback between cells and ecms.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113(49):14043– 14048

    2016

  42. [50]

    Head DA, Levine AJ, MacKintosh FC. 2003. Distinct regimes of elastic response and deformation modes of cross-linked cytoskeletal and semiflexible polymer networks. Physical Review E 68(6):061907Publisher: 20 Aspinwall et al. American Physical Society

    2003

  43. [51]

    Hertaeg MJ, Fielding SM, Bi D. 2024. Discontinuous shear thickening in biological tissue rheology. Physical Review X 14(1):011027

    2024

  44. [52]

    Holmes-Cerfon M, Theran L, Gortler SJ. 2021. Almost-Rigidity of Frame- works. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 74(10):2185–2247 eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/cpa.21971

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    Honda H, Tanemura M, Nagai T. 2004. A three-dimensional vertex dynamics cell model of space-filling polyhedra simulating cell behavior in a cell aggregate. Journal of Theoretical Biology 226(4):439–453

    2004

  46. [54]

    Huang J, Cochran JO, Fielding SM, Marchetti MC, Bi D. 2021. Shear-driven solidification and nonlinear elasticity in epithelial tissues. arXiv:2109.10374 [cond-mat, physics:physics, q-bio] ArXiv: 2109.10374

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Jansen KA, Licup AJ, Sharma A, Rens R, MacKintosh FC, Koenderink GH. 2018. The role of network architecture in collagen mechanics. Biophysical journal 114(11):2665–2678

    2018

  48. [56]

    Janssen LM. 2019. Active glasses. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31(50):503002

    2019

  49. [57]

    Jawerth L, Fischer-Friedrich E, Saha S, Wang J, Franzmann T, et al. 2020. Protein condensates as aging maxwell fluids. Science 370(6522):1317–1323

    2020

  50. [58]

    Kang H, Yoon YG, Thirumalai D, Hyeon C. 2015. Confinement-induced glassy dynamics in a model for chromosome organization. Physical review letters 115(19):198102

    2015

  51. [59]

    Kim S, Pochitaloff M, Stooke-Vaughan GA, Camp `as O. 2021. Embryonic tissues as active foams. Nature Physics 17(7):859–866

    2021

  52. [60]

    Koeze DJ, Tighe BP. 2018. Sticky matters: Jamming and rigid cluster statistics with attractive particle inter- actions. Physical review letters 121(18):188002

    2018

  53. [61]

    Lee CT, Merkel M. 2023. Generic elasticity of thermal, under-constrained systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07266

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Lenz M, Thoresen T, Gardel ML, Dinner AR. 2012. Contractile units in disordered actomyosin bundles arise from f-actin buckling. Physical review letters 108(23):238107

    2012

  55. [63]

    Li C, Merkel M, Sussman DM. 2025. Connecting anomalous elasticity and sub-arrhenius structural dynamics in a cell-based model. Physical Review Letters 134(4):048203

    2025

  56. [64]

    Licup A, M ¨unster S, Sharma A, Sheinman M, Jawerth L, et al. 2015. Stress controls the mechanics of collagen networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(31):9573– 9578

    2015

  57. [65]

    Lin J, Lerner E, Rosso A, Wyart M. 2014. Scaling description of the yielding transition in soft amorphous solids at zero temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(40):14382–14387

    2014

  58. [66]

    Loewe B, Chiang M, Marenduzzo D, Marchetti MC. 2020. Solid-Liquid Transition of Deformable and Over- lapping Active Particles. Physical Review Letters 125(3):038003Publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  59. [67]

    Lubensky TC, Kane CL, Mao X, Souslov A, Sun K. 2015. Phonons and elasticity in critically coordinated lattices. arXiv:1503.01324 [cond-mat] ArXiv: 1503.01324

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    MacKintosh FC, K ¨as J, Janmey PA. 1995. Elasticity of Semiflexible Biopolymer Networks.Physical Review Letters 75(24):4425–4428Publisher: American Physical Society

    1995

  61. [69]

    Mandal R, Sollich P. 2021. Shear-induced orientational ordering in an active glass former. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(39):e2101964118

    2021

  62. [70]

    Manning ML, Liu AJ. 2011. Vibrational modes identify soft spots in a sheared disordered packing. Physical Review Letters 107(10):108302

    2011

  63. [71]

    Maxwell JC. 1864. L. On the calculation of the equilibrium and stiffness of frames. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 27(182):294–299Publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/14786446408643668

    doi

  64. [72]

    McGuffee SR, Elcock AH. 2010. Diffusion, crowding & protein stability in a dynamic molecular model of the bacterial cytoplasm. PLoS computational biology 6(3):e1000694

    2010

  65. [73]

    Merkel M, Baumgarten K, Tighe BP, Manning ML. 2019. A minimal-length approach unifies rigidity in underconstrained materials. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(14):6560–6568Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2019

  66. [74]

    Merkel M, Manning ML. 2018. A geometrically controlled rigidity transition in a model for confluent 3D www.annualreviews.org • Rigidity in biomechanical networks 21 tissues. New Journal of Physics 20(2):022002Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2018

  67. [75]

    Michieletto D, Orlandini E, Marenduzzo D. 2016. Polymer model with epigenetic recoloring reveals a path- way for the de novo establishment and 3d organization of chromatin domains.Physical Review X 6(4):041047

    2016

  68. [76]

    Miroshnikova Y A, Le HQ, Schneider D, Thalheim T, R ¨ubsam M, et al. 2018. Adhesion forces and corti- cal tension couple cell proliferation and differentiation to drive epidermal stratification. Nature cell biology 20(1):69–80

    2018

  69. [77]

    Mizuno D, Tardin C, Schmidt CF, MacKintosh FC. 2007. Nonequilibrium Mechanics of Active Cytoskeletal Networks. Science 315(5810):370–373Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    2007

  70. [78]

    Mongera A, Rowghanian P, Gustafson HJ, Shelton E, Kealhofer DA, et al. 2018. A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation. Nature :1

    2018

  71. [79]

    Mongera A, Rowghanian P, Gustafson HJ, Shelton E, Kealhofer DA, et al. 2018. A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation. Nature 561(7723):401–405Number: 7723 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018

  72. [80]

    Morse PK, Roy S, Agoritsas E, Stanifer E, Corwin EI, Manning ML. 2021. A direct link between active matter and sheared granular systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(18):e2019909118

    2021

  73. [81]

    Moshe M, Bowick MJ, Marchetti MC. 2018. Geometric frustration and solid-solid transitions in model 2d tissue. Physical review letters 120(26):268105

    2018

  74. [82]

    Muiznieks LD, Keeley FW. 2013. Molecular assembly and mechanical properties of the extracellular ma- trix: A fibrous protein perspective. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Basis of Disease 1832(7):866–875

    2013

  75. [83]

    M ¨uller M, Wyart M. 2015. Marginal stability in structural, spin, and electron glasses. Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6(1):177–200

    2015

  76. [84]

    Nagai T, Honda H. 2001. A dynamic cell model for the formation of epithelial tissue.Philosophical Magazine B 81:699–719

    2001

  77. [85]

    Nandi SK, Mandal R, Bhuyan PJ, Dasgupta C, Rao M, Gov NS. 2018. A random first-order transition theory for an active glass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(30):7688–7693

    2018

  78. [86]

    Nicolas A, Ferrero EE, Martens K, Barrat JL. 2018. Deformation and flow of amorphous solids: Insights from elastoplastic models. Reviews of Modern Physics 90(4):045006Publisher: American Physical Society

    2018

  79. [87]

    Noll N, Mani M, Heemskerk I, Streichan SJ, Shraiman BI. 2017. Active Tension Network model suggests an exotic mechanical state realized in epithelial tissues. Nature Physics 13(12):1221–1226

    2017

  80. [88]

    Nonomura M. 2012. Study on multicellular systems using a phase field model. PloS one 7(4):e33501

    2012

  81. [89]

    Ojan Khatib D, Elizabeth LK, Manning ML. 2022. Universal features of rigidity transitions in vertex models for biological tissues. bioRxiv :2022.06.01.494406

    2022

  82. [90]

    Oswald L, Grosser S, Smith DM, K ¨as JA. 2017. Jamming transitions in cancer.Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50(48):483001

    2017

  83. [91]

    Oswald L, Grosser S, Smith DM, K ¨as JA. 2017. Jamming transitions in cancer.Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50(48):483001Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2017

  84. [92]

    O’hern CS, Silbert LE, Liu AJ, Nagel SR. 2003. Jamming at zero temperature and zero applied stress: The epitome of disorder. Physical Review E 68(1):011306

    2003

  85. [93]

    Parisi G, Zamponi F. 2010. Mean-field theory of hard sphere glasses and jamming.Reviews of Modern Physics 82(1):789–845

    2010

  86. [94]

    Park JA, Kim JH, Bi D, Mitchel JA, Qazvini NT, et al. 2015. Unjamming and cell shape in the asthmatic airway epithelium. Nature Materials 14(10):1040–1048Number: 10 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2015

  87. [95]

    Petridou NI, Corominas-Murtra B, Heisenberg CP, Hannezo E. 2021. Rigidity percolation uncovers a struc- tural basis for embryonic tissue phase transitions. Cell 184(7):1914–1928.e19

    2021

  88. [96]

    Popovi ´c M, Druelle V , Dye NA, J¨ulicher F, Wyart M. 2021. Inferring the flow properties of epithelial tissues from their geometry. New Journal of Physics 23(3):033004

    2021

  89. [97]

    Pritchard RH, Huang YYS, Terentjev EM. 2014. Mechanics of biological networks: from the cell cytoskele- ton to connective tissue. Soft matter 10(12):1864–1884

    2014

  90. [98]

    Pujol T, Du Roure O, Fermigier M, Heuvingh J. 2012. Impact of branching on the elasticity of actin networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(26):10364–10369 22 Aspinwall et al

    2012

  91. [99]

    Richard D, Ozawa M, Patinet S, Stanifer E, Shang B, et al. 2020. Predicting plasticity in disordered solids from structural indicators. Physical Review Materials 4(11):113609

    2020

  92. [100]

    Ronceray P, Broedersz CP, Lenz M. 2016. Fiber networks amplify active stress. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences 113(11):2827–2832

    2016

  93. [101]

    Sahu P, Kang J, Erdemci-Tandogan G, Manning ML. 2020. Linear and nonlinear mechanical responses can be quite different in models for biological tissues. Soft Matter 16(7):1850–1856

    2020

  94. [102]

    Saini K, Cho S, Dooling LJ, Discher DE. 2020. Tension in fibrils suppresses their enzymatic degradation–a molecular mechanism for ‘use it or lose it’. Matrix Biology 85:34–46

    2020

  95. [103]

    Schek HJ. 1974. The force density method for form finding and computation of general networks. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 3(1):115–134

    1974

  96. [104]

    Schenk M, Guest SD. 2014. On zero stiffness. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 228(10):1701–1714Publisher: IMECHE

    2014

  97. [105]

    Schirmacher W, Paoluzzi M, Mocanu FC, Khomenko D, Szamel G, et al. 2024. The nature of non-phononic excitations in disordered systems. Nature Communications 15(1):3107

    2024

  98. [106]

    Serwane F, Mongera A, Rowghanian P, Kealhofer DA, Lucio AA, et al. 2017. In vivo quantification of spa- tially varying mechanical properties in developing tissues. Nature Methods 14(2):181–186Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2017

  99. [107]

    Sharma A, Licup AJ, Jansen KA, Rens R, Sheinman M, et al. 2016. Strain-controlled criticality governs the nonlinear mechanics of fibre networks. Nature Physics 12(6):584–587Number: 6 Publisher: Nature Publish- ing Group

    2016

  100. [108]

    Sharma A, Licup AJ, Rens R, Vahabi M, Jansen KA, et al. 2016. Strain-driven criticality underlies nonlinear mechanics of fibrous networks. Physical Review E 94(4):042407Publisher: American Physical Society

    2016

  101. [109]

    Shen Y , Chen A, Wang W, Shen Y , Ruggeri FS, et al. 2023. The liquid-to-solid transition of fus is promoted by the condensate surface. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(33):e2301366120

    2023

  102. [110]

    Staddon MF, Cavanaugh KE, Munro EM, Gardel ML, Banerjee S. 2019. Mechanosensitive Junction Remod- eling Promotes Robust Epithelial Morphogenesis. Biophysical Journal 117(9):1739–1750

    2019

  103. [111]

    Stern M, Murugan A. 2023. Learning without neurons in physical systems. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 14(1):417–441

    2023

  104. [112]

    Treado JD, Wang D, Boromand A, Murrell MP, Shattuck MD, O’Hern CS. 2021. Bridging particle deforma- bility and collective response in soft solids. Physical Review Materials 5(5):055605

    2021

  105. [113]

    Van Mameren J, Vermeulen KC, Gittes F, Schmidt CF. 2009. Leveraging single protein polymers to measure flexural rigidity. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 113(12):3837–3844

    2009

  106. [114]

    Vermeulen MFJ, Bose A, Storm C, Ellenbroek WG. 2017. Geometry and the onset of rigidity in a disordered network. Physical Review E 96(5):053003Publisher: American Physical Society

    2017

  107. [115]

    Wang X, Merkel M, Sutter LB, Erdemci-Tandogan G, Manning ML, Kasza KE. 2020. Anisotropy links cell shapes to tissue flow during convergent extension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(24):13541–13551Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

    2020

  108. [116]

    Weaire D, Hutzler S. 2001. The physics of foams. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    2001

  109. [117]

    Widmer-Cooper A, Perry H, Harrowell P, Reichman DR. 2008. Irreversible reorganization in a supercooled liquid originates from localized soft modes. Nature Physics 4(9):711–715

    2008

  110. [118]

    Wu H, Shen Y , Sivagurunathan S, Weber MS, Adam SA, et al. 2022. Vimentin intermediate filaments and filamentous actin form unexpected interpenetrating networks that redefine the cell cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(10):e2115217119

    2022

  111. [119]

    Wyse Jackson T, Michel J, Lwin P, Fortier LA, Das M, et al. 2022. Structural origins of cartilage shear mechanics. Science Advances 8(6):eabk2805

    2022

  112. [120]

    Yamamoto T, Sussman DM, Shibata T, Manning ML. 2022. Non-monotonic fluidization generated by fluctu- ating edge tensions in confluent tissues. Soft Matter 18(11):2168–2175

    2022

  113. [121]

    Yan L, Bi D. 2019. Multicellular Rosettes Drive Fluid-solid Transition in Epithelial Tissues. Physical Review X 9(1):011029Publisher: American Physical Society

    2019

  114. [122]

    Zhang L, Mao X. 2016. Finite-temperature mechanical instability in disordered lattices. Physical Review E 93(2):022110 www.annualreviews.org • Rigidity in biomechanical networks 23

    2016

Pith tools

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