Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Stability Analysis of a Bulk-Surface Reaction Model for Membrane-Protein Clustering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a sufficiently high rate of ligand recruitment by the largest membrane oligomers destabilizes uniform protein distributions and drives a single-patch steady state on the cell surface.

desk verdict Solid modeling contribution with a clean N=2 theorem, but the single-patch threshold claim is numerical and overstated in the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05214 v1 pith:UBYKMTFK submitted 2019-08-14 q-bio.SC math.AP

L.M. Stolerman , M. Getz , S.G. Llewellyn Smith , M. Holst , P. Rangamani This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.SCmath.AP MSC 35B3635K5792C1592C3735B35
keywords plasmamembranemembrane-proteinclusteringbulk-surfacereaction-diffusiondiffusion-driveninstabilitypositivefeedbacksingle-patchsteadystatemassconservationoligomerization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper builds a bulk-surface reaction-diffusion model in which a ligand diffuses through the cytosol, binds to the plasma membrane as a monomer, oligomerizes through mass-action steps, and is recruited back by the largest oligomer in a positive feedback loop. Its central claim is a threshold phenomenon: when the recruitment rate is low, the uniform surface distribution is stable, but when it is high enough the uniform state loses stability and the system converges to a single-patch, spatially heterogeneous steady state on the membrane. This matters because membrane-protein clustering is implicated in adhesion, signaling, and amyloid aggregation, and the model shows that clustering can arise without pre-patterns or cooperative binding, from diffusion, oligomerization, and feedback alone. For $N=2$, the low-recruitment stability statement is proved as a theorem, while the high-recruitment instability and the $N=3$ behavior are demonstrated numerically.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the recruitment flux $f(u,a_1,a_N)=(k_0+k_b a_N)u-k_d a_1$, a linear positive feedback that makes the largest oligomer $a_N$ act as a catalyst for new monomer entry. The analytical workhorse is the reduced surface-only system obtained by taking the cytosolic diffusion $D_u\to\infty$, in which the bulk concentration becomes the nonlocal functional $\mathcal{U}[a_1,\ldots,a_N](t)=|\Omega|^{-1}\left(M_0-\sum_{j=1}^N j\int_\Gamma a_j\,ds\right)$; this enforces total mass conservation and lets the linearized problem be diagonalized into eigenmodes of the Laplace-Beltrami operator, turning pattern formation into a dispersion-relation calculation.

What would settle it

Track the membrane distribution of monomers and the largest oligomer while increasing the recruitment rate $k_b$, for example by raising cytosolic ligand or stabilizing the largest oligomers; the model predicts a transition from a uniform surface to a single dominant patch, so observing persistent uniformity or multiple stable patches at high recruitment would contradict it. A model-side check is to compute the dispersion relation $h(l)$ for $N=2$ at parameters above the bound in Theorem 3.1 and show that $h(l)\le 0$ for every eigenmode.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors study a closed cell in which a bulk species $u$ diffuses and exchanges with membrane species $a_1,\dots,a_N$ through the flux $f(u,a_1,a_N)=(k_0+k_b a_N)u-k_d a_1$, so the largest oligomer feeds back on its own production. After reducing the system to the membrane using a nonlocal mass-conservation constraint, they linearize homogeneous steady states against eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator and analyze the dispersion relation $h(l)$. The steady-state polynomial has a coefficient $k_0|\Gamma|N-M_0 k_b$ that determines whether the homogeneous state is unique or bistable. The main result is a threshold in the recruitment rate $k_b$: for $N=2$, Theorem 3.1 gives an explicit small-$k_b$ bound under which the unique steady state is stable against both homogeneous and non-homogeneous perturbations, while numerical simulations show that larger $k_b$ turns the uniform state unstable and produces a single high-concentration patch, with analogous behavior for $N=3$.

Load-bearing premise

The threshold result rests on the assumption that the biggest cluster can pull in new building blocks in exact proportion to its own concentration, with no saturation or crowding limit; if real recruitment saturates, the single-patch outcome is not assured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the recruitment rate is small enough, or zero, the uniform state is stable and no spatial pattern forms.
  • Above the threshold, the model produces a single dominant patch rather than multiple coexisting clusters, with larger oligomers concentrated in a tighter and higher peak than monomers.
  • The lowest non-trivial membrane eigenmode dominates the instability, and higher modes have shrinking unstable regions, which is consistent with the single-patch selection.
  • The dimensional area of the patch grows roughly linearly with cell radius while its percentage of the membrane area falls like $1/R$, and larger $N$ gives larger patches.
  • Pattern formation does not require a Hill-type cooperative term: mass-action oligomerization, linear feedback, and mass conservation are enough.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear recruitment term were replaced by a saturating response, the single-patch regime would likely persist but the threshold would shift and might gain an upper bound; this extension is left open in the paper.
  • The single-patch outcome resembles winner-takes-all competition for a conserved molecular pool, suggesting that cells could toggle between uniform and patchy states by tuning recruitment rather than changing membrane geometry.
  • An experimental system that raises the effective recruitment rate, for example by stabilizing the largest oligomers or raising cytosolic ligand, should be pushed from a uniform membrane into one dominant aggregate; this is a testable prediction the paper does not itself demonstrate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a bulk-surface reaction-diffusion model for membrane-protein clustering, in which cytosolic ligands bind to membrane receptors, form oligomers via Smoluchowski-type mass-action kinetics, and the largest oligomers recruit further cytosolic ligands through a linear feedback term in the boundary flux. The authors non-dimensionalize the model, prove mass conservation, reduce it formally to a surface-only system with a nonlocal functional when cytosolic diffusion is infinite, and derive a linear stability framework. For N=2 they prove a sufficient condition (Theorem 3.1) guaranteeing a unique homogeneous steady state and no diffusion-driven instability when the feedback strength k_b is sufficiently small. The central claim of the paper, stated in the abstract, is a threshold phenomenon: sufficiently high k_b destabilizes the uniform state and drives the formation of a single-patch spatially heterogeneous steady state. This claim is supported mainly by numerical simulations for N=2 and N=3 at a small number of parameter points, using one random perturbation per point, and the authors explicitly state in Section 5 that they lack a formal explanation for the emergence and robustness of the single-patch state.

Significance. If the threshold-to-single-patch claim were fully established, the model would provide a plausible mechanism for spontaneous membrane-protein clustering driven by oligomerization feedback, with relevance to cell polarization and amyloid aggregation. The paper has genuine strengths: the bulk-surface formulation is novel in combining Smoluchowski aggregation with a geometric PDE setup; the mass-conservation proof (Proposition 2.1) is clean; and Theorem 3.1 is a rigorous, if specialized, small-feedback stability guarantee for N=2. The linear stability framework for the reduced nonlocal system is clearly presented and the authors are candid about the limitations of the single-patch evidence. However, the headline result is currently a simulation-based observation for a few selected parameter points with single-seed initial conditions, and the paper itself admits that no formal explanation is available; as a consequence, the central claim is not yet secured at the level suggested by the abstract.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, §5] The central claim that high k_b drives the formation of a single-patch steady state is not established by the evidence presented. Linear stability analysis (Section 3.2.2) can only show that the homogeneous state is unstable for certain eigenmodes; it says nothing about which nonhomogeneous state is selected. The numerical evidence consists of one random perturbation (epsilon = 10^-10) for each of four parameter points in Regions 0-3 for N=2 (Fig. 5), one analogous N=3 case (Fig. S4 and Fig. S5), and time traces from a single simulation each (Fig. 6). Since the system is mass-conserving and bistable in Regions 2 and 3, multiple stable patterned states could coexist, and a single small random perturbation cannot rule out multi-patch or other attractors. The Discussion (Section 5) explicitly states "we lack a formal explanation for the emergence and robustness of the single patch steady-state" and labels the existence of the single patch a hypothesis. Because the abstract presents the single-patch threshold as the main result, this gap is load-bearing rather than cosmetic. The authors should either add systematic multi-seed simulations with varied perturbation amplitudes, numerical continuation/bifurcation analysis of nonhomogeneous steady states, or a reduced 1D analysis that can rigorously address the selection of a single patch, or revise the abstract and central claims to describe the result as numerical evidence for a conjectured threshold.
  2. [§2.5 and §4.3] The numerical simulations approximate the reduced nonlocal surface system (2.23)-(2.24), which is derived in the limit D_u -> infinity, by solving the bulk-surface system (2.16)-(2.21) with the finite value \tilde D = 10^8. The error between \tilde D = 10^8 and the asymptotic limit \tilde D = infinity is not quantified, and no convergence study in \tilde D is reported. Since the single-patch pattern is obtained from this approximate numerical system, it is important to demonstrate that the observed pattern is not an artifact of the finite diffusion value and that the selected steady state is stable with respect to increasing \tilde D. Without such a check, the connection between the numerical pattern and the reduced model, which is the object of the analytical stability study, remains incomplete.
  3. [§3.4] The existence and uniqueness theory for the model is not established. Section 3.4 states that the results of Sharma and Morgan, which apply to a similar system, "appear to be too restrictive to cover the nonlinearities arising here" and that the authors "expect" similar results can be shown. Since the main biological claim is supported by numerical simulations of the PDE system, a rigorous assurance that solutions exist, are unique, and depend continuously on data for the parameter regimes studied would materially strengthen the paper. At minimum, the authors should clearly mark that the well-posedness of (2.2)-(2.7) is an open question, rather than presenting the numerical solutions as unproblematic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2.4)] Equation (2.4) reads d_t a_2 = D_2 Delta a_1 + ...; the Laplacian should act on a_2, not a_1. The corresponding dimensionless equation (2.19) is correct, so this appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states "for the eigenmodel = 1"; this should read "for the eigenmode index l = 1".
  3. [§4.2] The sentence "the instabilities emerge in the bistability region (Regions 2 and 3) and also in the single steady-state regions Regions ( 0 and 1)" is garbled; Regions 0 and 1 are the single-steady-state regions, so the parenthetical should be removed or rewritten for clarity.
  4. [§5] The text contains "has been ofter related to a single-patch steady-state pattern"; "ofter" should be "often".
  5. [Reproducibility] No code or data are provided in the manuscript or supplementary material. Given that the central claim relies on numerical simulations, a code/data supplement would significantly aid reproducibility and allow independent checking of the reported single-seed observations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the stability analysis is self-contained, and the single-patch outcome is explicitly labeled a hypothesis in the Discussion.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: the model (2.1)–(2.21) is constructed from mass-action kinetics and the stated feedback term, and the linear stability analysis (Section 3), including Theorem 3.1 and the dispersion relation (3.8), is computed directly from those equations. No parameter is fitted to data and later renamed as a prediction. The single-patch spatially heterogeneous steady-state is obtained by numerically integrating the same model (Section 4.3), and the Discussion explicitly limits the claim: 'we lack a formal explanation for the emergence and robustness of the single patch steady-state' and calls its existence a 'hypothesis.' Thus the paper does not present the simulation as an independent verification or as a consequence derived solely from the linear theory. The single self-citation to Getz et al. [59] is used only as a comparative remark about a Region-1-like instability regime in the Wave-Pinning model and is not load-bearing for the present results. The definition of single-patch area via I_ε_j(t) in (4.2) and its reliance on visual inspection is a measurement convention, not a circular derivation. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from prior work by the same authors and no ansatz smuggled in via citation; the reduction when D_u→∞ follows the external approach of Ratz and Roger [33,34]. Overall, the analysis reduces to its own model equations, but that is normal internal consistency, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on arbitrarily chosen kinetic parameters and two strong modeling assumptions: linear unsaturated feedback and instantaneous mixing of the bulk. No new physical entities are introduced; the oligomers A1...AN are standard biochemical components, and the nonlocal functional is a mathematical reduction of the bulk variable.

free parameters (7)
  • kb = not fitted; varied in simulations (1, 2.5, 3.5, 8, 10)
    Central feedback strength controlling the threshold phenomenon; values are chosen by hand, not measured.
  • k0 = not fitted; e.g., 0.015, 0.0161, 0.025, 0.06
    Basal binding rate used to construct bistability and instability diagrams.
  • gamma = not fitted; typically 10, 100, or 1000
    Dimensionless reaction-to-diffusion ratio governing pattern onset; chosen by hand.
  • d2, d3 = not fitted; 0.1 or 1
    Diffusion ratios of oligomers relative to monomer; differential diffusion drives Turing instabilities.
  • Oligomerization rates km, kg, k2, k3 = not fitted; often 1, with km=1 and k2=0.4409 in one case
    Mass-action oligomerization and unbinding rates; arbitrary choices in simulations.
  • M0 and characteristic concentrations U, A = not fitted; set through initial conditions and non-dimensionalization
    Total mass and concentration scales determine steady-state roots and patch amplitudes.
  • Cell radius R = varied from 0.5 to 5
    Controls the single-patch area scaling result in Section 4.5.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bulk ligand u diffuses passively and interacts with the membrane only through the flux boundary condition (2.7); no cytoplasmic reactions occur.
    This restricts the model to surface oligomerization and bulk transport, stated in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption Oligomerization proceeds only by monomer attachment, with size-independent rates and no cooperativity.
    Stated in Section 2.1 and used throughout the governing equations (2.2)-(2.6).
  • domain assumption Cytosolic diffusion is effectively infinite, so the bulk concentration u is spatially uniform and represented by the nonlocal functional in Eq. (2.22).
    This reduction in Section 2.5 is the basis for all subsequent stability analysis.
  • domain assumption The feedback flux is exactly linear in u and aN with no saturation or steric effects.
    Eq. (2.1) defines f = (k0 + kb aN) u - kd a1; the linearity is flagged in the Discussion as an assumption.
  • standard math Solutions are sufficiently smooth and satisfy Green's theorem for the Laplace-Beltrami operator.
    Used in the mass conservation proof in Section 2.3 and in the eigenfunction expansion of Section 3.2.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability Analysis of a Bulk-Surface Reaction Model for Membrane-Protein Clustering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UBYKMTFK

@misc{pith2026190805214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability Analysis of a Bulk-Surface Reaction Model for Membrane-Protein Clustering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UBYKMTFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05214}
}
read the original abstract

Protein aggregation on the plasma membrane (PM) is of critical importance to many cellular processes such as cell adhesion, endocytosis, fibrillar conformation, and vesicle transport. Lateral diffusion of protein aggregates or clusters on the surface of the PM plays an important role in governing their heterogeneous surface distribution. However, the stability behavior of the surface distribution of protein aggregates remains poorly understood. Therefore, understanding the spatial patterns that can emerge on the PM solely through protein-protein interaction, lateral diffusion, and feedback is an important step towards a complete description of the mechanisms behind protein clustering on the cell surface. In this work, we investigate the pattern formation of a reaction-diffusion model that describes the dynamics of a system of ligand-receptor complexes. The purely diffusive ligand in the cytosol can bind receptors in the PM, and the resultant ligand-receptor complexes not only diffuse laterally but can also form clusters resulting in different oligomers. Finally, the largest oligomers recruit ligands from the cytosol in a positive feedback. From a methodological viewpoint, we provide theoretical estimates for diffusion-driven instabilities of the protein aggregates based on the Turing mechanism. Our main result is a threshold phenomenon, in which a sufficiently high recruitment of ligands promotes the input of new monomeric components and consequently drives the formation of a single-patch spatially heterogeneous steady-state.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. E. Darnell, H. F. Lodish, D. Baltimore, et al.Molecular cell biology, volume 2. Scientific American Books New York, 1990

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Stillwell

    W. Stillwell. An introduction to biological membranes: from bilayers to rafts. Newnes, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Guidotti

    G. Guidotti. The composition of biological membranes. Archives of internal medicine, 129(2):194– 201, 1972

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    P. L. Yeagle. The structure of biological membranes. CRC press, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Albersheim and A

    P. Albersheim and A. J. Anderson-Prouty. Carbohydrates, proteins, cell surfaces, and the biochem- istry of pathogenesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 26(1):31–52, 1975

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    M. K. Jain, R. C. Wagner, et al. Introduction to biological membranes. 1988

    work page 1988

  7. [7]

    Hashimoto and A

    K. Hashimoto and A. R. Panchenko. Mechanisms of protein oligomerization, the critical role of inser- tions and deletions in maintaining different oligomeric states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(47):20352–20357, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Johannes, W

    L. Johannes, W. Pezeshkian, J. H. Ipsen, and J. C. Shillcock. Clustering on Membranes: Fluctuations and More. Trends in Cell Biology, 28(5):405–415, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    Ispolatov

    I. Ispolatov. Binding properties and evolution of homodimers in protein-protein interaction networks. Nucleic Acids Research, 33(11):3629–3635, 2005

    2005

  2. [10]

    Porat-Shliom, O

    N. Porat-Shliom, O. Milberg, A. Masedunskas, and R. Weigert. Multiple roles for the actin cytoskele- ton during regulated exocytosis. Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS , 70(12):2099–2121, 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    J. H. Lorent, B. Diaz-Rohrer, X. Lin, K. Spring, A. A. Gorfe, K. R. Levental, and I. Levental. Struc- tural determinants and functional consequences of protein affinity for membrane rafts. Nature Com- munications, 8(1):1219, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    Y . Mori, A. Jilkine, and L. Edelstein-Keshet. Wave-pinning and cell polarity from a bistable reaction- diffusion system. Biophysical journal, 94(9):3684–3697, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Q. Z. Lao, E. Kobrinsky, Z. Liu, and N. M. Soldatov. Oligomerization of Cavβ subunits is an essential correlate of Ca2+ channel activity.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 24(12):5013–5023, 2010

    2010

  6. [14]

    M. A. Lemmon and J. Schlessinger. Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell, 141(7), 2010. 26 L.M. STOLERMAN, M. GETZ, S.G. LLEWELLYN SMITH, M. HOLST, AND P. RANGAMANI

    2010

  7. [15]

    Sleno and T

    R. Sleno and T. E. Hbert. Chapter Five - The Dynamics of GPCR Oligomerization and Their Func- tional Consequences. In A. K. Shukla, editor, International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology , volume 338 of G Protein-Coupled Receptors: Emerging Paradigms in Activation, Signali...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Baisamy, N

    L. Baisamy, N. Jurisch, and D. Diviani. Leucine Zipper-mediated Homo-oligomerization Regulates the Rho-GEF Activity of AKAP-Lbc.Journal of Biological Chemistry, 280(15):15405–15412, 2005

    2005

  9. [17]

    C. P. Chen, S. Posy, A. Ben-Shaul, L. Shapiro, and B. H. Honig. Specificity of cell-cell adhesion by classical cadherins: Critical role for low-affinity dimerization through -strand swapping.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(24):8531–8536, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Askarova, X

    S. Askarova, X. Yang, and J. C.-M. Lee. Impacts of Membrane Biophysics in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Amyloid Precursor Protein Processing toβ Peptide-Induced Membrane Changes.International Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 2011, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Sarkar, A

    B. Sarkar, A. Das, and S. Maiti. Thermodynamically stable amyloid- β monomers have much lower membrane affinity than the small oligomers. Frontiers in Physiology, 4:84, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Zhang, J.-M

    Y .-J. Zhang, J.-M. Shi, C.-J. Bai, H. Wang, H.-Y . Li, Y . Wu, and S.-R. Ji. Intra-membrane Oligomer- ization and Extra-membrane Oligomerization of Amyloid- β Peptide Are Competing Processes as a Result of Distinct Patterns of Motif Interplay. Journal of Biological Chemistry ...

    2012

  13. [21]

    Andreasen, N

    M. Andreasen, N. Lorenzen, and D. Otzen. Interactions between misfolded protein oligomers and membranes: A central topic in neurodegenerative diseases? Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Biomembranes, 1848(9):1897–1907, 2015

    1907

  14. [22]

    Habchi, S

    J. Habchi, S. Chia, C. Galvagnion, T. C. T. Michaels, M. M. J. Bellaiche, F. S. Ruggeri, M. San- guanini, I. Idini, J. R. Kumita, E. Sparr, S. Linse, C. M. Dobson, T. P. J. Knowles, and M. Vendr- uscolo. Cholesterol catalyses β42 aggregation through a heterogeneous nucleation ...

    2018

  15. [23]

    D. Choquet. Fast AMPAR trafficking for a high-frequency synaptic transmission. European Journal of Neuroscience, 32(2):250–260, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Q. Gan, C. L. Salussolia, and L. P. Wollmuth. Assembly of AMPA receptors: mechanisms and regu- lation. The Journal of Physiology, 593(Pt 1):39–48, 2015

    2015

  17. [25]

    Padmanabhan, R

    P. Padmanabhan, R. Martinez-Mairmol, D. Xia, J. Gotz, and F. A. Meunier. Frontotemporal dementia mutant Tau promotes aberrant Fyn nanoclustering in hippocampal dendritic spines. eLife, 8:e45040, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Rangamani, A

    P. Rangamani, A. Lipshtat, E. U. Azeloglu, R. C. Calizo, M. Hu, S. Ghassemi, J. Hone, S. Scarlata, S. R. Neves, and R. Iyengar. Decoding information in cell shape. Cell, 154(6):1356–1369, 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    E. Frey, J. Halatek, S. Kretschmer, and P. Schwille. Protein pattern formation. InPhysics of Biological Membranes, pages 229–260. Springer, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    J. Denk, S. Kretschmer, J. Halatek, C. Hartl, P. Schwille, and E. Frey. Mine conformational switching confers robustness on self-organized min protein patterns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(18):4553–4558, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Cusseddu, L

    D. Cusseddu, L. Edelstein-Keshet, J. A. Mackenzie, S. Portet, and A. Madzvamuse. A coupled bulk- surface model for cell polarisation. Journal of theoretical biology, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Giese, M

    W. Giese, M. Eigel, S. Westerheide, C. Engwer, and E. Klipp. Influence of cell shape, inhomo- geneities and diffusion barriers in cell polarization models. Physical biology, 12(6):066014, 2015

    2015

  23. [31]

    Diegmiller, H

    R. Diegmiller, H. Montanelli, C. B. Muratov, and S. Y . Shvartsman. Spherical caps in cell polariza- tion. Biophysical journal, 115(1):26–30, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Madzvamuse, A

    A. Madzvamuse, A. H. W. Chung, and C. Venkataraman. Stability analysis and simulations of cou- pled bulk-surface reaction-diffusion systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 471(2175):20140546–20140546, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    R ¨atz and M

    A. R ¨atz and M. R ¨oger. Turing instabilities in a mathematical model for signaling networks. Journal of mathematical biology, 65(6-7):1215–1244, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    A. R ¨atz. Turing-type instabilities in bulk–surface reaction–diffusion systems. Journal of Computa- tional and Applied Mathematics, 289:142–152, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    M. v. Smoluchowski. Versuch einer mathematischen theorie der koagulationskinetik kolloider l¨osun- gen. Zeitschrift f¨ur physikalische Chemie, 92(1):129–168, 1918

    1918

  28. [36]

    R. L. Drake. A general mathematical survey of the coagulation equation. Topics in current aerosol research (Part 2), 3(Part 2):201–376, 1972. STABILITY ANALYSIS OF A MEMBRANE-PROTEIN CLUSTERING MODEL 27

    1972

  29. [37]

    Arosio, S

    P. Arosio, S. Rima, M. Lattuada, and M. Morbidelli. Population balance modeling of antibodies aggregation kinetics. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 116(24):7066–7075, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Zidar, D

    M. Zidar, D. Kuzman, and M. Ravnik. Characterisation of protein aggregation with the smoluchowski coagulation approach for use in biopharmaceuticals. Soft matter, 14(29):6001–6012, 2018

    2018

  31. [39]

    Achdou, B

    Y . Achdou, B. Franchi, N. Marcello, and M. C. Tesi. A qualitative model for aggregation and diffusion ofβ-amyloid in alzheimers disease. Journal of mathematical biology, 67(6-7):1369–1392, 2013

    2013

  32. [40]

    Franchi and S

    B. Franchi and S. Lorenzani. From a microscopic to a macroscopic model for alzheimer disease: two- scale homogenization of the smoluchowski equation in perforated domains. Journal of Nonlinear Science, 26(3):717–753, 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Bertsch, B

    M. Bertsch, B. Franchi, N. Marcello, M. C. Tesi, and A. Tosin. Alzheimer’s disease: a mathemat- ical model for onset and progression. Mathematical medicine and biology: a journal of the IMA , 34(2):193–214, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Bentz and S

    J. Bentz and S. Nir. Mass action kinetics and equilibria of reversible aggregation. Journal of the Chemical Society, Faraday Transactions 1: Physical Chemistry in Condensed Phases , 77(6):1249– 1275, 1981

    1981

  35. [43]

    Changeux, J

    J.-P. Changeux, J. Thi ´ery, Y . Tung, and C. Kittel. On the cooperativity of biological membranes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 57(2):335, 1967

    1967

  36. [44]

    van Oosterom

    A. van Oosterom. The surface laplacian operator of the potentials on a bounded volume conductor has a unique inverse. IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering, 53(7):1449–1450, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    Postma, L

    M. Postma, L. Bosgraaf, H. M. Loovers, and P. J. Van Haastert. Chemotaxis: signalling modules join hands at front and tail. EMBO reports, 5(1):35–40, 2004

    2004

  38. [46]

    A. M. Turing. The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 237(641):37–72, 1952

    1952

  39. [47]

    S. H. Strogatz. Nonlinear Dynamics And Chaos: With Applications To Physics, Biology, Chemistry And Engineering. Westview Press, first edition edition edition, 1994

    1994

  40. [48]

    Sharma and J

    V . Sharma and J. Morgan. Global existence of solutions to reaction-diffusion systems with mass trans- port type boundary conditions. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 48(6):4202–4240, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    J. Jerome. Approximation of Nonlinear Evolution Systems. Academic Press, New York, NY , 1983

    1983

  42. [50]

    Smith and N

    S. Smith and N. Dalchau. Model reduction permits turing instability analysis of arbitrary reaction- diffusion models. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 15, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    J. D. Murray. Mathematical Biology. Springer, 2nd corr edition, 1993

    1993

  44. [52]

    Gierer and H

    A. Gierer and H. Meinhardt. A theory of biological pattern formation.Kybernetik, 12(1):30–39, 1972

    1972

  45. [53]

    Y . Mori, A. Jilkine, and L. Edelstein-Keshet. Wave-pinning and cell polarity from a bistable reaction- diffusion system. Biophysical Journal, 94(9):3684–3697, 2008

    2008

  46. [54]

    Y . Mori, A. Jilkine, and L. Edelstein-Keshet. Asymptotic and Bifurcation Analysis of Wave- Pinning in a Reaction-Diffusion Model for Cell Polarization.SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 71(4):1401–1427, 2011

    2011

  47. [55]

    Rappel and L

    W.-J. Rappel and L. Edelstein-Keshet. Mechanisms of cell polarization. Current opinion in systems biology, 3:43–53, 2017

    2017

  48. [56]

    Semplice, A

    M. Semplice, A. Veglio, G. Naldi, G. Serini, and A. Gamba. A bistable model of cell polarity. PloS one, 7(2):e30977, 2012

    2012

  49. [57]

    C. Beta, G. Amselem, and E. Bodenschatz. A bistable mechanism for directional sensing. New Jour- nal of Physics, 10(8):083015, 2008

    2008

  50. [58]

    Alonso and M

    S. Alonso and M. Baer. Phase separation and bistability in a three-dimensional model for protein domain formation at biomembranes. Physical biology, 7(4):046012, 2010

    2010

  51. [59]

    M. C. Getz, J. A. Nirody, and P. Rangamani. Stability analysis in spatial modeling of cell signaling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine, 10(1):e1395, 2018

    2018

  52. [60]

    R ¨atz and M

    A. R ¨atz and M. R¨oger. Symmetry breaking in a bulk–surface reaction–diffusion model for signalling networks. Nonlinearity, 27(8):1805, 2014

    2014

  53. [61]

    A. B. Goryachev and A. V . Pokhilko. Dynamics of cdc42 network embodies a turing-type mechanism of yeast cell polarity. FEBS letters, 582(10):1437–1443, 2008

    2008

  54. [62]

    Manor and N

    A. Manor and N. M. Shnerb. Dynamical failure of turing patterns. EPL (Europhysics Letters) , 74(5):837, 2006

    2006

  55. [63]

    Chen and J

    Y . Chen and J. Buceta. A non-linear analysis of turing pattern formation. PLOS ONE, 14(8):1–9, 2019. 28 L.M. STOLERMAN, M. GETZ, S.G. LLEWELLYN SMITH, M. HOLST, AND P. RANGAMANI

    2019

  56. [64]

    Parameter Regions of Bistability and Linear Instability ( N = 2 )

    E LECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL FIGURE S1. Parameter Regions of Bistability and Linear Instability ( N = 2 ). We scan the reaction rates for different parameter values. (A) regions where the well- mixed system exhibits bistability. (B) The correspondent Regions 0, 1, 2, and...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.