MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2269305777 · doi:10.1038/srep11745

Multiple scale model for cell migration in monolayers: Elastic mismatch between cells enhances motility

2015· article· en· W2269305777 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoit Palmieri, Yony Bresler, Denis Wirtz, Martin Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesCompute Canada
KeywordsMotilityCancer cellElasticity (physics)CellMonolayerBiophysicsChemistryMaterials scienceCell biologyCancerBiologyNanotechnologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a multiscale model for monolayer of motile cells that comprise normal and cancer cells. In the model, the two types of cells have identical properties except for their elasticity; cancer cells are softer and normal cells are stiffer. The goal is to isolate the role of elasticity mismatch on the migration potential of cancer cells in the absence of other contributions that are present in real cells. The methodology is based on a phase-field description where each cell is modeled as a highly-deformable self-propelled droplet. We simulated two types of nearly confluent monolayers. One contains a single cancer cell in a layer of normal cells and the other contains normal cells only. The simulation results demonstrate that elasticity mismatch alone is sufficient to increase the motility of the cancer cell significantly. Further, the trajectory of the cancer cell is decorated by several speed "bursts" where the cancer cell quickly relaxes from a largely deformed shape and consequently increases its translational motion. The increased motility and the amplitude and frequency of the bursts are in qualitative agreement with recent experiments.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207