Differential Collective- and Single-Cell Behaviors on Silicon Micropillar Arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three-dimensional vertically aligned nano- and micropillars have emerged as promising tools for a variety of biological applications. Despite their increasing usage, the interaction mechanisms of cells with these rigid structures and their effect on single- and collective-cell behaviors are not well understood for different cell types. In the present study, we examine the response of glioma cells to micropillar arrays using a new microfabricated platform consisting of rigid silicon micropillar arrays of various shapes, sizes, and configurations fabricated on a single platform. We compare collective- and single-cell behaviors at micropillar array interfaces and show that glial cells under identical chemical conditions form distinct arrangements on arrays of different shapes and sizes. Tumor-like aggregation and branching of glial cells only occur on arrays with feature diameters greater than 2 μm, and distinct transitions are observed at interfaces between various arrays on the platform. Additionally, despite the same side-to-side spacing and gaps between micropillars, single glial cells interact with the flat silicon surface in the gap between small pillars but sit on top of larger micropillars. Furthermore, micropillars induced local changes in stress fibers and actin-rich filopodia protrusions as the cells conformed to the shape of spatial cues formed by these micropillars.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".