Collective Cell Migration in Embryogenesis Follows the Laws of Wetting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective cell migration is a fundamental process during embryogenesis and its initial occurrence, called epiboly, is an excellent in vivo model to study the physical processes involved in collective cell movements that are key to understanding organ formation, cancer invasion, and wound healing. In zebrafish, epiboly starts with a cluster of cells at one pole of the spherical embryo. These cells are actively spreading in a continuous movement toward its other pole until they fully cover the yolk. Inspired by the physics of wetting, we determine the contact angle between the cells and the yolk during epiboly. By choosing a wetting approach, the relevant scale for this investigation is the tissue level, which is in contrast to other recent work. Similar to the case of a liquid drop on a surface, one observes three interfaces that carry mechanical tension. Assuming that interfacial force balance holds during the quasi-static spreading process, we employ the physics of wetting to predict the temporal change of the contact angle. Although the experimental values vary dramatically, the model allows us to rescale all measured contact-angle dynamics onto a single master curve explaining the collective cell movement. Thus, we describe the fundamental and complex developmental mechanism at the onset of embryogenesis by only three main parameters: the offset tension strength, α, that gives the strength of interfacial tension compared to other force-generating mechanisms; the tension ratio, δ, between the different interfaces; and the rate of tension variation, λ, which determines the timescale of the whole process.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".