MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783892446 · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2017.11.011

Collective Cell Migration in Embryogenesis Follows the Laws of Wetting

2018· article· en· W2783892446 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bernhard Wallmeyer, Sarah Trinschek, Sargon Yigit, Uwe Thiele, Timo Betz

Bibliographic record

VenueBiophysical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCampus FranceDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstStudienstiftung des Deutschen VolkesProvidence Health Care
KeywordsWettingContact angleEpibolyMechanicsSurface tensionCoalescence (physics)Tension (geology)Wetting transitionMaterials scienceNanotechnologyPhysicsGastrulationEmbryogenesisClassical mechanicsBiologyEmbryoComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiophysical JournalSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207