Local cell coordination does not alter individual cell migration during collective migration but does impact cellular exchange events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coordinated cell re-organization is critical to ensure correct tissue morphogenesis for a number of important embryonic and tissue repair events, however the mechanisms that govern cells coordination during collective movements, particularly in situations where cells are spatially restricted by their neighbours, are not well understood. Here we assessed cell re-organization in monolayers of retinal epithelial cells (ARPE-19) to determine if cells that coordinate with their neighbours exhibit differential migration properties to non-coordinating cells and participate differently in local cell re-organization of the tissue sheet. From global tracking analysis, we determined that the movement profiles of cells were indistinguishable regardless of whether or not they were a part of multicellular streams. Using high magnification live imaging of cell membranes, we also characterized the localized geometry and organization of a monolayer (cell area, number of nearest neighbours, aspect ratio, internal cell angles) during cell re-organization in both streaming and non-streaming regions. Consistent with our global migration analysis, we observed no differences in cell sheet geometry and organization in streaming versus non-streaming regions. We did however observe that cells executed T1-like transitions to exchange position within the space-limited monolayer and that exchange events consistently involved at least one non-streaming cell. Our data suggests a model in which cell movement within the sheet is limited by neighbour exchange events and likely cells transition between streaming and non-streaming regimes to facilitate these neighbour exchange events while maintaining the integrity of the sheet.
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) | 0.000 | 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".