Centimeter-scale quorum sensing dictates collective survival of differentiating embryonic stem cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Cells can help each other replicate by communicating with diffusible molecules. In cell cultures, molecules may diffuse within a cell colony or between adjacent or distant colonies. Determining which cell helps which cell’s replication is challenging. We developed a systematic approach, integrating modeling and experiments, for determining the length-scales of cell-cell communication (from microns to centimeters). With this approach, we discovered that differentiating murine ES cells, scattered across centimeters on a dish, communicate over millimeters to form one macroscopic entity that survives if and only if its centimeter-scale population-density is above a threshold value. Single-cell-level measurements, transcriptomics, and modeling revealed that this “macroscopic quorum sensing” arises from differentiating ES cells secreting and sensing survival-promoting FGF4 that diffuses over millimeters and activates YAP1-induced survival mechanisms. Through the same mechanism, a lone macroscopic, but not microscopic, colony survives differentiation. Our work rigorously establishes that in vitro ES-cell differentiation relies on macroscopic cooperation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".