Cancer cells optimize elasticity for efficient migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer progression is associated with alternations in the cytoskeletal architecture of cells and, consequently, their mechanical properties such as stiffness. Changing the mechanics of cells enables cancer cells to migrate and invade to distant organ sites. This process, metastasis, is the main reason for cancer-related mortality. Cell migration is an essential step toward increasing the invasive potential of cells. Although many studies have shown that the migratory speed and the invasion of cells can be inversely correlated to the stiffness of cells, some other investigations indicate exactly opposing results. In the current work, based on the strain energy stored in cells due to the contractile forces, we defined an energy-dependent term, migratory index, to approximate how changes in the mechanical properties of cells influence cell migration required for cancer progression. Cell migration involves both cell deformation and force transmission within cells. The effects of these two parameters can be represented equally by the migratory index. Our mechanical modeling and computational study show that cells depending on their shape, size, and other physical parameters, have a maximum migratory index taking place at a specific range of cell bulk stiffness, indicating the most favorable conditions for invasive mobility. This approximate model can be used to explain why the stiffness of cells varies during cancer progression. We believe that the stiffness of invasive cells depending on the stiffness of their non-invasive counterparts is either decreased or increased to reach the critical condition in which the mobility potential of cells is approximated to be maximum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.013 |
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".