Back

The fingering patterns in the epithelial layer control the gap closure rate via curvature-mediated force

Jeong, H.; Yeo, J.; Ryu, S.; Shin, J. H.

2023-03-07 biophysics
10.1101/2023.03.06.531411 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Closing gaps in cellular monolayers is a fundamental aspect of both morphogenesis and wound healing. This closure can be achieved through leader cell crawling or actomyosin-based contraction, depending on the size of the gap. Here, we focus on wounds whose closure is driven by interfacial instabilities, featuring both leader cell-driven fingers and actin-mediated contraction. Our proposed model predicts a positive correlation between the frequency of fingering and the overall speed of boundary closure. This fingering frequency is precisely regulated through the orchestration of cell density-driven pressure, cell-cell repulsions, and the initial curvature of the wound boundary. Our findings demonstrate an inverse correlation between fingering frequency and boundary curvatures, indicating a "self-control" mechanism for closure rates independent of the initial curvatures of the wound periphery. Notably, changes in curvature caused by fingering formation generate force that aids in the healing process.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Soft Matter
● 60 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 10%
10.4%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Advanced Science
○ 286 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
7.7%
Similar papers in this journal
4
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 2%
5.3%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.7%
Similar papers in this journal
6
PNAS Nexus
◐ 159 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
7
Biophysical Journal
○ 631 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 12%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 9%
3.9%
10
Physical Review Research
● 49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.4%
11
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.4%
12
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
13
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
● 235 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
14
Small
○ 78 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
15
Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics
● 36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
16
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.7%
17
ACS Nano
● 113 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
18
Cell Proliferation
○ 12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
19
Cell Reports Physical Science
○ 19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
20
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.1%
21
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
○ 233 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
22
Acta Biomaterialia
○ 92 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
23
Small Methods
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
24
Nano Letters
● 71 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
Biomaterials
○ 84 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
26
Lab on a Chip
● 96 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
27
Cell Reports
○ 1498 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.8%
28
PRX Life
● 42 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
29
APL Bioengineering
● 19 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
30
Advanced Healthcare Materials
○ 85 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.