ArticleThe European physical journal. E, Soft matter2011
Epithelial tissue statistics: eliminating bias reveals morphological and morphogenetic features.
Article in The European physical journal. E, Soft matter, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying the relationship between cell proliferation and morphology during development of the face.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
- Mathematical modeling of evolution of cell networks in epithelial tissues.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2024Article
- Cell-Based Modeling of Tissue Developing in the Scaffold Pores of Varying Cross-Sections.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Lewis' law revisited: the role of anisotropy in size-topology correlations.New journal of physics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Geometric order in quasi-two-dimensional epithelia has been extensively researched in order to identify and classify different tissues to help our understanding of how tissues form (morphogenesis) and how their formation may be influenced (tissue regeneration). However, the significance of published data -such as the distribution of numbers of cell neighbors- has been debatable because of measurement bias. We shown that such bias can be detected and corrected without detailed knowledge of the original samples, using only the biased (measured) distributions. This is true for both of the most important sources of bias: the measurement of apparent four-fold vertices and the selective preference for measuring smaller cells introduced by selecting a finite sampling window. The resulting unbiased data allows for a meaningful comparison of all available data, from different sources, taken with different experimental resolution and methodology. Conclusive evidence is found that the apparent four-fold vertices are neither distributed randomly nor oriented randomly, revealing profound differences in topological correlation between proliferating and remodeling tissues. The method is applied to measurements of Drosophila wing tissue, where it successfully disentangles distributional moments, allowing for an assessment of their relative importance, independence, and significance in tissue identification and classification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21607834What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.