Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28192427›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Comparing individual-based approaches to modelling the self-organization of multicellular tissues.

James M Osborne, Alexander G Fletcher, Joe M Pitt-Francis, Philip K Maini, David J Gavaghan

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

101 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Virtual twins and the future of human developmental biology.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Linking tissue morphology and tissue healing in a cell-fate model.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

James M OsborneSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5622-0104
Alexander G FletcherSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0525-4336
Joe M Pitt-FrancisDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5094-5403
Philip K MainiWolfson Centre for Mathematical Biology, Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0146-9164
David J GavaghanDepartment of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8311-3200

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/D020190/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coordinated behaviour of populations of cells plays a central role in tissue growth and renewal. Cells react to their microenvironment by modulating processes such as movement, growth and proliferation, and signalling. Alongside experimental studies, computational models offer a useful means by which to investigate these processes. To this end a variety of cell-based modelling approaches have been developed, ranging from lattice-based cellular automata to lattice-free models that treat cells as point-like particles or extended shapes. However, it remains unclear how these approaches compare when applied to the same biological problem, and what differences in behaviour are due to different model assumptions and abstractions. Here, we exploit the availability of an implementation of five popular cell-based modelling approaches within a consistent computational framework, Chaste (http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/chaste). This framework allows one to easily change constitutive assumptions within these models. In each case we provide full details of all technical aspects of our model implementations. We compare model implementations using four case studies, chosen to reflect the key cellular processes of proliferation, adhesion, and short- and long-range signalling. These case studies demonstrate the applicability of each model and provide a guide for model usage.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, BiologicalAnimalsCell AdhesionCell CommunicationCell MovementCell ProliferationComputer SimulationHumansSpheroids, Cellular

Identifiers

PMID28192427
PMCPMC5330541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.