ArticleJournal of mathematical biology2017
Extracting cellular automaton rules from physical Langevin equation models for single and collective cell migration.
Article in Journal of mathematical biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical models of embryonic epithelial healing.PLoS computational biology · 2026Review
- The influence of cell phenotype on collective cell invasion into the extracellular matrix.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2025Article
- BIO-LGCA: A cellular automaton modelling class for analysing collective cell migration.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Modelling collective cell motion: are on- and off-lattice models equivalent?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
- NudCL2 regulates cell migration by stabilizing both myosin-9 and LIS1 with Hsp90.Cell death & disease · 2020Article
- Cellular automaton models for time-correlated random walks: derivation and analysis.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Cellular automata (CA) are discrete time, space, and state models which are extensively used for modeling biological phenomena. CA are "on-lattice" models with low computational demands. In particular, lattice-gas cellular automata (LGCA) have been introduced as models of single and collective cell migration. The interaction rule dictates the behavior of a cellular automaton model and is critical to the model's biological relevance. The LGCA model's interaction rule has been typically chosen phenomenologically. In this paper, we introduce a method to obtain lattice-gas cellular automaton interaction rules from physically-motivated "off-lattice" Langevin equation models for migrating cells. In particular, we consider Langevin equations related to single cell movement (movement of cells independent of each other) and collective cell migration (movement influenced by cell-cell interactions). As examples of collective cell migration, two different alignment mechanisms are studied: polar and nematic alignment. Both kinds of alignment have been observed in biological systems such as swarms of amoebae and myxobacteria. Polar alignment causes cells to align their velocities parallel to each other, whereas nematic alignment drives cells to align either parallel or antiparallel to each other. Under appropriate assumptions, we have derived the LGCA transition probability rule from the steady-state distribution of the off-lattice Fokker-Planck equation. Comparing alignment order parameters between the original Langevin model and the derived LGCA for both mechanisms, we found different areas of agreement in the parameter space. Finally, we discuss potential reasons for model disagreement and propose extensions to the CA rule derivation methodology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.