Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29032961›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2017

Optimal Quantification of Contact Inhibition in Cell Populations.

David J Warne, Ruth E Baker, Matthew J Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

3 authors.

David J WarneSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Ruth E BakerMathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Matthew J SimpsonSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Electronic address: matthew.simpson@qut.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Contact inhibition refers to a reduction in the rate of cell migration and/or cell proliferation in regions of high cell density. Under normal conditions, contact inhibition is associated with the proper functioning tissues, whereas abnormal regulation of contact inhibition is associated with pathological conditions, such as tumor spreading. Unfortunately, standard mathematical modeling practices mask the importance of parameters that control contact inhibition through scaling arguments. Furthermore, standard experimental protocols are insufficient to quantify the effects of contact inhibition because they focus on data describing early time, low-density dynamics only. Here we use the logistic growth equation as a caricature model of contact inhibition to make recommendations as to how to best mitigate these issues. Taking a Bayesian approach, we quantify the trade off between different features of experimental design and estimates of parameter uncertainty so that we can reformulate a standard cell proliferation assay to provide estimates of both the low-density intrinsic growth rate, λ, and the carrying capacity density, K, which is a measure of contact inhibition.

Indexed as

Contact InhibitionModels, BiologicalCell MovementCell Proliferation

Identifiers

PMID29032961
PMCPMC5685786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.