Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29529095›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Distinguishing cell shoving mechanisms.

Pingyu Nan, Darragh M Walsh, Kerry A Landman, Barry D Hughes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Pingyu NanSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Darragh M WalshSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4903-1046
Kerry A LandmanSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Barry D HughesSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivated by in vitro time-lapse images of ovarian cancer spheroids inducing mesothelial cell clearance, the traditional agent-based model of cell migration, based on simple volume exclusion, was extended to include the possibility that a cell seeking to move into an occupied location may push the resident cell, and any cells neighbouring it, out of the way to occupy that location. In traditional discrete models of motile cells with volume exclusion such a move would be aborted. We introduce a new shoving mechanism which allows cells to choose the direction to shove cells that expends the least amount of shoving effort (to account for the likely resistance of cells to being pushed). We call this motility rule 'smart shoving'. We examine whether agent-based simulations of different shoving mechanisms can be distinguished on the basis of single realisations and averages over many realisations. We emphasise the difficulty in distinguishing cell mechanisms from cellular automata simulations based on snap-shots of cell distributions, site-occupancy averages and the evolution of the number of cells of each species averaged over many realisations. This difficulty suggests the need for higher resolution cell tracking.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsCell MovementComputer SimulationNeoplasm Invasiveness

Identifiers

PMID29529095
PMCPMC5847236

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.