ReviewProgress in biophysics and molecular biology2018
Mathematical models of dorsal closure.
Review in Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, 2018. 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.
- A minimal vertex model explains how the amnioserosa avoids fluidization duringProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Superresolution microscopy reveals actomyosin dynamics in medioapical arrays.Molecular biology of the cell · 2022Article
- A Comparative Study of the Role of Formins inCells · 2022Article
- Dynamics of PAR Proteins Explain the Oscillation and Ratcheting Mechanisms in Dorsal Closure.Biophysical journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dorsal closure is a model cell sheet movement that occurs midway through Drosophila embryogenesis. A dorsal hole, filled with amnioserosa, closes through the dorsalward elongation of lateral epidermal cell sheets. Closure requires contributions from 5 distinct tissues and well over 140 genes (see Mortensen et al., 2018, reviewed in Kiehart et al., 2017 and Hayes and Solon, 2017). In spite of this biological complexity, the movements (kinematics) of closure are geometrically simple at tissue, and in certain cases, at cellular scales. This simplicity has made closure the target of a number of mathematical models that seek to explain and quantify the processes that underlie closure's kinematics. The first (purely kinematic) modeling approach recapitulated well the time-evolving geometry of closure even though the underlying physical principles were not known. Almost all subsequent models delve into the forces of closure (i.e. the dynamics of closure). Models assign elastic, contractile and viscous forces which impact tissue and/or cell mechanics. They write rate equations which relate the forces to one another and to other variables, including those which represent geometric, kinematic, and or signaling characteristics. The time evolution of the variables is obtained by computing the solution of the model's system of equations, with optimized model parameters. The basis of the equations range from the phenomenological to biophysical first principles. We review various models and present their contribution to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms and biophysics of closure. Models of closure will contribute to our understanding of similar movements that characterize vertebrate morphogenesis.
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.