ReviewAPL bioengineering2020
Computational models of migration modes improve our understanding of metastasis.
Review in APL bioengineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clusters, fingers, and singles: A mechanical landscape of tumor invasion.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
- Transcriptional Heterogeneity Underlying Cancer Cell Migration Converges on Shared Regulatory Programs.Genes · 2026Article
- A multiscale theory for mesenchymal cell migration in straight or curved channel confinement.Biophysical journal · 2025Article
- Probing the protrusions: lamellipodia and filopodia in cancer invasion and beyond.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2024Review
- Adhesion tunes speed and persistence by coordinating protrusions and extracellular matrix remodeling.Developmental cell · 2023Article
- A multiscale whole-cell theory for mechanosensitive migration on viscoelastic substrates.Biophysical journal · 2023Article
- Unravelling cell migration: defining movement from the cell surface.Cell adhesion & migration · 2022Review
- Adhesion strength and contractility enable metastatic cells to become adurotactic.Cell reports · 2021Article
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
Tumor cells migrate through changing microenvironments of diseased and healthy tissue, making their migration particularly challenging to describe. To better understand this process, computational models have been developed for both the ameboid and mesenchymal modes of cell migration. Here, we review various approaches that have been used to account for the physical environment's effect on cell migration in computational models, with a focus on their application to understanding cancer metastasis and the related phenomenon of durotaxis. We then discuss how mesenchymal migration models typically simulate complex cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions, while ameboid migration models use a cell-focused approach that largely ignores ECM when not acting as a physical barrier. This approach greatly simplifies or ignores the mechanosensing ability of ameboid migrating cells and should be reevaluated in future models. We conclude by describing future model elements that have not been included to date but would enhance model accuracy.
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.