ReviewBiophysical journal2025
Empirical methods that provide physical descriptions of dynamic cellular processes.
Review in Biophysical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polarization as a Process: The Potential of Process Ontology for Understanding Cellular Symmetry Breaking.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Reconstructing Actin Dynamics of the Leading Edge from Observational Data.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Developmental biophysics.Biophysical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We review empirical methods that can be used to provide physical descriptions of dynamic cellular processes during development and disease. Our focus will be nonspatial descriptions and the inference of underlying interaction networks including cell-state lineages, gene regulatory networks, and molecular interactions in living cells. Our overarching questions are: How much can we learn from just observing? To what degree is it possible to infer causal and/or precise mathematical relationships from observations? We restrict ourselves to data sets arising from only observations, or experiments in which minimal perturbations have taken place to facilitate observation of the systems as they naturally occur. We discuss analysis perspectives in order from those offering the least descriptive power but requiring the least assumptions such as statistical associations. We end with those that are most descriptive, but require stricter assumptions and more previous knowledge of the systems such as causal inference and dynamical systems approaches. We hope to provide and encourage the use of a wide array of options for quantitative cell biologists to learn as much as possible from their observations at all stages of understanding of their system of interest. Finally, we provide our own recipe of how to empirically determine quantitative relationships and growth laws from live-cell microscopy data, the resultant predictions of which can then be verified with perturbation experiments. We also include an extended supplement that describes further inference algorithms and theory for the interested reader.
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.