ArticlePLoS computational biology2025
Falsifying computational models of endothelial cell network formation through quantitative comparison with in vitro models.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Topological model selection: a case-study in tumour-induced angiogenesis.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Pro-Angiogenic Bioactive Molecules in Vascular Morphogenesis: Integrating Endothelial Cell Dynamics.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During angiogenesis, endothelial cells expand the vasculature by migrating from existing blood vessels, proliferating and collectively organizing into new capillaries. In vitro and in vivo experimentation is instrumental for identifying the molecular players and cell behaviour that regulate angiogenesis. Alongside experimental work, computational and mathematical models of endothelial cell network formation have helped to analyse if the current molecular and cellular understanding of endothelial cell behaviour is sufficient to explain the formation of endothelial cell networks. As input, the models take (a subset of) the current knowledge or hypotheses of single cell behaviour and capture it into a dynamical, mathematical description. As output, they predict the multicellular behaviour following from the actions of many individual cells, i.e., formation of a vascular-like network. Paradoxically, computational modelling based on different assumptions, i.e., completely different, sometimes non-intersecting sets of observed single cell behaviour, can reproduce the same angiogenesis-like multicellular behaviour, making it practically impossible to decide which, if any, of these models is correct. Here we present dynamical analyses of time-lapses of in vitro endothelial cell network formation experiments and compare these with dynamic analyses of three mathematical models: (1) the cell elongation model; (2) the contact-inhibited chemotaxis model; and (3) the mechanical cell-cell communication model. We extract a variety of dynamical characteristics of endothelial cell network formation using a custom time-lapse video analysis pipeline in ImageJ. We compare the dynamical network characteristics of the in vitro experiments to those of the cellular networks produced by the computational models. We test the response of the in silico dynamical cell network characteristics to changes in cell density and make related changes in the in vitro experiments. Of the three computational models that we have considered, the cell elongation model best captures the remodelling phase of in vitro endothelial cell network formation. Furthermore, in the in vitro model, the final size and number of lacunae in the network are independent of the initial cell density. This observation is also reproduced in the cell elongation model, but not in the other two models that we have considered. Altogether, we present an approach to model validation based on comparisons of time-resolved data and variations of model conditions.
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.