Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34014166›Full record

ArticleeLife2021

Cell-scale biophysical determinants of cell competition in epithelia.

Daniel Gradeci, Anna Bove, Giulia Vallardi, Alan R Lowe, Shiladitya Banerjee, Guillaume Charras

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cell competition driven by secreted ligands: Modeling liver metastasis of colorectal cancer.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Physical traits of supercompetitors in cell competition.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Proliferation symmetry breaking in growing tissues.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mechanical control of cell proliferation patterns in growing tissues.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  18. Cellular segregation in cocultures is driven by differential adhesion and contractility on distinct timescales.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Machine learning enhanced cell tracking.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Daniel Gradeci *Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Anna Bove *London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Giulia VallardiInstitute for Structural and Molecular Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Alan R LoweLondon Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0558-3597
Shiladitya BanerjeeDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8000-2556
Guillaume CharrasLondon Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7902-0279

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S009329/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How cells with different genetic makeups compete in tissues is an outstanding question in developmental biology and cancer research. Studies in recent years have revealed that cell competition can either be driven by short-range biochemical signalling or by long-range mechanical stresses in the tissue. To date, cell competition has generally been characterised at the population scale, leaving the single-cell-level mechanisms of competition elusive. Here, we use high time-resolution experimental data to construct a multi-scale agent-based model for epithelial cell competition and use it to gain a conceptual understanding of the cellular factors that governs competition in cell populations within tissues. We find that a key determinant of mechanical competition is the difference in homeostatic density between winners and losers, while differences in growth rates and tissue organisation do not affect competition end result. In contrast, the outcome and kinetics of biochemical competition is strongly influenced by local tissue organisation. Indeed, when loser cells are homogenously mixed with winners at the onset of competition, they are eradicated; however, when they are spatially separated, winner and loser cells coexist for long times. These findings suggest distinct biophysical origins for mechanical and biochemical modes of cell competition.

Indexed as

Cell CompetitionMechanotransduction, CellularModels, BiologicalAnimalsApoptosisBiomechanical PhenomenaCell CommunicationCell ProliferationComputer SimulationDogsEpithelial CellsGenotypeKineticsMadin Darby Canine Kidney CellsPhenotypeSingle-Cell Analysisbiophysicscell biologycell competitionMDCKnonephysics of living systemssimulation

Identifiers

PMID34014166
PMCPMC8137148

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.