- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Life

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Universality in the Mechanical Behavior of Vertex Models for Biological Tissues

Ojan Khatib Damavandi1,*, Sadjad Arzash1,2,*, Elizabeth Lawson-Keister1, and M. Lisa Manning1

  • *These authors contributed equally to this work.
PDF

PRX Life 3, 033001 – Published 1 July, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/9ktk-6rqc

Abstract

Simple vertex models, where the cell shape is defined as a network of edges and vertices, have made useful predictions about the collective behavior of confluent biological tissues, including rigidity transitions. Quite a few different versions of vertex models have appeared in the literature, and they propose substantial differences in how the mechanical energy depends on vertex positions, yet all seem to make correct predictions. To understand how this is possible, we search for universality in the emergent mechanical behavior—including the shear modulus defined in the limit of zero-strain rate and the viscoelastic response at finite strain rates—of six different vertex models. We identify a class of models with a well-defined shear modulus, and demonstrate that these models all exhibit a crossover from a soft or floppy regime to a stiff regime. We find that the observed cell shape index (the ratio of the cell perimeter to the square root of the cell area) is a good observable order parameter for the crossover, even though the input model parameter that controls the crossover is different in each model. We also find that the finite-strain-rate viscoelastic response of all models exhibits a universal scaling with frequency, following the Zener model in the rigid phase and Burgers model in the fluid phase. The observation that a geometric observable like cell shape governs the transition, rather than a topological observable such as coordination number, suggests that second-order rigidity may be a good framework for explaining this universality. It generates an empirical prediction that a broad class of vertex models with second-order rigidity transitions should also exhibit these universal mechanical features, and helps to explain why many different vertex models are able to robustly predict these features in experiments.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (77)

  1. T. E. Angelini, E. Hannezo, X. Trepatc, M. Marquez, J. J. Fredberg, and D. A. Weitz, Glass-like dynamics of collective cell migration, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 4714 (2011).
  2. O. Ilina, P. G. Gritsenko, S. Syga, J. Lippoldt, C. A. M. La Porta, O. Chepizhko, S. Grosser, M. Vullings, G. J. Bakker, J. Starruß et al., Cell-cell adhesion and 3D matrix confinement determine jamming transitions in breast cancer invasion, Nat. Cell Biol. 22, 1103 (2020).
  3. N. Noll, M. Mani, I. Heemskerk, S. J. Streichan, and B. I. Shraiman, Active tension network model suggests an exotic mechanical state realized in epithelial tissues, Nat. Phys. 13, 1221 (2017).
  4. A. Mongera, P. Rowghanian, H. J. Gustafson, E. Shelton, D. A. Kealhofer, E. K. Carn, F. Serwane, A. A. Lucio, J. Giammona, and O. Campàs, A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation, Nature (London) 561, 401 (2018).
  5. J. A. Park, J. H. Kim, D. Bi, J. A. Mitchel, N. T. Qazvini, K. Tantisira, C. Y. Park, M. McGill, S. H. Kim, B. Gweon et al., Unjamming and cell shape in the asthmatic airway epithelium, Nat. Mater. 14, 1040 (2015).
  6. X. Wang, M. Merkel, L. B. Sutter, G. Erdemci-Tandogan, M. L. Manning, and K. E. Kasza, Anisotropy links cell shapes to tissue flow during convergent extension, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13541 (2020).
  7. E. Lawson-Keister and M. L. Manning, Jamming and arrest of cell motion in biological tissues, Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 72, 146 (2021).
  8. N. I. Petridou, B. Corominas-Murtra, C.-P. Heisenberg, and E. Hannezo, Rigidity percolation uncovers a structural basis for embryonic tissue phase transitions, Cell 184, 1914 (2021).
  9. R. Farhadifar, J.-C. Röper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. Jülicher, The influence of cell mechanics, cell-cell interactions, and proliferation on epithelial packing, Curr. Biol. 17, 2095 (2007).
  10. D. Bi, J. H. Lopez, J. M. Schwarz, and M. L. Manning, A density-independent rigidity transition in biological tissues, Nat. Phys. 11, 1074 (2015).
  11. J. Devany, D. M. Sussman, T. Yamamoto, M. L. Manning, and M. L. Gardel, Cell cycle-dependent active stress drives epithelia remodeling, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e1917853118 (2021).
  12. N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt-Saunders, 1976).
  13. E. R. Weeks, J. C. Crocker, A. C. Levitt, A. Schofield, and D. A. Weitz, Three-dimensional direct imaging of structural relaxation near the colloidal glass transition, Science 287, 627 (2000).
  14. D. Bi, X. Yang, M. C. Marchetti, and M. L. Manning, Motility-driven glass and jamming transitions in biological tissues, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021011 (2016).
  15. M. Paoluzzi, L. Angelani, G. Gosti, M. C. Marchetti, I. Pagonabarraga, and G. Ruocco, Alignment interactions drive structural transitions in biological tissues, Phys. Rev. E 104, 044606 (2021).
  16. R. G. Larson, The Structure and Rheology of Complex Fluids, 1st ed. (Oxford University Press, New York, 1998).
  17. F. Serwane, A. Mongera, P. Rowghanian, D. A Kealhofer, A. A. Lucio, Z. M. Hockenbery, and O. Campàs, In vivo quantification of spatially varying mechanical properties in developing tissues, Nat. Methods 14, 181 (2017).
  18. S. Tong, N. K. Singh, R. Sknepnek, and A. Kosmrlj, Linear viscoelastic properties of the vertex model for epithelial tissues, PLoS Comput. Biol. 18, e1010135 (2022).
  19. G. Erdemci-Tandogan, M. J. Clark, J. D. Amack, and M. L. Manning, Tissue flow induces cell shape changes during organogenesis, Biophys. J. 115, 2259 (2018).
  20. T. Nagai and H. Honda, A dynamic cell model for the formation of epithelial tissues, Philos. Mag. B 81, 699 (2001).
  21. L. Hufnagel, A. A. Teleman, H. Rouault, S. M. Cohen, and B. I. Shraiman, On the mechanism of wing size determination in fly development, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3835 (2007).
  22. M. Merkel and M. L. Manning, A geometrically controlled rigidity transition in a model for confluent 3D tissues, New J. Phys. 20, 022002 (2018).
  23. S. Grosser, J. Lippoldt, L. Oswald, M. Merkel, D. M. Sussman, F. Renner, P. Gottheil, E. W. Morawetz, T. Fuhs, X. Xie, S. Pawlizak, A. W. Fritsch, B. Wolf, L.-C. Horn, S. Briest, B. Aktas, M. L. Manning, and J. A. Käs, Cell and nucleus shape as an indicator of tissue fluidity in carcinoma, Phys. Rev. X 11, 011033 (2021).
  24. L. Yan and D. Bi, Multicellular rosettes drive fluid-solid transition in epithelial tissues, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011029 (2019).
  25. G. Erdemci-Tandogan and M. L. Manning, Effect of cellular rearrangement time delays on the rheology of vertex models for confluent tissues, PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1009049 (2021).
  26. A. Das, S. Sastry, and D. Bi, Controlled neighbor exchanges drive glassy behavior, intermittency, and cell streaming in epithelial tissues, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041037 (2021).
  27. X. Li, A. Das, and D. Bi, Mechanical heterogeneity in tissues promotes rigidity and controls cellular invasion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 058101 (2019).
  28. S. Kim, M. Pochitaloff, G. A. Stooke-Vaughan, and O. Campas, Embryonic tissues as active foams, Nat. Phys. 17, 859 (2021).
  29. M. F. Staddon, K. E. Cavanaugh, E. M. Munro, M. L. Gardel, and S. Banerjee, Mechanosensitive junction remodeling promotes robust epithelial morphogenesis, Biophys. J. 117, 1739 (2019).
  30. O. K. Damavandi, V. F. Hagh, C. D. Santangelo, and M. L. Manning, Energetic rigidity. I. A unifying theory of mechanical stability, Phys. Rev. E 105, 025003 (2022).
  31. C. W. Macosko, Rheology: Principles, Measurements, and Applications, Advances in interfacial engineering series (VCH, New York, 1994).
  32. P. A. Janmey, P. C. Georges, and S. Hvidt, Basic Rheology for Biologists, in Methods in Cell Biology, Cell Mechanics, Vol. 83 (Academic Press, New York, 2007), pp. 1–27.
  33. S. Tong, R. Sknepnek, and A. Kosmrlj, Linear viscoelastic response of the vertex model with internal and external dissipation: Normal modes analysis, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013143 (2023).
  34. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/9ktk-6rqc for a simulation movie of oscillatory rheology in vertex models as well as parameter fitting results for the Zener and Burgers models, applied to the frequency-dependent storage (G′) and loss (G″) moduli.
  35. S. M. Fielding, P. Sollich, and M. E. Cates, Aging and rheology in soft materials, J. Rheol. 44, 323 (2000).
  36. R. Radhakrishnan and S. M. Fielding, Shear banding of soft glassy materials in large amplitude oscillatory shear, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 188001 (2016).
  37. J. D. J. Rathinaraj, K. R. Lennon, M. Gonzalez, A. Santra, J. W. Swan, and G. H. McKinley, Elastoviscoplasticity, hyperaging, and time–age-time–temperature superposition in aqueous dispersions of bentonite clay, Soft Matter 19, 7293 (2023).
  38. E. Bitzek, P. Koskinen, F. Gahler, M. Moseler, and P. Gumbsch, Structural relaxation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 170201 (2006).
  39. D. M. Sussman, cellGPU: Massively parallel simulations of dynamic vertex models, Comput. Phys. Commun. 219, 400 (2017).
  40. D. M. Sussman and M. Merkel, No unjamming transition in a Voronoi model of biological tissue, Soft Matter 14, 3397 (2018),.
  41. M. Popović, V. Druelle, N. A Dye, F. Jülicher, and M. Wyart, Inferring the flow properties of epithelial tissues from their geometry, New J. Phys. 23, 033004 (2021).
  42. C. Duclut, J. Paijmans, M. M. Inamdar, C. D. Modes, and F. Jülicher, Nonlinear rheology of cellular networks, Cells Dev. 168, 203746 (2021).
  43. M. Basan, J. Prost, J.-F. Joanny, and J. Elgeti, Dissipative particle dynamics simulations for biological tissues: Rheology and competition, Phys. Biol. 8, 026014 (2011).
  44. P. C. Sanematsu, G. Erdemci-Tandogan, H. Patel, E. M. Retzlaff, J. D. Amack, and M. L. Manning, 3D viscoelastic drag forces contribute to cell shape changes during organogenesis in the zebrafish embryo, Cell. Dev. 168, 203718 (2021).
  45. J. C. Maxwell, L. On the calculation of the equilibrium and stiffness of frames, London, Edinburgh Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci. 27, 294 (1864).
  46. M. Merkel, K. Baumgarten, B. P. Tighe, and M. L. Manning, A minimal-length approach unifies rigidity in underconstrained materials, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6560 (2019).
  47. M. Moshe, M. J. Bowick, and M. C. Marchetti, Geometric frustration and solid-solid transitions in model 2D tissue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 268105 (2018).
  48. O. K. Damavandi, V. F. Hagh, C. D. Santangelo, and M. L. Manning, Energetic rigidity. II. Applications in examples of biological and underconstrained materials, Phys. Rev. E 105, 025004 (2022).
  49. D. B. Staple, R. Farhadifar, J. C. Röper, B. Aigouy, S. Eaton, and F. Jülicher, Mechanics and remodelling of cell packings in epithelia, Eur. Phys. J. E 33, 117 (2010).
  50. E. Latorre, S. Kale, L. Casares, M. Gómez-González, M. Uroz, L. Valon, R. V. Nair, E. Garreta, N. Montserrat, A. del Campo, B. Ladoux, M. Arroyo, and X. Trepat, Active superelasticity in three-dimensional epithelia of controlled shape, Nature (London) 563, 203 (2018).
  51. S. Sadhukhan and S. K. Nandi, On the origin of universal cell shape variability in confluent epithelial monolayers, eLife 11, e76406 (2022).
  52. R. Clément, B. Dehapiot, C. Collinet, T. Lecuit, and P.-F. Lenne, Viscoelastic dissipation stabilizes cell shape changes during tissue morphogenesis, Curr. Biol. 27, 3132 (2017).
  53. S. Arzash, I. Tah, A. J. Liu, and M. L. Manning, Rigidity of epithelial tissues as a double optimization problem, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 013157 (2025).
  54. N. W. Tschoegl, The Phenomenological Theory of Linear Viscoelastic Behavior (Springer, Berlin, 1989).
  55. S. Arzash, J. L. Shivers, A. J. Licup, A. Sharma, and F. C. MacKintosh, Stress-stabilized subisostatic fiber networks in a ropelike limit, Phys. Rev. E 99, 042412 (2019).
  56. M. F. J. Vermeulen, A. Bose, C. Storm, and W. G. Ellenbroek, Geometry and the onset of rigidity in a disordered network, Phys. Rev. E 96, 053003 (2017).
  57. J. L. Shivers, S. Arzash, A. Sharma, and F. C. MacKintosh, Scaling theory for mechanical critical behavior in fiber networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 188003 (2019).
  58. G. Salbreux, G. Charras, and E. Paluch, Actin cortex mechanics and cellular morphogenesis, Trends Cell Biol. 22, 536 (2012).
  59. C. Bertet, L. Sulak, and T. Lecuit, Myosin-dependent junction remodelling controls planar cell intercalation and axis elongation, Nature (London) 429, 667 (2004).
  60. N. H. Claussen, F. Brauns, and B. I. Shraiman, A geometric-tension-dynamics model of epithelial convergent extension, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2321928121 (2024).
  61. J. Huang, J. O. Cochran, S. M. Fielding, M. C. Marchetti, and D. Bi, Shear-driven solidification and nonlinear elasticity in epithelial tissues, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 178001 (2022).
  62. S. Arzash, J. L. Shivers, and F. C. MacKintosh, Finite size effects in critical fiber networks, Soft Matter 16, 6784 (2020).
  63. C.-T. Lee and M. Merkel, Stiffening of under-constrained spring networks under isotropic strain, Soft Matter 18, 5410 (2022).
  64. M. Ramaswamy, I. Griniasty, D. B. Liarte, A. Shetty, E. Katifori, E. Del Gado, J. P. Sethna, B. Chakraborty, and I. Cohen, Universal scaling of shear thickening transitions, J. Rheol. 67, 1189 (2023).
  65. R. Connelly, The rigidity of certain cabled frameworks and the second-order rigidity of arbitrarily triangulated convex surfaces, Adv. Math. 37, 272 (1980).
  66. R. Connelly and W. Whiteley, Second-order rigidity and prestress stability for tensegrity frameworks, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 9, 453 (1996).
  67. M. L. Manning, Rigidity in mechanical biological networks, Curr. Biol. 34, R1024 (2024).
  68. T. Hain, C. Santangelo, and M. L. Manning, Optimizing properties on the critical rigidity manifold of underconstrained central-force networks, Phys. Rev. E 111, 015418 (2025).
  69. F. Graner and J. A. Glazier, Simulation of biological cell sorting using a two-dimensional extended Potts model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2013 (1992).
  70. M. Chiang and D. Marenduzzo, Glass transitions in the cellular Potts model, Europhys. Lett. 116, 28009 (2016).
  71. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.qbzkh18w9.
  72. K. K. Chiou, L. Hufnagel, and B. I. Shraiman, Mechanical stress inference for two dimensional cell arrays, PLoS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002512 (2012).
  73. A. Nestor-Bergmann, G. Goddard, S. Woolner, and O. E. Jensen, Relating cell shape and mechanical stress in a spatially disordered epithelium using a vertex-based model, Math. Med. Biol. 35, i1 (2018).
  74. X. Yang, D. Bi, M. Czajkowski, M. Merkel, M. L. Manning, and M. C. Marchetti, Correlating cell shape and cellular stress in motile confluent tissues, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12663 (2017).
  75. R. H. Ewoldt, A. E. Hosoi, and G. H. McKinley, New measures for characterizing nonlinear viscoelasticity in large amplitude oscillatory shear, J. Rheol. 52, 1427 (2008).
  76. J. Colombo and E. Del Gado, Stress localization, stiffening, and yielding in a model colloidal gel, J. Rheol. 58, 1089 (2014).
  77. G. J. Donley, M. Bantawa, and E. Del Gado, Time-resolved microstructural changes in large amplitude oscillatory shear of model single and double component soft gels, J. Rheol. 66, 1287 (2022).

Outline

Information

PRX Life 3, 033001– Published 1 July, 2025
  • Received 17 July 2024
  • Accepted 6 June 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation