The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Tissue spreading on implantable substrates is a competitive outcome of cell–cell vs. cell–substratum adhesivity
Open accessAbstract
While the interactions of cells with polymeric substrata are widely studied, the influence of cell–cell cohesivity on tissue spreading has not been rigorously investigated. Here we demonstrate that the rate of tissue spreading over a two-dimensional substratum reflects a competition or “tug-of-war” between cell–cell and cell–substratum adhesions. We have generated both a “library” of structurally related copolymeric substrata varying in their adhesivity to cells and a library of genetically engineered cell populations varying only in cohesivity. Cell–substratum adhesivity was varied through the poly(ethylene glycol) content of a series of copolymeric substrata, whereas cell–cell cohesivity was varied through the expression of the homophilic cohesion molecules N- and R-cadherin by otherwise noncohesive L929 cells. In the key experiment, multicellular aggregates containing about 600 cells were allowed to spread onto copolymeric surfaces. We compared the spreading behavior of aggregates having different levels of cell–cell cohesivity on a series of copolymeric substrata having different levels of cell–substratum adhesivity. In these experiments, cell–cell cohesivity was measured by tissue surface tensiometry, and cell–substratum adhesivity was assessed by a distractive method. Tissue spreading was assayed by confocal microscopy as the rate of cell emigration from similar-sized, fluorescence-labeled, multicellular aggregates deposited on each of the substrata. We demonstrate that either decreasing substratum adhesivity or increasing cell–cell cohesivity dramatically slowed the spreading rate of cell aggregates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cell Migration: A Physically Integrated Molecular Process
Lauffenburger, D. A., & Horwitz, A. F. (1996) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81280-5 · Cited by 3,915
Cited by
Polymeric Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering Application: A Review
Dhandayuthapani, B., Yoshida, Y., Maekawa, T., & Kumar, D. S. (2011) · International Journal of Polymer Science · doi:10.1155/2011/290602 · Cited by 1,773
Emergent patterns of growth controlled by multicellular form and mechanics
Nelson, C. M., Jean, R. P., Tan, J. L., Liu, W. F., Sniadecki, N. J., Spector, A. A., & Chen, C. S. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0502575102 · Cited by 853
A Nonapoptotic Cell Death Process, Entosis, that Occurs by Cell-in-Cell Invasion
Overholtzer, M., Mailleux, A. A., Mouneimne, G., Normand, G., Schnitt, S. J., King, R. W., Cibas, E. S., & Brugge, J. S. (2007) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.10.040 · Cited by 748
Optimization of cardiac cell seeding and distribution in 3D porous alginate scaffolds
Dar, A., Shachar, M., Leor, J., & Cohen, S. (2002) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.10372 · Cited by 384
Biological Physics of the Developing Embryo
Forgacs, G., & Newman, S. A. (2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511755576 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryan, P. L., Foty, R. A., Kohn, J., & Steinberg, M. S.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2001-03-27
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 4323-4327
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2069697346
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Tissue spreading on implantable substrates is a competitive outcome of cell–cell vs. cell–substratum adhesivity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.071615398
- The paper
- Ryan, P. L., Foty, R. A., Kohn, J., & Steinberg, M. S. (2001). Tissue spreading on implantable substrates is a competitive outcome of cell–cell vs. cell–substratum adhesivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.071615398
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.