↓ Skip to main content

Vertex stability and topological transitions in vertex models of foams and epithelia

Overview of attention for article published in The European Physical Journal E, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Vertex stability and topological transitions in vertex models of foams and epithelia
Published in
The European Physical Journal E, January 2017
DOI 10.1140/epje/i2017-11489-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meryl A. Spencer, Zahera Jabeen, David K. Lubensky

Abstract

In computer simulations of dry foams and of epithelial tissues, vertex models are often used to describe the shape and motion of individual cells. Although these models have been widely adopted, relatively little is known about their basic theoretical properties. For example, while fourfold vertices in real foams are always unstable, it remains unclear whether a simplified vertex model description has the same behavior. Here, we study vertex stability and the dynamics of T1 topological transitions in vertex models. We show that, when all edges have the same tension, stationary fourfold vertices in these models do indeed always break up. In contrast, when tensions are allowed to depend on edge orientation, fourfold vertices can become stable, as is observed in some biological systems. More generally, our formulation of vertex stability leads to an improved treatment of T1 transitions in simulations and paves the way for studies of more biologically realistic models that couple topological transitions to the dynamics of regulatory proteins.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 31%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 19 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Engineering 5 8%
Mathematics 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,866,700
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from The European Physical Journal E
#317
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,890
of 420,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The European Physical Journal E
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.