\externaldocument

[supp-]SI.tex

Proliferation-driven mechanical feedback regulates cell dynamics in growing tissues

Sumit Sinha1, Xin Li2, Abdul N Malmi-Kakkada3, and D. Thirumalai1,2 1Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 2Department of Chemistry, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA. 3Department of Physics and Biophysics, Augusta University, Augusta, GA 30912, USA.
(May 3, 2024)
Abstract

Local stresses in a tissue, a collective property, regulate cell division and apoptosis. In turn, cell growth and division induce active stresses in the tissue. As a consequence, there is a feedback between cell growth and local stresses. However, how the cell dynamics depend on local stress-dependent cell division and the feedback strength is not fully understood. Here, we probe the consequences of stress-mediated growth and cell division on cell dynamics using agent-based simulations of a two-dimensional growing tissue. We discover a rich dynamical behavior of individual cells, ranging from jamming (mean square displacement, Δ(t)tαsimilar-toΔ𝑡superscript𝑡𝛼\Delta(t)\sim t^{\alpha}roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with α𝛼\alphaitalic_α less than unity), to hyperdiffusion (α>2𝛼2\alpha>2italic_α > 2) depending on cell division rate and the strength of the mechanical feedback. Strikingly, Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ) is determined by the tissue growth law, which quantifies cell proliferation (number of cells N(t)𝑁𝑡N(t)italic_N ( italic_t ) as a function of time). The growth law (N(t)tλsimilar-to𝑁𝑡superscript𝑡𝜆N(t)\sim t^{\lambda}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at long times) is regulated by the critical pressure that controls the strength of the mechanical feedback and the ratio between cell division-apoptosis rates. We show that λαsimilar-to𝜆𝛼\lambda\sim\alphaitalic_λ ∼ italic_α, which implies that higher growth rate leads to a greater degree of cell migration. The variations in cell motility are linked to the emergence of highly persistent forces extending over several cell cycle times. Our predictions are testable using cell-tracking imaging techniques.

I Introduction

Cell growth, proliferation, and apoptosis are ubiquitous in biology, and play a crucial role in embryogenesis, tumorigenesis, and wound healing barres1992cell ; lecuit2007orchestrating . The breakdown of strict control between cell division and apoptosis rates could lead to fatal diseases like cancer weinberg2013biology . In cancer metastasis, the cells develop migratory phenotype and invade the surrounding tissues and organs kumar2009mechanics . Therefore, to understand the role of cell division and apoptosis numerous experiments have been performed both in two and three dimensions, which provide the time traces of cells puliafito2012collective ; valencia2015collective ; Han20NatPhys ; Kim20BBRC . The cell trajectories could be used to calculate dynamical properties of cells sinha2020self that may be quantitatively compared with experiments Valencia15 .

An interplay between cell division, apoptosis, and biomechanical feedback determines cell proliferation and the associated dynamics in an evolving tissue. For instance, a growing tissue exhibits a morphological transition, characterized by contrasting collective cell dynamics in the pre-and post-transition phases puliafito2012collective . Cells in the pre-transition phase exhibit fluid-like behavior whereas those in the post-transition phase are more solid-like puliafito2012collective . The morphological transition, resulting in the contrasting dynamics, was attributed to the microenvironment-dependent growth and proliferation of cells shraiman2005mechanical ; puliafito2012collective . The growth of cells in tissue depends on the local stresses, which in turn depend on the local growth rate. In other words, there is a feedback between local stress and cell growth, as was pointed out in a prescient study nearly two decades ago shraiman2005mechanical . In addition to fluid and solid-like behavior, the dynamics could also show glassy behavior in confluent czajkowski2019glassy and non-confluent tissues malmi2018cell . How the mechanical feedback and cell division affects the observed dramatic variations in collective cell dynamics as the tissue grows is largely unknown.

Previous studies that considered cell growth and division on the cell collective dynamics assumed that the birth rate of cells depends on its coordination number matoz2017cell . However, recent experiments report that mere contact between cells may not be sufficient for inhibiting mitosis in cells puliafito2012collective . Here, using an agent-based model introduced previously drasdo2005single ; schaller2005multicellular ; malmi2018cell ; malmi2022adhesion ; sinha2020spatially in which the growth of a cell depends on the local pressure, we establish that the dynamics of cells is linked to the tissue growth law. We show that tissue growth is controlled by two parameters-(a) the critical pressure (pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) and (b) the birth rate of cells (kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT), which are intrinsic properties of individual cells. The pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT value determines the mechanical feedback strength Gniewek19PRL .

The central results of this work are: (a) Depending on the values of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, cells exhibit subdiffusive (the mean-squared displacement, Δ(t)tα,α1formulae-sequenceproportional-toΔ𝑡superscript𝑡𝛼𝛼1\Delta(t)\propto t^{\alpha},\alpha\leq 1roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∝ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_α ≤ 1), superdiffusive (1<α21𝛼21<\alpha\leq 21 < italic_α ≤ 2) or even hyperdiffusive (α>2𝛼2\alpha>2italic_α > 2) dynamics. On increasing the value of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the cells transition from sub-diffusive to hyperdiffusive dynamics. Surprisingly, on decreasing kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the cells switch from sub to super-diffusive or super to hyper-diffusive dynamics. (b) The tissue growth law exhibits a power increase in time (t)t)italic_t ), N(t)tλproportional-to𝑁𝑡superscript𝑡𝜆N(t)\propto t^{\lambda}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∝ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where N𝑁Nitalic_N is the number of cells. Strikingly, the global growth law is a predictor of the single-cell dynamics. As λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ increases, so does α𝛼\alphaitalic_α with αλsimilar-to𝛼𝜆\alpha\sim\lambdaitalic_α ∼ italic_λ. (c) The emergence of persistent forces due to cell division that extends over several cell cycle times is the principal reason for the anomalous (super or hyper-diffusive) cell dynamics. Our work provides a unifying framework for understanding origins of differing dynamical regimes (sub-diffusive czajkowski2019glassy , diffusive matoz2017cell and super-diffusive malmi2018cell ) in the collective movement of cells driven by mechanical feedback arising from apoptosis and division.

II Methods

We briefly explain the off-lattice agent-based computational model used to simulate the spatio-temporal dynamics of a two-dimensional (2D) growing tissue. The computational model is adopted from previous studies drasdo2005single ; schaller2005multicellular ; malmi2018cell ; malmi2022adhesion ; sinha2020spatially ; sinha2020self ; sinha2022mechanical ; nerger20243d . The cells are represented as interacting deformable disks with radius depending on local rules, which assume that cells grow stochastically, and divide upon reaching a critical mitotic size (Rmsubscript𝑅𝑚R_{m}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). The interaction between cells is the sum of elastic and adhesive forces. We also assume that the cells are moving in an overdamped environment in which the inertia is negligible and viscous forces are large compared to environmental fluctuations.

Forces: The elastic (repulsive) force between two disks of radii Risubscript𝑅𝑖R_{i}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is modeled as,

Fijel(t)=hij3/2(t)34(1νi2Ei+1νj2Ej)1Ri(t)+1Rj(t),superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑗𝑒𝑙𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗32𝑡341superscriptsubscript𝜈𝑖2subscript𝐸𝑖1superscriptsubscript𝜈𝑗2subscript𝐸𝑗1subscript𝑅𝑖𝑡1subscript𝑅𝑗𝑡F_{ij}^{el}(t)=\frac{h_{ij}^{3/2}(t)}{\frac{3}{4}(\frac{1-\nu_{i}^{2}}{E_{i}}+% \frac{1-\nu_{j}^{2}}{E_{j}})\sqrt{\frac{1}{R_{i}(t)}+\frac{1}{R_{j}(t)}}},italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) = divide start_ARG italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG start_ARG divide start_ARG 3 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG ( divide start_ARG 1 - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 - italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) square-root start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG end_ARG end_ARG , (1)

where Eisubscript𝐸𝑖E_{i}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and νisubscript𝜈𝑖\nu_{i}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, respectively, are the elastic modulus and Poisson ratio of cell i𝑖iitalic_i. The overlap between the disks, if they interpenetrate without deformation, is hijsubscript𝑖𝑗h_{ij}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which is defined as max[0,Ri+Rj|rirj|]max0subscript𝑅𝑖subscript𝑅𝑗subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑟𝑗\mathrm{max}[0,R_{i}+R_{j}-|\vec{r}_{i}-\vec{r}_{j}|]roman_max [ 0 , italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - | over→ start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - over→ start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | ] with |rirj|subscript𝑟𝑖subscript𝑟𝑗|\vec{r}_{i}-\vec{r}_{j}|| over→ start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - over→ start_ARG italic_r end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | being the center-to-center distance between the two disks.

Cell adhesion, mediated by receptors on the cell surface, enables the cells to stick together. For simplicity, we assume that the receptor and ligand molecules are evenly distributed on the cell surface. Consequently, the magnitude of the attractive adhesive force, Fijadsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑑F_{ij}^{ad}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, between two cells i𝑖iitalic_i and j𝑗jitalic_j scale as a function of their contact line segment, Lijsubscript𝐿𝑖𝑗L_{ij}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Kee** the 3D model as a guide malmi2018cell , we calculate Fijadsuperscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑑F_{ij}^{ad}italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT using,

Fijad=Lijfad12(cireccjlig+cjreccilig),superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑑subscript𝐿𝑖𝑗superscript𝑓𝑎𝑑12superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑗𝑙𝑖𝑔superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑗𝑟𝑒𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑔F_{ij}^{ad}=L_{ij}f^{ad}\frac{1}{2}(c_{i}^{rec}c_{j}^{lig}+c_{j}^{rec}c_{i}^{% lig}),italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r italic_e italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l italic_i italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r italic_e italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l italic_i italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , (2)

where the cirecsuperscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐c_{i}^{rec}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r italic_e italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (ciligsuperscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑔c_{i}^{lig}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l italic_i italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) is the receptor (ligand) concentration (assumed to be normalized to the maximum receptor or ligand concentration so that 0cirec,cilig1formulae-sequence0superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐superscriptsubscript𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑔10\leq c_{i}^{rec},c_{i}^{lig}\leq 10 ≤ italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r italic_e italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l italic_i italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ 1). The coupling constant fadsuperscript𝑓𝑎𝑑f^{ad}italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT allows us to rescale the adhesion force to account for the variabilities in the maximum densities of the receptor and ligand concentrations. We calculate the contact length, Lijsubscript𝐿𝑖𝑗L_{ij}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, using the length of contact between two intersecting circles, Lij=(|4rij2Ri2(rij2Rj2+Ri2)2|)rijsubscript𝐿𝑖𝑗4superscriptsubscript𝑟𝑖𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑖2superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑟𝑖𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑗2superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑖22subscript𝑟𝑖𝑗L_{ij}=\frac{\sqrt{(|4r_{ij}^{2}R_{i}^{2}-(r_{ij}^{2}-R_{j}^{2}+R_{i}^{2})^{2}% |)}}{r_{ij}}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG square-root start_ARG ( | 4 italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ( italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | ) end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. Here, rijsubscript𝑟𝑖𝑗r_{ij}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the distance between cells i𝑖iitalic_i and j𝑗jitalic_j. As before, Risubscript𝑅𝑖R_{i}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and Rjsubscript𝑅𝑗R_{j}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT denote the radius of cell i𝑖iitalic_i and j𝑗jitalic_j. In the present case, the strength of repulsive interactions is very large compared to attractive forces which can be seen in Figure 1a.

The the sum of the repulsive and adhesive forces in Eqs.(1) and (2) point along the unit vector 𝐧ijsubscript𝐧𝑖𝑗{\bf n}_{ij}bold_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from the center of cell j𝑗jitalic_j to the center of cell i𝑖iitalic_i. The total force on the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cell is given by the sum over its nearest neighbors (NN(i)𝑁𝑁𝑖NN(i)italic_N italic_N ( italic_i )),

𝐅i=ΣjϵNN(i)(FijelFijad)𝐧ij.subscript𝐅𝑖subscriptΣ𝑗italic-ϵ𝑁𝑁𝑖superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑗𝑒𝑙superscriptsubscript𝐹𝑖𝑗𝑎𝑑subscript𝐧𝑖𝑗{\bf F}_{i}=\Sigma_{j\epsilon NN(i)}(F_{ij}^{el}-F_{ij}^{ad}){\bf n}_{ij}.bold_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_ϵ italic_N italic_N ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e italic_l end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) bold_n start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (3)

The nearest neighbors satisfy the condition Ri+Rj|𝐫i𝐫j|>0subscript𝑅𝑖subscript𝑅𝑗subscript𝐫𝑖subscript𝐫𝑗0R_{i}+R_{j}-|{\bf r}_{i}-{\bf r}_{j}|~{}>~{}0italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - | bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | > 0.

Equation of Motion: We used overdamped dynamics of the motion of the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cell. The equation of motion is,

𝐫˙i=𝐅iγi.subscript˙𝐫𝑖subscript𝐅𝑖subscript𝛾𝑖\dot{{\bf r}}_{i}=\frac{{\bf F}_{i}}{\gamma_{i}}.over˙ start_ARG bold_r end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG bold_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG . (4)

Here, γisubscript𝛾𝑖\gamma_{i}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the friction coefficient of the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cell. We assume γisubscript𝛾𝑖\gamma_{i}italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to be equal to cRi(t)𝑐subscript𝑅𝑖𝑡cR_{i}(t)italic_c italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ), where c𝑐citalic_c is a constant. Note, we neglect temperature effects because the drag forces are high matoz2017cell compared to environmental fluctuations.

Cell growth, division, and apoptosis: In the model, cells are either dormant (D𝐷Ditalic_D) or in the growth (G𝐺Gitalic_G) phase depending on the magnitude of the local pressure of the cell (see Figure 1b for a schematic). Using Irving-Kirkwood’s definition, we calculate the pressure (pisubscript𝑝𝑖p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) on the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cell due to contact with its neighbors yang2014aggregation using,

pi=12ΣjϵNN(i)𝐅ij𝐝𝐫ijAi,subscript𝑝𝑖12subscriptΣ𝑗italic-ϵ𝑁𝑁𝑖subscript𝐅𝑖𝑗subscript𝐝𝐫𝑖𝑗subscript𝐴𝑖p_{i}=\frac{1}{2}\Sigma_{j\epsilon NN(i)}\frac{{\bf F}_{ij}\cdot{\bf dr}_{ij}}% {A_{i}},italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG roman_Σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_ϵ italic_N italic_N ( italic_i ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT divide start_ARG bold_F start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⋅ bold_dr start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , (5)

where Aisubscript𝐴𝑖A_{i}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is local area of influence, equal to θπRi2𝜃𝜋superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑖2\theta\pi R_{i}^{2}italic_θ italic_π italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. We used θ=1.5𝜃1.5\theta=1.5italic_θ = 1.5, in our simulations. If the local pressure on the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cell, pisubscript𝑝𝑖p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, exceeds a critical value (pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) the cell ceases to grow and enters the dormant phase. Note that the cell can switch to the growth phase if pipc<1subscript𝑝𝑖subscript𝑝𝑐1\frac{p_{i}}{p_{c}}<1divide start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG < 1 at a later time. The critical pressure, pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, serves as a mechanical feedback shraiman2005mechanical . The local pressure, pisubscript𝑝𝑖p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, can easily exceed pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if it is small. In this case, most cells would be dormant for a long time. In the opposite limit, pcpimuch-greater-thansubscript𝑝𝑐subscript𝑝𝑖p_{c}\gg p_{i}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≫ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, it is unlikely that the cells would reach the dormant phase. This would result in cell proliferation. Thus, pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the strength of the mechanical feedback. A previous study used pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to control cell growth in confined spaces in a different context Gniewek19PRL . It was shown there is a growth-driven jamming transition, controlled by the strength (1pcproportional-toabsent1subscript𝑝𝑐\propto\frac{1}{p_{c}}∝ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) of the mechanical feedback. They did not consider cell dynamics, which is the focus of our investigation.

For growing cells, we assume that the area increases at a constant rate rAsubscript𝑟𝐴r_{A}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as the cell cycle progresses. The cell radius is updated from a Gaussian distribution with the mean rate R˙=(2πR)1rA˙𝑅superscript2𝜋𝑅1subscript𝑟𝐴\dot{R}=(2\pi R)^{-1}r_{A}over˙ start_ARG italic_R end_ARG = ( 2 italic_π italic_R ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Over the cell cycle time τ𝜏\tauitalic_τ, rAsubscript𝑟𝐴r_{A}italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is taken to be,

rA=π(Rm)22τ,subscript𝑟𝐴𝜋superscriptsubscript𝑅𝑚22𝜏r_{A}=\frac{\pi(R_{m})^{2}}{2\tau},italic_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG italic_π ( italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_τ end_ARG , (6)

where Rmsubscript𝑅𝑚R_{m}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the mitotic radius. The cell cycle time is related to the growth rate (kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) by τ=ln2kb𝜏𝑙𝑛2subscript𝑘𝑏\tau=\frac{ln~{}2}{k_{b}}italic_τ = divide start_ARG italic_l italic_n 2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. A cell divides once it grows to the fixed mitotic radius (Rmsubscript𝑅𝑚R_{m}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). To ensure the total area of a cell is conserved upon cell division, we use Rd=Rm21/2subscript𝑅𝑑subscript𝑅𝑚superscript212R_{d}=R_{m}2^{-1/2}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as the radius of the daughter cells. The mother and daughter cells are placed at a center-to-center distance, d=2Rm(121/2)𝑑2subscript𝑅𝑚1superscript212d=2R_{m}(1-2^{-1/2})italic_d = 2 italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - 2 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) upon cell division. The direction of the new cell location is chosen randomly from a uniform distribution on the unit circle. One source of stochasticity in the cell movement is the random choice for the mitotic direction. The cells can also undergo apoptosis at rate kasubscript𝑘𝑎k_{a}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In all the simulations, we vary kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT but the apoptosis rate (kasubscript𝑘𝑎k_{a}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) is fixed to 106s1superscript106superscript𝑠110^{-6}s^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The values of the parameters used in the simulations are given in Table 1.

We initiated the simulations by placing 100 cells on a 2D plane whose coordinates are chosen from a normal distribution with zero mean, and standard deviation 25μm25𝜇𝑚25~{}\mu m25 italic_μ italic_m. All the parameters except pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are fixed. All the simulations are terminated when the scaled time t=(kbka)t3.74superscript𝑡subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎𝑡similar-to3.74t^{*}=(k_{b}-k_{a})t\sim 3.74italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_t ∼ 3.74. A representative snapshot of the growing tissue is shown in Figure 1c.

Table I: The parameters used in the simulations.


Parameters Values References
Timestep (ΔtΔ𝑡\Delta troman_Δ italic_t) 10ss\mathrm{s}roman_s This paper
Critical Radius for Division (Rmsubscript𝑅𝑚R_{m}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) 5 μm𝜇m\mathrm{\mu m}italic_μ roman_m  schaller2005multicellular ; malmi2018cell
Friction coefficient (γiRisubscript𝛾𝑖subscript𝑅𝑖\frac{\gamma_{i}}{R_{i}}divide start_ARG italic_γ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) 0.0942 kg/(μms)kg𝜇ms\mathrm{kg/(\mu m~{}s)}roman_kg / ( italic_μ roman_m roman_s ) This paper
Cell Cycle Time (τminsubscript𝜏𝑚𝑖𝑛\tau_{min}italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m italic_i italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) 54000 ss\mathrm{s}roman_s  freyer1986regulation ; casciari1992variations ; landry1981shedding ; malmi2018cell
Adhesive Coefficient (fad)f^{ad})italic_f start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) 104μN/μmsuperscript104𝜇N𝜇m10^{-4}\mathrm{\mu N/\mu m}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_μ roman_N / italic_μ roman_m This paper
Mean Cell Elastic Modulus (Ei)E_{i})italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) 103MPasuperscript103MPa10^{-3}\mathrm{MPa}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_MPa  galle2005modeling ; malmi2018cell
Mean Cell Poisson Ratio (νisubscript𝜈𝑖\nu_{i}italic_ν start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) 0.5  schaller2005multicellular ; malmi2018cell
Death Rate (kasubscript𝑘𝑎k_{a}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) 106s1superscript106superscripts110^{-6}\mathrm{s^{-1}}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT  malmi2018cell
Mean Receptor Concentration (crecsuperscript𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑐c^{rec}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_r italic_e italic_c end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) 1.0 (Normalized)  malmi2018cell
Mean Ligand Concentration (cligsuperscript𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑔c^{lig}italic_c start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_l italic_i italic_g end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) 1.0 (Normalized)  malmi2018cell

III Results

III.1 Increasing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG fixed enhances cell motility

Local stress regulates cell division propensity, and hence, should influence the cell dynamics in a growing tissue. To assess the effect of feedback on cell dynamics, we varied pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, strength of the feedback. The dynamics are probed using the mean squared displacement (Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t )),

Δ(t)=1Ni=0i=N[𝐫i(t)𝐫i(0)]2,Δ𝑡1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖0𝑖𝑁superscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝐫𝑖𝑡subscript𝐫𝑖02\Delta(t)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=0}^{i=N}[{\bf r}_{i}(t)-{\bf r}_{i}(0)]^{2},roman_Δ ( italic_t ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i = italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [ bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) - bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 0 ) ] start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , (7)

where 𝐫i(t)subscript𝐫𝑖𝑡{\bf r}_{i}(t)bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is the position of the ithsuperscript𝑖𝑡i^{th}italic_i start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cell at time t𝑡titalic_t, and N𝑁Nitalic_N is the number of cells. We also calculated the tissue boundary, Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ), an estimate of the tissue size, using,

Δr(t)=1Nb(t)i=1Nb|𝐫i(t)𝐑(t)|Δ𝑟𝑡1subscript𝑁𝑏𝑡superscriptsubscript𝑖1subscript𝑁𝑏subscript𝐫𝑖𝑡𝐑𝑡\Delta r(t)=\frac{1}{N_{b}(t)}\sum_{i=1}^{N_{b}}|{\bf r}_{i}(t)-{\bf R}(t)|roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | bold_r start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) - bold_R ( italic_t ) | (8)

where Nb(t)subscript𝑁𝑏𝑡N_{b}(t)italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t ) is the total number of boundary cells at time t𝑡titalic_t and 𝐑(t)𝐑𝑡{\bf R}(t)bold_R ( italic_t ) is the center of the tumor at time t𝑡titalic_t. These quantities can be readily measured using imaging experiments puliafito2012collective ; valencia2015collective .

Figure 2 shows the time dependence of Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ) for three values of pc:105Nm1,104Nm1:subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}:10^{-5}Nm^{-1},10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 103Nm1superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-3}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for a fixed kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20. Because the cells undergo apoptosis, we included only the cells that were present throughout the simulations in calculating Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ). In the intermediate time limit, t<1kbka𝑡1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎t<\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_t < divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, the dynamics is subdiffusive ( Δ(t)tδ,δ<1formulae-sequencesimilar-toΔ𝑡superscript𝑡𝛿𝛿1\Delta(t)\sim t^{\delta},\delta<1roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_δ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_δ < 1) for the three pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT values. The long time ( t>1kbka𝑡1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎t>\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_t > divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) dynamics depends on the pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We find that Δ(t)(t)αsimilar-toΔ𝑡superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼\Delta(t)\sim(t^{*})^{\alpha}roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is subdiffusive (α=0.68𝛼0.68\alpha=0.68italic_α = 0.68) for pc=105Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, superdiffusive (α=1.36𝛼1.36\alpha=1.36italic_α = 1.36) for pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and hyperdiffusive (α=3𝛼3\alpha=3italic_α = 3) for pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. As the mechanical feedback strength increases, which is realized by decreasing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, the cells are jammed, resulting in slow dynamics at small pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Increased cell proliferation with weaker mechanical feedback (larger pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) gives rise to superdifussive or even hyperdiffusive dynamics.

The invasion distance increases algebraically with time, Δr(t)(t)ξsimilar-toΔ𝑟𝑡superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝜉\Delta r(t)\sim(t^{*})^{\xi}roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, (the time t=(kbka)tsuperscript𝑡subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎𝑡t^{*}=(k_{b}-k_{a})titalic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = ( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_t) where ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ characterizes the tissue invasion propensity. Figure 2 shows Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) for pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT equal to 105Nm1,104Nm1superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-5}Nm^{-1},10^{-4}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 103Nm1superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-3}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20. We find (Figure 2) that the growing tissue is maximally invasive for pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT similar to behavior of Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ). For pc=105Nm1,ξ=0.34formulae-sequencesubscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1𝜉0.34p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1},\xi=0.34italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_ξ = 0.34, for pc=104Nm1,ξ=0.68formulae-sequencesubscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1𝜉0.68p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1},\xi=0.68italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_ξ = 0.68 and for pc=103Nm1,ξ=1.23formulae-sequencesubscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1𝜉1.23p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1},\xi=1.23italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_ξ = 1.23. We surmise from the behavior of Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ) and Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) that the tissue dynamics is enhanced upon increasing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at a fixed value of kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. This is because the probability that the cells are in the growth phase increases as pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT increases.

III.2 Decreasing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG with pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT fixed promotes cell migration

We next varied the cell division rate (kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) at a fixed ka=106s1subscript𝑘𝑎superscript106superscript𝑠1k_{a}=10^{-6}s^{-1}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Figure 2 shows Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ) as a function of t𝑡titalic_t for kbka=20,8subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎208\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20,8divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 , 8 and 2222 at a fixed pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . Surprisingly, in the long time ([kbka]t>1delimited-[]subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎𝑡1[k_{b}-k_{a}]t>1[ italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] italic_t > 1) limit, slower dividing cells have higher motility. For instance, kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20, the MSD exponent values (Δ(t)(t)αsimilar-toΔ𝑡superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼\Delta(t)\sim(t^{*})^{\alpha}roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT at long times), are α=1.36𝛼1.36\alpha=1.36italic_α = 1.36, for kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG equal to 8, α=1.67𝛼1.67\alpha=1.67italic_α = 1.67 and for kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG equal to 2, α=2.90𝛼2.90\alpha=2.90italic_α = 2.90. We observed similar behavior for Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) on decreasing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. As before, we expressed Δr(t)(t)ξsimilar-toΔ𝑟𝑡superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝜉\Delta r(t)\sim(t^{*})^{\xi}roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG equal to 20, ξ=0.68𝜉0.68\xi=0.68italic_ξ = 0.68, for kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG equal to 8, ξ=0.85𝜉0.85\xi=0.85italic_ξ = 0.85 and for kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG equal to 2, ξ=1.23𝜉1.23\xi=1.23italic_ξ = 1.23.

The time dependent changes in Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) and Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ) shows that the degree of migration, quantified using ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ and α𝛼\alphaitalic_α, is enhanced upon decreasing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG as long as pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is fixed.

III.3 Growth law dictates the dynamics of cells

What is the unifying explanation for the non-trivial cell dynamics in an evolving cell colony as pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbsubscript𝑘𝑏k_{b}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are varied? The answer lies in the growth law of the tissue. The experimental growth law is determined by counting the number of cells as a function of time puliafito2012collective . The growth law is an emergent property that depends not only on the properties of individual cells but also the coupling, through the mechanical feedback and adhesive interactions.

Changing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT: We first calculated the number of cells (N𝑁Nitalic_N) as a function of time at pc=105Nm1,104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1},10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 103Nm1superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-3}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 (Figure 3a). We find that N(t)𝑁𝑡N(t)italic_N ( italic_t ) increases as, N(t)tλsimilar-to𝑁𝑡superscript𝑡𝜆N(t)\sim t^{\lambda}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. For pc=105Nm1,λ=1formulae-sequencesubscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1𝜆1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1},\lambda=1italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_λ = 1, for pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, λ=1.31𝜆1.31\lambda=1.31italic_λ = 1.31 and for pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, λ=2.78𝜆2.78\lambda=2.78italic_λ = 2.78. It is clear that growth rate increases as the mechanical feedback strength decreases (Figure 3a). To determine the origin of the enhanced growth at as pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT increases, we calculated the average pressure, p(t)=1Ni=1Npidelimited-⟨⟩𝑝𝑡1𝑁superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑁subscript𝑝𝑖\langle p(t)\rangle=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}p_{i}⟨ italic_p ( italic_t ) ⟩ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (Figure 3b). For pc=105subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105p_{c}=10^{-5}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, the average value of p(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑝𝑡\langle p(t)\rangle⟨ italic_p ( italic_t ) ⟩ is higher than the critical pressure, which implies that the cells are predominantly in the dormant phase. For pc=104subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104p_{c}=10^{-4}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, p(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑝𝑡\langle p(t)\rangle⟨ italic_p ( italic_t ) ⟩ exceeds pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT after a few cell cycle times, and thus the cells start entering dormancy. However, for pc=103subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103p_{c}=10^{-3}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, p(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑝𝑡\langle p(t)\rangle⟨ italic_p ( italic_t ) ⟩ is always smaller than pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, which implies the majority of the cells are in the growth phase, resulting in increased cell division, and proliferation.

Changing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG: We then calculated N(t)𝑁𝑡N(t)italic_N ( italic_t ) at the fixed value of pc=104subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104p_{c}=10^{-4}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for three values of kbka=20,8subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎208\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20,8divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 , 8 and 2222. Figure 3c shows N(t)𝑁𝑡N(t)italic_N ( italic_t ) as a function of kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. The growth exponents (N(t)tλsimilar-to𝑁𝑡superscript𝑡𝜆N(t)\sim t^{\lambda}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) are λ=1.31𝜆1.31\lambda=1.31italic_λ = 1.31, λ=1.69𝜆1.69\lambda=1.69italic_λ = 1.69 and λ=2.60𝜆2.60\lambda=2.60italic_λ = 2.60 for kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20, kbka=8subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎8\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=8divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 8, kbka=2subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎2\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=2divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 2, respectively. Strikingly, tissue growth rate decreases as cell division rate increases, which may be understood in terms of the dynamic changes in the average pressure, p(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑝𝑡\langle p(t)\rangle⟨ italic_p ( italic_t ) ⟩, plotted in Figure 3d, as a function of kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. Upon decreasing kbkbsubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑏\frac{k_{b}}{k_{b}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, the generation of pressure in the tissue is suppressed. For kbka=2subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎2\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=2divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 2, the p(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑝𝑡\langle p(t)\rangle⟨ italic_p ( italic_t ) ⟩ is smaller than pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for long times (exceeding the cell division time) unlike the case for kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 and 8888. Therefore, multiples cell divisions occur in cells that divide slowly compared to those that divide fast, thus resulting in greater tissue growth. Our analyses show that for both conditions (changing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG), the growth law of the tissue determines the cell dynamics.

III.4 Emergence of highly correlated force

To gain mechanistic understanding of the emergent anomalous dynamics of individual cells, we calculated the force autocorrelation function, FAF(tsuperscript𝑡t^{*}italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) =𝐅(t+t)𝐅(t)t𝐅(t)𝐅(t)tabsentsubscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝐅𝑡superscript𝑡𝐅𝑡𝑡subscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝐅𝑡𝐅𝑡𝑡=\frac{\langle{\bf F}(t+t^{*})\cdot{\bf F}(t)\rangle_{t}}{\langle{\bf F}(t)% \cdot{\bf F}(t)\rangle_{t}}= divide start_ARG ⟨ bold_F ( italic_t + italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ⋅ bold_F ( italic_t ) ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG ⟨ bold_F ( italic_t ) ⋅ bold_F ( italic_t ) ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG sinha2022mechanical . In an overdamped system, the FAF encodes the directed nature of motion in individual cells. Here, 𝐅(t)𝐅𝑡{\bf F}(t)bold_F ( italic_t ) is the force on the cell at time t𝑡titalic_t and tsubscriptdelimited-⟨⟩𝑡\langle...\rangle_{t}⟨ … ⟩ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the time average. Figure 4 shows the plot of FAF for a fixed kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 for pc=103Nm1,104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1},10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 105Nm1superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-5}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. It shows that the FAF decays via a two steps, characterized by short (γERm𝛾𝐸subscript𝑅𝑚\frac{\gamma}{ER_{m}}divide start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) and long (1kbkasimilar-toabsent1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\sim\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}∼ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) times. To extract the two-time scales, we fit FAF using Aetτc+C𝐴superscript𝑒superscript𝑡subscript𝜏𝑐𝐶Ae^{-\frac{t^{*}}{\tau_{c}}}+Citalic_A italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - divide start_ARG italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_C in both the regimes.

At short times (see the inset of Figure 4), for pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A=0.5,τc=1.2γERmformulae-sequence𝐴0.5subscript𝜏𝑐1.2𝛾𝐸subscript𝑅𝑚A=0.5,\tau_{c}=\frac{1.2\gamma}{ER_{m}}italic_A = 0.5 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1.2 italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and C=0.42𝐶0.42C=0.42italic_C = 0.42. For pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A=0.75,τc=0.97γERmformulae-sequence𝐴0.75subscript𝜏𝑐0.97𝛾𝐸subscript𝑅𝑚A=0.75,\tau_{c}=\frac{0.97\gamma}{ER_{m}}italic_A = 0.75 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 0.97 italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and C=0.02𝐶0.02C=-0.02italic_C = - 0.02. Lastly, for pc=105Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A=0.81,τc=0.95γERmformulae-sequence𝐴0.81subscript𝜏𝑐0.95𝛾𝐸subscript𝑅𝑚A=0.81,\tau_{c}=\frac{0.95\gamma}{ER_{m}}italic_A = 0.81 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 0.95 italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and C=0.1𝐶0.1C=0.1italic_C = 0.1. It is clear that at short times, the relaxation time is approximately close to the elastic time scale γERm𝛾𝐸subscript𝑅𝑚\frac{\gamma}{ER_{m}}divide start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, which is negligible compared to 1kbka1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG.

In the long time limit, the FAF exhibits correlations. For pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A=0.4,τc=2.2kbkaformulae-sequence𝐴0.4subscript𝜏𝑐2.2subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎A=0.4,\tau_{c}=\frac{2.2}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_A = 0.4 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2.2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and C=0.06𝐶0.06C=-0.06italic_C = - 0.06. For pc=104subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104p_{c}=10^{-4}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A=0.12,τc=2.3kbkaformulae-sequence𝐴0.12subscript𝜏𝑐2.3subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎A=0.12,\tau_{c}=\frac{2.3}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_A = 0.12 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 2.3 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and C=0.02𝐶0.02C=-0.02italic_C = - 0.02. Lastly, for pc=105Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A=0.04,τc=0.2kbkaformulae-sequence𝐴0.04subscript𝜏𝑐0.2subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎A=0.04,\tau_{c}=\frac{0.2}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_A = 0.04 , italic_τ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 0.2 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and C=0.003𝐶0.003C=0.003italic_C = 0.003. For pc=105Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, A𝐴Aitalic_A is negligible, implying the absence of correlations force, which explains the observed subdiffusive dynamics. The value of A𝐴Aitalic_A for pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is four times larger than for pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In addition, the FAF decays over (2-3) cell division times when the feedback strength is high. Larger magnitude of FAF in the long time regime leads to higher degree of migration for pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

III.5 Diagram of states

The simulation results in Figure 3 suggest that the cell dynamics is determined by the tissue growth law. The generality of this result follows from the following arguments. If the overall shape of the tissue is circular in 2D (see Figure 1c), we expect the exponents α𝛼\alphaitalic_α (Δ(t)tαsimilar-toΔ𝑡superscript𝑡𝛼\Delta(t)\sim t^{\alpha}roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) and λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ (N(t)tλsimilar-to𝑁𝑡superscript𝑡𝜆N(t)\sim t^{\lambda}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) should have similar values with αλ𝛼𝜆\alpha\approx\lambdaitalic_α ≈ italic_λ. From the algebraic growth of the tissue, it follows that N(t)tλr2similar-to𝑁𝑡superscript𝑡𝜆similar-tosuperscript𝑟2N(t)\sim t^{\lambda}\sim r^{2}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∼ italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which holds for a circular shape. From the relation r2Δ(t)tαsimilar-tosuperscript𝑟2Δ𝑡similar-tosuperscript𝑡𝛼r^{2}\sim\Delta(t)\sim t^{\alpha}italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∼ roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, expect that αλsimilar-to𝛼𝜆\alpha\sim\lambdaitalic_α ∼ italic_λ. In addition, the exponents ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ (Δr(t)tξsimilar-toΔ𝑟𝑡superscript𝑡𝜉\Delta r(t)\sim t^{\xi}roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) and λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ should be related as λ2ξ𝜆2𝜉\lambda\approx 2\xiitalic_λ ≈ 2 italic_ξ. The results in Figures 5a show that the relation is approximately satisfied.

Based on the findings in Figures 5a we are able to predict a diagram of states as a function of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbkbsubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑏\frac{k_{b}}{k_{b}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. Recent works probing the effect of cell division and apoptosis have reported subdiffusive czajkowski2019glassy , diffusive matoz2017cell , and superdiffusive motion malmi2018cell . However, the regime in which these values emerge is unclear. Furthermore, time traces of cell positions maybe be recorded using particle tracking techniques. In anticipation of such experiments, we characterized single-cell dynamics by calculating the mean squared displacement over a broad range of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbkbsubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑏\frac{k_{b}}{k_{b}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. We extracted the α𝛼\alphaitalic_α exponent in the long time limit. The value of α𝛼\alphaitalic_α could be used to determine the nature of dynamics in the time regime of interest. Figure 5b shows the two-dimensional diagram of states. Interestingly, we observe all three regimes of motion, subdiffusive, superdiffusive, and hyperdiffusive, by varying kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Figure 5b reveals three interesting characteristics of cell dynamics driven by cell division and apoptosis: (a) Upon increasing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, thare is a transition from subdiffusive to superdiffusive, and finally hyperdiffusive diffusive behavior. At a fixed kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20, for pc=5×106Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐5superscript106𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=5\times 10^{-6}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 5 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT dynamics is subdiffusive, for pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cells exhibit superdiffusive motion. Upon further increasing pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to 103Nm1superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-3}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, hyperdiffusive dynamics is observed. (b) Surprisingly, upon decreasing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, α𝛼\alphaitalic_α increases. For smaller (higher) pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT values, on decreasing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG, the dynamics change from subdiffusive (superdiffusive) to superdiffusive (hyperdiffusive) behavior. For fixed pc=105Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, at kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 (kbka=2subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎2\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=2divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 2), we observe subdiffusion (superdiffusion). For a higher value of pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, at kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 (kbka=2subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎2\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=2divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 2), the dynamics is superdiffusive ion (hyperdiffusive). The diagram of states (Figure 5b) was created using a smoothing procedure where the values of the MSD exponents at unknown values of kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT were interpolated using the known MSD values (obtained via simulations). The interpolation is logarithmicaly (linearly) scaled in pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) axis. The two-dimensional phase diagram predicts the emergence of different dynamical regimes, from subdiffusive to hyperdiffusive, which can be tested in imaging experiments puliafito2012collective ; valencia2015collective .

IV Conclusion

Using a two-dimensional off-lattice model, we have provided a comprehensive picture of the variations in the dynamics as the strength of the mechanical feedback and cell division rates are altered. The dynamics change from subdiffusive to superdiffusive to hyperdiffusive, as the kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG and pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are varied. We also showed that in growing tissue, highly persistent forces emerge as the strength of the mechanical feedback increases, whose decay exhibits two relaxation time scales: one short (elastic time scale, γERm𝛾𝐸subscript𝑅𝑚\frac{\gamma}{ER_{m}}divide start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) and one long (division-apoptosis time scale, 1kbka1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG). The presence of persistent forces determines variations in the dynamics as cell division rates and the strength of the feedback are varied. Strikingly, the cell dynamics are controlled by the growth law of the tissue, which depends primarily on the strength of the mechanical feedback. Interestingly, the three exponents α𝛼\alphaitalic_α, λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ and ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ from cell dynamics and tissue growth are related as αλ2ξ𝛼𝜆2𝜉\alpha\approx\lambda\approx 2\xiitalic_α ≈ italic_λ ≈ 2 italic_ξ. Therefore, we can estimate the values of the other two exponents if one of them is obtained in experiments. The phase diagram summarizing our findings provides a unified picture of the disparate dynamics found in several theoretical studies. czajkowski2019glassy ; matoz2017cell ; malmi2018cell

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (Phy 23-10639) and the Welch Foundation (F-0019).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: The 2D model. (a) Inter-cellular force as a function of distance between two cells with identical radii, Ri=Rj=4μmsubscript𝑅𝑖subscript𝑅𝑗4𝜇𝑚R_{i}=R_{j}=4\mu mitalic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 4 italic_μ italic_m. The repulsive and attractive parts of the force are given by Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. The inset is the zoomed-in view that highlights the region in which the force is predominantly attractive. (b) Illustration of the role of mechanical feedback. On the left, the “red” cell is dormant (cannot grow and divide) because the pressure exerted by the neighbors exceeds pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The “green” cell is in the growth phase (G) (p<pc𝑝subscript𝑝𝑐p<p_{c}italic_p < italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). The green cell from the left gives birth to two daughter cells (cyan and green) when the radius exceeds the mitotic radius Rmsubscript𝑅𝑚R_{m}italic_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. (c) A snapshot of the 2D growing tissue consisting of approximately 4,750 cells at t=3.74superscript𝑡3.74t^{*}=3.74italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 3.74, with pc=103MPasubscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑀𝑃𝑎p_{c}=10^{-3}MPaitalic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M italic_P italic_a and kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20. The global shape is approximately circular.
\floatsetup

[figure]style=plain,subcapbesideposition=top

\sidesubfloat

[]Refer to caption \sidesubfloat[]Refer to caption

\sidesubfloat

[]Refer to caption \sidesubfloat[]Refer to caption

Figure 2: Cell dynamics is regulated by pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG: (a) Mean squared displacement, Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ), as a function of time. From top to bottom, the curves are for pc=103Nm1,104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1},10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 105Nm1superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-5}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The inset focuses on the long time limit (t>1kbka𝑡1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎t>\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_t > divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG). The x-axis is scaled by kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎k_{b}-k_{a}italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. The dashed lines are power law fits (Δ(t)tαsimilar-toΔ𝑡superscript𝑡𝛼\Delta(t)\sim t^{\alpha}roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). The α𝛼\alphaitalic_α values are given in the upper left box. (Continued on the next page)
\contcaption

(b) Invasion distance, Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) as a function of time for different pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT values. The dashed lines are power-law fits (Δr(t)ξsimilar-toΔ𝑟superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝜉\Delta r\sim(t^{*})^{\xi}roman_Δ italic_r ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). The ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ values are given in the upper left box. (c) Δ(t)Δ𝑡\Delta(t)roman_Δ ( italic_t ), as a function of time. From left to right, curves correspond to kbka=20,8subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎208\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20,8divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 , 8 and 2222. The inset focuses on the long time regime (t>1kbka𝑡1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎t>\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}italic_t > divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG). The dashed lines are the power law fits ( Δ(t)(t)αsimilar-toΔ𝑡superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝛼\Delta(t)\sim(t^{*})^{\alpha}roman_Δ ( italic_t ) ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_α end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). The α𝛼\alphaitalic_α values are given in the upper left box. (d) Invasion distance, Δr(t)Δ𝑟𝑡\Delta r(t)roman_Δ italic_r ( italic_t ) as a function of time for changing kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. The dashed line is the power law fit (Δr(t)ξsimilar-toΔ𝑟superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝜉\Delta r\sim(t^{*})^{\xi}roman_Δ italic_r ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ξ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT). The ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ values are given in the upper left box.

\floatsetup

[figure]style=plain,subcapbesideposition=top

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Growth law governs the cell dynamics: (a) Number of cells, (N(t)𝑁𝑡N(t)italic_N ( italic_t )), as a function of time at three values of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, labeled in the figure. The dashed lines with the power the power law fits ( N(t)(t)λsimilar-to𝑁𝑡superscriptsuperscript𝑡𝜆N(t)\sim(t^{*})^{\lambda}italic_N ( italic_t ) ∼ ( italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_λ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT) are shown. (b) Average pressure, P(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑃𝑡\langle P(t)\rangle⟨ italic_P ( italic_t ) ⟩, as a function of time. The curves correspond to pc=103Nm1(top),104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1𝑡𝑜𝑝superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}(top),10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_t italic_o italic_p ) , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (middle), and 105Nm1superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-5}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (bottom). The dashed lines mark the pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT values; blue - pc=103Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-3}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, orange - pc=104Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-4}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and green - pc=105Nm1subscript𝑝𝑐superscript105𝑁superscript𝑚1p_{c}=10^{-5}Nm^{-1}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. (Continued on the next page).
\contcaption

(c) N(t)𝑁𝑡N(t)italic_N ( italic_t ), as a function of time. From bottom to top, curves correspond to kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 (blue), 8888 (orange) and 2222 (green). The dashed lines are the power law fits. The λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ values are mentioned in the upper left box. (d) Average pressure, P(t)delimited-⟨⟩𝑃𝑡\langle P(t)\rangle⟨ italic_P ( italic_t ) ⟩, as a function of time for the three kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG values. From bottom to top, curves correspond to kbka=20subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎20\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}=20divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = 20 (blue), 8888 (orange) and 2222 (green). The dashed line corresponds to a pressure equal to 104Nm1superscript104𝑁superscript𝑚110^{-4}Nm^{-1}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N italic_m start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: Correlation in force: Force autocorrelation function (FAF) as a function of time. From top to bottom, FAF corresponds to pc=103,104subscript𝑝𝑐superscript103superscript104p_{c}=10^{-3},10^{-4}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 105superscript10510^{-5}10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The dashed lines are the fits. Inset is the zoomed of the initial times. The figure shows the emergence of FAF with two-time scales: long (1kbkasimilar-toabsent1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\sim\frac{1}{k_{b}-k_{a}}∼ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG) and short (elastic time scale =γERabsent𝛾𝐸𝑅=\frac{\gamma}{ER}= divide start_ARG italic_γ end_ARG start_ARG italic_E italic_R end_ARG).
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Dynamical phase diagram : (a) The MSD exponent α𝛼\alphaitalic_α as a function of the growth law exponent λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ. The slope of the dashed line is approximately unity. In the inset we plot the relationship between λ𝜆\lambdaitalic_λ and ξ𝜉\xiitalic_ξ. The fit of the line is λ2ξ𝜆2𝜉\lambda\approx 2\xiitalic_λ ≈ 2 italic_ξ. (b) Dynamical regimes as a phase diagram in the plane of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. The color bar on the right shows the value of α𝛼\alphaitalic_α. Sub-diffusion (α1𝛼1\alpha\leq 1italic_α ≤ 1), superdiffusion (1<α21𝛼21<\alpha\leq 21 < italic_α ≤ 2), and hyper-diffusion (α>2𝛼2\alpha>2italic_α > 2) in the long-time cell dynamics ( (kbka)t>1subscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎𝑡1(k_{b}-k_{a})t>1( italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_t > 1). The black (blue) lines correspond to α=1𝛼1\alpha=1italic_α = 1 (α=2𝛼2\alpha=2italic_α = 2).
\contcaption

The two-dimensional phase diagram predicts the emergence of subdiffusion, superdiffusion, and hyperdiffuison, depending on the values of pcsubscript𝑝𝑐p_{c}italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and kbkasubscript𝑘𝑏subscript𝑘𝑎\frac{k_{b}}{k_{a}}divide start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG. The phase diagram was obtained via a smoothing procedure (details in the text)

References

  • [1] BA Barres, IK Hart, HSR Coles, JF Burne, JT Voyvodic, WD Richardson, and MC 1992 Raff. Cell death and control of cell survival in the oligodendrocyte lineage. Cell, 70(1):31–46, 1992.
  • [2] Thomas Lecuit and Loïc Le Goff. Orchestrating size and shape during morphogenesis. Nature, 450(7167):189, 2007.
  • [3] Robert A Weinberg. The Biology of Cancer: Second International Student Edition. WW Norton & Company, 2013.
  • [4] Sanjay Kumar and Valerie M Weaver. Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: the force journey of a tumor cell. Cancer and Metastasis Reviews, 28(1-2):113–127, 2009.
  • [5] Alberto Puliafito, Lars Hufnagel, Pierre Neveu, Sebastian Streichan, Alex Sigal, D Kuchnir Fygenson, and Boris I Shraiman. Collective and single cell behavior in epithelial contact inhibition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(3):739–744, 2012.
  • [6] Angela M Jimenez Valencia, Pei-Hsun Wu, Osman N Yogurtcu, Pranay Rao, Josh DiGiacomo, Inês Godet, Lijuan He, Meng-Horng Lee, Daniele Gilkes, Sean X Sun, et al. Collective cancer cell invasion induced by coordinated contractile stresses. Oncotarget, 6(41):43438, 2015.
  • [7] Yu Long Han, Adrian F Pegoraro, Hui Li, Kaifu Li, Yuan Yuan, Guoqiang Xu, Zichen Gu, Jiawei Sun, Yukun Hao, Satish Kumar Gupta, et al. Cell swelling, softening and invasion in a three-dimensional breast cancer model. Nature physics, 16(1):101–108, 2020.
  • [8] Jae Hun Kim, Adrian F Pegoraro, Amit Das, Stephan A Koehler, Sylvia Ann Ujwary, Bo Lan, Jennifer A Mitchel, Lior Atia, Shijie He, Karin Wang, et al. Unjamming and collective migration in mcf10a breast cancer cell lines. Biochemical and biophysical research communications, 521(3):706–715, 2020.
  • [9] Sumit Sinha and D Thirumalai. Self-generated persistent random forces drive phase separation in growing tumors. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 153(20), 2020.
  • [10] A. M. J. Valencia, P.-H. Wu, O. N. Yogurtcu, P. Rao, J. DiGiacomo, I. Godet, L. He, M.-H. Lee, D. Gilkes, S. X. Sun, and D. Wirtz. Oncotarget, 6:43438, 2015.
  • [11] Boris I Shraiman. Mechanical feedback as a possible regulator of tissue growth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(9):3318–3323, 2005.
  • [12] Michael Czajkowski, Daniel M Sussman, M Cristina Marchetti, and M Lisa Manning. Glassy dynamics in models of confluent tissue with mitosis and apoptosis. Soft matter, 15(44):9133–9149, 2019.
  • [13] Abdul N Malmi-Kakkada, Xin Li, Himadri S Samanta, Sumit Sinha, and Dave Thirumalai. Cell growth rate dictates the onset of glass to fluidlike transition and long time superdiffusion in an evolving cell colony. Physical Review X, 8(2):021025, 2018.
  • [14] DA Matoz-Fernandez, Kirsten Martens, Rastko Sknepnek, JL Barrat, and Silke Henkes. Cell division and death inhibit glassy behaviour of confluent tissues. Soft matter, 13(17):3205–3212, 2017.
  • [15] Dirk Drasdo and Stefan Höhme. A single-cell-based model of tumor growth in vitro: monolayers and spheroids. Physical biology, 2(3):133, 2005.
  • [16] Gernot Schaller and Michael Meyer-Hermann. Multicellular tumor spheroid in an off-lattice voronoi-delaunay cell model. Physical Review E, 71(5):051910, 2005.
  • [17] Abdul N Malmi-Kakkada, Sumit Sinha, Xin Li, and D Thirumalai. Adhesion strength between cells regulate nonmonotonic growth by a biomechanical feedback mechanism. Biophysical Journal, 121(19):3719–3729, 2022.
  • [18] Sumit Sinha, Abdul N Malmi-Kakkada, Xin Li, Himadri S Samanta, and D Thirumalai. Spatially heterogeneous dynamics of cells in a growing tumor spheroid: Comparison between theory and experiments. Soft matter, 16(22):5294–5304, 2020.
  • [19] Pawel Gniewek, Carl F Schreck, and Oskar Hallatschek. Biomechanical feedback strengthens jammed cellular packings. Physical review letters, 122(20):208102, 2019.
  • [20] Sumit Sinha, Xin Li, Rajsekhar Das, and D Thirumalai. Mechanical feedback controls the emergence of dynamical memory in growing tissue monolayers. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 156(24), 2022.
  • [21] Bryan A Nerger, Sumit Sinha, Nathan N Lee, Maria Cheriyan, Pascal Bertsch, Christopher P Johnson, L Mahadevan, Joseph V Bonventre, and David J Mooney. 3d hydrogel encapsulation regulates nephrogenesis in kidney organoids. Advanced Materials, page 2308325.
  • [22] Xingbo Yang, M Lisa Manning, and M Cristina Marchetti. Aggregation and segregation of confined active particles. Soft matter, 10(34):6477–6484, 2014.
  • [23] James P Freyer and Robert M Sutherland. Regulation of growth saturation and development of necrosis in emt6/ro multicellular spheroids by the glucose and oxygen supply. Cancer research, 46(7):3504–3512, 1986.
  • [24] Joseph J Casciari, Stratis V Sotirchos, and Robert M Sutherland. Variations in tumor cell growth rates and metabolism with oxygen concentration, glucose concentration, and extracellular ph. Journal of cellular physiology, 151(2):386–394, 1992.
  • [25] Jacques Landry, James P Freyer, and Robert M Sutherland. Shedding of mitotic cells from the surface of multicell spheroids during growth. Journal of cellular physiology, 106(1):23–32, 1981.
  • [26] Jörg Galle, Markus Loeffler, and Dirk Drasdo. Modeling the effect of deregulated proliferation and apoptosis on the growth dynamics of epithelial cell populations in vitro. Biophysical journal, 88(1):62–75, 2005.