
==== Front
Biophys J
Biophys J
Biophysical Journal
0006-3495
1542-0086
The Biophysical Society

S0006-3495(23)00327-2
10.1016/j.bpj.2023.05.015
Review
From cells to form: A roadmap to study shape emergence in vivo
Ramos Ana Patricia apramos@igc.gulbenkian.pt
1∗
Szalapak Alicja 23
Ferme Lucrezia Camilla 1
Modes Carl D. 234
1 Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
2 Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
3 Center for Systems Biology Dresden, Dresden, Germany
4 Cluster of Excellence Physics of Life, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
∗ Corresponding author apramos@igc.gulbenkian.pt
19 9 2023
25 5 2023
122 18 35873599
19 2 2023
18 5 2023
© 2023 Biophysical Society.
2023
Biophysical Society
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Organogenesis arises from the collective arrangement of cells into progressively 3D-shaped tissue. The acquisition of a correctly shaped organ is then the result of a complex interplay between molecular cues, responsible for differentiation and patterning, and the mechanical properties of the system, which generate the necessary forces that drive correct shape emergence. Nowadays, technological advances in the fields of microscopy, molecular biology, and computer science are making it possible to see and record such complex interactions in incredible, unforeseen detail within the global context of the developing embryo. A quantitative and interdisciplinary perspective of developmental biology becomes then necessary for a comprehensive understanding of morphogenesis. Here, we provide a roadmap to quantify the events that lead to morphogenesis from imaging to image analysis, quantification, and modeling, focusing on the discrete cellular and tissue shape changes, as well as their mechanical properties.

Editor: Meyer Jackson.
==== Body
pmcSignificance

How individual cell behaviors are converted into collective movement of epithelia, leading to organ formation, has been one of the central questions in developmental biology. Advances in light microscopy, molecular biology, and computational power are revolutionizing this field, giving us impressive multiscale, three-dimensional information about morphogenesis. With this explosive increase in information, quantifying morphogenetic processes becomes essential, bringing objectivity to the experimental results and facilitating the connection between experimental biology and theoretical physics. In this review, we provide a roadmap for studying and quantifying in three-dimensional the events (both at the cell and tissue level) that lead to shape emergence, from imaging to image analysis, quantification and modeling, using light microscopy.

Introduction

Organogenesis is a multistep process during which an organ is formed from the coordination of discrete events: cell migration, cell intercalation, cell proliferation, and cell deformation. Such events are tightly coordinated at the genetic and biophysical level to ensure correct organ form and function. Understanding organ development and shape acquisition requires the investigation of these discrete cellular events, how they are coordinated, and how they influence and are influenced by the biophysical and molecular properties of the tissue in which they are integrated.

How individual cell behaviors are converted into collective movement of epithelia has been one of the central questions in developmental biology, being an object of intense study since the beginning of the 20th century (1,2,3). Still today, the interplay of complex morphogenetic processes across scales remains a central subject of study in developmental biology. Indeed, advances in light microscopy, molecular biology, and computational power are revolutionizing this field, giving us impressive multiscale, three-dimensional information about morphogenesis. It has become possible to record complex morphogenetic movements of deep tissues in vivo over extended periods of time and at single-cell resolution, and to quantify these arrangements at an unprecedented scale. The field is also more open to studying “nontraditional” model organisms, thus bringing new perspectives to the area and forging connections to evo-devo studies (4,5,6). With this explosive increase in information, quantifying morphogenetic processes becomes essential, bringing objectivity to the experimental results and facilitating the connection between experimental biology and theoretical physics.

Focusing on the discrete cellular events and the mechanical properties of cells and tissues, we survey technological tools that, by using light microscopy, allow quantifying the events that lead to shape emergence during morphogenesis, from imaging and quantitative analysis to computational modeling.

We begin by describing how to extract shape and quantify morphological changes before moving on to the quantification and perturbation of mechanical properties. We then finish with an introduction to theoretical modeling and how to integrate discrete cell and tissue biomechanical information into a comprehensive understanding of shape emergence and morphogenesis. Ultimately, our goal is to give the reader a roadmap to successfully navigate this highly interdisciplinary and, potentially, collaborative environment.

Quantifying cell and tissue shape changes

When studying shape and form, it is important to dissociate their components into discrete steps. Indeed, shape quantification’s primary goal is to decompose shape information into simpler pieces, such as geometrical and topological information. Here, we find it important to clarify these concepts: geometry refers to the study of aspects of shape that are permitted to vary continuously. Lengths, areas, volumes, angles, curvatures, distances, etc., are all manifestly geometric quantities for this reason. And since continuously varying quantities allow for derivatives, the rates of change of all these quantities are also clearly defined and understandable. As a result, geometry is local. Topology, on the other hand, is the study of those aspects of shape that remain once geometry is accounted for—quantities that are discretized or quantized and that may only vary in finite steps of fixed size. Counting quantities, such as the number of particles or the number of holes in a surface are common examples, but anything that can only change discontinuously qualifies here, from the charge of a topological defect in an orientational pattern to the neighborhood network in an epithelial sheet. As small, localized changes in a system can never produce these jump-like discontinuous shifts in quantities, topology can be considered global. In sum, during morphogenesis, we can find, on the one hand, the global topological modifications that the developing organ is going through. On the other, the geometric progression and variation of the cells or tissue over time.

Here, we give an overview of the workflow typically in place to extract these parameters from 4D images, automatically or semi-automatically, and examples of open-source programs available, either standalone or as plugins to use within ImageJ2/FIJI (7,8) or Napari (9). While this is a nonexhaustive overview of tools available, many other resources can be found online, such as specific workflows (10), teaching materials (NEUBIAS training schools (11)), and image analysis resources catalog (BioImage Informatics Index (http://biii.eu/)). We also refer the reader to a review and guide of the most used bioimage analysis tools (12).

Imaging

The first step toward quantification is the imaging of the relevant process. Whether we need to count cell nuclei, measure the volume of a cell or its velocity, or measure cell surface curvature changes, the imaging and experimental setup might be different. For example, while studying nuclear deformations requires a high Z resolution and voxel size, counting nuclei to measure cell density or to track cell position over time may not require such a high level of detail. It is therefore important to consider the scientific question and which parameters one needs to target since it will help plan the experiments and subsequent analysis workflow.

Recent advances in microscopy have made it relatively easy to acquire high-resolution images at high frame rates, with reduced phototoxicity, thus allowing for long-term imaging of biological processes. This comes at the cost of producing image files that can reach a few terabytes in size, accompanied by the problem of long image processing times, requiring high-performance workstations (or remote servers) and a considerable amount of data storage. This issue—how to best handle, store, and keep track of big data—is becoming increasingly discussed (12). However, having a clear idea of the needs and the minimal requirements to attain them should always be the first step.

Image processing

After acquisition of the image, it is often necessary to improve or correct the fluorescence signal of interest—deconvolve, register, remove background, denoising, or increase contrast of membrane signal—are a few examples. This will help the computer to correctly process the image and identify its components.

There are several ways to improve signal and signal/noise ratio, but probably the most common is through digital filtering and background correction. Filters are numerical operations produced on the image, meaning they change pixel values according to the neighboring pixels. Depending on the filter used, this will result in, for example, a smoother image or an image with enhanced edges. Given that a new image is created (with different pixel values), filtered data sets may no longer be suitable for certain data analyses requiring fluorescence intensity measurements (for example, protein or mRNA levels).

More recently, several algorithms that employ deep learning for image-processing tasks have come to the forefront. They typically target the improvement of signal/noise ratio (Noise2Void, Noise2Self (13,14)), the restoration of image signal from very weak intensities (CARE (15)) or the prediction of boundary geometry (3DUnet (16)). Deep learning is becoming a highly valuable tool for imaging reconstruction (17,18) and allows researchers to gain insight from weakly labeled data sets. Such advantage ultimately allows imaging with less laser power and/or at a higher frame rate, thus decreasing the potential for phototoxicity and its interference with normal cellular processes (19). For example, image restoration using CARE allowed tracking of photoreceptors in vivo to reveal that their migration pattern is crucial for proper retinal morphogenesis (20). Despite the major advantages, applying deep learning algorithms poses new questions regarding the veracity of the processed image, since quality assessment can be tricky.

Besides filtering, image representation can also be changed. For example, 2D cartographic projections of 3D surfaces, besides reducing data size, can aid further steps in image analysis and feature extraction. For example, tissue cartography has been used to quantify cell movement and shape changes in Drosophila embryogenesis (21,22,23,24).

Segmentation

Segmentation refers to the process of separating an image into different components or segments. It can be of two types: instance segmentation, where individual objects, within a given class, are identified (region1 = nuclei1; region2 = nuclei2 …) (Fig. 1 A); and semantic segmentation, where each pixel is classified and associated with a label (region1 = nuclei pixels, region2 = cell membrane pixels). Image segmentation can be the most challenging part of the image analysis workflow, and failures in correct segmentation may create errors in proceeding with data extraction. This step relies on having the most appropriate imaging parameters and the best-fit processing workflow. Even though several algorithms for automatic segmentation exist (Table 1), they are often relatively specific for a certain type of element (for example, cells versus nuclei) or a certain imaging technique, thus not fully compatible with the high heterogeneity of biological contexts. Fortunately, many segmentation algorithms are open-source, thus allowing them to be changed and adapted to other data sets. For this reason, segmentation tools are continuously evolving. In Table 1 we present a (non-exhaustive) list of recent open-source tools for automated or semi-automated 3D segmentation.Figure 1 Examples of image analysis sequences to quantify parameters related with retina morphogenesis in zebrafish. (A) Imaged nuclei were automatically segmented with StarDist (25). From this segmentation, nuclei volume information was extracted and represented as a color code. Scale bar 50μm (B) Outline of the retina detected by the Kappa (26) plugin to fit a Bezier curve and calculate curvature over time. (C) Schematic of a zebrafish embryo at 24 h postfertilization. Dashed lines feature the retina.

Table 1 Common open source software for 3D segmentation

Software	Standalone application	Interface	Scriptable	Programming language	Plugin	Method	Type of segmentation	Requires training dataset	Requires GPU	Most suitable for	
CellPose (27)	yes	GUI, command line	yes	Python3	yes	DL	instance	not necessarily	not necessarily	LM and HM –	
cells and nuclei	
CellProfiler (28)	yes	GUI, command line	creates and saves CellProfiler pipelines	–	–	image thresholding	–	no	no	LM and HM –	
cells, nuclei, and organelles	
EmbedSeg (29)	–	–	yes	Python3	no	DL	instance	yes	yes	LM and HM –	
organisms, cells, nuclei, and organelles	
Ilastik (30)	yes	GUI	creates protocols	–	no	ML, DL	semantic	yesa	no	LM, EM, HM –	
(only for DL)	cells, nuclei, and organelles	
Labkit (31)	no	GUI	no	–	yes	ML	semantic	yesa	no	LM, HM –	
cells, nuclei, and organelles	
LimeSeg (32)	no	GUI	no	–	yes	oriented particle-based surfel	–	yesa	yes	LM –	
membranes	
PlantSeg (33)	yes	GUI, command line	yes	Python3	no	DL	instance	no	yes	LM –	
membranes	
StarDist-3D (25)	–	–	yes	Python3	yes	DL	instance	yes	yes	LM, HM –	
star-convex-shaped objects (e.g., nuclei)	
Zelda (34)	no	GUI	creates protocols	–	yes	image thresholding	–	no	no	LM, HM –	
cells, nuclei, and organelles	
CLIJ2, CLIJ2-assistantb (35)	no	GUI	yes	ImageJ Macro, Python3 (py-clesperanto), JavaScript (clicy), MATLAB (clatlab)	yes	image thresholding, ML	–	–	yes	LM, EM, HM –	
cells, nuclei, and organelles	
GUI, graphical user interface; EM, electron microscopy; HM, histochemical methods; LM, light microscopy; ML, machine learning; DL, deep learning.

a The data set is generated during the workflow using the labeling tools incorporated in the software.

b CLIJ2 is a library for image processing that can be installed in FIJI, Icy, and MATLAB. The implementation for Python is named pyclesperanto.

Tracking

While segmentation identifies objects within an image, it is not able to make a correspondence between the same object over time. To analyze morphogenesis over time, it is crucial to track the objects over time. Tracking is, therefore, crucial to infer properties such as strain rate of cells and tissues through analysis of velocity and displacement (inference from cell geometry and behavior) or to analyze the directionality of cell movement (36,37). Examples of open-source tracking algorithms include TrackMate (38), Mastodon, and Elephant (4). Alongside segmentation, tracking algorithms are constantly evolving for better prediction and to make them as generally applicable as possible (39). Still, tracking performance will depend on segmentation performance and on data set behavior over time: objects with big shifts in position are more challenging to track.

Feature extraction

The process of quantifying the properties of objects is often referred to as feature extraction. Most of the features of the segmented objects can be extracted from the image viewer or segmentation software, or can be obtained through small scripts in, for example, Python, MATLAB, or R. Certain measurements may need specific plugins or packages. Curvature, for example, can be extracted with LimeSeg (32) or Kappa (26) plugins for FIJI (Fig.1 B). Having a triangular mesh of an object instead of a binary mask (the typical segmentation output) will potentially facilitate specific feature extraction using, for example, PyMesh, a geometry processing library for Python or Vedo. Special tools also exist for Fiji and Napari for investigating the properties of cells in a tissue context (40).

Infer mechanical properties

The technology available to quantify the mechanical properties of cells and tissues has rapidly advanced in recent years. Several tools allow for direct determination of the mechanical properties of cells and tissues: micropipette aspiration (41,42,43), microplates (44,45), or atomic force microscopy (46,47,48), are a few examples. Such tools allowed great advances in our knowledge of cells and tissue mechanics and their contributions to morphogenesis (reviewed in (49)). Since these tools require contact manipulation of the sample, however, there are challenges to their application to in vivo contexts. For this reason, here we focus on tools that, by using light microscopy, allow either the quantification or inference of mechanical properties in deep tissues in vivo.

Inference from cell geometry and behavior

Within an epithelium, cell-cell contacts display a certain typical angle that is then subject to deviations upon force loading or other changes to the equilibrium state. Geometric force inference uses these deviations and, by fitting a dynamic model of cell mechanics, infers the effectively applied force (50,51,52,53) However, it accounts only for the balance between intracellular pressure and cortical tensions; thus, it can be a limited technique when studying in vivo systems. Ogita et al. used image-based force inference to show how junction remodeling and resistance to pulling are controlled during Drosophila development (50). In a more global context, Bhattacharya et al. calculated strain maps from the analysis of cells’ velocity fields during zebrafish gastrulation. This allowed the identification of areas submitted to compaction and expansion and how those were affected by molecular inhibitors of morphogenesis (37). Analysis of cell flow fields also allows one to infer tissue fluidity changes during morphogenesis, as seen during zebrafish axis elongation (54).

Molecular sensors

Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) tension biosensors are genetically encoded proteins consisting of a deformable, flagelliform linker attached on both sides by opposite domains of the same protein, which are per se tagged with a donor and an acceptor fluorophore, or an FRET pair. Stretching of the linker (and thus increasing the distance of the FRET pair) upon loading, leads to changes in signal intensity and FRET index.

This technique allows the measurement of force load at the molecular scale, and thereby the detection of the few picoNewtons experienced by individual proteins in cells. Measurements within embryos are possible since the sensors are genetically encoded and the signal is detected through imaging (examples (55,56,57)). The list of molecules studied through this technique is growing and includes cell adhesion proteins and cytoskeleton and nucleoskeleton proteins (Table 2).Table 2 Examples of molecular tension sensors

Vinculin	LaCroix et al. (58); Grashoff et al. (59)	
Talin	Austen et al. (60)	
Paxillin	Shao et al. (61)	
Integrin	Tan et al. (62)	
Lima1	Hirano et al. (56)	
Cadherin	Lagendijk et al. (57)	
Desmoplakin	Price et al. (63)	
Nesprin	Déjardin et al. (64)	

The properties of the linker dictate the force load that can be detected (65). Proper quantification of force load through tension sensors requires advanced data analysis and careful experimentation. Often it is safer to use fluorescence lifetime imaging microscopy to calculate FRET efficiencies since it removes potential noise from differential instrument settings or variations in protein concentration. While it is not easy to perform those measurements, several protocols and reviews for data analysis and for the creation of new tension sensors have been published (66,67).

Droplets and compressible beads

This technique consists in the insertion of a deformable (fluorescent) material within the developing tissue. The deformations imposed on the insert by the surrounding tissues are then imaged and quantified. Having prior knowledge of the mechanical properties of the insert, it is then possible to quantify the forces that arise from the tissue acting on the insert, and thus the forces that are involved in the morphogenetic process.

Currently, two types of inserts are available: biocompatible fluorinated oil droplets (68), magnetically responsive ferrofluid microdroplets (69), and hydrogel fluorescent beads, including polyacrylamide (70,71,72), alginate hydrogels (73), and polyethylene glycol (74). The latter further includes FRET donors and acceptors, used to report local deformations as stress shifts. Both types of probes have been successfully applied in live embryos but with some differences. While oil droplets can be injected at the region of interest, hydrogel beads need to be delivered at very early stages of embryogenesis and allowed to spread randomly through the embryo. Hydrogel beads are compressible and can measure both isotropic and anisotropic stresses; oil droplets are instead incompressible, therefore, only anisotropic stresses can be measured. The specific properties of the droplets or beads will vary with their material composition and size. Therefore, careful control of manufacturing and characterization before insertion is essential (reviewed in (75)).

Droplets were used for the direct quantification of cell-generated forces in developing embryonic tissues, allowing the characterization of tissue viscoelasticity within the zebrafish developing tailbud. Such measurements, together with analysis of cell movement, showed that zebrafish body elongation relies on a tissue jamming transition from fluid to solid-like behavior (Fig. 2 D) (68,69,78).Figure 2 (A) To understand how somites can reach a symmetrical shape during zebrafish somitogenesis, Naganathan et al. use advanced techniques of image analysis to project 3D imaged data in 2D. Such projection allowed for semi-automated measurements of somite shape parameters in control and disrupted conditions. At the end, with the help of a model of surface length versus tension, the authors propose that somite length adjustment relies on somite surface tension ((76) reproduced with permission from SNCSC). (B) Schematics of a zebrafish embryo at 13 h postfertilization, with emphasis on tailbud growth, merging the knowledge gathered by the three works. (C) On a bottom-up approach Sanematsu et al. built a 3D Voronoi model of the Kupffer’s vesicle, the zebrafish left-right organizer. This model is used to test how drag forces generated by the vesicle’s movement can drive cell shape changes. The predictions are then tested through analysis of cell movement ((77) reproduced with permission from Elsevier). (D) The introduction and manipulation of magnetic beads in the zebrafish tailbud allowed measurement of the tissue yield stress. Together with cell tracking, Mongera et al. conclude that a jamming transition from fluid to solid-like behavior occurs from the progenitor zone to the presomitc mesoderm. Such a transition sustains a unidirectional extension of the tailbud, as confirmed by the theoretical model ((78) reproduced with permission from SNCSC).

Optical tweezers

The ability to move small objects using optical forces was first demonstrated by Ashkin and co-workers (79,80), who used infrared laser beams to manipulate bacteria and viruses. Optical tweezers were subsequently developed to trap, manipulate, and probe target objects in biological systems. The optical properties of the highly focused laser beam allow the manipulation of objects from 100 nm to 10 μm, such as nanospheres, organelles, or small organisms. The optical forces are proportional to small displacements of the particle and depend on its shape, size, and refractive index. After proper calibration, it becomes possible to quantify the mechanical properties of the particle surroundings, such as stiffness and viscoelasticity (81).

The refinement of this technique through modifications of the light shape and improvement of the calibration method has allowed an increasing number of potential applications, including the quantification of mechanical properties during morphogenesis in vivo. Examples include the microrheological characterization of the extracellular matrix in zebrafish (82) or the mechanical characterization of cell contacts in Drosophila embryos (83). On the downside, calibration of the probe is time-consuming and may become prohibitive in the context of a fast-developing tissue. The need for calibration can potentially be overcome, however, by splitting the laser in multiple spots and trapping several probes at once. This has been achieved by using holograms—holographic optical tweezers, or HOTs (84) —which have been applied in zebrafish larvae (85). A relative readout of viscoelastic properties can then be calculated by measuring the differences in mechanical properties at each location.

Laser ablation

Existing tensions within a tissue can also be inferred relative to the tissue material properties by analyzing its reaction upon sudden release of tensile stresses. A focused laser beam (typically UV) can deliver intense energy to a small region, which can be used to precisely sever tissues or cell membranes. Quantification of the recoil time of the displaced areas allows one to calculate the relative magnitudes and directions of tensions and ultimately build mechanical models with tension maps (86,87).

This is a rather simple and flexible technique, given that a suitable, properly calibrated, laser is provided. The recoil reaction happens in the order of milliseconds after laser ablation; therefore, it must be imaged at a high frame rate to ensure proper quantification. It is one of the most used techniques when studying mechanical properties during morphogenesis, with several examples in vertebrate and invertebrate model systems (88,89,90,91,92,93).

Perturbation of cells’ and tissues’ mechanical properties

Cell and tissue mechanical properties emerge from a combination of various players. Many of these properties can be attributed to cytoskeleton composition and arrangement variations. Therefore, many tools that interfere with mechanical components focus on disrupting cytoskeletal components: microfilaments, intermediate filaments, and microtubules.

Generally, these tools are either: pharmacological compounds that interfere with protein structure or block its activity; changes in genetic expression, and thus protein level (morpholinos, mutants, transgenes, siRNA, mRNA); and changes in protein dynamics (genetically encoded dominant negative forms or light-sensitive proteins). In addition, instruments used to probe mechanical properties, such as atomic force microscopy and laser ablation, can be applied to modify them.

It can be challenging, however, to confirm the modification of the mechanical properties. Therefore, it is important to set appropriate controls, either by directly measuring such changes or by combining in vivo and controlled ex vivo approaches (94).

As before, we will focus on tools that rely on light microscopy to, potentially, modify mechanical properties in cells and tissues.

Disruption using optogenetics

Optogenetics uses light to modify the properties of genetically encoded proteins, allowing control of protein dynamics.

Currently, there are several optogenetics systems, which can be grouped into: photosensitive gated channels (neuronal optogenetic system); light-induced dimerization, where light-inducible conformational changes in a protein lead to higher affinity with its binding partner, which can be used to recruit proteins to a given location; photo-caging, with light-induced unfolding, which leads to protein activation or exposure of specific motifs, which can be used to modify protein activity (reviewed in (95,96)).

Optogenetics allows control of protein activity in both space and time: on one hand, the genetically encoded protein can be expressed only in the tissue of interest by using specific promoters; on the other hand, the researcher is explicitly in control of the time of the photoswitch. This spatiotemporal control makes optogenetics one of the most promising techniques for precise studies of morphogenesis. As an example, Mitchell et al., using optogenetics to modify actin activity, were able to show that folding of the Drosophila midgut during development is dependent on the contraction of the surrounding muscle. In combination with high-end image analysis of cell shape changes, they were able to precisely connect such out-of-plane contractions with the midgut cell shape changes that lead to its folding (97) (Fig. 3 A).Figure 3 (A) Using advanced frameworks of image cartography and single-cell segmentation, Mitchell et al. were able to determine that the folds appearing in the Drosophila gut are a result of a convergent extension pattern driven by cell shape changes. Such shape changes are promoted by out-of-plane contraction of the surrounding muscle. This is confirmed by induction of muscle contractility using optogenetic tools. The authors went further and were able to link muscle contraction with calcium spikes generated in areas where specific hox genes are present, thus directly linking gene expression with cell shape (and tissue shape) changes (adapted from (97)). (B) Schematic of a Drosophila embryo depicting the midgut in blue. (C) Schematic of a Drosophila follicle showing the extracellular matrix (in green) surrounding the cells. (D) Also using cartography projections of 3D data into 2D, Chen et al. show that follicle elongation is dependent on the reorientation of elongated cells, regulated by mechanical cues from the extracellular matrix (adapted from (23)).

Tissue depth (which affects light diffraction) and differential protein dynamics can undermine the application of this technique in whole organisms. Indeed, optogenetics have been applied mostly in cell culture, organoids (98), or during Drosophila (99,100) embryogenesis and, to a lesser extent, in zebrafish embryogenesis (101,102). Examples of optogenetic tools include the Gef2/RhoA CRY2 and the OptoMYPT systems to control actin contractility (99,103), the photoactivatable RAc1 (104), the π-EB1 to control microtubule dynamics (105), OptoShroom3 to control shroom3 activity and apical constriction (98), and OptoYAP to control YAP localization and activity (102). Given the significant potential of this technique, optogenetic systems continue to mature with new tools appearing frequently. The web site Optobase.org keeps track of the latest novelties in this area.

Optochemical disruption

Another method of using light to interfere with cytoskeleton structure is by using synthetic photosensitive molecules. These small, cell-permeable molecules can affect, for example, the activity of ion channels, enzymes, or cytoskeleton components, in an irreversible or reversible manner (reviewed in (106)). Given the small size of these compounds, it is, in principle, possible to use them at the organismal level, given that they penetrate the tissue/organ of interest.

Few examples of photoswitchable drugs that affect the cytoskeleton include optojaps, for disruption of actin filaments (107,108), azobenzene-based microtubule stabilizers (109), microtubule-depolymerizing SBTubs (110), and photoactivatable cytochalasin D (111).

Theoretical approaches to morphogenesis

Measurements of morphological changes per se might not be sufficient to explain the dynamics of tissues and of the myriad of cells during morphogenesis. Combining experimental results with theoretical modeling of shape changes gives a new perspective on the analyzed process, helping to interpret and validate experimental results. Computational models can further explore the parameter spaces and make predictions of tissue behavior upon disruption of specific parameters. Thus, experimentation and theory should evolve side by side in constant feedback.

Here, we give an overview of the several approaches to computational models and in which conditions they can be used to model morphogenesis. Readers further interested in the interplay between imaging data and computational modeling, and related terminology, concepts, and models, are referred to (112). The choice of a model will partially depend on which scale (subcellular versus tissue) one is focused on in the study of a particular scientific question (113,114). But, given the complex multiscale event that is the shaping of an organ, it remains an area of active theoretical research to understand precisely how these different potential models relate to each other.

Cell-based models

Cell-based models represent the tissues as collections of interacting cells to capture how changes at the cellular levels are propagated throughout the tissue and may result in global deformations or flows. Defining each cell explicitly also allows us to include the cell’s internal biological state as well as topological events such as neighbor exchanges, cell divisions, or cell death. Several such approaches have been developed, ranging from the cellular Potts model (115), which uses Monte Carlo simulations to represent cell boundary fluctuations on a fixed lattice, to lattice-free models investigating vertex or cell center dynamics.

In vertex models, cells are represented by polygons defined by vertices at which three or more cells meet. Since the neighbors are mechanically coupled, the movement of each vertex is influenced by forces exerted by all of the cells that are connected to it. The forces, in turn, result from each cell tending to change shape in a way to maintain its preferred volume and minimize surface area. Additional terms can also be added to include, for example, external forces acting on a vertex or preferred membrane curvatures (116). Similarly, in the field of membrane computing, scientists model tissues as interconnected cells spanning a graph exchanging information via chemical signals through membranes (117). In contrast, in the Voronoi models, a cell is defined in relation to its center, which moves in response to the forces. This allows for an effective way to model cell motility, but it is no longer possible to specify cell volumes.

Vertex and Voronoi models have been used to study many phenomena, including epithelial sheet deformations (118), cell shape changes (77,119) (Fig. 2 C), jamming transitions (120,121), and even the usage of mechanical properties as an error correction mechanism (122).

The main strength of cell-based models lies in their ability to bridge the scales between events at the cellular level and their effect on the tissue scale. They are also very flexible, allowing one to include biochemical events and feedback loops between cell surroundings and their mechanical properties. However, this flexibility also means that this class of models has many parameters, which makes the comparison between different models difficult since the same event can be implemented in many ways.

Continuum models

In contrast to cell-based models, continuum models reflect statistics over individual cells to represent tissues as homogeneous materials. Such models can be built by explicit coarse graining over the individual cells, or from first principles such as symmetry considerations. This is analogous to bulk descriptions of fluids or solids where the interactions between individual particles give rise to the effective material parameters such as viscosity or elasticity. In addition, features such as individual cell stiffness, frequency of neighbor exchange, and cell alignment further modify the macroscale behavior and so determine which theoretical model best describes the investigated tissue (reviewed in (123,124)). As an example, depending on how easily the neighbors are exchanged, tissue behavior will be more solid- or liquid-like (125). On short timescales, of the order of seconds, soft tissues behave like viscoelastic solids, which deform when a force is applied and quickly recover the initial shape once the force is removed (126,127,128). Such behavior can be modeled using two main parameters—Young’s modulus and dynamic viscosity. In contrast, on longer timescales, when neighbor exchange becomes relevant, tissues behave in a more fluid-like manner—the deformations persist, and tissues seem to flow as the cells rearrange (44,127).

However, recently more unusual materials have been advanced as candidates to describe tissue behavior in continuum theories, such as the shape programmable hydrogels (129) and liquid crystal solids (130). Liquid crystal elastomers, for example, are composed of aligned, elongated polymers cross-linked into an elastomer. This alignment can be increased or reduced in reaction to certain stimuli, leading to anisotropic shape change of the whole material, which in some cases can lead to shape establishment (131,132,133). A similar shape change can be observed in tissues where a change in the alignment of cells can trigger shape change. In such cases, tissue can be modeled as a viscoelastic solid with a pattern of spontaneous strain, whose relaxation leads to deformations.

Probably the most important difference between nonliving materials and tissues is that tissues exist out of equilibrium. The individual cells transduce free energy into motion or shape changes that can give rise to large-scale deformations. This contribution is considered in models that treat tissue using the soft active matter formalism (134,135), where, in addition to the material properties, additional terms such as force generation by cytoskeleton (136) or cell division (137) are included. The active matter models have successfully represented phenomena such as collective cell migration (138), tissue spreading (139), or tissue invagination (140).

The relative strength of the continuum models is that they have much fewer parameters than cell-based models. These parameters can be often measured more easily than the ones required for cell-based models, since they concern more high-level tissue properties, such as tissue density, average cell density, or alignment. On the other hand, these models can only describe systems whose mechanical properties are constant—once an appropriate model representing the tissue is chosen it is usually difficult to change it to account for how bulk mechanical forces change cell properties (124,141).

Conclusions

We have presented here a roadmap for a systems approach to the study of morphogenesis and shape emergence in vivo, from image analysis to theoretical modeling. We hope this review can serve as a guide for those starting the challenging but exciting task of studying shape emergence.

It has become increasingly clear that understanding complex shape emergence is necessarily a highly interdisciplinary undertaking. As such, it stands to greatly benefit from a comprehensive, collaborative approach bringing together three separate poles of expertise: image analysis, (wet lab) biology, and biophysics. It is then beneficial for a project to start by laying out the challenges and possibilities at all three fronts, kickstarting natural, collaborative feedback among the different experts, that, critically, should continue throughout the project (142).

Interdisciplinary approaches to developmental biology are not new, of course. Still, with the rapid recent technological advances, there are now more than ever new opportunities to bring interdisciplinarity to bear on new problems and with new constellations of expertise. The benefit to all sides is clear. Applying physical approaches and physical thinking to the problem of understanding developmental processes brings new perspectives and the possibility of a much deeper understanding of biology.

Author contributions

Planning of review outline, A.P.R.; writing – original draft, A.P.R., L.C.F., A.S., and C.D.M.; writing – review & and editing, A.P.R. and C.D.M.; retina curvature images, A.P.R.; nuclei segmentation images, L.C.F.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank C. Norden for support in the writing of this review and for critical reading and commenting on the manuscript. We also thank C. Sinigaglia, E. Barriga, and R. Haase for critical reading and commenting. Thank you to L. Dagher for the curvature analysis pipeline. A.P.R. is supported by European Union’s H2020 research and innovation program under the 10.13039/100010665 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (101038054); L.C.F. is supported by an 10.13039/501100001871 FCT PhD studentship (2020.06407.BD) as a member of the C. Norden group; A.S. is supported by the 10.13039/100010661 European Union’s H2020 research and innovation program 6 (829010 [PRIME H2020-FETOPEN-2018-2019-2020-01]).

Declaration of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
==== Refs
References

1 Holtfreter J. A study of the mechanics of gastrulation J. Exp. Zool. 95 1943 171 212
2 Lewis W.H. Mechanics of invagination Anat. Rec. 97 1947 139 156 20284907
3 Gordon R. Jacobson A.G. The shaping of tissues in embryos Sci. Am. 238 1978 106 113 684401
4 Sugawara K. Çevrim Ç. Averof M. Tracking cell lineages in 3D by incremental deep learning Elife 11 2022 e69380
5 Guignard L. Fiúza U.M. Lemaire P. Contact area-dependent cell communication and the morphological invariance of ascidian embryogenesis Science 369 2020 10.1126/science.aar5663
6 Lyons D.C. Perry K.J. Henry J.Q. Spiralian gastrulation: germ layer formation, morphogenesis, and fate of the blastopore in the slipper snail Crepidula fornicata Evodevo 6 2015 24 34 26664718
7 Rueden C.T. Schindelin J. Eliceiri K.W. ImageJ2: ImageJ for the next generation of scientific image data BMC Bioinf. 18 2017 529 626
8 Schindelin J. Arganda-Carreras I. Cardona A. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis Nat. Methods 9 2012 676 682 22743772
9 Sofroniew N. Lambert T. McGovern A. Napari: A Multi-Dimensional Image Viewer for Python 2022 Zenodo repository
10 Miura K. Sladoje N. Bioimage Data Analysis Workflows 1st ed. 2020 Springer International Publishing
11 Martins G.G. Cordelières F.P. Miura K. Highlights from the 2016-2020 NEUBIAS training schools for bioimage analysts: a success story and key asset for analysts and life scientists F1000Res. 10 2021 334 34164115
12 Haase R. Fazeli E. Tischer C. A Hitchhiker’s guide through the bio-image analysis software universe FEBS Lett. 596 2022 2472 2485 35833863
13 Krull A. Buchholz T.O. Jug F. Noise2Void - learning denoising from single noisy images Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2019-June 2018 2124 2132
14 Batson J. Royer L. Noise2Self: blind denoising by self-supervision Preprint at arXiv 2019 arXiv1901.11365
15 Weigert M. Schmidt U. Myers E.W. Content-aware image restoration: pushing the limits of fluorescence microscopy Nat. Methods 15 2018 1090 1097 30478326
16 Çiçek Ö. Abdulkadir A. Ronneberger O. 3D U-Net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. Ourselin S. Joskowicz L. Wells W. Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2016. MICCAI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol. 9901. 2016 Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-46723-8_49
17 Belthangady C. Royer L.A. Applications, promises, and pitfalls of deep learning for fluorescence image reconstruction Nat. Methods 16 2019 1215 1225 31285623
18 Moen E. Bannon D. Van Valen D. Deep learning for cellular image analysis Nat. Methods 16 2019 1233 1246 31133758
19 Icha J. Weber M. Norden C. Phototoxicity in live fluorescence microscopy, and how to avoid it Bioessays 39 2017 1700003 1700015
20 Rocha-Martins M. Kretzschmar J. Norden C. Bidirectional neuronal migration coordinates retinal morphogenesis by preventing spatial competition Preprint at bioRxiv 2021 10.1101/2021.02.08.430189
21 Trébeau C. de Monvel J.B. Etournay R. Extracting multiple surfaces from 3D microscopy images in complex biological tissues with the Zellige software tool BMC Biol. 20 2022 1 18 34983491
22 Heemskerk I. Streichan S.J. Tissue cartography: compressing bio-image data by dimensional reduction Nat. Methods 12 2015 1139 1142 26524242
23 Chen D.Y. Crest J. Bilder D. Extracellular matrix stiffness cues junctional remodeling for 3D tissue elongation Nat. Commun. 10 2019 3339 31350387
24 Vellutini B.C. Szałapak A. Modes C.D. Pre-patterned epithelial invagination prevents mechanical instability during fly gastrulation Preprint at bioarXiv 2023 10.1101/2023.03.30.534554
25 Weigert M. Schmidt U. Myers G. Star-convex polyhedra for 3D object detection and segmentation in microscopy Proceedings - 2020 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2020 2019 3655 3662
26 Mary H. Brouhard G.J. Kappa (κ): analysis of curvature in biological image data us-ing B-splines Preprint at bioRxiv 2019 1 14 10.1101/852772
27 Stringer C. Wang T. Pachitariu M. Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segmentation Nat. Methods 18 2020 100 106 33318659
28 Stirling D.R. Swain-Bowden M.J. Goodman A. CellProfiler 4: improvements in speed, utility and usability BMC Bioinf. 22 2021 433 511
29 Lalit M. Tomancak P. Jug F. EmbedSeg: embedding-based instance segmentation for biomedical microscopy data Med. Image Anal. 81 2022 102523
30 Berg S. Kutra D. Kreshuk A. ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis Nat. Methods 16 2019 1226 1232 31570887
31 Arzt M. Deschamps J. Jug F. LABKIT: labeling and segmentation toolkit for big image data Front. Comput. Sci. 4 2022 10
32 Machado S. Mercier V. Chiaruttini N. LimeSeg: a coarse-grained lipid membrane simulation for 3D image segmentation BMC Bioinf. 20 2019 2
33 Wolny A. Cerrone L. Kreshuk A. Accurate and versatile 3D segmentation of plant tissues at cellular resolution Elife 9 2020 e57613 e57634 32723478
34 D’Antuono R. Pisignano G. ZELDA: a 3D image segmentation and parent-child relation plugin for microscopy image analysis in napari Front. Comput. Sci. 3 2022 115
35 Haase R. Royer L.A. Myers E.W. CLIJ: GPU-accelerated image processing for everyone Nat. Methods 17 2019 5 6
36 Soans K.G. Ramos A.P. Norden C. Collective cell migration during optic cup formation features changing cell-matrix interactions linked to matrix topology Curr. Biol. 32 2022 4817 4831.e9 36208624
37 Bhattacharya D. Zhong J. Matsudaira P. Strain maps characterize the symmetry of convergence and extension patterns during zebrafish gastrulation Sci. Rep. 11 2021 19357
38 Ershov D. Phan M.S. Tinevez J.Y. TrackMate 7: integrating state-of-the-art segmentation algorithms into tracking pipelines Nat. Methods 19 2022 829 832 35654950
39 Maška M. Ulman V. Ortiz-De-Solorzano C. A benchmark for comparison of cell tracking algorithms Bioinformatics 30 2014 1609 1617 24526711
40 Haase R. Image processing filters for grids of cells analogous to filters processing grids of pixels Front. Comput. Sci. 3 2021 105
41 Evans E. Yeung A. Apparent viscosity and cortical tension of blood granulocytes determined by micropipet aspiration Biophys. J. 56 1989 151 160 2752085
42 Maître J.L. Niwayama R. Hiiragi T. Pulsatile cell-autonomous contractility drives compaction in the mouse embryo Nat. Cell Biol. 17 2015 849 855 26075357
43 Tinevez J.Y. Schulze U. Paluch E. Role of cortical tension in bleb growth Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 2009 18581 18586 19846787
44 Foty R.A. Forgacs G. Steinberg M.S. Liquid properties of embryonic tissues: measurement of interfacial tensions Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 1994 2298 2301 10055839
45 Davidson L.A. Oster G.F. Koehl M.A. Measurements of mechanical properties of the blastula wall reveal which hypothesized mechanisms of primary invagination are physically plausible in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus Dev. Biol. 209 1999 221 238 10328917
46 Barriga E.H. Franze K. Mayor R. Tissue stiffening coordinates morphogenesis by triggering collective cell migration in vivo Nature 554 2018 523 527 29443958
47 Koser D.E. Thompson A.J. Franze K. Mechanosensing is critical for axon growth in the developing brain Nat. Neurosci. 19 2016 1592 1598 27643431
48 Charras G.T. Horton M.A. Single cell mechanotransduction and its modulation analyzed by atomic force microscope indentation Biophys. J. 82 2002 2970 2981 12023220
49 Gómez-González M. Latorre E. Trepat X. Measuring mechanical stress in living tissues Nat. Rev. Phys. 2 2020 300 317
50 Ogita G. Kondo T. Sugimura K. Image-based parameter inference for epithelial mechanics PLoS Comput. Biol. 18 2022 e1010209
51 Rauzi M. Verant P. Lenne P.F. Nature and anisotropy of cortical forces orienting Drosophila tissue morphogenesis Nat. Cell Biol. 10 2008 1401 1410 18978783
52 Popović M. Druelle V. Wyart M. Inferring the flow properties of epithelial tissues from their geometry New J. Phys. 23 2021 033004
53 Ichbiah S. Delbary F. Turlier H. Embryo mechanics cartography: inference of 3D force atlases from fluorescence microscopy Preprint at bioarXiv 2023 10.1101/2023.04.12.536641
54 Lawton A.K. Nandi A. Holley S.A. Regulated tissue fluidity steers zebrafish body elongation Development 140 2013 573 582 23293289
55 Lemke S.B. Weidemann T. Schnorrer F. A small proportion of Talin molecules transmit forces at developing muscle attachments in vivo PLoS Biol. 17 2019 e3000057
56 Hirano S. Yamamoto T. Michiue T. FRET-based tension measurement across actin-associated mechanotransductive structures using Lima1 Int. J. Dev. Biol. 62 2018 631 636 30378387
57 Lagendijk A.K. Gomez G.A. Hogan B.M. Live imaging molecular changes in junctional tension upon VE-cadherin in zebrafish Nat. Commun. 8 2017 1402 1412 29123087
58 LaCroix A.S. Lynch A.D. Hoffman B.D. Tunable molecular tension sensors reveal extension-based control of vinculin loading Elife 7 2018 e33927 e33936 30024378
59 Grashoff C. Hoffman B.D. Schwartz M.A. Measuring mechanical tension across vinculin reveals regulation of focal adhesion dynamics Nature 466 2010 263 266 20613844
60 Austen K. Ringer P. Grashoff C. Extracellular rigidity sensing by talin isoform-specific mechanical linkages Nat. Cell Biol. 17 2015 1597 1606 26523364
61 Shao S. Deng S. Liu B. A DNA-encoded FRET biosensor for visualizing the tension across paxillin in living cells upon shear stress Anal. Sens. 2 2022 e202100033
62 Tan S.J. Chang A.C. Dunn A.R. Regulation and dynamics of force transmission at individual cell-matrix adhesion bonds Sci. Adv. 6 2020 eaax0317 32440534
63 Price A.J. Cost A.L. Grashoff C. Mechanical loading of desmosomes depends on the magnitude and orientation of external stress Nat. Commun. 9 2018 1 11 29317637
64 Déjardin T. Carollo P.S. Borghi N. Nesprins are mechanotransducers that discriminate epithelial-mesenchymal transition programs J. Cell Biol. 219 2020 e201908036
65 Fischer L.S. Rangarajan S. Grashoff C. Molecular force measurement with tension sensors Annu. Rev. Biophys. 50 2021 595 616 33710908
66 Kim H. Choi G. Kim T.-J. Resource for FRET-based biosensor optimization Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 10 2022 885394 35794864
67 Cost A.L. Khalaji S. Grashoff C. Genetically encoded FRET-based tension sensors Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 83 2019 e85 30865383
68 Campàs O. Mammoto T. Ingber D.E. Quantifying cell-generated mechanical forces within living embryonic tissues Nat. Methods 11 2014 183 189 24317254
69 Serwane F. Mongera A. Campàs O. In vivo quantification of spatially varying mechanical properties in developing tissues Nat. Methods 14 2016 181 186 27918540
70 Dolega M.E. Delarue M. Cappello G. Cell-like pressure sensors reveal increase of mechanical stress towards the core of multicellular spheroids under compression Nat. Commun. 8 2017 14056 14059 28128198
71 Träber N. Uhlmann K. Guck J. Polyacrylamide bead sensors for in vivo quantification of cell-scale stress in zebrafish development Sci. Rep. 9 2019 1 14 30626917
72 Lee W. Chen R.C. Moraes C. Dispersible hydrogel force sensors reveal patterns of solid mechanical stress in multicellular spheroid cultures J. Radiol. Case Rep. 10 2019 144
73 Mohagheghian E. Luo J. Wang N. Quantifying compressive forces between living cell layers and within tissues using elastic round microgels Nat. Commun. 9 2018 1878 1914 29760452
74 Neubauer J.W. Hauck N. Thiele J. Mechanoresponsive hydrogel particles as a platform for three-dimensional force sensing ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11 2019 26307 26313 31298522
75 Ding X. Li M. Xu F. Microsphere sensors for characterizing stress fields within three-dimensional extracellular matrix Acta Biomater. 141 2022 1 13 34979325
76 Naganathan S.R. Popović M. Oates A.C. Left–right symmetry of zebrafish embryos requires somite surface tension Nature 605 2022 516 521 35477753
77 Sanematsu P.C. Erdemci-Tandogan G. Manning M.L. 3D viscoelastic drag forces contribute to cell shape changes during organogenesis in the zebrafish embryo Cells Dev. 168 2021 203718
78 Mongera A. Rowghanian P. Campàs O. A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation Nature 561 2018 401 405 30185907
79 Ashkin A. Acceleration and trapping of particles by radiation pressure Phys. Rev. Lett. 24 1970 156 159
80 Ashkin A. Dziedzic J.M. Optical levitation by radiation pressure Appl. Phys. Lett. 19 1971 283 285
81 Català-Castro F. Schäffer E. Krieg M. Exploring cell and tissue mechanics with optical tweezers J. Cell Sci. 135 2022 jcs259355
82 Blehm B.H. Devine A. Tanner K. In vivo tissue has non-linear rheological behavior distinct from 3D biomimetic hydrogels, as determined by AMOTIV microscopy Biomaterials 83 2016 66 78 26773661
83 Bambardekar K. Clément R. Lenne P.F. Direct laser manipulation reveals the mechanics of cell contacts in vivo Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112 2015 1416 1421 25605934
84 Liesener J. Reicherter M. Tiziani H.J. Multi-functional optical tweezers using computer-generated holograms Opt Commun. 185 2000 77 82
85 Hörner F. Meissner R. Raz E. Holographic optical tweezers-based in vivo manipulations in zebrafish embryos J. Biophotonics 10 2017 1492 1501 28164445
86 Zulueta-Coarasa T. Fernandez-Gonzalez R. Laser ablation to investigate cell and tissue mechanics in vivo Integrative Mechanobiology 2015 128 147
87 Mayer M. Salbreux G. Grill S.W. Biophysics of cell developmental processes: a lasercutter’s perspective Comprehensive Biophysics 2012 Elsevier 194 207
88 Tlili S. Yin J. Saunders T.E. Shaping the zebrafish myotome by intertissue friction and active stress Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116 2019 25430 25439 31772022
89 Kiehart D.P. Galbraith C.G. Montague R.A. Multiple forces contribute to cell sheet morphogenesis for dorsal closure in Drosophila J. Cell Biol. 149 2000 471 490 10769037
90 Hutson M.S. Tokutake Y. Edwards G.S. Forces for morphogenesis investigated with laser microsurgery and quantitative modeling Science 300 2003 145 149 12574496
91 Solon J. Kaya-Çopur A. Brunner D. Pulsed forces timed by a ratchet-like mechanism drive directed tissue movement during dorsal closure Cell 137 2009 1331 1342 19563762
92 Dye N.A. Popović M. Jülicher F. Self-organized patterning of cell morphology via mechanosensitive feedback Elife 10 2021 e57964
93 Fierling J. John A. Rauzi M. Embryo-scale epithelial buckling forms a propagating furrow that initiates gastrulation Nat. Commun. 13 2022 3348 3414 35688832
94 Marchant C.L. Malmi-Kakkada A.N. Barriga E.H. Cell clusters softening triggers collective cell migration in vivo Nat. Mater. 21 2022 1314 1323 35970965
95 Krueger D. Izquierdo E. de Renzis S. Principles and applications of optogenetics in developmental biology Development (Camb.) 146 2019 1 13
96 Wittmann T. Dema A. van Haren J. Lights, cytoskeleton, action: optogenetic control of cell dynamics Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 66 2020 1 10 32371345
97 Mitchell N.P. Cislo D.J. Streichan S.J. Visceral organ morphogenesis via calcium-patterned muscle constrictions Elife 11 2022 e77355 35593701
98 Martínez-Ara G. Taberner N. Ebisuya M. Optogenetic control of apical constriction induces synthetic morphogenesis in mammalian tissues Preprint at bioRxiv 2021 10.1101/2021.04.20.440475
99 Valon L. Marín-Llauradó A. Trepat X. Optogenetic control of cellular forces and mechanotransduction Nat. Commun. 8 2017 14396
100 Izquierdo E. Quinkler T. De Renzis S. Guided morphogenesis through optogenetic activation of Rho signalling during early Drosophila embryogenesis Nat. Commun. 9 2018 2366 2413 29915285
101 Buckley C.E. Moore R.E. Clarke J.D.W. Reversible optogenetic control of subcellular protein localization in a live vertebrate embryo graphical Dev. Cell 36 2016 117 126 26766447
102 Toh P.J.Y. Lai J.K.H. Saunders T.E. Optogenetic control of YAP cellular localisation and function EMBO Rep. 23 2022 e54401
103 Yamamoto K. Miura H. Aoki K. Optogenetic relaxation of actomyosin contractility uncovers mechanistic roles of cortical tension during cytokinesis Nat. Commun. 12 2021 7145 7224 34880255
104 Wu Y.I. Frey D. Hahn K.M. A genetically encoded photoactivatable Rac controls the motility of living cells Nature 461 2009 104 108 19693014
105 Van Haren J. Charafeddine R.A. Wittmann T. Local control of intracellular microtubule dynamics by EB1 photodissociation Nat. Cell Biol. 20 2018 252 261 29379139
106 Hüll K. Morstein J. Trauner D. In vivo photopharmacology Chem. Rev. 118 2018 10710 10747 29985590
107 Borowiak, M., F. Ku, …, H. Arndt. Optical manipulation of F - actin with photoswitchable small molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 142 , 2020, 9240-9249.
108 Küllmer F. Vepřek N.A. Borowiak M. Next generation opto-jasplakinolides enable local remodeling of actin networks Preprint at bioRxiv 2022 10.1101/2022.02.21.480923
109 Müller-Deku A. Meiring J.C.M. Thorn-Seshold O. Photoswitchable paclitaxel-based microtubule stabilisers allow optical control over the microtubule cytoskeleton Nat. Commun. 11 2020 1 12 31911652
110 Gao L. Meiring J.C.M. Thorn-Seshold O. In vivo photocontrol of microtubule dynamics and integrity, migration and mitosis, by the potent GFP-imaging-compatible photoswitchable reagents SBTubA4P and SBTub2M J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144 2022 5614 5628 35290733
111 Latorre E. Kale S. Trepat X. Active superelasticity in three-dimensional epithelia of controlled shape Nature 563 2018 203 208 30401836
112 Sbalzarini I.F. Modeling and simulation of biological systems from image data Bioessays 35 2013 482 490 23533152
113 Fletcher A.G. Osborne J.M. Seven challenges in the multiscale modeling of multicellular tissues WIREs Mech. Dis. 14 2022 e1527 35023326
114 Green S. Batterman R. Biology meets physics: reductionism and multi-scale modeling of morphogenesis Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 61 2017 20 34 28024174
115 Graner F. Glazier J.A. Simulation of biological cell sorting using a two-dimensional extended Potts model Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 1992 2013 2016 10046374
116 Alt S. Ganguly P. Salbreux G. Vertex models: from cell mechanics to tissue morphogenesis Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2017 372 10.1098/rstb.2015.0520
117 Păun G. A quick introduction to membrane computing J. Log. Algebr. Program. 79 2010 291 294
118 Misra M. Audoly B. Shvartsman S.Y. Complex structures from patterned cell sheets Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 372 2017 20150515
119 Erdemci-Tandogan G. Clark M.J. Manning M.L. Tissue flow induces cell shape changes during organogenesis Biophys. J. 115 2018 2259 2270 30455043
120 Bi D. Lopez J.H. Manning M.L. A density-independent rigidity transition in biological tissues Nat. Phys. 11 2015 1074 1079
121 Bi D. Yang X. Manning M.L. Motility-driven glass and jamming transitions in biological tissues Phys. Rev. X 6 2016 021011
122 Bielmeier C. Alt S. Classen A.-K. Interface contractility between differently fated cells drives cell elimination and cyst formation Curr. Biol. 26 2016 563 574 26853359
123 Gonzalez-Rodriguez D. Guevorkian K. Brochard-Wyart F. Soft matter models of developing tissues and tumors Science 338 2012 910 917 23161991
124 Khalilgharibi N. Fouchard J. Kabla A. The dynamic mechanical properties of cellularised aggregates Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 42 2016 113 120 27371889
125 Ranft J. Basan M. Jülicher F. Fluidization of tissues by cell division and apoptosis Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 2010 20863 20868 21078958
126 Forgacs G. Foty R.A. Steinberg M.S. Viscoelastic properties of living embryonic tissues: a quantitative study Biophys. J. 74 1998 2227 2234 9591650
127 Guevorkian K. Colbert M.-J. Brochard-Wyart F. Aspiration of biological viscoelastic drops Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 2010 218101
128 Bonnet I. Marcq P. Graner F. Mechanical state, material properties and continuous description of an epithelial tissue J. R. Soc. Interface 9 2012 2614 2623 22628216
129 Kim J. Hanna J.A. Hayward R.C. Designing responsive buckled surfaces by halftone gel lithography Science 335 2012 1201 1205 22403385
130 Modes C. Warner M. Shape-programmable materials Phys. Today 69 2016 32 38
131 Warner M. Topographic mechanics and applications of liquid crystalline solids Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11 2020 125 145
132 Modes C.D. Bhattacharya K. Warner M. Gaussian curvature from flat elastica sheets Proc. R. Soc. A 467 2011 1121 1140
133 Modes C.D. Warner M. Blueprinting nematic glass: systematically constructing and combining active points of curvature for emergent morphology Phys. Rev. E Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 84 2011 021711
134 Marchetti M.C. Joanny J.F. Simha R.A. Hydrodynamics of soft active matter Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 2013 1143 1189
135 Ramaswamy S. The mechanics and statistics of active matter Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1 2010 323 345
136 Banerjee S. Gardel M.L. Schwarz U.S. The actin cytoskeleton as an active adaptive material Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 11 2020 421 439 33343823
137 Recho P. Ranft J. Marcq P. One-dimensional collective migration of a proliferating cell monolayer Soft Matter 12 2016 2381 2391 26799489
138 Banerjee S. Marchetti M.C. Continuum models of collective cell migration Cell Migrations: Causes and Functions 2019 Springer 45 66
139 Köpf M.H. Pismen L.M. A continuum model of epithelial spreading Soft Matter 9 2013 3727
140 He B. Doubrovinski K. Wieschaus E. Apical constriction drives tissue-scale hydrodynamic flow to mediate cell elongation Nature 508 2014 392 396 24590071
141 Fletcher D.A. Mullins R.D. Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton Nature 463 2010 485 492 20110992
142 Schlaeppi A. Adams W. Kugler E.C. Meeting in the middle: towards successful multidisciplinary bioimage analysis collaboration Front. Bioinform. 2 2022 889755 35600765
