Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Biochim Biophys Acta. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 May 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2683193

Geometric control of tissue morphogenesis


Morphogenesis is the dynamic and regulated change in tissue form that leads to creation of the body plan and development of mature organs. Research over the past several decades has uncovered a multitude of genetic factors required for morphogenesis in animals. The behaviors of individual cells within a developing tissue are determined by combining these genetic signals with information from the surrounding microenvironment. At any point in time, the local microenvironment is influenced by macroscale tissue geometry, which sculpts long range signals by affecting gradients of morphogens and mechanical stresses. The geometry of a tissue thus acts as both a template and instructive cue for further morphogenesis.

Keywords: emergence, pattern formation, mechanotransduction, multicellular form

1. Introduction

Morphogenesis is the process by which a population of cells rearranges into the distinctive shape and form of a tissue. The development of functional organ architectures from simpler ones has captivated biologists and physical scientists for hundreds of years [1]. Recent progress in the sequencing of a wide variety of animal genomes, coupled with systematic examination of tissue-specific and time-varying gene expression patterns, have enabled identification of the genes required for different morphogenetic processes. With the advent of systems biology, we can now attempt to explain complex developmental processes using gene regulatory networks [2, 3]. Each specific biological task can be ascribed to a subcircuit of genes, and combining the subcircuits is thought to yield a network diagram that can explain how development is choreographed in space and time [4].

While it is a significant advancement over reductionist approaches, this explanation is incomplete. In the lab we tend to identify and describe cells based on the genes they express, but gene expression – in and of itself – does not define the cell or the tissue. Morphogenesis (and likewise, differentiation and homeostasis) depends on what cells do, which is ultimately a function of environmental inputs as much as it is a function of gene expression. Indeed, a small number of genes is used repeatedly throughout development in the morphogenesis of a wide variety of structures. For example, the Notch pathway is required for development of insect wings and bristles [5, 6], bird feathers [7], and mammalian inner ear hair cells and mammary glands [8, 9]. Across the animal kingdom there is no one-to-one correspondence between homologous genes and morphological structures [10]. The behavior of a cell expressing a given gene or subset of genes depends entirely on where that particular cell is in the body, and at what point in development. The phenotypic output of a gene is therefore best described as context-dependent [11].

What is the context during morphogenesis? Virchow’s principle, “omnis cellula e cellula” (all cells come from cells), can easily be scaled from single cells to tissues: all tissues develop from other tissues. Morphogenetic processes mold simple tissue primordia (sheets or clusters of cells) into more complex forms (tubes, branches, bends, folds). Any action imposed by gene expression must work in the context of the pre-existing rudimentary tissue in order for morphogenesis to succeed. Tissue geometry can therefore be considered as an additional signal that changes in time. Here, I describe how the developmental history of a tissue and its geometric structure provide contextual information for developmental genes. I discuss how geometry controls the behavior of individual cells, how the collective action of cells underlies morphogenetic movements, and how tissue geometry sculpts the signals that direct morphogenesis.

2. Geometric control at the single cell level

The earliest classification of cells was based on their appearance. There are more than 100 kinds of cells that can be visibly distinguished in a vertebrate animal. They organize into a variety of tissues, including epithelium (squamous, columnar, and cuboidal), muscle, nerves, and bone. Cells from these tissues can also be distinguished from one another when isolated and plated as individually in culture. For example, epithelial cells resemble individual tiles in a cobblestone path, whereas fibroblasts have a more stellate morphology with numerous protrusions. Although we now understand that there are tissue- and organ-specific differences between cells, simple classification based on appearance was remarkably prescient. Early cell culture studies noted a correlation between cell geometry and cell function. Indeed, numerous cellular behaviors in culture, including proliferation [1216], apoptosis [15, 17], lamellipodial extension [18], migration [19], glucose metabolism [20], RNA processing [2125], differentiation [2629], epithelial-mesenchymal transition [30], and stem cell fate [31] have been found to be determined by cellular geometry. Although we must be cautious about translating these findings to the regulation of cell function in vivo, they serve as a useful guidebook, as much of tissue morphogenesis depends on the change in shape of individual cells.

3. Cellular rearrangements in tissue morphogenesis

Alterations in shape lead individual cells to rearrange with respect to each other, a driving force for tissue morphogenesis. There are a number of different evolutionarily conserved rearrangements classically described during embryonic development (Figure 1). The movements highlighted below share many features, including regulation by cell adhesion and contractility.

Figure 1
Cellular rearrangements in tissue morphogenesis

3.1 Epiboly

Morphogenesis results from repacking of cells. One of the first major morphogenetic movements during zebrafish and Xenopus gastrulation is epiboly. During epiboly, a superficial cellular sheet spreads as a unit across underlying layers of cells, causing the tissue to both expand in area and decrease in thickness, and thereby enclose deeper layers of the embryo. Whereas the details differ between species, the principal mechanisms driving epiboly are an increase in the number of cells comprising the sheet, both by cell division and by radial intercalation of cells from several underlying layers [32]. Epibolic movements in zebrafish gastrulation require concerted cadherin-mediated interactions between cells, as antisense morpholino oligonucleotides [33] or mutations in the E-cadherin (cdh1) gene [34, 35] disrupt the process. Studies in Xenopus embryos have also revealed a major role for the extracellular matrix (ECM) molecule fibronectin in the cellular rearrangements that drive later stages of epiboly, as treatment with antibodies that disrupt fibronectin/integrin interactions or expression of dominant-negative β1-integrin constructs prevented radial intercalations [36]. Aside from gastrulation, movements similar to epiboly have been reported to occur in development of tissue engineered dermis [37]. Thus, epiboly-related mechanisms likely regulate the morphogenesis of many tissues.

3.2 Convergence and extension

Perhaps the most well studied morphogenetic movement is convergence and extension. ‘Convergence and extension’ refers to the narrowing and lengthening of a population of cells, a process ubiquitous during embryonic development [38, 39]. Convergence and extension events can occur via a number of mechanisms, including cell growth and cell shape changes, but mediolateral cellular intercalation, in which cells squeeze in between their neighbors and thereby lengthen the sheet perpendicular to the direction of migration, appears to drive most examples [40]. Contraction of individual cells must generate sufficient traction forces against the underlying ECM to change the shape of the sheet, which in turn leads to a stiffening of the embryo [41]. Similar to epiboly, integrin- and cadherin-mediated adhesive dynamics control the patterned migrations of convergence and extension [36]. Convergence and extension movements are responsible for a wide variety of developmental distortions, including elongation of the dorsal axis and development of the notochord (reviewed in [40]).

3.3 Invagination and cleft formation

Simple epithelial sheets are converted into complex, multi-layered, folded, and branched structures by the processes of invagination and cleft formation. Preceding invagination, apical constriction within a region of cells in the monolayer causes the cells to become wedge-shaped and thereby induces the sheet to buckle and protrude [42]. Apical constriction requires myosin-mediated contraction of the actin microfilaments that are prominently localized at the apical plasma membrane and associated with adherens junctions [43], leading to a reduction in the apical perimeter relative to the basal perimeter. Analysis of ventral furrow development in Drosophila gastrulation has revealed that these polarized constrictions are controlled in part by recruitment of myosin motors and regulators of Rho family GTPases from basal to apical regions via specific target genes of the transcription factor Twist [44], which leads to pulsed contractions of the cortical actin-myosin network [45]. The protrusion that forms due to apical constriction then expands by either differential adhesion between the invaginating cells and the surrounding tissue (akin to the spreading of liquids with different surface tensions)[46, 47], or by active extension of cellular processes such as filopodia [48]. Invagination is thus driven by the active coordination of cell shape changes amongst a population of cells.

The tree-like architectures of epithelial organs, including the lung, kidney, and salivary gland, are generated by the process of branching morphogenesis. Branching can be initiated in part by invagination and the formation of nascent clefts between cells within the epithelial monolayer [49], which likely involve different mechanisms. Cleft formation requires the synthesis of ECM proteins, such as fibronectin and collagens, which accumulate focally at specific sites and induce clefting [50, 51]. Epithelial cells adjacent to the emerging cleft adhere to the ECM fibrils via integrins, and subsequent downstream signaling is thought to downmodulate cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion, leading to separation of neighboring cells and lengthening of the cleft [50]. Conversely, regions adjacent to buds show a decrease in ECM proteins, specifically a thinning of the basement membrane [52]. The directional translocation of the ECM fibrils is balanced by the dynamics of cell adhesion and cell motility to build clefts during branching morphogenesis of the salivary gland [53]. Recent studies have reported that clefting events are reconstituted by suspensions of isolated submandibular gland epithelial cells sufficiently well to form a rudimentary salivary gland ex vivo, suggesting that the patterning of branching in this organ may be stochastic rather than genetically pre-specified, an exciting possibility for eventual creation of a tissue engineered replacement [54, 55]. Fibronectin-induced clefting plays a minor role during branching morphogenesis of the lung, kidney, and mammary epithelial cells [50, 56], suggesting distinct mechanisms for control of branching of different mammalian organs. Invagination and clefting thus help to build complex branching structures from simple epithelial anlage.

4. Morphogen gradients

Morphogenetic movements in and of themselves are not sufficient to build a functional tissue architecture – they must occur at the correct location and time. One mechanism by which cell behaviors are organized spatially is via gradients of diffusing molecules, known as morphogens [5760]. The morphogen theory posits that a signal produced at a defined location forms a concentration gradient as it spreads through the surrounding tissue (reviewed in [61]). Cells located at different positions within the tissue are presented with different concentrations of the signal and respond according to these thresholds. Morphogen gradients therefore turn uniform fields of cells into discrete domains, and the behavior of a developing cell is determined by its location and the geometry of the tissue. Proper morphogenesis is thereby controlled by the shape of the concentration gradient, which depends in part on two parameters: the geometry of the population of cells that secretes the morphogen (the source), and the geometry of the surrounding tissue (the sink). Manipulating the source or the sink can alter the concentration profile of the morphogen (Figure 2), in the absence of changes to other biochemical or biophysical parameters. Candidate morphogens include members of the hedgehog (Hh), Wnt, and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β families [62]. Work from several groups has yielded insight into the mechanisms by which morphogen gradients are formed in a number of different developmental systems [6264]. Recent studies have also revealed how tissue geometry regulates the formation of morphogen gradients.

Figure 2
Geometric control of morphogen gradients

4.1 Morphogens in organogenesis: Geometric control of the source

Morphogen gradients are instructive during organogenesis, particularly in the branching morphogenesis process responsible for sculpting the ramified architectures of organs such as the lung, kidney, and mammary gland. During branching morphogenesis of the mammalian lung and Drosophila trachea, positional information is encoded by stimulatory morphogens secreted by adjacent mesenchymal tissues, including members of the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family, which act as chemoattractants for growing epithelial branches [65, 66]. This mechanism requires an initial pre-pattern of FGF signal within the mesenchyme, and is thought to account for the highly stereotyped branching patterns of the airways. The morphogenesis of these organs thereby depends on the geometry (size and position) of the inducing population of cells – exogenous expression of FGF induces ectopic branching [6769]. What determines the initial expression pattern of FGFs? The answer to this question remains unclear, but in the case of Drosophila trachea, the pattern of FGF expression appears to be controlled in part by earlier patterning cues that establish the anterior-posterior (AP) and dorsal-ventral (DV) axes of the embryo [65]. Chemoattractive mechanisms likely direct the outgrowth of branches in a number of other stereotyped organs, such as via glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) in the ureteric bud [70].

In contrast, there is no evidence that morphogen chemoattraction plays a role in directing the morphogenesis of non-stereotyped organs such as the mammary gland [71], which develops during puberty apparently in the absence of embryonic patterning cues. Instead, it was proposed in the late 1980s that the branching pattern of the mammary gland is determined by chemorepulsion [72], where the spacing between adjacent branches depends on gradients of inhibitory morphogens generated by the ductal epithelium itself [73]. Such a mechanism would require that the epithelium express both the inhibitory morphogen as well as its receptor, and would ensure that the ducts are relatively isolated from one another, thus producing the ‘open’ architecture of the mammary gland observed at the end of puberty. The concentration profile of inhibitors and subsequent morphogenesis would therefore be controlled by the initial geometry of the epithelium. One principal negative regulator of mammary gland development is TGFβ1. Mice that overexpress TGFβ1 under control of the MMTV promoter have a hypoplastic mammary tree [74]. Conversely, mice heterozygous for a null allele of TGFβ (TGFβ+/−) show 90% reduction in TGFβ protein and increased branching morphogenesis [75]. A gradient of TGFβ1 surrounds mammary epithelial ducts in vivo [7577] and ducts reconstituted in culture [78]. As predicted, altering the shape and spacing of ducts engineered in culture alters the shape of the gradient, resulting in branch formation in locations where the proximity to other cells – and hence the concentration of TGFβ – is lowest [78]. TGFβ1 globally inhibits branching in most other branched organs (reviewed in [49]), raising the possibility that tissue geometry regulates patterning via autocrine inhibitory gradients in other systems.

4.2 Morphogens in the embryo: Geometric control of the sink

The relative shape of a morphogen gradient is also sensitive to the geometry of the tissue(s) that surround the morphogen-synthesizing cells. One well-studied morphogen system responsible for patterning the fruit fly is the Bicoid (Bcd) gradient. Early in embryogenesis, before cellularization, Bcd is synthesized at the anterior end of the embryo and disperses within the syncitium, forming a concentration gradient along the AP axis that is highest at the anterior pole [79, 80]. The Bcd transcription factor is interpreted by cells into precise regions of gene transcription along the length of the embryo [81, 82], and is critical for later development of the head [83]. Similar to Bcd, an inverse pattern of the transcription factor Nanos forms by localized synthesis and dispersion from the posterior pole of the embryo [84]. Examination of the Bcd profile in related species with different sized embryos demonstrated that the Bcd concentration gradient scales with the size of the embryo [85]. Importantly, even though the size of dipteran embryos can vary 5-fold, the aspect ratio of different sized embryos appears to be constant [86]. This observation may be significant, as altering the aspect ratio of the embryo would be expected to change the shape of the gradient.

4.3 Coupling morphogenesis and growth: A moving boundary problem

One of the first morphogen systems to be described experimentally was the Decapentaplegic (Dpp) gradient that defines the AP axis during development of the wing primordium (known as the imaginal disk) in Drosophila larvae (reviewed in [87]). Dpp, the fly homolog of TGFβ family members Bmp2/4, is expressed in a group of cells that forms a stripe along the AP compartment boundary of the larval imaginal disk, and determines the positioning of the wing veins along the AP axis. The mechanism of patterning downstream of Dpp is well defined: The extracellular gradient of Dpp leads to cytoplasmic and nuclear gradients in Mad phosphorylation [88], which leads to production of an inverse Brk repression gradient [89]; Brk levels then determine the gene expression thresholds for patterning [90]. Spatially restricted ectopic expression of Dpp in mosaic clones changes the geometry of the Dpp concentration gradient, and alters the long-range pattern of induction [91, 92]. Proper morphogenesis of the wing therefore depends on the geometry of the Dpp-producing tissue.

Developing tissues are usually sculpted into their final functional architectures at the same time as their resident cells are undergoing proliferation. Morphogenesis (change in shape) therefore usually occurs concomitantly with growth (change in mass). The larval wing disk is a striking example – the wing primordium grows from approximately 50 cells in the first instar larva to 50,000 cells in the adult, an ~1000-fold expansion in mass during the time the tissue is being patterned. This leads to an interesting unsolved problem: How do cells and tissues couple changes in form (a time-scale issue) with changes in size (a length-scale issue)? As the tissue grows, the geometries of both the morphogen source and sink change. Increasing evidence suggests that morphogens themselves can couple patterning and growth by communicating information about the size of an organ to individual cells [93]. In addition to directing morphogenesis, the Dpp gradient is thought to play a role in specifying appendage size by controlling cell proliferation. Ectopic overexpression of Dpp leads to enhanced cell proliferation resulting in large wings [91, 92], whereas loss of Dpp in the wing primordium leads to production of a stump [94, 95]. These observations have led to the proposal that cells in the wing disk proliferate depending on the local slope of the Dpp morphogen gradient [93]. As the size of the tissue increases, the steepness of the gradient decreases, leading to a cessation of proliferation upon reaching a specific threshold. However, the situation is probably more complicated than simple sensing of gradient, as recent detailed studies have shown that manipulating Dpp expression alters the microtubule-based apical cytoskeleton and affects cell shape [96, 97]. These results suggest that Dpp affects the growth rate of the tissue in part by altering cell morphology, which can control tissue geometry by affecting mechanical stresses [98]. Tissue morphogenesis and growth are thus likely coupled by a combination of signaling from gradients of morphogens and mechanical stresses.

5. Mechanical gradients

In addition to gradients of chemical cues, it is clear that tissue development and homeostasis are fundamentally influenced by mechanical forces. Compressive and tensile stresses are well appreciated in the development of muscle and bone tissues [99, 100]. Bone is actively deposited in response to mechanical strain. Conversely, long-term exposure to microgravity, such as is experienced by astronauts during space flight, leads to bone resorption [101]. Mechanical stresses also influence the behaviors of cells in soft tissues, and tension-dependent signaling has been widely investigated in single cells in culture [102, 103]. Substrate stiffness [104] and stress gradients [105] have recently been found to direct lineage commitment of human mesenchymal stem cells, suggesting a role for mechanical stresses during developmental differentiation. Tissue pattern formation is determined by the interplay between cell-generated forces and the mechanical properties of the local microenvironment. In particular, the mechanical properties of cells and their surrounding microenvironment determine how tissues resist deformation and how forces are transmitted across the tissue.

5.1 Mechanical control of proliferation

Tissue forms often result from spatial differentials in cell proliferation. For example, during epithelial branching morphogenesis and vascular sprouting, cells located at the tips of branching buds proliferate more rapidly than neighboring cells located in the subtending ducts [106, 107]. However, bud outgrowth has been found to precede localized proliferation [108, 109], suggesting that increased proliferation is a response to tissue deformation. Indeed, the size and geometry of populations of cells determines the distribution and magnitude of traction forces within the tissue in 2D and 3D [110]. Cells located within a protruding bud would be expected to experience greater stress than those located in a resting duct [111]. The positions of highest mechanical stress have been found to correspond to sites of most rapid growth; disrupting the transmission of mechanical tension completely abolishes the patterning of proliferation [110]. Importantly, the gradient of stress is precisely determined by the geometry and size of the tissue, suggesting that the higher ordered architectures of mature organs arise from mechanical feedback mechanisms that encourage the evolution of ever more complex structures from simpler ones.

Mechanical stresses do not act in isolation – cells are constantly receiving biochemical signals from their surrounding environment and integrating these chemical cues with physical cues. Such integration has been proposed to account for the uniform proliferation of cells in the Drosophila wing imaginal disk [112, 113]. As described above, Dpp regulates growth of the disk, causing uniform proliferation even while presenting cells with a graded signal. In addition to responding to the Dpp signal, cells in the disk are also confronted by altering mechanical cues – tangential stretching, which is known to increase proliferation in cultured cells [114], and compression, which would cause cell rounding and inhibit proliferation [12, 15]. Any non-uniformity in proliferation caused by a graded Dpp stimulus would lead to accumulation of these mechanical stresses and thereby provide cells with a feedback signal to regulate growth of the tissue [115]. As the disk grows in size, compression – and, hence, inhibition –would tend to dominate, providing one possible mechanism to control the final size of the appendage [87].

5.2 Mechanical control of tissue bending

The bending of epithelial sheets also requires patterning of mechanical stresses and strains within the tissue. During gastrulation in the frog Xenopus laevis, a band of tissue at the equator of the embryo known as the marginal zone moves to the inside of the embryo through an opening at the surface called the blastopore. These movements are critical for forming and organizing the three primary germ layers (endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm) in their proper locations. Gastrulation begins when a small population of cells (called bottle cells), sandwiched between the marginal zone and the vegetal endoderm, invaginates to form the dorsal lip of the future blastopore. At the onset of gastrulation, prospective bottle cells actively constrict their apical surfaces. The movements this constriction generates depend on the mechanical properties of the surrounding tissues. Notably, the marginal zone is thinner and more deformable than the vegetal endoderm. Therefore, even though apical constriction generates force isotropically, it leads to inward bending of the epithelial sheet and a net vegetal lengthening of the tissue because the surrounding microenvironment is anisotropic [116, 117]. Altering the geometry of the surrounding tissue by removing the vegetal endoderm alters the mechanical gradient, leads to isotropic contraction of the bottle cells and failure of involution [116]. Later in gastrulation, the involuting marginal zone lengthens and narrows, stiffening anisotropically even further as it bends around the blastopore lip [41]. Convergence and extension movements then squeeze the blastopore shut and elongate the embryo along the AP axis. Changes in cell shape thereby lead to the mechanical alterations that help drive gastrulation.

5.3 Mechanical control of organogenesis

Organogenesis is also a physical process, during which tissues are pushed, pulled, and bent. Mechanical forces – both transmitted and received by tissues – are essential for development of organs including the heart and lungs. The vertebrate heart begins as a simple linear tube, from which cardiac chambers expand via torsion and looping. Importantly, the heart is beating and blood is flowing during cardiac morphogenesis, generating significant shear forces and transmural pressures that appear to be required for proper heart development [118]. Decreasing shear by blocking cardiac flow prevents formation of valves and looping in zebrafish embryos [118]. The magnitude and orientation of these shear stresses depends on the size and geometry of the vessel through which fluid flows. As the primitive tube bulges into defined chambers, each chamber acquires a bean-like shape comprised of two curved surfaces, an outer convex curvature and an inner concave curvature. Curvature is initiated by changes in the shapes of cells at these two surfaces, with cells flattening and increasing in area at the outer curvature, and cells remaining rounded at the inner curvature [119, 120]. The change in shape and the location at which it is initiated appear to be determined by blood flow. Importantly, the inner curvature has been found to be significantly stiffer (2–3 times) than the outer curvature [121], suggesting that gradients in mechanical force (possibly via pressure differentials) are responsible for the differences in cell shape changes that drive bending of the tube. Spatial differences in the mechanical properties of a tissue can thus effect morphogenesis by leading to spatial differences in cell shape.

Mechanical force is also a major determinant of fetal lung development [122], affecting patterning, growth, and differentiation. Tension gradients direct the pattern of budding during branching morphogenesis, as determined by mouse embryonic lung organ culture experiments [111, 123]. As morphogenesis proceeds, the tissue distorts, causing a change in the magnitude and direction of force felt by any individual cell within that tissue. Mechanical forces are thus a function of the geometry of the tissue and are constantly changing during its development. Repetitive stretching of the lung, as occurs during third trimester fetal breathing movements, is required for cell proliferation and organ growth [124]. Reduced distention leads to pulmonary hypoplasia [125], one of the most common anomalies among dying neonates [126]. Conversely, increased distention accelerates fetal lung growth and development [127, 128]. Mechanical forces are also required for differentiation of lung epithelium, as reduced distention inhibits production of surfactant protein [129] and correlates with a reduction in the number of cells expressing smooth muscle α-actin [130]. Mechanical stresses can thus influence differentiation by patterning changes in the shapes of individual cells in the tissue.

6. Conclusions and perspectives

Tissue geometry thus acts as both a signal for future morphogenesis, as well as an indicator of past events. From flies to frogs, fish, and humans, the geometric control of morphogenesis via chemical and mechanical gradients is ubiquitous. It is important to note that other gradients are also present in developing tissue. Because many molecules carry a net charge, chemical gradients of morphogens likely also create electrical gradients, which have been shown to be especially important for regenerative morphogenesis [131] and stem cell differentiation [132], and may also play roles during embryonic development [133]. Since manipulating geometry changes many aspects of the tissue, one challenge for the future is to separate the effects of biochemical, mechanical, and electrical gradients.

Finally, these contextual changes in tissue geometry need to be combined with knowledge of gene regulatory networks to provide a spatially accurate description of development. This quantitative understanding will require an ability to specify patterns of gene expression as well as how those patterns lead to morphogenetic movements such as changes in cell shape. The topology of gene regulatory networks predicts the temporal dependence of gene expression during development, but alone cannot describe changes in tissue morphology. Tissue geometry must therefore be incorporated as a separate boundary condition. Recent efforts using Boolean logic to describe spatial changes in gene expression patterns during development of the Drosophila eggshell represent a promising start in this endeavor [134]. Future efforts will need to focus on translating how the expression of specific genes, combined with geometric context, leads to the physical sculpting of tissue form.


The author holds a Career Award at the Scientific Interface from the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, and is supported by grants from the NIH (CA128660 and GM083997), the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and Susan G. Komen for the Cure.


extracellular matrix
fibroblast growth factor
glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor
transforming growth factor-β


Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.


1. Aristotle, Generation of animals. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 1953.
2. Davidson EH, Rast JP, Oliveri P, Ransick A, Calestani C, Yuh CH, Minokawa T, Amore G, Hinman V, Arenas-Mena C, Otim O, Brown CT, Livi CB, Lee PY, Revilla R, Rust AG, Pan Z, Schilstra MJ, Clarke PJ, Arnone MI, Rowen L, Cameron RA, McClay DR, Hood L, Bolouri H. A genomic regulatory network for development. Science. 2002;295:1669–1678. [PubMed]
3. Materna SC, Davidson EH. Logic of gene regulatory networks. Current opinion in biotechnology. 2007;18:351–354. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
4. Stathopoulos A, Levine M. Genomic regulatory networks and animal development. Dev Cell. 2005;9:449–462. [PubMed]
5. Kim J, Irvine KD, Carroll SB. Cell recognition, signal induction, and symmetrical gene activation at the dorsal-ventral boundary of the developing Drosophila wing. Cell. 1995;82:795–802. [PubMed]
6. Hartenstein V, Posakony JW. A dual function of the Notch gene in Drosophila sensillum development. Dev Biol. 1990;142:13–30. [PubMed]
7. Crowe R, Henrique D, Ish-Horowicz D, Niswander L. A new role for Notch and Delta in cell fate decisions: patterning the feather array. Development (Cambridge, England) 1998;125:767–775. [PubMed]
8. Lanford PJ, Lan Y, Jiang R, Lindsell C, Weinmaster G, Gridley T, Kelley MW. Notch signalling pathway mediates hair cell development in mammalian cochlea. Nature genetics. 1999;21:289–292. [PubMed]
9. Uyttendaele H, Soriano JV, Montesano R, Kitajewski J. Notch4 and Wnt-1 proteins function to regulate branching morphogenesis of mammary epithelial cells in an opposing fashion. Dev Biol. 1998;196:204–217. [PubMed]
10. Wray GA, Abouheif E. When is homology not homology? Current opinion in genetics & development. 1998;8:675–680. [PubMed]
11. Nelson CM, Bissell MJ. Of extracellular matrix, scaffolds, and signaling: tissue architecture regulates development, homeostasis, and cancer. Annual review of cell and developmental biology. 2006;22:287–309. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Folkman J, Moscona A. Role of cell shape in growth control. Nature. 1978;273:345–349. [PubMed]
13. Ingber DE, Folkman J. Mechanochemical switching between growth and differentiation during fibroblast growth factor-stimulated angiogenesis in vitro: role of extracellular matrix. J Cell Biol. 1989;109:317–330. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
14. Singhvi R, Kumar A, Lopez GP, Stephanopoulos GN, Wang DI, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE. Engineering cell shape and function. Science. 1994;264:696–698. [PubMed]
15. Chen CS, Mrksich M, Huang S, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science. 1997;276:1425–1428. [PubMed]
16. Huang S, Chen CS, Ingber DE. Control of cyclin D1, p27(Kip1), and cell cycle progression in human capillary endothelial cells by cell shape and cytoskeletal tension. Molecular biology of the cell. 1998;9:3179–3193. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Re F, Zanetti A, Sironi M, Polentarutti N, Lanfrancone L, Dejana E, Colotta F. Inhibition of anchorage-dependent cell spreading triggers apoptosis in cultured human endothelial cells. J Cell Biol. 1994;127:537–546. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
18. Parker KK, Brock AL, Brangwynne C, Mannix RJ, Wang N, Ostuni E, Geisse NA, Adams JC, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE. Directional control of lamellipodia extension by constraining cell shape and orienting cell tractional forces. Faseb J. 2002;16:1195–1204. [PubMed]
19. Jiang X, Bruzewicz DA, Wong AP, Piel M, Whitesides GM. Directing cell migration with asymmetric micropatterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:975–978. [PubMed]
20. Bissell MJ, Farson D, Tung AS. Cell shape and hexose transport in normal and virus-transformed cells in culture. Journal of supramolecular structure. 1977;6:1–12. [PubMed]
21. Farmer SR, Ben-Ze’av A, Benecke BJ, Penman S. Altered translatability of messenger RNA from suspended anchorage-dependent fibroblasts: reversal upon cell attachment to a surface. Cell. 1978;15:627–637. [PubMed]
22. Ben-Ze’ev A, Farmer SR, Penman S. Protein synthesis requires cell-surface contact while nuclear events respond to cell shape in anchorage-dependent fibroblasts. Cell. 1980;21:365–372. [PubMed]
23. Wittelsberger SC, Kleene K, Penman S. Progressive loss of shape-responsive metabolic controls in cells with increasingly transformed phenotype. Cell. 1981;24:859–866. [PubMed]
24. Farmer SR, Wan KM, Ben-Ze’ev A, Penman S. Regulation of actin mRNA levels and translation responds to changes in cell configuration. Molecular and cellular biology. 1983;3:182–189. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Chicurel ME, Singer RH, Meyer CJ, Ingber DE. Integrin binding and mechanical tension induce movement of mRNA and ribosomes to focal adhesions. Nature. 1998;392:730–733. [PubMed]
26. Emerman JT, Burwen SJ, Pitelka DR. Substrate properties influencing ultrastructural differentiation of mammary epithelial cells in culture. Tissue & cell. 1979;11:109–119. [PubMed]
27. Shannon JM, Pitelka DR. The influence of cell shape on the induction of functional differentiation in mouse mammary cells in vitro. In vitro. 1981;17:1016–1028. [PubMed]
28. Roskelley CD, Desprez PY, Bissell MJ. Extracellular matrix-dependent tissue-specific gene expression in mammary epithelial cells requires both physical and biochemical signal transduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91:12378–12382. [PubMed]
29. Muschler J, Lochter A, Roskelley CD, Yurchenco P, Bissell MJ. Division of labor among the alpha6beta4 integrin, beta1 integrins, and an E3 laminin receptor to signal morphogenesis and beta-casein expression in mammary epithelial cells. Molecular biology of the cell. 1999;10:2817–2828. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Nelson CM, Khauv D, Bissell MJ, Radisky DC. Change in cell shape is required for matrix metalloproteinase-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition of mammary epithelial cells. Journal of cellular biochemistry. 2008;105:25–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev Cell. 2004;6:483–495. [PubMed]
32. Keller RE. The cellular basis of epiboly: an SEM study of deep-cell rearrangement during gastrulation in Xenopus laevis. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1980;60:201–234. [PubMed]
33. Babb SG, Marrs JA. E-cadherin regulates cell movements and tissue formation in early zebrafish embryos. Dev Dyn. 2004;230:263–277. [PubMed]
34. Kane DA, Hammerschmidt M, Mullins MC, Maischein HM, Brand M, van Eeden FJ, Furutani-Seiki M, Granato M, Haffter P, Heisenberg CP, Jiang YJ, Kelsh RN, Odenthal J, Warga RM, Nusslein-Volhard C. The zebrafish epiboly mutants. Development (Cambridge, England) 1996;123:47–55. [PubMed]
35. Kane DA, McFarland KN, Warga RM. Mutations in half baked/E-cadherin block cell behaviors that are necessary for teleost epiboly. Development (Cambridge, England) 2005;132:1105–1116. [PubMed]
36. Marsden M, DeSimone DW. Regulation of cell polarity, radial intercalation and epiboly in Xenopus: novel roles for integrin and fibronectin. Development (Cambridge, England) 2001;128:3635–3647. [PubMed]
37. Falanga V, Butmarc J, Cha J, Yufit T, Carson P. Migration of the Epidermal over the Dermal Component (Epiboly) in a Bilayered Bioengineered Skin Construct. Tissue engineering. 2006 [PubMed]
38. Keller R. Shaping the vertebrate body plan by polarized embryonic cell movements. Science. 2002;298:1950–1954. [PubMed]
39. Solnica-Krezel L. Conserved patterns of cell movements during vertebrate gastrulation. Curr Biol. 2005;15:R213–228. [PubMed]
40. Keller R, Davidson L, Edlund A, Elul T, Ezin M, Shook D, Skoglund P. Mechanisms of convergence and extension by cell intercalation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000;355:897–922. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
41. Moore SW, Keller RE, Koehl MA. The dorsal involuting marginal zone stiffens anisotropically during its convergent extension in the gastrula of Xenopus laevis. Development (Cambridge, England) 1995;121:3131–3140. [PubMed]
42. Spooner BS, Wessells NK. An analysis of salivary gland morphogenesis: role of cytoplasmic microfilaments and microtubules. Dev Biol. 1972;27:38–54. [PubMed]
43. Michael L, Sweeney DE, Davies JA. A role for microfilament-based contraction in branching morphogenesis of the ureteric bud. Kidney Int. 2005;68:2010–2018. [PubMed]
44. Kolsch V, Seher T, Fernandez-Ballester GJ, Serrano L, Leptin M. Control of Drosophila gastrulation by apical localization of adherens junctions and RhoGEF2. Science. 2007;315:384–386. [PubMed]
45. Martin AC, Kaschube M, Wieschaus EF. Pulsed contractions of an actin-myosin network drive apical constriction. Nature. 2008 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
46. Kostetskii I, Moore R, Kemler R, Radice GL. Differential adhesion leads to segregation and exclusion of N-cadherin-deficient cells in chimeric embryos. Dev Biol. 2001;234:72–79. [PubMed]
47. Steinberg MS. Differential adhesion in morphogenesis: a modern view. Current opinion in genetics & development. 2007;17:281–286. [PubMed]
48. Malinda KM, Fisher GW, Ettensohn CA. Four-dimensional microscopic analysis of the filopodial behavior of primary mesenchyme cells during gastrulation in the sea urchin embryo. Dev Biol. 1995;172:552–566. [PubMed]
49. Davies JA. Do different branching epithelia use a conserved developmental mechanism? Bioessays. 2002;24:937–948. [PubMed]
50. Sakai T, Larsen M, Yamada KM. Fibronectin requirement in branching morphogenesis. Nature. 2003;423:876–881. [PubMed]
51. Nakanishi Y, Nogawa H, Hashimoto Y, Kishi J, Hayakawa T. Accumulation of collagen III at the cleft points of developing mouse submandibular epithelium. Development (Cambridge, England) 1988;104:51–59. [PubMed]
52. Williams JM, Daniel CW. Mammary ductal elongation: differentiation of myoepithelium and basal lamina during branching morphogenesis. Dev Biol. 1983;97:274–290. [PubMed]
53. Larsen M, Wei C, Yamada KM. Cell and fibronectin dynamics during branching morphogenesis. J Cell Sci. 2006;119:3376–3384. [PubMed]
54. Joraku A, Sullivan CA, Yoo J, Atala A. In-vitro reconstitution of three-dimensional human salivary gland tissue structures. Differentiation; research in biological diversity. 2007;75:318–324. [PubMed]
55. Wei C, Larsen M, Hoffman MP, Yamada KM. Self-organization and branching morphogenesis of primary salivary epithelial cells. Tissue engineering. 2007;13:721–735. [PubMed]
56. Fata JE, Mori H, Ewald AJ, Zhang H, Yao E, Werb Z, Bissell MJ. The MAPK(ERK-1,2) pathway integrates distinct and antagonistic signals from TGFalpha and FGF7 in morphogenesis of mouse mammary epithelium. Dev Biol. 2007;306:193–207. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Crick F. Diffusion in embryogenesis. Nature. 1970;225:420–422. [PubMed]
58. Tabata T. Genetics of morphogen gradients. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2:620–630. [PubMed]
59. Turing A. The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Phil Trans Roy Soc London (B) 1952;237:37–72.
60. Wolpert L. Positional information and the spatial pattern of cellular differentiation. J Theor Biol. 1969;25:1–47. [PubMed]
61. Ashe HL, Briscoe J. The interpretation of morphogen gradients. Development (Cambridge, England) 2006;133:385–394. [PubMed]
62. Tabata T, Takei Y. Morphogens, their identification and regulation. Development (Cambridge, England) 2004;131:703–712. [PubMed]
63. Lander AD. Morpheus unbound: reimagining the morphogen gradient. Cell. 2007;128:245–256. [PubMed]
64. Vincent JP, Dubois L. Morphogen transport along epithelia, an integrated trafficking problem. Dev Cell. 2002;3:615–623. [PubMed]
65. Metzger RJ, Krasnow MA. Genetic control of branching morphogenesis. Science. 1999;284:1635–1639. [PubMed]
66. Weaver M, Dunn NR, Hogan BL. Bmp4 and Fgf10 play opposing roles during lung bud morphogenesis. Development (Cambridge, England) 2000;127:2695–2704. [PubMed]
67. Sutherland D, Samakovlis C, Krasnow MA. branchless encodes a Drosophila FGF homolog that controls tracheal cell migration and the pattern of branching. Cell. 1996;87:1091–1101. [PubMed]
68. Bellusci S, Grindley J, Emoto H, Itoh N, Hogan BL. Fibroblast growth factor 10 (FGF10) and branching morphogenesis in the embryonic mouse lung. Development (Cambridge, England) 1997;124:4867–4878. [PubMed]
69. Park WY, Miranda B, Lebeche D, Hashimoto G, Cardoso WV. FGF-10 is a chemotactic factor for distal epithelial buds during lung development. Dev Biol. 1998;201:125–134. [PubMed]
70. Sainio K, Suvanto P, Davies J, Wartiovaara J, Wartiovaara K, Saarma M, Arumae U, Meng X, Lindahl M, Pachnis V, Sariola H. Glial-cell-line-derived neurotrophic factor is required for bud initiation from ureteric epithelium. Development (Cambridge, England) 1997;124:4077–4087. [PubMed]
71. Affolter M, Bellusci S, Itoh N, Shilo B, Thiery JP, Werb Z. Tube or not tube: remodeling epithelial tissues by branching morphogenesis. Dev Cell. 2003;4:11–18. [PubMed]
72. Daniel CW, Silberstein GB, Van Horn K, Strickland P, Robinson S. TGF-beta 1-induced inhibition of mouse mammary ductal growth: developmental specificity and characterization. Dev Biol. 1989;135:20–30. [PubMed]
73. Sternlicht MD, Kouros-Mehr H, Lu P, Werb Z. Hormonal and local control of mammary branching morphogenesis. Differentiation; research in biological diversity. 2006;74:365–381. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
74. Pierce DF, Jr, Johnson MD, Matsui Y, Robinson SD, Gold LI, Purchio AF, Daniel CW, Hogan BL, Moses HL. Inhibition of mammary duct development but not alveolar outgrowth during pregnancy in transgenic mice expressing active TGF-beta 1. Genes Dev. 1993;7:2308–2317. [PubMed]
75. Ewan KB, Shyamala G, Ravani SA, Tang Y, Akhurst R, Wakefield L, Barcellos-Hoff MH. Latent transforming growth factor-beta activation in mammary gland: regulation by ovarian hormones affects ductal and alveolar proliferation. Am J Pathol. 2002;160:2081–2093. [PubMed]
76. Silberstein GB, Flanders KC, Roberts AB, Daniel CW. Regulation of mammary morphogenesis: evidence for extracellular matrix-mediated inhibition of ductal budding by transforming growth factor-beta 1. Dev Biol. 1992;152:354–362. [PubMed]
77. Silberstein GB, Strickland P, Coleman S, Daniel CW. Epithelium-dependent extracellular matrix synthesis in transforming growth factor-beta 1-growth-inhibited mouse mammary gland. J Cell Biol. 1990;110:2209–2219. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
78. Nelson CM, Vanduijn MM, Inman JL, Fletcher DA, Bissell MJ. Tissue geometry determines sites of mammary branching morphogenesis in organotypic cultures. Science. 2006;314:298–300. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
79. Driever W, Nusslein-Volhard C. The bicoid protein determines position in the Drosophila embryo in a concentration-dependent manner. Cell. 1988;54:95–104. [PubMed]
80. Driever W, Nusslein-Volhard C. A gradient of bicoid protein in Drosophila embryos. Cell. 1988;54:83–93. [PubMed]
81. Driever W, Thoma G, Nusslein-Volhard C. Determination of spatial domains of zygotic gene expression in the Drosophila embryo by the affinity of binding sites for the bicoid morphogen. Nature. 1989;340:363–367. [PubMed]
82. Driever W, Nusslein-Volhard C. The bicoid protein is a positive regulator of hunchback transcription in the early Drosophila embryo. Nature. 1989;337:138–143. [PubMed]
83. Frohnhofer HG, Nusslein-Volhard C. Organization of anterior pattern in the Drosophila embryo by the maternal gene bicoid. Nature. 1986;324:120–125.
84. Wang C, Lehmann R. Nanos is the localized posterior determinant in Drosophila. Cell. 1991;66:637–647. [PubMed]
85. Gregor T, Bialek W, de Ruyter van Steveninck RR, Tank DW, Wieschaus EF. Diffusion and scaling during early embryonic pattern formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:18403–18407. [PubMed]
86. Gregor T, Wieschaus EF, McGregor AP, Bialek W, Tank DW. Stability and nuclear dynamics of the bicoid morphogen gradient. Cell. 2007;130:141–152. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
87. Affolter M, Basler K. The Decapentaplegic morphogen gradient: from pattern formation to growth regulation. Nature reviews. 2007;8:663–674. [PubMed]
88. Tanimoto H, Itoh S, ten Dijke P, Tabata T. Hedgehog creates a gradient of DPP activity in Drosophila wing imaginal discs. Molecular cell. 2000;5:59–71. [PubMed]
89. Campbell G, Tomlinson A. Transducing the Dpp morphogen gradient in the wing of Drosophila: regulation of Dpp targets by brinker. Cell. 1999;96:553–562. [PubMed]
90. Moser M, Campbell G. Generating and interpreting the Brinker gradient in the Drosophila wing. Dev Biol. 2005;286:647–658. [PubMed]
91. Zecca M, Basler K, Struhl G. Sequential organizing activities of engrailed, hedgehog and decapentaplegic in the Drosophila wing. Development (Cambridge, England) 1995;121:2265–2278. [PubMed]
92. Capdevila J, Guerrero I. Targeted expression of the signaling molecule decapentaplegic induces pattern duplications and growth alterations in Drosophila wings. The EMBO journal. 1994;13:4459–4468. [PubMed]
93. Day SJ, Lawrence PA. Measuring dimensions: the regulation of size and shape. Development (Cambridge, England) 2000;127:2977–2987. [PubMed]
94. Spencer FA, Hoffmann FM, Gelbart WM. Decapentaplegic: a gene complex affecting morphogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Cell. 1982;28:451–461. [PubMed]
95. Bryant PJ. Localized cell death caused by mutations in a Drosophila gene coding for a transforming growth factor-beta homolog. Dev Biol. 1988;128:386–395. [PubMed]
96. Gibson MC, Perrimon N. Extrusion and death of DPP/BMP-compromised epithelial cells in the developing Drosophila wing. Science. 2005;307:1785–1789. [PubMed]
97. Shen J, Dahmann C. Extrusion of cells with inappropriate Dpp signaling from Drosophila wing disc epithelia. Science. 2005;307:1789–1790. [PubMed]
98. Tan JL, Tien J, Pirone DM, Gray DS, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS. Cells lying on a bed of microneedles: an approach to isolate mechanical force. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:1484–1489. [PubMed]
99. Carter DR, Van Der Meulen MC, Beaupre GS. Mechanical factors in bone growth and development. Bone. 1996;18:5S–10S. [PubMed]
100. Epstein ND, Davis JS. Sensing stretch is fundamental. Cell. 2003;112:147–150. [PubMed]
101. Lang T, LeBlanc A, Evans H, Lu Y, Genant H, Yu A. Cortical and trabecular bone mineral loss from the spine and hip in long-duration spaceflight. J Bone Miner Res. 2004;19:1006–1012. [PubMed]
102. Bershadsky AD, Balaban NQ, Geiger B. Adhesion-dependent cell mechanosensitivity. Annual review of cell and developmental biology. 2003;19:677–695. [PubMed]
103. Vogel V, Sheetz M. Local force and geometry sensing regulate cell functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7:265–275. [PubMed]
104. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell. 2006;126:677–689. [PubMed]
105. Ruiz SA, Chen CS. Emergence of Patterned Stem Cell Differentiation within Multicellular Structures. Stem cells, Dayton, Ohio. 2008 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
106. Michael L, Davies JA. Pattern and regulation of cell proliferation during murine ureteric bud development. Journal of anatomy. 2004;204:241–255. [PubMed]
107. Goldin GV, Hindman HM, Wessells NK. The role of cell proliferation and cellular shape change in branching morphogenesis of the embryonic mouse lung: analysis using aphidicolin and cytochalasins. The Journal of experimental zoology. 1984;232:287–296. [PubMed]
108. Nogawa H, Morita K, Cardoso WV. Bud formation precedes the appearance of differential cell proliferation during branching morphogenesis of mouse lung epithelium in vitro. Dev Dyn. 1998;213:228–235. [PubMed]
109. Ausprunk DH, Folkman J. Migration and proliferation of endothelial cells in preformed and newly formed blood vessels during tumor angiogenesis. Microvascular research. 1977;14:53–65. [PubMed]
110. Nelson CM, Jean RP, Tan JL, Liu WF, Sniadecki NJ, Spector AA, Chen CS. Emergent patterns of growth controlled by multicellular form and mechanics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:11594–11599. [PubMed]
111. Moore KA, Polte T, Huang S, Shi B, Alsberg E, Sunday ME, Ingber DE. Control of basement membrane remodeling and epithelial branching morphogenesis in embryonic lung by Rho and cytoskeletal tension. Dev Dyn. 2005;232:268–281. [PubMed]
112. Aegerter-Wilmsen T, Aegerter CM, Hafen E, Basler K. Model for the regulation of size in the wing imaginal disc of Drosophila. Mechanisms of development. 2007;124:318–326. [PubMed]
113. Hufnagel L, Teleman AA, Rouault H, Cohen SM, Shraiman BI. On the mechanism of wing size determination in fly development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:3835–3840. [PubMed]
114. Liu WF, Nelson CM, Tan JL, Chen CS. Cadherins, RhoA, and Rac1 are differentially required for stretch-mediated proliferation in endothelial versus smooth muscle cells. Circulation research. 2007;101:e44–52. [PubMed]
115. Shraiman BI. Mechanical feedback as a possible regulator of tissue growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:3318–3323. [PubMed]
116. Hardin J, Keller R. The behaviour and function of bottle cells during gastrulation of Xenopus laevis. Development (Cambridge, England) 1988;103:211–230. [PubMed]
117. Keller R, Davidson LA, Shook DR. How we are shaped: the biomechanics of gastrulation. Differentiation; research in biological diversity. 2003;71:171–205. [PubMed]
118. Hove JR, Koster RW, Forouhar AS, Acevedo-Bolton G, Fraser SE, Gharib M. Intracardiac fluid forces are an essential epigenetic factor for embryonic cardiogenesis. Nature. 2003;421:172–177. [PubMed]
119. Auman HJ, Coleman H, Riley HE, Olale F, Tsai HJ, Yelon D. Functional modulation of cardiac form through regionally confined cell shape changes. PLoS biology. 2007;5:e53. [PubMed]
120. Manasek FJ, Burnside MB, Waterman RE. Myocardial cell shape change as a mechanism of embryonic heart looping. Dev Biol. 1972;29:349–371. [PubMed]
121. Zamir EA, Srinivasan V, Perucchio R, Taber LA. Mechanical asymmetry in the embryonic chick heart during looping. Annals of biomedical engineering. 2003;31:1327–1336. [PubMed]
122. Kitterman JA. The effects of mechanical forces on fetal lung growth. Clinics in perinatology. 1996;23:727–740. [PubMed]
123. Moore KA, Huang S, Kong Y, Sunday ME, Ingber DE. Control of embryonic lung branching morphogenesis by the Rho activator, cytotoxic necrotizing factor 1. J Surg Res. 2002;104:95–100. [PubMed]
124. Inanlou MR, Baguma-Nibasheka M, Kablar B. The role of fetal breathing-like movements in lung organogenesis. Histology and histopathology. 2005;20:1261–1266. [PubMed]
125. Alcorn D, Adamson TM, Lambert TF, Maloney JE, Ritchie BC, Robinson PM. Morphological effects of chronic tracheal ligation and drainage in the fetal lamb lung. Journal of anatomy. 1977;123:649–660. [PubMed]
126. Wigglesworth JS, Desai R. Is fetal respiratory function a major determinant of perinatal survival? Lancet. 1982;1:264–267. [PubMed]
127. Joe P, Wallen LD, Chapin CJ, Lee CH, Allen L, Han VK, Dobbs LG, Hawgood S, Kitterman JA. Effects of mechanical factors on growth and maturation of the lung in fetal sheep. The American journal of physiology. 1997;272:L95–105. [PubMed]
128. Maltais F, Seaborn T, Guay S, Piedboeuf B. In vivo tracheal occlusion in fetal mice induces rapid lung development without affecting surfactant protein C expression. American journal of physiology. 2003;284:L622–632. [PubMed]
129. Sanchez-Esteban J, Cicchiello LA, Wang Y, Tsai SW, Williams LK, Torday JS, Rubin LP. Mechanical stretch promotes alveolar epithelial type II cell differentiation. J Appl Physiol. 2001;91:589–595. [PubMed]
130. Yang Y, Beqaj S, Kemp P, Ariel I, Schuger L. Stretch-induced alternative splicing of serum response factor promotes bronchial myogenesis and is defective in lung hypoplasia. The Journal of clinical investigation. 2000;106:1321–1330. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
131. Jenkins LS, Duerstock BS, Borgens RB. Reduction of the current of injury leaving the amputation inhibits limb regeneration in the red spotted newt. Dev Biol. 1996;178:251–262. [PubMed]
132. Sundelacruz S, Levin M, Kaplan DL. Membrane potential controls adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3737. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
133. Altizer AM, Moriarty LJ, Bell SM, Schreiner CM, Scott WJ, Borgens RB. Endogenous electric current is associated with normal development of the vertebrate limb. Dev Dyn. 2001;221:391–401. [PubMed]
134. Yakoby N, Bristow CA, Gong D, Schafer X, Lembong J, Zartman JJ, Halfon MS, Schupbach T, Shvartsman SY. A combinatorial code for pattern formation in Drosophila oogenesis. Dev Cell. 2008;15:725–737. [PMC free article] [PubMed]