All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for revising the paper in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions.
the authors have responded to my comments in a satisfactory way
no comments
the authors have responded to my comments in a satisfactory way
the authors have responded to my comments in a satisfactory way
Pass.
No Comments.
No Comments.
I am happy with the revised manuscript and appreciate the authors efforts to improve what was already a solid piece of work.
Please carefully take into account the reviewers comments in your revision.
According to PeerJ policies, the submitted manuscript should be accompanied by a code used to implement the mathematical model - this requirement has not been fulfilled.
No comments
When comparing all IBM images in the figure insets (except of panels D in Figs. 2 and 3), all simulated cell distributions look qualitatively similar, thus this is not clear whether the proposed C_IBM and C_SM can distinguish between these cell configurations. Some quantitative comparison between the obtained numerical results should be included to validate the techniques that have been presented.
The supplemental material (over 50 individual images) is impossible to review -- this should be collected in one file with proper annotations or legends.
Pass.
This is a clearly and thoughtfully written piece of scholarship that describes the authors step toward a comprehensive method of understanding collective cell movement. In this manuscript the authors utilize an individual based model and analytic methods to predict the eventual structure (after movement with graded levels of interaction with neighbors) of cellular populations.
They show that without the effect of nearby cells, the structure that they observe in their experimental construct does not match the theoretical predictions. This work stands alone as a single piece of scholarship, but also moves forward nicely from their earlier work in 1-dimensional movement.
Pass.
The experimental design was clearly described, as were the mathematical methods. Where there were gaps in the explanation, there were clear references to earlier work where these could be filled in. There were no ethical issues with this research.
I have no doubt that the findings in this work were reported dutifully, and that the methods were carried out as described.
There was discussion of neglecting the edge effects, and in particular only using a (relatively) small field of view - further, in the analytic methods, periodic boundary conditions were employed. I do wonder how the application of an edge correction method would (if at all) change the analysis.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.