Home
 /
Papers
 /
Biophysics
 /
Positional information and information flows in dynamic tissues
Preprint
Open access
V1
Top 1% · Validated by QED

Positional information and information flows in dynamic tissues

Alex Plum, Mattia Serra
April 2026
 ·
bioRxiv
 ·
DOI 
10.64898/2026.04.15.718553
94
%
Reproducible
QED Impressions
This paper passed independent validation.
QED's automated review checked the evidence supporting each claim, the statistical methods, and whether the results are reproducible from the data provided.

It ranks in the top 1% of preprints assessed in Biophysics this quarter.
Run full QED analysis
Read paper
Save

Why this is interesting

By rigorously extending positional information to moving tissues—decomposing how patterns are preserved, lost, or generated during morphogenesis—this framework dissolves a foundational barrier and makes competing pattern-formation mechanisms directly testable from whole-embryo trajectory data.

QED claims analysis

Summary

Positional information dynamics in developing embryos can be quantified through information-theoretic decomposition of mutual information between cell positions and properties over time, revealing that dynamic tissues function as information channels with capacity constrained by cell mixing, that embryos across species lose approximately 40-50% of predictive information during gastrulation through morphogenesis-structured mixing patterns, and that information-theoretic inequalities can distinguish between programmed extracellular cues and self-organizing intercellular interactions as sources of pattern generation.

See full analysis
Main Claim 1 –

Decomposing position–property mutual information into PI information flows

Supporting evidence

  • Six developmental processes map to distinct PI decomposition terms
Main Claim 2 –

Dynamic-tissue channel capacity bounds positional information transmission

Supporting evidence

  • Lagrangian tissue-flow coordinates enable dynamic positional-information quantification
Main Claim 3 –

Gastrulation causes 40–50% predictive-information loss across species

Supporting evidence

  • Morphogenesis structures mixing via attractors/repellers, preserving flow-aligned patterns
Main Claim 4 –

Information inequalities distinguish extracellular versus intercellular PI sources

Supporting evidence

  • Morphogen cues generate PI via instruction and chemotactic sorting
  • Intercellular interactions generate PI from neighborhood correlations and geometry

Abstract

During development, embryos store, transmit, and transform information to generate spatial patterns. Positional information (PI) quantifies how precisely cells form patterns at a given time, but cell motion has limited its application to static tissues. We introduce a framework for PI in dynamic tissues by decomposing mutual information between cells’ positions and properties over time into information flows contributing to PI preservation, loss and generation. These reveal information-theoretic signatures of ubiquitous developmental processes, including instruction, sorting and mixing, directly from data. Applying this framework to whole-embryo cell trajectories in Drosophila, mouse and zebrafish gastrulation, we provide local and global information-theoretic quantification of cell mixing and derive bounds on PI preservation imposed by tissue dynamics. Analyzing tissue flows as dynamical systems, we further show that morphogenesis structures mixing, preferentially preserving specific patterns. Finally, we derive inequality conditions for tracing generated PI to candidate information sources and distinguishing among alternative pattern-formation mechanisms, from programmed extracellular cues to self-organizing intercellular interactions.

Related papers

How the QED Score works

QED Score is a validated AI-based quality metric that evaluates life science papers on two dimensions: originality and validity. Each manuscript is anonymized, broken down into its claims and supporting evidence, and examined by specialized AI agents for statistical rigor, consistency across figures, and fit with the existing literature. Scores are percentile ranks, so they're comparable across fields. In blinded tests, expert professors sided with QED Score over journal rank in 75% of decisive cases.
Read the methodology

Free access for academic researchers

Create your free QED account to validate your research, strengthen grant proposals, and uncover scientific insights.
We've sent you an access link.
Please check your inbox.

Didn't get your email? Check your spam folder or reach out to info@qedscience.com

Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Looking for QED for pharma, biotech or life science organizations?