I'm proud that my lab published about the interaction between biochemical and mechanical feedback loops. You already know how time-delayed negative feedback loops can cause oscillations. Positive feedback ramps M-Cdk activity up, which in turn leads to satisfaction of the spindle assembly / kinetochore attachment checkpoint, which degrades M-cyclins and destroys M-Cdk activity. These processes collectively = the oscillation of the cell into and out of mitosis.
On a shorter timescale, Rho proteins' activity oscillates because downstream of their activation, effector proteins boost GAP activity, turning Rho proteins off. This biochemical feedback had been well-described in several papers with experimental (wet-lab) work and models (dry-lab work).
It was also appreciated that Rho proteins cause contractility, which I taught you builds tension along a linear bundle - in 2D this causes the compaction of material towards a point. This increase in local concentration of everything in the Rho pathway constitutes mechanical positive feedback.
These biochemical and mechanical feedbacks had never been considered together, until a 2022 paper from our now-collaborators Mike Staddon and Shiladitya Banerjee. Their modeling of this combination of feedback predicted that contractility should not just oscillate, but should be very complex, with a wide range of amplitudes and periods, much longer than the period of the biochemical oscillator.
We performed high resolution imaging and discovered that this is exactly the case in cytokinesis. We collaborated with Mike and Shila to extend their model and the analysis of model outputs, and created an interdisciplinary paper about non-muscle contractility. We will send it back in, having revised it according to anonymous peer reviewer comments, and we're optimistic that it'll soon be accepted.
* pre-prints are manuscripts shared globally via the open repository BioRxiv. "Open" means anyone can access the contents - they don't have to pay $35 per paper they want to read, like for lots of for-profit journals; their university library doesn't have to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for access to the repository like they have to for journals.
Pre-prints are not peer-reviewed. Peer review is the process by which 2, 3, or 4 (or sometimes more) usually-anonymous "peers" (research faculty at universities around the world) evaluate a manuscript according to the standards of a the journal where they paper is being considered, and their own experience and standards. They give a yes, no, or revisions required answer, and usually many comments ranging from typos to perceived conceptual errors to recommended extensions of the work. The journal editor summarizes all the comments and tells the authors what they need to do to get accepted and published. Sometimes they just reject the paper and the authors need to try somewhere else.
Pre-prints can receive comments and suggestions, but people don't do that very much yet. This could help prepare the manuscript for anonymous peer review.
Peer-reviewed publication is still the gold standard for showing you've advanced a field, but pre-prints allow the community to see what you've done even before that long process is complete.