TABLE 1.

Comparison of FEM and DEM modeling frameworks.

1) Cellular architecture is discrete
FEM		DEM
±	Representation of discrete tensegrity structure unclear	+	Can represent discrete tensegrity structure
+	Can be combined with DEM as a hybrid model	−	To keep computations tractable, number of components per cell is limited to a lumped version of the real cell layout
2) Anisotropy also depends on cell geometry and network topology
FEM		DEM
+	Finite elements can be adapted to cellular geometry	+	Discrete elements can be adapted to cellular geometry
±	Incorporation of anisotropy of actin accumulation bundles to be understood	+	Anisotropy of actin accumulation bundles can easily be incorporated
−	Computational issues related to modeling large scale cellular networks	+	Can scale to model large cellular networks and thus encompass their topological features
3) Nonlinear and temporal mechanical characteristics
FEM		DEM
+	Can be incorporated in finite elements	+	Can be incorporated in discrete elements
−	May lead to heavy computations, even for average-sized cellular network	+	Nonlinear elasticity qualitatively resembles tissue deformation
		+	Nonlinear elasticity contributes to model stability, prevents collapse
		−	Temporal characteristics can be computationally demanding
4) Volume preservation
FEM		DEM
+	Can be imposed through volumetric properties	±	Its effect can be approximated but not formally embedded
±	May result in artifacts and computational issues (stiffness), due to limited knowledge on properties of cell height	−	Approximation likely related to introduction of dynamical artifacts, requires evaluation of resulting mechanical properties