ArticleBiophysical journal2003
Probing the cell peripheral movements by optical trapping technique.
Article in Biophysical journal, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Weak force stalls protrusion at the leading edge of the lamellipodium.Biophysical journal · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts cultured on a poly-L-lysine-coated coverslip was stimulated with 0.5 micro M phorbol myristate acetate, and the movements of the peripheral membranes were probed with a 1- micro m polystyrene bead held in an optical trap. The bead brought into contact with the cell edge occasionally moved away from and returned to the original position. The movement ranged over 100 nm and occurred mainly in one direction, suggesting that the protruding cell membrane pushed the bead. The maximum velocities derived from individual pairs of protrusive and withdrawal movements exhibited a correlation, which is consistent with the previous reports. Acceleration and deceleration occurred both in the protrusive and withdrawal phases, indicating that the movements were regulated. Movement of the membrane occurred frequently with an ensemble-averaged maximum speed of 23 nm/s at the trap stiffness of 0.024 pN/nm, but it was strongly suppressed when the trap stiffness was increased to 0.090 pN/nm. Correlation of the protrusive and withdrawal velocities and the acceleration and deceleration both in the protrusive and withdrawal phases can be explained by the involvement of myosin motor at least in the withdrawal process. However, the fact that the movements were suppressed at higher trap stiffness implies a stochastic nature in the creation of the gap between the peripheral cell membrane and the actin network underlying it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.