ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2003
Mechanisms governing the visco-elastic responses of living cells assessed by foam and tensegrity models.
Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 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.
- Altered mechanical properties of actin fibers due to breast cancer invasion: parameter identification based on micropipette aspiration and multiscale tensegrity modeling.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The visco-elastic properties of living cells, measured to date by various authors, vary considerably, depending on the experimental methods and/or on the theoretical models used. In the present study, two mechanisms thought to be involved in cellular visco-elastic responses were analysed, based on the idea that the cytoskeleton plays a fundamental role in cellular mechanical responses. For this purpose, the predictions of an open unit-cell model and a 30-element visco-elastic tensegrity model were tested, taking into consideration similar properties of the constitutive F-actin. The quantitative predictions of the time constant and viscosity modulus obtained by both models were compared with previously published experimental data obtained from living cells. The small viscosity modulus values (10(0)-10(3) Pa x s) predicted by the tensegrity model may reflect the combined contributions of the spatially rearranged constitutive filaments and the internal tension to the overall cytoskeleton response to external loading. In contrast, the high viscosity modulus values (10(3)-10(5) Pa x s) predicted by the unit-cell model may rather reflect the mechanical response of the cytoskeleton to the bending of the constitutive filaments and/or to the deformation of internal components. The present results suggest the existence of a close link between the overall visco-elastic response of micromanipulated cells and the underlying architecture.
Indexed as
Identifiers
14686600What 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.