Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18419596›Full record

ArticleJournal of cellular and molecular medicine2008

Researching into the cellular shape, volume and elasticity of mesenchymal stem cells, osteoblasts and osteosarcoma cells by atomic force microscopy.

Denitsa Docheva, Daniela Padula, Cvetan Popov, Wolf Mutschler, Hauke Clausen-Schaumann, Matthias Schieker

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

72 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Mechanical Phenotyping of MG63s Following Vibrational Stimulation.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Denitsa DochevaExperimental Surgery and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Surgery, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Daniela Padula
Cvetan Popov
Wolf Mutschler
Hauke Clausen-Schaumann
Matthias Schieker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within the bone lie several different cell types, including osteoblasts (OBs) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The MSCs are ideal targets for regenerative medicine of bone due to their differentiation potential towards OBs. Human MSCs exhibit two distinct morphologies: rapidly self-renewing cells (RS) and flat cells (FC) with very low proliferation rates. Another cell type found in pathological bone conditions is osteosarcoma. In this study, we compared the topographic and morphometric features of RS and FC cells, human OBs and MG63 osteosarcoma cells by atomic force microscopy (AFM). The results demonstrated clear differences: FC and hOB cells showed similar ruffled topography, whereas RS and MG63 cells exhibited smoother surfaces. Furthermore, we investigated how selected substrates influence cell morphometry. We found that RS and MG63 cells were flatter on fibrous substrates such as polystyrene and collagen I, but much more rounded on glass, the smoothest surface. In contrast, cells with large area, namely FC and hOB cells, did not exhibit pronounced changes in flatness with regards to the different substrates. They were, however, remarkably flatter in comparison to RS and MG63 cells. We could explain the differences in flatness by the extent of adhesion. Indeed, FC and hOB cells showed much higher content of focal adhesions. Finally, we used the AFM to determine the cellular Young's modulus. RS, FC and hOB cells showed comparable stiffness on the three different substrates, while MG63 cells demonstrated the unique feature of increased elasticity on collagen I. In summary, our results show, for the first time, a direct comparison between the morphometric and biophysical features of different human cell types derived from normal and pathological bone. Our study manifests the opinion that along with RNA, proteomic and functional research, morphological and biomechanical characterization of cells also reveals novel cell features and interrelationships.

Indexed as

Cell ShapeCell SizeMicroscopy, Atomic ForceResearchCell Line, TumorCells, CulturedElasticityHumansImmunohistochemistryMesenchymal Stem CellsModels, BiologicalOsteoblastsOsteosarcoma

Identifiers

PMID18419596
PMCPMC3822541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.