ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2009
Computational model provides insight into the distinct responses of neurons to chemical and topographical cues.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2009. 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.
- Regulating the Homogeneity of Thiol-Maleimide Michael-Type Addition-Based Hydrogels Using Amino Biomolecules.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Neuronal cell polarization (i.e., establishment of an axon) and axon guidance are mediated and controlled by mechanical and chemical signals from the environment. Unfortunately, an integrated approach to study cell-substrate interactions in a unified framework incorporating structural and chemical effects of the substrate has been lacking. In this paper, we present a new model combining experimental and computational methods to better understand the distinct behavior of E18 hippocampal neurons in response to topographical vs. immobilized chemical cues. We present results from our coarse-grain physiological computational model that correctly describes previously observed phenomena and predicts behavior that was subsequently tested through new experiments. The model differentiates topographical from chemical cues via a difference in cue spacing in these two substrates. Using the feature size spacing for topographical cues and a minimum step size, governed by the physics of filopodia protrusion, for chemical cues, the model successfully mimics the trend observed in experimental polarization probability for four different topographical feature sizes and constant chemical cue spacing. Our results not only show good agreement with experiments, but also provide novel suggestions for development of substrates for finer control of neuronal cell polarization.
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.