Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19173000›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Understanding sensory nerve mechanotransduction through localized elastomeric matrix control.

Yi-Wen Lin, Chao-Min Cheng, Philip R Leduc, Chih-Cheng Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Current neuropharmacology · 2022
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Physical Cues of Matrices Reeducate Nerve Cells.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Stem cells technology: a powerful tool behind new brain treatments.Drug delivery and translational research · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. A Role of BK Channel in Regulation of CaBiophysical journal · 2017
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yi-Wen LinInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chao-Min Cheng
Philip R Leduc
Chih-Cheng Chen
Carnegie Mellon University · USInstitute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile neural systems are known to respond to chemical and electrical stimulation, the effect of mechanics on these highly sensitive cells is still not well understood. The ability to examine the effects of mechanics on these cells is limited by existing approaches, although their overall response is intimately tied to cell-matrix interactions. Here, we offer a novel method, which we used to investigate stretch-activated mechanotransduction on nerve terminals of sensory neurons through an elastomeric interface. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsTo apply mechanical force on neurites, we cultured dorsal root ganglion neurons on an elastic substrate, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), coated with extracellular matrices (ECM). We then implemented a controlled indentation scheme using a glass pipette to mechanically stimulate individual neurites that were adjacent to the pipette. We used whole-cell patch clamping to record the stretch-activated action potentials on the soma of the single neurites to determine the mechanotransduction-based response. When we imposed specific mechanical force through the ECM, we noted a significant neuronal action potential response. Furthermore, because the mechanotransduction cascade is known to be directly affected by the cytoskeleton, we investigated the cell structure and its effects. When we disrupted microtubules and actin filaments with nocodozale or cytochalasin-D, respectively, the mechanically induced action potential was abrogated. In contrast, when using blockers of channels such as TRP, ASIC, and stretch-activated channels while mechanically stimulating the cells, we observed almost no change in action potential signalling when compared with mechanical activation of unmodified cells. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results suggest that sensory nerve terminals have a specific mechanosensitive response that is related to cell architecture.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsCell AdhesionCytoskeletonDimethylpolysiloxanesElasticityExtracellular MatrixGanglia, SpinalMechanotransduction, CellularMembrane Transport ModulatorsNeuritesSensory Receptor CellsStress, MechanicalDimethylpolysiloxanesMembrane Transport Modulators

Identifiers

PMID19173000
PMCPMC2627935
OpenAlexW2024030576

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.