Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23649165›Full record

ReviewLab on a chip2013

Microfluidic platforms for mechanobiology.

William J Polacheck, Ran Li, Sebastien G M Uzel, Roger D Kamm

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Lab on a chip, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 112 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing 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

112 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Decoding Cytoskeletal Mechanobiology with Tunable Microenvironments.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

William J PolacheckDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Ran Li
Sebastien G M Uzel
Roger D Kamm

Funding

Microfluidic 3D Scaffold Assay for Cancer Cell Migration and IntravasationR21CA140096 · NCI · CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY · PI CHAREST, JOSEPH L. · 2009 to 2011
$672k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA140096NCI NIH HHS R21CA140096
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mechanotransduction has been a topic of considerable interest since early studies demonstrated a link between mechanical force and biological response. Until recently, studies of fundamental phenomena were based either on in vivo experiments with limited control or direct access, or on large-scale in vitro studies lacking many of the potentially important physiological factors. With the advent of microfluidics, many of the previous limitations of in vitro testing were eliminated or reduced through greater control or combined functionalities. At the same time, imaging capabilities were tremendously enhanced. In this review, we discuss how microfluidics has transformed the study of mechanotransduction. This is done in the context of the various cell types that exhibit force-induced responses and the new biological insights that have been elucidated. We also discuss new microfluidic studies that could produce even more realistic models of in vivo conditions by combining multiple stimuli or creating a more realistic microenvironment.

Indexed as

Mechanotransduction, CellularBlood CellsEpithelial CellsHumansMicrofluidic Analytical TechniquesMuscle CellsNeoplastic Cells, CirculatingShear Strength

Identifiers

PMID23649165
PMCPMC3714214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.