ArticleLab on a chip2014
A microfluidic platform for profiling biomechanical properties of bacteria.
Article in Lab on a chip, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Transporter excess and clustering facilitate adaptor protein shuttling for bacterial efflux.Cell reports. Physical science · 2025Article
- Single-Cell Microfluidics: A Primer for Microbiologists.The journal of physical chemistry. B · 2024Review
- Mechanical stimuli activate gene expression via a cell envelope stress sensing pathway.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Membrane rigidity regulates E. coli proliferation rates.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- How Can a Histidine Kinase Respond to Mechanical Stress?Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Cell biomechanics and mechanobiology in bacteria: Challenges and opportunities.APL bioengineering · 2020Review
- Implementation of Microfluidics for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Assays: Issues and Optimization Requirements.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020Article
- Mechanical stress compromises multicomponent efflux complexes in bacteria.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Microfluidics-Based Organism Isolation from Whole Blood: An Emerging Tool for Bloodstream Infection Diagnosis.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2019Review
- High-throughput screening of high lactic acid-producingRSC advances · 2019Article
- Bacterial Cell Mechanics.Biochemistry · 2017Review
- Mechanics and stability of vesicles and droplets in confined spaces.Physical review. E · 2016Article
- Assessment of red blood cell deformability in type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetic retinopathy by dual optical tweezers stretching technique.Scientific reports · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to resist mechanical forces is necessary for the survival and division of bacteria and has traditionally been probed using specialized, low-throughput techniques such as atomic force microscopy and optical tweezers. Here we demonstrate a microfluidic technique to profile the stiffness of individual bacteria and populations of bacteria. The approach is similar to micropipette aspiration used to characterize the biomechanical performance of eukaryotic cells. However, the small size and greater stiffness of bacteria relative to eukaryotic cells prevents the use of micropipettes. Here we present devices with sub-micron features capable of applying loads to bacteria in a controlled fashion. Inside the device, individual bacteria are flowed and trapped in tapered channels. Less stiff bacteria undergo greater deformation and therefore travel further into the tapered channel. Hence, the distance traversed by bacteria into a tapered channel is inversely related to cell stiffness. We demonstrate the ability of the device to characterize hundreds of bacteria at a time, measuring stiffness at 12 different applied loads at a time. The device is shown to differentiate between two bacterial species, E. coli (less stiff) and B. subtilis (more stiff), and detect differences between E. coli submitted to antibiotic treatment from untreated cells of the same species/strain. The microfluidic device is advantageous in that it requires only minimal sample preparation, no permanent cell immobilization, no staining/labeling and maintains cell viability. Our device adds detection of biomechanical phenotypes of bacteria to the list of other bacterial phenotypes currently detectable using microchip-based methods and suggests the feasibility of separating/selecting bacteria based on differences in cell stiffness.
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.