Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25355507›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Molecular cell biology2014

Appreciating force and shape—the rise of mechanotransduction in cell biology.

Thomas Iskratsch, Haguy Wolfenson, Michael P Sheetz

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 397 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
397citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

397 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Bridging nanotechnology and mechanobiology.Nature nanotechnology · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

337 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

3 authors.

Thomas Iskratsch1] Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York 10027, USA. [2].
Haguy Wolfenson1] Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York 10027, USA. [2].
Michael P SheetzMechanobiology Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117411, and the Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York 10027, USA.

Funding

Mechanisms of mechanical transduction by cytoskeletonsR01EB001480 · NIBIB · COLUMBIA UNIV NEW YORK MORNINGSIDE · PI SHEETZ, MICHAEL PATRICK · 2003 to 2012
$3.0M
NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB001480
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the shapes of organisms are encoded in their genome, the developmental processes that lead to the final form of vertebrates involve a constant feedback between dynamic mechanical forces, and cell growth and motility. Mechanobiology has emerged as a discipline dedicated to the study of the effects of mechanical forces and geometry on cell growth and motility—for example, during cell-matrix adhesion development—through the signalling process of mechanotransduction.

Indexed as

Mechanotransduction, CellularAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaCell BiologyExtracellular MatrixHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st Century

Identifiers

PMID25355507
PMCPMC9339222

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.