ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2016
Review of cellular mechanotransduction on micropost substrates.
Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Piezo channels in tumors.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Measuring Cytoskeletal Mechanical Fluctuations and Rheology with Active Micropost Arrays.Current protocols · 2022Article
- Review
- Regulation and mechanism of YAP/TAZ in the mechanical microenvironment of stem cells (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2021Review
- Dissecting fat-tailed fluctuations in the cytoskeleton with active micropost arrays.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As physical entities, living cells can sense and respond to various stimulations within and outside the body through cellular mechanotransduction. Any deviation in cellular mechanotransduction will not only undermine the orchestrated regulation of mechanical responses, but also lead to the breakdown of their physiological function. Therefore, a quantitative study of cellular mechanotransduction needs to be conducted both in experiments and in computational simulations to investigate the underlying mechanisms of cellular mechanotransduction. In this review, we present an overview of the current knowledge and significant progress in cellular mechanotransduction via micropost substrates. In the aspect of experimental studies, we summarize significant experimental progress and place an emphasis on the coupled relationship among cellular spreading, focal adhesion and contractility as well as the influence of substrate properties on force-involved cellular behaviors. In the other aspect of computational investigations, we outline a coupled framework including the biochemically motivated stress fiber model and thermodynamically motivated adhesion model and present their predicted biomechanical responses and then compare predicted simulation results with experimental observations to further explore the mechanisms of cellular mechanotransduction. At last, we discuss the future perspectives both in experimental technologies and in computational models, as well as facing challenges in the area of cellular mechanotransduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26245253What 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.