ArticleScientific reports2015
Computer simulations of the mechanical response of brushes on the surface of cancerous epithelial cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring the Elastic Properties of Living Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027Article
- Mechanical response of a surface of increasing hardness covered with a nonuniform polymer brush: a numerical simulation model.RSC advances · 2020Article
- Mesoscopic Modeling of the Encapsulation of Capsaicin by Lecithin/Chitosan Liposomal Nanoparticles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a model for atomic force microscopy by means of computer simulations of molecular brushes on surfaces of biological interest such as normal and cancerous cervical epithelial cells. Our model predicts that the force needed to produce a given indentation on brushes that can move on the surface of the cell (called "liquid" brushes) is the same as that required for brushes whose ends are fixed on the cell's surface (called "solid" brushes), as long as the tip of the microscope covers the entire area of the brush. Additionally, we find that cancerous cells are softer than normal ones, in agreement with various experiments. Moreover, soft brushes are found to display larger resistance to compression than stiff ones. This phenomenon is the consequence of the larger equilibrium length of the soft brushes and the cooperative association of solvent molecules trapped within the brushes, which leads to an increase in the osmotic pressure. Our results show that a careful characterization of the brushes on epithelial cells is indispensable when determining the mechanical response of cancerous cells.
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.