ArticlePloS one2016
Peridynamic Modeling of Ruptures in Biomembranes.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discrete network models of endothelial cells and their interactions with the substrate.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2024Article
- Emergence of lump-like solitonic waves in Heimburg-Jackson biomembranes and nerves fractal model.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Article
- Switching Cytolytic Nanopores into Antimicrobial Fractal Ruptures by a Single Side Chain Mutation.ACS nano · 2021Article
- An ordinary state-based peridynamic model for the fracture of zigzag graphene sheets.Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We simulate the formation of spontaneous ruptures in supported phospholipid double bilayer membranes, using peridynamic modeling. Experiments performed on spreading double bilayers typically show two distinct kinds of ruptures, floral and fractal, which form spontaneously in the distal (upper) bilayer at late stages of double bilayer formation on high energy substrates. It is, however, currently unresolved which factors govern the occurrence of either rupture type. Variations in the distance between the two bilayers, and the occurrence of interconnections ("pinning sites") are suspected of contributing to the process. Our new simulations indicate that the pinned regions which form, presumably due to Ca2+ ions serving as bridging agent between the distal and the proximal bilayer, act as nucleation sites for the ruptures. Moreover, assuming that the pinning sites cause a non-zero shear modulus, our simulations also show that they change the rupture mode from floral to fractal. At zero shear modulus the pores appear to be circular, subsequently evolving into floral pores. With increasing shear modulus the pore edges start to branch, favoring fractal morphologies. We conclude that the pinning sites may indirectly determine the rupture morphology by contributing to shear stress in the distal membrane.
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.