ArticleBiomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology2018
The potential for intercellular mechanical interaction: simulations of single chondrocyte versus anatomically based distribution.
Article in Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational studies of chondrocyte mechanics, and cell mechanics in general, have typically been performed using single cell models embedded in an extracellular matrix construct. The assumption of a single cell microstructural model may not capture intercellular interactions or accurately reflect the macroscale mechanics of cartilage when higher cell concentrations are considered, as may be the case in many instances. Hence, the goal of this study was to compare cell-level response of single and eleven cell biphasic finite element models, where the latter provided an anatomically based cellular distribution representative of the actual number of cells for a commonly used [Formula: see text] edge cubic representative volume in the middle zone of cartilage. Single cell representations incorporated a centered single cell model and eleven location-corrected single cell models, the latter to delineate the role of cell placement in the representative volume element. A stress relaxation test at 10% compressive strain was adopted for all simulations. During transient response, volume- averaged chondrocyte mechanics demonstrated marked differences (up to 60% and typically greater than 10%) for the centered single versus the eleven cell models, yet steady-state loading was similar. Cell location played a marked role, due to inhomogeneity of the displacement and fluid pressure fields at the macroscopic scale. When the single cell representation was corrected for cell location, the transient response was consistent, while steady-state differences on the order of 1-4% were realized, which may be attributed to intercellular mechanical interactions. Anatomical representations of the superficial and deep zones, where cells reside in close proximity, may exhibit greater intercellular interactions, but these have yet to be explored.
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.