Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30427911›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

An in vitro correlation of metastatic capacity and dual mechanostimulation.

Indrajyoti Indra, Alexander N Gasparski, Karen A Beningo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Indrajyoti IndraDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5381-7397
Alexander N GasparskiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6012-4887
Karen A BeningoDepartment of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1892-1460

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cells are under the influence of multiple forms of mechanical stimulation in vivo. For example, a cell is subjected to mechanical forces from tissue stiffness, shear and tensile stress and transient applied strain. Significant progress has been made in understanding the cellular mechanotransduction mechanisms in response to a single mechanical parameter. However, our knowledge of how a cell responds to multiple mechanical inputs is currently limited. In this study, we have tested the cellular response to the simultaneous application of two mechanical inputs: substrate compliance and transient tugging. Our results suggest that cells within a multicellular spheroid will restrict their response to a single mechanical input at a time and when provided with two mechanical inputs simultaneously, one will dominate. In normal and non-metastatic mammary epithelial cells, we found that they respond to applied stimulation and will override substrate compliance cues in favor of the applied mechanical stimulus. Surprisingly, however, metastatic mammary epithelial cells remain non-responsive to both mechanical cues. Our results suggest that, within our assay system, metastatic progression may involve the down-regulation of multiple mechanotransduction pathways.

Indexed as

Stress, MechanicalEpithelial CellsHumansMammary Glands, HumanMechanotransduction, CellularNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID30427911
PMCPMC6241134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.