Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683304›Full record

ReviewBiophysical journal2019

Advances in Micropipette Aspiration: Applications in Cell Biomechanics, Models, and Extended Studies.

Blanca González-Bermúdez, Gustavo V Guinea, Gustavo R Plaza

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing 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

75 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Blanca González-BermúdezCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain; Departamento de Ciencia de Materiales, ETSI de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Gustavo V GuineaCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain; Departamento de Ciencia de Materiales, ETSI de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; Biomedical Research Networking Center in Bioengineering, Biomaterials and Nanomedicine (CIBER-BBN), Madrid, Spain.
Gustavo R PlazaCenter for Biomedical Technology, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain; Departamento de Ciencia de Materiales, ETSI de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: gustavo.plaza@upm.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With five decades of sustained application, micropipette aspiration has enabled a wide range of biomechanical studies in the field of cell mechanics. Here, we provide an update on the use of the technique, with a focus on recent developments in the analysis of the experiments, innovative microaspiration-based approaches, and applications in a broad variety of cell types. We first recapitulate experimental variations of the technique. We then discuss analysis models focusing on important limitations of widely used biomechanical models, which underpin the urge to adopt the appropriate ones to avoid misleading conclusions. The possibilities of performing different studies on the same cell are also considered.

Indexed as

Mechanical PhenomenaModels, BiologicalBiomechanical PhenomenaCellsCell ShapeHumansMicromanipulation

Identifiers

PMID30683304
PMCPMC6383002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.