Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32640571›Full record

ReviewCells2020

Modeling of Cell Nuclear Mechanics: Classes, Components, and Applications.

Chad M Hobson, Andrew D Stephens

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cells, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Models of Cellular Mechanosensation.Results and problems in cell differentiation · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. How the chromatin landscape influences nuclear morphology.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chad M HobsonDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3033-5728
Andrew D StephensBiology Department, The University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5474-7845
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

INTERACTIVE GRAPHICS FOR MOLECULAR STUDIES &MICROSCOPYP41EB002025 · NIBIB · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SUPERFINE, RICHARD · 2003 to 2019
$16.9M
Analyzing the role of chromatin compaction in nuclear mechanics, structure, and functionR00GM123195 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST · PI STEPHENS, ANDREW DANIEL · 2020 to 2022
$745k
Analyzing the role of chromatin compaction in nuclear mechanics, structure, and functionK99GM123195 · NIGMS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHENS, ANDREW DANIEL · 2018 to 2019
$180k
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB002025NIGMS NIH HHS K99 GM123195NIGMS NIH HHS R00 GM123195
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cell nuclei are paramount for both cellular function and mechanical stability. These two roles of nuclei are intertwined as altered mechanical properties of nuclei are associated with altered cell behavior and disease. To further understand the mechanical properties of cell nuclei and guide future experiments, many investigators have turned to mechanical modeling. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of mechanical modeling of cell nuclei with an emphasis on the role of the nuclear lamina in hopes of spurring future growth of this field. The goal of this review is to provide an introduction to mechanical modeling techniques, highlight current applications to nuclear mechanics, and give insight into future directions of mechanical modeling. There are three main classes of mechanical models-schematic, continuum mechanics, and molecular dynamics-which provide unique advantages and limitations. Current experimental understanding of the roles of the cytoskeleton, the nuclear lamina, and the chromatin in nuclear mechanics provide the basis for how each component is subsequently treated in mechanical models. Modeling allows us to interpret assay-specific experimental results for key parameters and quantitatively predict emergent behaviors. This is specifically powerful when emergent phenomena, such as lamin-based strain stiffening, can be deduced from complimentary experimental techniques. Modeling differences in force application, geometry, or composition can additionally clarify seemingly conflicting experimental results. Using these approaches, mechanical models have informed our understanding of relevant biological processes such as migration, nuclear blebbing, nuclear rupture, and cell spreading and detachment. There remain many aspects of nuclear mechanics for which additional mechanical modeling could provide immediate insight. Although mechanical modeling of cell nuclei has been employed for over a decade, there are still relatively few models for any given biological phenomenon. This implies that an influx of research into this realm of the field has the potential to dramatically shape both future experiments and our current understanding of nuclear mechanics, function, and disease.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell NucleusChromatinCytoskeletonHumansLamin Type AModels, BiologicalNuclear LaminaChromatinLamin Type Achromatincontinuumcytoskeletondiscretelaminsmodelingnuclear mechanics

Identifiers

PMID32640571
PMCPMC7408412
OpenAlexW3038617704

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.