Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34155305›Full record

ReviewCommunications biology2021

Integration of substrate- and flow-derived stresses in endothelial cell mechanobiology.

Claire A Dessalles, Claire Leclech, Alessia Castagnino, Abdul I Barakat

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communications biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

113 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 4D force patterning enables spatial control of angiogenesis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cyclic stretch inhibits cell invasion in 3D scaffolds.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 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

4 authors.

Claire A Dessalles *LadHyX, CNRS, Ecole polytechnique, Institut polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4554-754X
Claire Leclech *LadHyX, CNRS, Ecole polytechnique, Institut polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France.
Alessia CastagninoLadHyX, CNRS, Ecole polytechnique, Institut polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France.
Abdul I BarakatLadHyX, CNRS, Ecole polytechnique, Institut polytechnique de Paris, Palaiseau, France. abdul.barakat@polytechnique.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7551-3631

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endothelial cells (ECs) lining all blood vessels are subjected to large mechanical stresses that regulate their structure and function in health and disease. Here, we review EC responses to substrate-derived biophysical cues, namely topography, curvature, and stiffness, as well as to flow-derived stresses, notably shear stress, pressure, and tensile stresses. Because these mechanical cues in vivo are coupled and are exerted simultaneously on ECs, we also review the effects of multiple cues and describe burgeoning in vitro approaches for elucidating how ECs integrate and interpret various mechanical stimuli. We conclude by highlighting key open questions and upcoming challenges in the field of EC mechanobiology.

Indexed as

AnisotropyBiophysicsBlood PressureCell CountEndothelial CellsHumansStress, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID34155305
PMCPMC8217569

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.