Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39656056›Full record

ReviewBiochemical Society transactions2024

Peeking into the future: inferring mechanics in dynamical tissues.

Augusto Borges, Osvaldo Chara

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemical Society transactions, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Apico-basal intercalations enable the integrity of curved epithelia.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    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.

Augusto BorgesUnit Sensory Biology and Organogenesis, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Munich, Germany.
Osvaldo CharaSchool of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Nottingham LE12, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-0868-2507

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/X014908/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cells exert forces on each other and their environment, shaping the tissue. The resulting mechanical stresses can be determined experimentally or estimated computationally using stress inference methods. Over the years, mechanical stress inference has become a non-invasive, low-cost computational method for estimating the relative intercellular stresses and intracellular pressures of tissues. This mini-review introduces and compares the static and dynamic modalities of stress inference, considering their advantages and limitations. To date, most software has focused on static inference, which requires only a single microscopy image as input. Although applicable in quasi-equilibrium states, this approach neglects the influence that cell rearrangements might have on the inference. In contrast, dynamic stress inference relies on a time series of microscopy images to estimate stresses and pressures. Here, we discuss both static and dynamic mechanical stress inference in terms of their physical, mathematical, and computational foundations and then outline what we believe are promising avenues for in silico inference of the mechanical states of tissues.

Indexed as

Stress, MechanicalAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaComputer SimulationHumansModels, BiologicalSoftwaredevelopmentmechanobiologymorphogenesisstress inference

Identifiers

PMID39656056
PMCPMC11668348

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.