ArticleACS omega2026
Mechanical Stimulation on Cardiac Cells with Feedback Control System.
Article in ACS omega, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical cues encoded in the extracellular microenvironment play essential roles in regulating cardiac rhythm and tissue-level coordination; however, systematic interrogation of when mechanical inputs are most effective remains technically challenging. While substrate stiffness and cyclic stretch are widely used to condition cardiomyocytes in vitro, most platforms lack the temporal precision required to probe phase-dependent mechanosensitivity during spontaneous beating. Here, we report a biomaterials-based mechanical stimulation platform that enables real-time, phase-specific delivery of localized stretch to autonomously beating cardiomyocyte aggregates cultured on soft polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) substrates. By integrating live imaging-based beat detection with piezo-driven microscale actuation, mechanical stimuli were triggered at defined fractions of the intrinsic interbeat interval (IBI), allowing direct comparison of in-phase and out-of-phase mechanical perturbations. Using one-dimensional cardiomyocyte aggregates as a model system, we show that randomly timed mechanical stimulation rarely altered intrinsic rhythm (∼0.3% of beats). In contrast, phase-locked stimulation applied near the end of the contraction-relaxation cycle (∼90% of the IBI) reproducibly induced transient IBI shortening, reversed contraction-wave propagation, and shifted pacemaker activity toward the site of stimulation. Mechanical stimulation delivered at midcycle (∼50% of the IBI) produced minimal effects. Displacement-resolved analysis revealed that phase-specific stimulation redistributed mechanical output within the aggregate: contraction amplitude was maintained or enhanced near the stimulation site while being attenuated in distal regions. These results demonstrate that developing cardiac tissues exhibit narrow temporal windows of mechanical susceptibility and robust resistance to perturbation outside these phases. This platform provides a versatile biomaterials-enabled framework for dissecting dynamic mechano-electrical feedback, optimizing mechanical conditioning strategies, and engineering cardiac tissues with controllable rhythmic properties.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.