ArticleBiomaterials advances2026
Segmental flow responses in glaucomatous trabecular meshwork cells.
Article in Biomaterials advances, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In glaucoma, increased resistance in the conventional outflow pathway elevates intraocular pressure, yet how local flow state reshapes the mechanics of glaucomatous trabecular meshwork (TM) cells across segmental outflow regions remains unclear. Here, we treated flow as a controllable mechanical input and asked whether shear acts as a mechanical switch in TM cells isolated from tracer-defined high-flow (HF) and low-flow (LF) regions of a human glaucomatous eye. Cells were studied under no-flow→flow and flow→no-flow programs, with the switch at hour 6 and matched no-flow controls. Using time-resolved three-dimensional traction force microscopy, we quantified traction as well as strain, divergence, and curl. Pre-switch trajectories matched controls showing comparable baseline drift before the switch. Acute 6 → 8 h responses captured flow response directionality but did not separate HF from LF cells. The segmental split emerged over longer timescales. After no-flow→flow, HF cells showed a delayed traction increase (+39.2%) with parallel curl reinforcement, whereas matched controls drifted downward. After flow→no-flow, HF cells showed an acute traction decrease over 6 → 8 h (-18.5%). LF cells lacked the HF traction/curl program and instead were defined more strongly by divergence and strain, including a flow-associated LF divergence shift and suppression of strain after flow withdrawal relative to controls. Within this paired single-donor glaucomatous model, flow-state switching revealed segmental mechanophenotypes with HF cells retained traction/curl reinforcement after flow onset, whereas LF cells responded primarily through divergence and strain.
Indexed as
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.