Dataset Information

A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties.

ABSTRACT: The mechanical properties of cells influence their cellular and subcellular functions, including cell adhesion, migration, polarization, and differentiation, as well as organelle organization and trafficking inside the cytoplasm. Yet reported values of cell stiffness and viscosity vary substantially, which suggests differences in how the results of different methods are obtained or analyzed by different groups. To address this issue and illustrate the complementarity of certain approaches, here we present, analyze, and critically compare measurements obtained by means of some of the most widely used methods for cell mechanics: atomic force microscopy, magnetic twisting cytometry, particle-tracking microrheology, parallel-plate rheometry, cell monolayer rheology, and optical stretching. These measurements highlight how elastic and viscous moduli of MCF-7 breast cancer cells can vary 1,000-fold and 100-fold, respectively. We discuss the sources of these variations, including the level of applied mechanical stress, the rate of deformation, the geometry of the probe, the location probed in the cell, and the extracellular microenvironment.

SUBMITTER: Wu PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6582221 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties.

Wu Pei-Hsun PH Aroush Dikla Raz-Ben DR Asnacios Atef A Chen Wei-Chiang WC Dokukin Maxim E ME Doss Bryant L BL Durand-Smet Pauline P Ekpenyong Andrew A Guck Jochen J Guz Nataliia V NV Janmey Paul A PA Lee Jerry S H JSH Moore Nicole M NM Ott Albrecht A Poh Yeh-Chuin YC Ros Robert R Sander Mathias M Sokolov Igor I Staunton Jack R JR Wang Ning N Whyte Graeme G Wirtz Denis D

Nature methods 20180618 7

The mechanical properties of cells influence their cellular and subcellular functions, including cell adhesion, migration, polarization, and differentiation, as well as organelle organization and trafficking inside the cytoplasm. Yet reported values of cell stiffness and viscosity vary substantially, which suggests differences in how the results of different methods are obtained or analyzed by different groups. To address this issue and illustrate the complementarity of certain approaches, here ...[more]

PMID: 29915189

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe exposome constitutes a promising framework to improve understanding of the effects of environmental exposures on health by explicitly considering multiple testing and avoiding selective reporting. However, exposome studies are challenged by the simultaneous consideration of many correlated exposures.ObjectivesWe compared the performances of linear regression-based statistical methods in assessing exposome-health associations.MethodsIn a simulation study, we generated 237 exposure covariates with a realistic correlation structure and with a health outcome linearly related to 0 to 25 of these covariates. Statistical methods were compared primarily in terms of false discovery proportion (FDP) and sensitivity.ResultsOn average over all simulation settings, the elastic net and sparse partial least-squares regression showed a sensitivity of 76% and an FDP of 44%; Graphical Unit Evolutionary Stochastic Search (GUESS) and the deletion/substitution/addition (DSA) algorithm revealed a sensitivity of 81% and an FDP of 34%. The environment-wide association study (EWAS) underperformed these methods in terms of FDP (average FDP, 86%) despite a higher sensitivity. Performances decreased considerably when assuming an exposome exposure matrix with high levels of correlation between covariates.ConclusionsCorrelation between exposures is a challenge for exposome research, and the statistical methods investigated in this study were limited in their ability to efficiently differentiate true predictors from correlated covariates in a realistic exposome context. Although GUESS and DSA provided a marginally better balance between sensitivity and FDP, they did not outperform the other multivariate methods across all scenarios and properties examined, and computational complexity and flexibility should also be considered when choosing between these methods. Citation: Agier L, Portengen L, Chadeau-Hyam M, Basagaña X, Giorgis-Allemand L, Siroux V, Robinson O, Vlaanderen J, González JR, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Vineis P, Vrijheid M, Slama R, Vermeulen R. 2016. A systematic comparison of linear regression-based statistical methods to assess exposome-health associations. Environ Health Perspect 124:1848-1856;?http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP172.

Project description:ObjectiveThe present study was designed to explore endurable pressure intensity of different paranasal sinus mucosa in goats.MethodMucosa commonly involved in maxillary sinus augmentation, including mucosa from maxillary sinus crest, maxillary sinus floor, and frontal sinus, were harvested in a computed tomography-guided manner. The obtained mucosa was then sectioned into square and irregular ones for maximum endurable pressure intensity determination and morphological observation, respectively.ResultsThickness of paranasal sinus mucosa, as determined under morphological staining by an optical microscope with a graduated eyepiece, were calculated. And the results showed that the average thickness of maxillary sinus crest mucosa, floor mucosa, and frontal sinus mucosa in goats were 410.03 ± 65.97 μm, 461.33 ± 91.37 μm and 216.90 ± 46.47 μm, respectively. Significant differences between maxillary sinus crest and frontal sinus, maxillary sinus floor, and frontal sinus were observed (P < 0.05). Maximum endurable pressure intensity was determined by utilizing a self-made clamp device and the results revealed maximum endurable pressure intensity of maxillary sinus crest mucosa, floor mucosa and frontal sinus mucosa in goats were 260.08 ± 80.12Kpa, 306.90 ± 94.37Kpa and 121.72 ± 31.72Kpa, respectively. Also, a statistically significant difference was observed when comparing the endurable pressure intensity between maxillary sinus crest and frontal sinus, maxillary sinus floor, and frontal sinus (P < 0.05). Further correlation analysis also revealed a positive correlation between the thickness of mucosa of the maxillary sinus and frontal sinus and maximum endurable pressure intensity (P < 0.05).ConclusionMucosal thickness and maximum endurable pressure intensity of maxillary sinus crest and floor were larger than that of frontal sinus mucosa and a positive correlation between the thickness of mucosa and endurable pressure intensity was observed. Our results thus might provide an experimental basis and guidance for mucosa-related problems involved maxillary sinus augmentation.

Dataset Information

A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties.

Publications

A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets