The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative advantages of mechanical biosensors
Open accessAbstract
Mechanical interactions are fundamental to biology. Mechanical forces of chemical origin determine motility and adhesion on the cellular scale, and govern transport and affinity on the molecular scale. Biological sensing in the mechanical domain provides unique opportunities to measure forces, displacements and mass changes from cellular and subcellular processes. Nanomechanical systems are particularly well matched in size with molecular interactions, and provide a basis for biological probes with single-molecule sensitivity. Here we review micro- and nanoscale biosensors, with a particular focus on fast mechanical biosensing in fluid by mass- and force-based methods, and the challenges presented by non-specific interactions. We explain the general issues that will be critical to the success of any type of next-generation mechanical biosensor, such as the need to improve intrinsic device performance, fabrication reproducibility and system integration. We also discuss the need for a greater understanding of analyte–sensor interactions on the nanoscale and of stochastic processes in the sensing environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Label-free immunodetection with CMOS-compatible semiconducting nanowires
Stern, E., Klemic, J. F., Routenberg, D. A., Wyrembak, P. N., Turner-Evans, D. B., Hamilton, A. D., LaVan, D. A., Fahmy, T. M., & Reed, M. A. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05498 · Cited by 1,352
Biomechanics and biophysics of cancer cells☆
SURESH, S. (2007) · Acta Biomaterialia · doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2007.04.002 · Cited by 1,284
Weighing of biomolecules, single cells and single nanoparticles in fluid
Burg, T. P., Godin, M., Knudsen, S. M., Shen, W., Carlson, G., Foster, J. S., Babcock, K., & Manalis, S. R. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05741 · Cited by 1,213
Subthreshold Regime has the Optimal Sensitivity for Nanowire FET Biosensors
Gao, X. P. A., Zheng, G., & Lieber, C. M. (2010) · Nano Letters · doi:10.1021/nl9034219 · Cited by 571
Cited by
Recent Advances in Biosensor Technology for Potential Applications – An Overview
Vigneshvar, S., Sudhakumari, C. C., Senthilkumaran, B., & Prakash, H. (2016) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2016.00011 · Cited by 674
“The ability to fabricate such structures using semiconductor processing procedures bridged biophysics and bioengineering principles toward the progress of practical micro- and nano-electromechanical biosensors that can be produced in large quantities (Arlett et al., 2011).”
BackgroundPiliarik, M., & Sandoghdar, V. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5495 · Cited by 332
Stress Biomarkers in Biological Fluids and Their Point-of-Use Detection
Steckl, A. J., & Ray, P. (2018) · ACS Sensors · doi:10.1021/acssensors.8b00726 · Cited by 319
Metadata
- Authors
- Arlett, J. L., Myers, E. B., & Roukes, M. L.
- Venue
- Nature Nanotechnology
- Published
- 2011-03-27
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 203-215
- ISSN
- 1748-3387 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-3395
- OpenAlex
- W2127601551
- Cited by
- 966
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 46.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative advantages of mechanical biosensors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nnano.2011.44
- The paper
- Arlett, J. L., Myers, E. B., & Roukes, M. L. (2011). Comparative advantages of mechanical biosensors. Nature Nanotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.44
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.