The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties
Open accessAbstract
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. This Analysis compares and contrasts methods for measuring the mechanical properties of cells by applying the different approaches to the same breast cancer cell line.
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
Cited by
Brillouin microscopy: an emerging tool for mechanobiology
Prevedel, R., Diz-Muñoz, A., Ruocco, G., & Antonacci, G. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0543-3 · Cited by 470
Janmey, P. A., Fletcher, D. A., & Reinhart-King, C. A. (2020) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00013.2019 · Cited by 422
Self-citationMüller, D. J., Dumitru, A. C., Lo Giudice, C., Gaub, H. E., Hinterdorfer, P., Hummer, G., De Yoreo, J. J., Dufrêne, Y. F., & Alsteens, D. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.0c00617 · Cited by 259
The extracellular matrix viscoelasticity as a regulator of cell and tissue dynamics
Elosegui-Artola, A. (2021) · Current Opinion in Cell Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ceb.2021.04.002 · Cited by 170
Sculpting tissues by phase transitions
Lenne, P.-F., & Trivedi, V. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28151-9 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, P.-H., Aroush, D. R.-B., Asnacios, A., Chen, W.-C., Dokukin, M. E., Doss, B. L., Durand-Smet, P., Ekpenyong, A., Guck, J., Guz, N. V., Janmey, P. A., Lee, J. S. H., Moore, N. M., Ott, A., Poh, Y.-C., Ros, R., Sander, M., Sokolov, I., Staunton, J. R., Wang, N., Whyte, G., & Wirtz, D.
- Venue
- Nature Methods
- Published
- 2018-06-18
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 491-498
- ISSN
- 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-7105
- OpenAlex
- W2808157488
- Cited by
- 672
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 30.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41592-018-0015-1
- The paper
- Wu, P.-H., Aroush, D. R.-B., Asnacios, A., Chen, W.-C., Dokukin, M. E., Doss, B. L., Durand-Smet, P., Ekpenyong, A., Guck, J., Guz, N. V., Janmey, P. A., Lee, J. S. H., Moore, N. M., Ott, A., Poh, Y.-C., Ros, R., Sander, M., Sokolov, I., Staunton, J. R., . . . Wirtz, D. (2018). A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties. Nature Methods. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0015-1
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.
