ArticleSoft matter2026
Volume and surface methods for microparticle traction force microscopy: a computational and experimental comparison.
Article in Soft matter, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is an essential element of mechanobiology to measure the forces of biological cells. In microparticle traction force microscopy, they are inferred from the deformation of elastic microparticles. Two complementary variants have been introduced before: the volume method, which reconstructs surface stresses from the displacements of fiducial markers embedded inside the particles, and the surface method, which infers stresses directly from the deformation of the particle surface. However, a systematic comparison of the two methods has been lacking. Here, we quantitatively compare both approaches using simulated traction fields representing biologically relevant loading scenarios. We find that the surface method consistently reconstructs traction profiles with substantially lower errors than the volume method, which suffers from displacement tracking and stress calculation at the surface. At high noise levels, however, the performance gap becomes smaller. To compare the performance of the two methods in a realistic experimental setting, we developed DNA-based hydrogel microparticles equipped with both fluorescent surface labels and embedded fluorescent nanoparticles, enabling the direct comparison of the two methods within the same system. Compression experiments produced traction profiles consistent with Hertzian contact mechanics and confirmed the trends observed in the simulations. We also show that despite large experimental deformations and strains (both up to 20 percent), linear elasticity theory should still be valid. While our computational workflow establishes a framework to apply both methods, our experimental workflow establishes DNA microparticles as versatile and biocompatible probes for measuring cellular forces.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.