↓ Skip to main content

Monolayer Stress Microscopy: Limitations, Artifacts, and Accuracy of Recovered Intercellular Stresses

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Monolayer Stress Microscopy: Limitations, Artifacts, and Accuracy of Recovered Intercellular Stresses
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0055172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dhananjay T. Tambe, Ugo Croutelle, Xavier Trepat, Chan Young Park, Jae Hun Kim, Emil Millet, James P. Butler, Jeffrey J. Fredberg

Abstract

In wound healing, tissue growth, and certain cancers, the epithelial or the endothelial monolayer sheet expands. Within the expanding monolayer sheet, migration of the individual cell is strongly guided by physical forces imposed by adjacent cells. This process is called plithotaxis and was discovered using Monolayer Stress Microscopy (MSM). MSM rests upon certain simplifying assumptions, however, concerning boundary conditions, cell material properties and system dimensionality. To assess the validity of these assumptions and to quantify associated errors, here we report new analytical, numerical, and experimental investigations. For several commonly used experimental monolayer systems, the simplifying assumptions used previously lead to errors that are shown to be quite small. Out-of-plane components of displacement and traction fields can be safely neglected, and characteristic features of intercellular stresses that underlie plithotaxis remain largely unaffected. Taken together, these findings validate Monolayer Stress Microscopy within broad but well-defined limits of applicability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
France 3 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 202 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 31%
Researcher 33 15%
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 13 6%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 29 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 57 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 18%
Physics and Astronomy 27 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 11%
Materials Science 7 3%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 38 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,266,089
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,079
of 193,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,273
of 192,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,286
of 5,355 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,355 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.