MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996527738 · doi:10.1063/1.2163974

Atomic force microscopy compatible device for stretching cells and adsorbed proteins

2006· article· en· W1996527738 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathy L. De Jong, Heather C. MacLeod, P.R. Norton, Nils O. Petersen, Marion Jasnin

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolydimethylsiloxaneMaterials scienceAtomic force microscopyAdhesionElastomerSubstrate (aquarium)AdsorptionComposite materialCell adhesionMicroscopyNanotechnologyBiophysicsOpticsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A device that we term a “microrack” was designed to provide a means to stretch cells and proteins and to permit the measurement of any changes in adhesion forces that might occur as a result of the strain, with an atomic force microscope. The device requires an elastic material that allows adsorption of proteins and attachment of cells. The elastomer polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) was chosen, and its suitability for short-term cell studies was tested by comparing cell morphology and fiber distribution on PDMS with cells grown on glass, a conventional substrate for cell study. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) images and section analysis of beads and scrape marks on the PDMS surface before and after stretching indicate that the microrack can provide up to 21%–29% deformation of PDMS. AFM images of cells grown on PDMS show that material attached to the surface is also affected by stretching of the microrack. The rupture of the cell after stretching and rippling of the cell under compression can be attributed to the fixation treatment, but indicates that the cell morphology is significantly affected by the movement of the substrate on the microrack.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207