Back

A benchmarking model for validation and standardization of traction force microscopy analysis tools

Pardon, G.; Castillo, E. A.; Pruitt, B.

2020-08-14 biophysics
10.1101/2020.08.14.250506 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Traction Force Microscopy (TFM) has become a well-established technique to assay the biophysical force produced by cells cultured on soft substrates of controlled stiffness. However, experimental conditions as well as computational implementations can have a large impact on the analysis results accuracy and reproducibility. While this can be alleviated using appropriate controls and a rigorous analytical approach, the comparison of results across studies remains difficult and there is a need for validation and benchmarking tools. To validate the accuracy of and compare various computational TFM analysis algorithms, we developed a virtual in silico model of a cell contracting on a soft substrate of controlled stiffness. The model utilizes user-defined parameters for the cell dimensions as well as for the strength and spatial distribution of a contraction dipole to calculate the deformation that would result on a soft substrate due to the cell contraction. The deformation is computed using the forward analytical stress-strain tensor calculation in the Fourier space. The resulting displacement field is used to apply, using image processing, a deformation on a real or simulated image of fluorescent microspheres embedded into a soft hydrogel, which is normally obtain experimentally by TFM imaging. The deformation field and resulting image then serve as input in the PIV and TFM analysis. The model also enables to create movies of a dynamic cell contraction, such as that of a cardiomyocyte, to validate the time accuracy of the TFM analysis after application of image processing algorithm, such as denoising. Our tool therefore addresses the need for validation and standardization of TFM analytical algorithms and its experimental implementations.

Matching journals

The top 13 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.2%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 17%
6.5%
3
The European Physical Journal Plus
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
4
The European Physical Journal E
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
5
Nanoscale
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.7%
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.6%
7
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
8
Small
70 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
9
Biophysical Reports
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
10
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
11
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.6%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 33%
2.4%
13
European Biophysics Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
14
Soft Matter
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
15
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
16
Methods
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
17
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
18
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
19
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.3%
21
Advanced Biology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
22
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.2%
23
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
24
Frontiers in Physics
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.2%
26
APL Bioengineering
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.0%
27
Nano Letters
63 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
28
Development
440 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
29
Advanced Healthcare Materials
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
30
ACS Nano
99 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%