Back

Volume and surface methods for microparticle traction force microscopy: a computational and experimental comparison

Brauburger, S.; Kraus, B. K.; Walther, T.; Abele, T.; Goepfrich, K.; Schwarz, U. S.

2026-03-31 biophysics
10.64898/2026.03.28.714997 bioRxiv
Show 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. 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.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
14.5%
2
Nano Letters
63 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.5%
3
ACS Nano
99 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
7.2%
4
Nanoscale
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
5
Biophysical Reports
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
7
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.6%
50% of probability mass above
8
ACS Photonics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
9
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.9%
10
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
11
Optica
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
12
Physical Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Small
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
15
The European Physical Journal Plus
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
16
The Journal of Physical Chemistry B
158 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
17
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 57%
1.5%
18
The European Physical Journal E
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
19
Acta Biomaterialia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
20
Journal of Microscopy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
21
Frontiers in Physics
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
22
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 23%
1.2%
23
Soft Matter
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
24
Langmuir
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
25
Journal of Structural Biology
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
26
The Journal of Chemical Physics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
27
Lab on a Chip
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
28
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.9%
29
Development
440 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
30
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.8%