Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Analytical model and experimental validation for nonlinear mechanical response of aspirated elastic shells

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A two-parameter law describes how soft shells deform under pipette suction.

desk verdict A simple two-parameter fit formula for aspiration curves that fits data well, but Eq. 9 has an x0 algebraic error and the silicone-sheet validation overclaims physical meaning. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21283 v1 pith:S5Y6YMG4 submitted 2025-04-30 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Kazutoshi Masuda , Miho Yanagisawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords micropipetteaspirationelasticshellsstretchingmodulusbendingrigiditynonlinearmechanicalresponselipidmembranedropletssoftmattermechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the nonlinear pressure–length curve measured during micropipette aspiration of a thin elastic shell is controlled by just two parameters: the area stretching modulus $K$ and a dimensionless ratio $\delta$ of bending to stretching energy. The authors derive a closed-form force law, fit it to experimental curves for lipid-coated microdroplets and macroscale silicone sheets, and report fits with $R^2>0.99$. If correct, the model turns a full nonlinear force-displacement trace into a direct measurement of shell mechanics, without restricting analysis to a small linear regime.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an energy balance $E_a+E_b=\int P(x)\,dV$, with geometric expressions for the aspirated cap volume $V=\frac{\pi}{6}R_p^3(3x+x^3)$ and area $A=\pi R_p^2(1+x^2)$. The stretching energy is derived from a molecular interfacial energy per molecule, assuming the number of molecules in the aspirated region stays constant; the bending energy is the curvature elastic energy of the aspirated cap. The ratio $\delta \equiv 4\pi k/[\pi K R_p^2(1+x_0^2)]$ enters the final equation and is what controls the shape (convexity) of the force curve, while $K$ sets its overall magnitude.

What would settle it

Measure the same shell's $P$-$x$ curve with two pipette radii that give different $R_p$ and $x_0$; if the fitted $K$ and $\delta$ shift with $R_p$ beyond fitting error, the geometric constant-molecule assumption behind Eq. (9) is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the force law of Eq. (9): $P = (K/R_p)[8x/(1+x_0^2) + (\delta-1)8(1+x_0^2)x/(1+x^2)^3]$, where $x=L/R_p$ is the normalized aspiration length, $x_0$ its initial value, and $\delta$ packages the bending rigidity relative to stretching. The paper shows that the curvature of the $P$-$x$ curve is set by $\delta$ alone: linear at $\delta=1$, convex downward for stretching-dominated shells ($\delta<1$), convex upward for bending-dominated shells ($\delta>1$). Fitting this expression to measured curves yields $K$ and $\delta$ for lipid droplets with different charges, for droplets stiffened by DNA gel shells, and for silicone sheets of thickness $h$, with $K$ increasing linearly with $h$ and $\delta$ approaching 1 as $h$ grows.

Load-bearing premise

The equation assumes that the number of molecules in the aspirated patch stays constant during the measurement, and it applies that same molecular model to macroscopic silicone sheets, where the notion of a fixed molecule count is not physically natural.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single full $P$-$x$ trace, not just its initial slope, can be used to extract $K$ and $\delta$, so nonlinear data need not be thrown away.
  • The sign of $\delta-1$ identifies whether stretching or bending dominates a shell's response, a distinction linear models cannot make from force-displacement data alone.
  • Because the equation holds for both micrometer lipid droplets and millimeter silicone sheets, the same two-parameter fit may transfer across very different soft-shell materials.
  • For silicone sheets, the fitted $K$ grows linearly with sheet thickness and $\delta$ approaches 1, connecting the parameters to classical plate behavior.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to aspirate the same shell with pipettes of different radii: if the model is self-consistent, fitted $K$ and $\delta$ should be independent of $R_p$ other than through the specified $R_p$ dependence, and any systematic drift would point to the constant-molecule assumption breaking down.
  • The model's molecular picture is most defensible for lipid monolayers; for cross-linked elastomers, $K$ and $\delta$ may act as effective parameters rather than literal molecular constants, which would still be useful empirically but would weaken the physical interpretation.
  • If the framework transfers to living cells, the curvature of a single aspiration trace could monitor whether a cell's cortical response is bending-dominated or stretching-dominated during interventions such as osmotic shocks or drug treatments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an analytical model for the nonlinear pressure-length (P-x) response of an elastic shell aspirated into a micropipette. The model represents the elastic energy as the sum of a bending contribution and a stretching contribution, the latter derived from a molecular picture with a constant number of molecules in the aspirated region. Two parameters are introduced: the area stretching modulus K and a dimensionless ratio delta that is intended to capture the bending-to-stretching energy balance. The authors fit the resulting Eq. (9) to P-x curves from lipid-coated water-in-oil droplets, DNA-gel-coated droplets, and macroscopic silicone sheets clamped over a tube, reporting coefficients of determination above 0.99 and a linear thickness dependence of K for the silicone sheets. The paper claims the model provides accurate, scalable characterization of deformed elastic shells.

Significance. If the model and its validation were sound, the paper would offer a simple two-parameter framework for extracting mechanical properties of soft thin shells from a single P-x experiment, with potential applications in cell mechanics and soft materials. The manuscript includes substantial experimental data: three lipid compositions, two DNA-gel conditions, and four silicone-sheet thicknesses. However, the macroscale validation rests on geometric assumptions that are inconsistent with the actual deformation of a clamped elastic sheet, and the physical interpretation of the fitted parameters contains internal contradictions. The droplet-level fits are good, but the paper's central claim of a validated, scale-spanning physical model is not currently supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Analytical model, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) is not the correct consequence of Eqs. (2)-(8) for general x0. Differentiating Ea+Eb with respect to x and dividing by dV/dx yields P = (K/Rp)[8x/(1+x0^2) + 8(1+x0^2)(delta - (1+x0^2))x/(1+x^2)^3], not the coefficient 8(1+x0^2)(delta-1) shown in Eq. (9). The displayed equation is valid only for x0=0. Since the experimental fits appear to use x0=0, this algebraic inconsistency does not necessarily alter the reported fits, but the manuscript neither states that x0=0 is assumed nor corrects the general formula. The model's claimed generality with nonzero initial aspiration length is therefore unsupported, and readers who apply Eq. (9) to a pre-aspirated shell will obtain incorrect predictions.
  2. [Results, droplet validation (Fig. 2e and surrounding text)] The interpretation of delta is internally inconsistent. The model section defines delta in Eq. (10) as a bending-to-stretching ratio and states that delta > 1 corresponds to the bending-dominant case. However, the text discussing Fig. 2(e) says that delta is 'consistently greater than 1' and concludes that 'the mechanical properties of the membrane-covered droplets are predominantly governed by stretching rather than bending.' If delta > 1 means bending dominance, this conclusion is exactly backwards. This contradiction is load-bearing because the paper's main claim is that K and delta are physically meaningful parameters; as written, the reader cannot determine what delta > 1 implies physically.
  3. [Macroscale silicone validation (Fig. 4 and Eqs. 2-4)] The macroscale validation assumes that the deformed sheet is a spherical cap with base radius Rp and height xRp, using the volume and area formulas of Eqs. (2)-(3). A clamped circular elastic sheet under uniform pressure does not deform into a spherical cap. In the bending-dominated limit the deflection profile is w(r)=w0(1-(r/a)^2)^2, and in the stretching-dominated limit it approaches a paraboloid; both profiles have volume and surface area that differ from the spherical-cap expressions (e.g., the clamped-plate profile has V=(pi/3)a^2 w0 and area increase about (2pi/3)w0^2 for small deflections, versus V about (pi/2)a^2 w0 and area increase about pi w0^2 for the spherical cap). Because K and delta are free fitting parameters, a good fit to Eq. (9) does not establish that the extracted values are the sheet's actual stretching modulus and bending ratio. The reported linear K versus h scaling is expected from dimension analysis alone and does not validate the model's kinematic assumptions. The macroscale experiment therefore does not support the paper's claim of cross-scale validation.
  4. [Analytical model, Eqs. (5)-(8) and Fig. 4] The stretching energy is derived from a molecular model in which the aspirated region contains a constant number of molecules, each occupying an area a, with a per-molecule energy of the form alpha/a + K(a/a0)^2 a0. This picture is appropriate for lipid monolayers or bilayers, but its application to a macroscopic cross-linked silicone sheet is not justified. A silicone elastomer is a network with shear elasticity; its strain energy is not a function of the total area alone, and there is no well-defined molecular area a analogous to a lipid's area per molecule. The assertion that 'the number of molecules in the inflated region remains nearly constant' does not supply the missing physical derivation. Consequently, the parameters K and delta extracted from the silicone experiments cannot be claimed to be the conventional area stretching modulus and bending ratio without additional continuum modeling.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript never states explicitly that x0=0 is used in all experimental fits. Please state this assumption and, if correct, remove the general x0 from Eqs. (9)-(11) or present the corrected general expression.
  2. [Figures 2-4] The units of K and delta are not reported in the figures or the text. Since the paper claims these are physical moduli, units and a comparison with literature values (e.g., lipid area expansion moduli) would help establish that the fitted values are in the expected range.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Eq. (11)] The terms 'convex upward' and 'convex downward' are used without definition and can be ambiguous in English. Please replace with 'concave up' and 'concave down' or define the convention clearly.
  4. [Fig. 4(b) caption] The caption contains an apparent typo: 'n=4 for h = 0.' is missing the thickness value.
  5. [Analytical model, after Eq. (2)] The model neglects deformation of the droplet outside the pipette. For the experimental radii (R > 25 um, Rp about 15 um), volume conservation implies a change in the outside droplet radius and area that is not negligible relative to the small-x area changes; the authors should quantify this effect and justify the neglect.
  6. [Results, validation discussion] The model parameters are fitted to the same P-x curves that are then used to demonstrate agreement. This is not circular in a formal sense, but it means the reported R^2 values reflect fitting quality rather than predictive power; an out-of-sample test or comparison with independent measurements of K would strengthen the validation claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model is derived from energy balance and geometry, K and δ are free fit parameters, and no output is fed back as input.

full rationale

The core derivation (Eqs. 1-9) combines a spherical-cap kinematic ansatz (Eqs. 2-3), a bending energy expression (Eq. 4), and a molecular stretching energy (Eqs. 5-8). Differentiating the total energy with respect to volume and substituting δ=4k/(K Rp^2(1+x0^2)) reproduces Eq. 9 algebraically; the derivation does not use the experimental P-x data as an input. K and δ are explicitly fitted parameters, and the paper states that it validates the model "by fitting experimental force-displacement curves" rather than claiming an independent prediction. The high R^2>0.99 is an in-sample fit statistic, not a circular reduction, because no held-out quantity is predicted from a parameter fitted to that same quantity. The application to silicone sheets assumes the same spherical-cap kinematics and constant-molecule count, which is a modeling/correctness risk rather than a circular step. Self-citations ([19], [32], [33]) are used for experimental methods and prior preparation procedures, not as load-bearing support for the theoretical result. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore no specific circular step satisfying the evidence standard can be identified, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model rests on standard energy balance and geometry, plus a molecular stretching model that is physically apt for lipid monolayers but is an unverified extrapolation for silicone sheets. The two fitted parameters, K and δ, are the only free numbers, but their physical interpretation depends on the molecular assumptions.

free parameters (2)
  • K (area stretching modulus) = Varies by sample; ranges from PG (lowest) to DOTAP (highest) for droplets, and increases with thickness for silicone…
    Fitted to each P-x curve via Eq. 9. Its physical interpretation depends on the molecular stretching model.
  • δ (dimensionless bending ratio) = Varies by sample; δ > 1 for droplets, δ < 1 for thin silicone sheets, approaching 1 with increasing thickness
    Fitted to each P-x curve via Eq. 9. Defined as δ = 4πk / (π K R_p^2 (1 + x0^2)), so it depends on pipette radius.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Energy balance: E_a + E_b = ∫ P (dV/dx) dx (Eq. 1)
    Assumes quasi-static, reversible deformation with no dissipation, so all pressure work goes into elastic energy.
  • domain assumption Aspirated region geometry is a spherical cap with volume V and area A given by Eqs. 2 and 3
    Valid for small deformation x < 1 where the region outside the pipette is assumed undeformed.
  • domain assumption Molecular stretching energy per molecule: E_single^a = α/a + K(a/a0)^2 a0, with α from equilibrium (Eq. 5)
    A phenomenological model for lipid membranes; used without derivation and without justification for silicone sheets.
  • domain assumption Constant number of molecules in the aspirated region: A0/a0 = A/a (Eq. 6)
    Assumes no influx of molecules during the short aspiration time; plausible for lipids, not physically justified for a cross-linked silicone sheet.
  • domain assumption Bending energy before aspiration is set to zero
    Assumes the initial membrane is flat with no spontaneous curvature.
  • ad hoc to paper The same molecular stretching model applies to macroscopic silicone sheets
    The paper extends a lipid-membrane molecular model to a solid elastic sheet without discussing the fundamental difference in deformation mechanism.
  • domain assumption Deformations outside the pipette are negligible for x < 1
    Stated in the text as a condition for the model; limits applicability to small aspiration lengths.
invented entities (1)
  • None
    purpose: No new physical entities are introduced
    The model uses only known quantities (bending rigidity k, area stretching modulus K, pipette radius R_p). The parameter δ is a derived dimensionless combination, not a new entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical model and experimental validation for nonlinear mechanical response of aspirated elastic shells." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S5Y6YMG4

@misc{pith2026250421283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical model and experimental validation for nonlinear mechanical response of aspirated elastic shells},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S5Y6YMG4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21283}
}
abstract

We developed a physics-based analytical model to describe the nonlinear mechanical response of aspirated elastic shells. By representing the elastic energy through a stretching modulus, $K$, and a dimensionless ratio, $\delta$, capturing the balance between stretching and bending energies, the model reveals mechanical behaviors extending beyond conventional approaches. Validated across microscale droplets and macroscale silicone sheets by fitting experimental force-displacement curves, this approach provides accurate, scalable characterization of deformed elastic shells. This framework advances our understanding of soft thin-shell mechanics, with broad applications in probing living cells and designing soft materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21283 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Analytical model for the deformation of membrane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Micropipette aspiration of droplets covered with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Micropipette aspiration of W/O microdroplets with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. G. D. Gennes, Soft matter, Science 256, 495 (1992)

    work page 1992

  2. [2]

    Doi, Soft matter physics (Oxford university press, 2013)

    M. Doi, Soft matter physics (Oxford university press, 2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Levental, P

    I. Levental, P. C. Georges, and P. A. Janmey, Soft biolog- ical materials and their impact on cell function (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Bao and S

    G. Bao and S. Suresh, Cell and molecular mechanics of biological materials, Nature materials 2, 715 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    N. H. Wubshet and A. P. Liu, Methods to mechanically perturb and characterize guv-based minimal cell models (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Thomas, N

    G. Thomas, N. A. Burnham, T. A. Camesano, and Q. Wen, Measuring the mechanical properties of living cells using atomic force microscopy, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE 10.3791/50497 (2013)

    work page doi:10.3791/50497 2013

  7. [7]

    A. Kis, S. Kasas, B. Babi´ c, A. J. Kulik, W. Benoˆ ıt, G. A. Briggs, C. Sch¨ onenberger, S. Catsicas, and L. Forr´ o, Nanomechanics of microtubules, Physical Review Letters 89, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.248101 (2002)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.89.248101 2002

  8. [8]

    E. M. Furst and A. P. Gast, Micromechanics of Dipolar Chains Using Optical Tweezers , Tech. Rep. (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    H. D. Ou-Yang and M. T. Wei, Complex fluids: Probing mechanical properties of biological systems with optical tweezers, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 61, 421 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    R. M. Hochmuth, Micropipette aspiration of living cells , Tech. Rep. (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    A. Tian, C. Johnson, W. Wang, and T. Baumgart, Line tension at fluid membrane domain boundaries measured by micropipette aspiration, Physical Review Letters 98, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.208102 (2007)

    2007 doi

  4. [12]

    Theret, M

    P. Theret, M. J. Levesque, M. Sato, R. M. Nerem, and L. T. Wheeler, The Application of a Homogeneous Half-Space Model in the Analysis of Endothelial Cell Mi- cropipette Measurements, Tech. Rep. (1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Lytra, V

    A. Lytra, V. Sboros, A. Giannakopoulos, and N. Peleka- sis, Modeling atomic force microscopy and shell mechan- ical properties estimation of coated microbubbles, Soft Matter 16, 4661 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    E. A. Evans, New membrane concept applied to the anal- ysis of fluid shear- and micropipette-deformed red blood cells, Biophysical Journal 13, 941 (1973)

    1973

  7. [15]

    Waugh and E

    R. Waugh and E. A. Evans, Thermoelasticity of red blood cell membrane, Biophysical Journal 26, 115 (1979)

    1979

  8. [16]

    H´ enon, G

    S. H´ enon, G. Lenormand, A. Richert, and F. Gallet, A new determination of the shear modulus of the human erythrocyte membrane using optical tweezers, Biophysi- cal Journal 76, 1145 (1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    Guevorkian, M

    K. Guevorkian, M. J. Colbert, M. Durth, S. Dufour, and F. Brochard-Wyart, Aspiration of biological viscoelas- tic drops, Physical Review Letters 104, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.104.218101 (2010)

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Esteban-Manzanares, B

    G. Esteban-Manzanares, B. Gonz´ alez-Berm´ udez, J. Cruces, M. D. la Fuente, Q. Li, G. V. Guinea, J. P´ erez-Rigueiro, M. Elices, and G. R. Plaza, Improved measurement of elastic properties of cells by micropipette aspiration and its application to lymphocytes, Annals of Biome...

    2017

  11. [19]

    Sakai, Y

    A. Sakai, Y. Murayama, K. Fujiwara, T. Fujisawa, S. Sasaki, S. Kidoaki, and M. Yanagisawa, Increasing elasticity through changes in the secondary structure of gelatin by gelation in a microsized lipid space, ACS Cen- tral Science 4, 477 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    O. V. Rudenko and A. M. Kolesnikov, Aspiration of a nonlinear elastic spherical membrane, International Jour- nal of Engineering Science 80, 62 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Ourique, E

    G. Ourique, E. F. Teixeira, and L. G. Brunnet, Mod- elling micropipette aspiration with active particles, Phys- ica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 589, 10.1016/j.physa.2021.126661 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Y. Du, S. Zhang, D. Cheng, Y. Liu, M. Sun, Q. Zhao, M. Cui, and X. Zhao, The full model of micropipette aspiration of cells: A mesoscopic simulation, Acta Bio- materialia 157, 297 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    L. D. Landau, L. P. Pitaevskii, A. M. Kosevich, and E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of elasticity: volume 7 , Vol. 7 (Elsevier, 2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Rawicz, K

    W. Rawicz, K. C. Olbrich, T. McIntosh, D. Needham, and E. A. Evans, Effect of chain length and unsaturation on elasticity of lipid bilayers, Biophysical Journal79, 328 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    D. E. Discher, N. Mohandas, and E. A. Evans, Molecular maps of red cell deformation: Hidden elasticity and in situ connectivity, Science 266, 1032 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    Suresh, J

    S. Suresh, J. Spatz, J. P. Mills, A. Micoulet, M. Dao, C. T. Lim, M. Beil, and T. Seufferlein, Connections be- tween single-cell biomechanics and human disease states: Gastrointestinal cancer and malaria, Acta Biomaterialia 1, 15 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    Y. L. Han, A. F. Pegoraro, H. Li, K. Li, Y. Yuan, G. Xu, Z. Gu, J. Sun, Y. Hao, S. K. Gupta, Y. Li, W. Tang, H. Kang, L. Teng, J. J. Fredberg, and M. Guo, Cell swelling, softening and invasion in a three-dimensional breast cancer model, Nature Physics 16, 101 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    J. A. Linke, L. L. Munn, and R. K. Jain, Compressive stresses in cancer: characterization and implications for tumour progression and treatment (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Massey, J

    A. Massey, J. Stewart, C. Smith, C. Parvini, M. Mc- Cormick, K. Do, and A. X. Cartagena-Rivera, Mechani- cal properties of human tumour tissues and their impli- cations for cancer development (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Z. Yu, Y. Gu, Y. Ren, Z. Li, C. Mou, Z. Wu, D. Wu, and J. Mou, Smart hydrogels for shape deformation: mecha- nism, preparation, and properties (2024). 6

    2024

  23. [31]

    J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and surface forces (Academic press, 2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Kurokawa, K

    C. Kurokawa, K. Fujiwara, M. Morita, I. Kawamata, Y. Kawagishi, A. Sakai, Y. Murayama, S. I. M. Nomura, S. Murata, M. Takinoue, and M. Yanagisawa, Dna cy- toskeleton for stabilizing artificial cells, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Ameri...

    2017

  25. [33]

    Sakai, Y

    A. Sakai, Y. Murayama, and M. Yanagisawa, Cyclic micropipette aspiration reveals viscoelastic change of a gelatin microgel prepared inside a lipid droplet, Lang- muir 36, 5186 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    N. Kato, A. Ishijima, T. Inaba, F. Nomura, S. Takeda, and K. Takiguchi, Effects of lipid composition and so- lution conditions on the mechanical properties of mem- brane vesicles, Membranes 5, 22 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Lenormand, S

    G. Lenormand, S. H´ enon, A. Richert, J. Sim´ eon, and F. Gallet, Direct measurement of the area expansion and shear moduli of the human red blood cell membrane skeleton, Biophysical Journal 81, 43 (2001)

    2001

  28. [36]

    S. Li, F. Eghiaian, C. Sieben, A. Herrmann, and I. A. Schaap, Bending and puncturing the influenza lipid en- velope, Biophysical Journal 100, 637 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.