Viscoelastic Characterization of Melanoma Cells Using Brillouin Spectroscopy

Mykyta Kizilov; Sujeong Jung; Vladislav V. Yakovlev; Vsevolod Cheburkanov

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Viscoelastic Characterization of Melanoma Cells Using Brillouin Spectroscopy

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Confocal Brillouin spectroscopy distinguishes cultured melanoma cells from their surroundings by spectral markers of stiffness and viscosity, and prolonged laser exposure visibly destroys the cells.

desk verdict Careful instrumentation and an honest photodamage note, but the paper's central viscoelastic claim is not supported by the reported data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05186 v1 pith:EB33NSWQ submitted 2025-07-07 physics.optics physics.bio-ph

Mykyta Kizilov , Vsevolod Cheburkanov , Sujeong Jung , Vladislav V. Yakovlev This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticsphysics.bio-ph

keywords Brillouinspectroscopymelanomaviscoelasticitycellularstiffnessshiftlinewidthanalysisconfocalmicroscopyphotodamage

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

The paper sets out to show that Brillouin spectroscopy can non-invasively tell melanoma cells apart from their surrounding medium using two spectral readouts: the Brillouin shift and the full width at half maximum of the Brillouin peak. Across 11 imaging runs of 30 cells, the cells show higher shifts and broader peaks than the background, which the authors interpret as higher stiffness and greater internal viscosity or heterogeneity. The paper also documents that prolonged, high-power 532 nm illumination makes melanoma cells round up, lose their protrusions, and eventually rupture, while shortening the dwell time improves viability under high-intensity exposure. If the interpretation holds, Brillouin microscopy offers a label-free way to probe cancer-cell mechanics at subcellular scale and to monitor laser-induced damage.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Brillouin spectrum itself: the Brillouin shift, the frequency displacement of the Stokes and anti-Stokes lines converted from CCD pixels via a VIPA dispersion curve, and the FWHM of those peaks. The shift carries stiffness-like information and the FWHM carries viscosity-like information, and the custom single-stage VIPA spectrometer uses an iodine vapor cell plus polarization filtering to separate the faint Brillouin signal from the elastic background. A confocal pinhole below one Airy unit provides optical sectioning so the spectral values can be mapped cell-by-cell.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to image the same cells with an independent mechanical probe, such as atomic force microscopy or a rheometer, while also swapping the culture medium for index-matched fluids; if the spectral differences vanish or fail to track the mechanical readings, the central claim would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a custom confocal Brillouin microspectrometer, with an iodine vapor cell and VIPA disperser to reject elastic scattering, yields reproducible spectral differences between cultured melanoma cells and the background: higher Brillouin shift in cell regions and broader Brillouin FWHM, with consistent Stokes and anti-Stokes trends. The shift is read as a proxy for longitudinal stiffness and the FWHM as a proxy for viscosity and structural heterogeneity, so the paper asserts that the cells are mechanically distinct from their environment. A secondary finding is that high-power 532 nm exposure induces progressive morphological degeneration ending in apparent membrane rupture, while lower dwell times preserve viability; this connects laser dosing to mechanical and cytotoxic effects.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the measured differences in Brillouin shift and linewidth between cells and background reflect mechanical differences in stiffness and viscosity, not optical effects such as refractive-index mismatch, water content, medium composition, or spectral drift; no independent mechanical measurement is supplied.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the spectral readouts really track cell mechanics, Brillouin microscopy becomes a contact-free, label-free way to map stiffness and viscosity of melanoma cells and compare them with surrounding tissue.
The consistent Stokes and anti-Stokes trends across 11 runs mean the cell-versus-background contrast is reproducible enough to serve as a candidate imaging biomarker.
The photodamage timeline, from rounding and loss of protrusions to membrane rupture, gives a concrete threshold for safe laser exposure in live-cell imaging and could guide dwell-time and power choices in other cell types.
Because a confocal pinhole sections the sample, the method can map mechanical properties within a single cell rather than only averaging over a whole population.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not rule out that part of the cell-versus-background contrast comes from refractive-index and water-content differences rather than stiffness; a control experiment with index-matched media would separate these effects.
The linewidth changes could partly reflect local heating or spectrometer resolution rather than viscosity, so correlating FWHM with independent temperature measurements would test the viscosity interpretation.
The photodamage results suggest that Brillouin imaging parameters may need to be tuned per cell line, and that spectral changes during exposure could themselves serve as an early-warning readout of cell stress.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a straightforward feasibility report from an experienced group, and the most defensible content is the instrument description and the photodamage time course. The headline claim—that Brillouin shift and FWHM distinguish melanoma cells from background—is plausible but not demonstrated, because the paper never reports the actual values, uncertainties, or any test statistic, and the mechanical interpretation is vulnerable to a refractive-index confound.

What's new: the application to cultured melanoma cells with subcellular maps is a modest extension of the group's earlier tissue work (Ref 3), and the photodamage observation is a useful cautionary data point. The setup description is unusually detailed: pinhole validated to <1 AU, iodine cell suppression >40 dB, dispersion calibration explicitly described. That is genuinely useful for anyone building a similar system.

Where it's soft: Section 4 asserts "significant distinctions" across 11 imaging runs, but no numbers appear anywhere. No shift/FWHM values, no error bars, no p-values, no per-pixel index measurement. The stress-test concern about refractive index holds up: in backscattering, the shift scales with n·v_s, and culture medium vs cell index differs by ~4%. That alone could produce the observed contrast. The FWHM comparison is even more confounded by optical heterogeneity and aperture effects. Claiming a "detailed viscoelastic profile" is therefore an overstatement; what the data show is a spectral difference that may be mechanical.

The photodamage section is honestly described as an incidental observation. It's a single time course, so treat it as anecdotal, but it's still the kind of documentation groups in this field need.

The citation pattern is fine; leaning on the authors' own prior work for context is legitimate. The statistical claim being "confirmed" in Fig 5 is unsupported in the text.

Who this is for: people working on Brillouin microscopy of cells who want to know the experimental configuration and get a caution about photodamage. It's not a high-impact conceptual contribution. With the missing quantitative reporting, I wouldn't hang a mechanical conclusion on it.

I'd send it to peer review, but with a clear request: report the numbers, add an index correction or acknowledge the confound, and either supply independent validation or soften the claims to "spectral differences." As is, it's a solid technical note that overstates its conclusion.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a Brillouin microspectroscopy study of cultured melanoma cells, claiming that cells exhibit higher Brillouin shifts and broader FWHM values than the surrounding medium and interpreting these as markers of increased stiffness and viscosity. It also describes a photodamage effect at high laser exposure. The paper presents the experimental setup, acquisition protocol, and a data-analysis pipeline, with representative heatmaps and histograms, but it provides no quantitative shift or FWHM values, no error bars, and no statistical test statistics. The central claim that the data constitute a 'detailed viscoelastic profile' of melanoma cells therefore rests on unreported numbers and on an unexamined assumption that optical contrasts (notably refractive index mismatch) do not dominate the measured spectral differences.

Significance. If properly substantiated, the ability to distinguish melanoma cells from their surroundings without extrinsic labels using Brillouin-derived spectral markers would be of genuine interest for cancer biology and diagnostic development. The manuscript has concrete strengths: a detailed description of a custom-built confocal Brillouin microspectrometer, explicit pinhole calibration, the use of both Stokes and anti-Stokes components to check consistency, and a clear observation of a phototoxic endpoint. However, the current version is qualitative: the claimed reproducible cell/background contrast is not quantified, and the mechanical interpretation is not separated from refractive-index effects. As a result, the significance of the work cannot yet be assessed beyond that of a technical feasibility demonstration.

major comments (5)

[Section 4.3 and Figures 3-5] The central claim of 'significant distinctions' and a 'reproducible pattern across all 11 imaging runs' is not supported by any reported quantitative values, uncertainties, or test statistics. The manuscript never states the mean Brillouin shift or FWHM for cells versus background, the number of spectra per cell or per background region, the run-to-run variation, or the statistical test used. Please add a table or supplementary material with per-run and pooled means, standard deviations, and the outcome of an appropriate test (e.g., a mixed-effects model accounting for repeated cells/runs).
[Section 4.1 and Section 2.1.4] The interpretation of higher Brillouin shift as a mechanical stiffness difference is confounded by refractive index. In the backscattering geometry, the shift is proportional to n·v_s, and cells (n ≈ 1.38-1.40) immersed in culture medium (n ≈ 1.33-1.34) would exhibit a shift increase of roughly 4% even with no change in mechanical modulus. The manuscript provides no per-pixel refractive index measurement, no index correction, and no independent mechanical validation. Please either correct the shifts using measured or literature-based index maps, or explicitly state the assumption that the index contrast is negligible and quantify the resulting systematic uncertainty in the inferred stiffness contrast.
[Section 2 versus Section 4.4] There is an inconsistency in the reported exposure conditions: Section 2 states that the exposure time for each measurement was maintained between 30 and 40 ms, whereas Section 4.4 describes the high-density damaging run with 'exposure (laser dwell time) equal to 40 µs'. These values differ by three orders of magnitude and affect both the viability claim and the photodamage interpretation. Please reconcile the two values and report the total illumination dose per cell (dwell time per spectrum, number of spectra per cell, and laser power) so that the damage threshold can be assessed.
[Section 4.4] The photodamage section is framed as a mechanical effect of laser-induced damage, but no Brillouin shift or FWHM data are reported during the cell degradation; only bright-field morphology is shown. The title and abstract promise a viscoelastic characterization, but the damage narrative is not connected to any spectral markers. Please either add time-lapse Brillouin metrics accompanying the morphological changes, or clearly label this section as an incidental observation that is not part of the central claim.
[Section 3.1, Step 1] The Savitzky-Golay filter (window 7, polynomial order 3) is applied before extracting FWHM values, yet the effect of the smoothing parameters on the reported FWHM is not quantified. Since FWHM is the basis for the viscosity claim, filter-induced broadening could produce cell/background differences that are not mechanical. Please add a calibration test (e.g., on a stable reference spectrum or simulated Lorentzian) showing that the smoothing does not differentially affect the extracted FWHM in cells versus background.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase 'detailed viscoelastic profile' overstates the content: the paper does not report quantitative mechanical moduli, loss tangents, or spatially resolved profiles beyond qualitative heatmaps.
[Section 4.4] The sentence beginning 'After the exposure the cell has been observed...' is followed by 'shown As shown in Figure 6' containing a doubled phrase; please edit for clarity.
[Section 4.3] The line '11 imagings (30 cells) in total' is a sentence fragment and does not explain how the 30 cells were distributed across the 11 runs or how cellular regions were segmented from background for the histograms.
[Section 1] The phrase 'the authors observed' in the introduction is redundant and should be replaced with a direct statement of the observation.
[Figure captions] Figure 3 and Figure 4 captions would benefit from explicit definitions of 'cell group #4' and of how the background region was selected, since these definitions are necessary to interpret the histograms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper reports direct Brillouin shift and FWHM measurements with no fitted parameters, and its interpretive link to viscoelasticity is standard Brillouin physics, not a self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim is that melanoma cells show different Brillouin shifts and FWHM values from the surrounding background (Section 4). This is a direct measurement result, not a prediction derived from a fitted model. No model parameters are fit to a subset of the data and then used to predict another subset; no quantity is defined in terms of the claim it is supposed to support. The conversion from CCD positions to frequency uses the fixed VIPA free spectral range of 29.98 GHz and the Rayleigh line positions, which is a calibration step, not a circular input. The interpretation that Brillouin shift relates to stiffness and FWHM relates to viscosity follows from the standard Brillouin scattering relations and is not introduced in this paper as a derived result. The self-citations (references 1-3, 7-9) describe prior instrumentation and applications by the same group; they provide context for the setup but do not supply the measured cell/background contrast, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. Potential confounds such as refractive-index mismatch or lack of independent mechanical validation are correctness risks, but they are not circularity under the specified criteria. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Brillouin-mechanics relations, the confocal sectioning assumption, the VIPA and iodine calibration assumptions, and the visual inference of cell death. No new physical entities are introduced, and no model parameters are fitted to data. The only hand-chosen numbers are instrument and processing settings whose quantitative influence on the reported values is not assessed.

free parameters (2)

Savitzky-Golay filter window and polynomial order = window 7, order 3
Hand-selected in Section 3.1 to maximize spectral SNR; the choice can affect extracted FWHM values, though the paper does not quantify this sensitivity.
Laser exposure time per spectrum = 30-40 ms per pixel (Section 2); 40 µs stated in Section 4.4
Set by the operator to balance signal and photodamage; the inconsistency between the two stated values is unexplained and could materially affect both the spectra and the damage time course.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Brillouin shift is proportional to the longitudinal elastic modulus, and spectral linewidth is related to viscosity.
Used throughout Sections 1 and 4 to label the measurements as stiffness and viscosity; not validated here by independent mechanical measurements.
domain assumption Confocal pinhole set to no more than 1 Airy unit provides optical sectioning and subcellular axial resolution.
Invoked in Section 2.1.3 to justify subcellular localization of the measured spectra.
domain assumption The iodine vapor cell suppresses elastic scatter by more than 40 dB without distorting the Brillouin line shape.
Section 2.1.4 states the suppression ratio; no test is shown that the linewidth is unaffected by the notch filtering or the VIPA response.
domain assumption Morphological changes visible in bright-field images indicate cell death and membrane rupture.
Section 4.4 infers destruction purely from loss of cell outline and cytoskeleton diffusion; no live/dead stain or biochemical marker is used.
domain assumption VIPA free spectral range of 29.98 GHz is exactly known and used to convert CCD pixel positions to frequency.
Section 3.1 relies on fixed separation of 29.98 GHz between VIPA orders; no uncertainty or calibration standard is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Viscoelastic Characterization of Melanoma Cells Using Brillouin Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EB33NSWQ

@misc{pith2026250705186,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Viscoelastic Characterization of Melanoma Cells Using Brillouin Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EB33NSWQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05186}
}

read the original abstract

In this study, Brillouin spectroscopy was employed to investigate the viscoelastic properties of melanoma cells in vitro. Using a custom-built confocal Brillouin microspectrometer, we obtained Brillouin shifts and full width at half maximum (FWHM) values, enabling the non-invasive assessment of cellular stiffness and viscosity. The Brillouin spectra revealed the biomechanical characteristics of melanoma cells, with measured shifts and FWHM values providing a detailed viscoelastic profile. These findings demonstrate the capability of Brillouin microscopy to probe the mechanical properties of cancer cells at the subcellular level. This technique holds significant potential for advancing cancer research by providing insights into the mechanical behavior of melanoma cells, which could inform the development of diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies based on cellular biomechanics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05186 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Brillouin spectrum For each pixel in each layer, the Brillouin spectrum was recorded. After recording each spectrum, we followed the next steps: 1. The raw signal from the spectrometer’s CCD was processed using a Savitzky-Golay filter10 to enhance signal quality. The optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the spectra was obtained with a filter window width of 7 and a fitted polynomial order of 3. 2. The positions of… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Top row - photo of the cell before and after laser exposure, second row - Brillouin shift and FWHM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Top row - shift histogram of the cell group #4 and background. Bottom row - FWHM histogram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Top row - shift histograms of cells (stokes, anti-stokes and both), bottom row - FWHM histograms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Top row - cell before and immediately after 6 minutes of laser exposure. Middle row - cell 10 and 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging Microscopy Analysis of Isolated Melanosomes
physics.bio-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

FLIM of isolated melanosomes reveals a picosecond-lived fluorescent component and shows that both fast and slow fluorescence lifetimes lengthen during 60 minutes of laser exposure.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Y., and Yakovlev, V

Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Jung, S., Berezin, M. Y., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Non-invasive remote assessment of tissue fibrogenesis using brillouin microscopy,'' in [ Optical Elastography and Tissue Biomechanics XII 0.1em ] , Larin, K. V. and Scarcelli, G., eds., 13321 , 133210H, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2025)

work page 2025
[2]

Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Jung, S., Sandoval, K. I. O., Raghavan, S., and Yakovlev, V., ``Noninvasive investigation of enteric glia culture viscoelastic properties,'' in [ Label-free Biomedical Imaging and Sensing (LBIS) 2025 0.1em ] , Shaked, N. T. and Hayden, O., eds., 13331 , 1333106, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (January 26 2025)

work page 2025
[3]

V., ``Differentiating melanoma and healthy tissues based on elasticity-specific brillouin microspectroscopy,'' Biomedical optics express 10 (4), 1774--1781 (2019)

Troyanova-Wood, M., Meng, Z., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Differentiating melanoma and healthy tissues based on elasticity-specific brillouin microspectroscopy,'' Biomedical optics express 10 (4), 1774--1781 (2019)

work page 2019
[4]

doi: 10.1007/s00249-011-0723-2

Wetzel, F., Rönicke, S., Müller, K., Gyger, M., Rose, D., Zink, M., and Käs, J., ``Single cell viability and impact of heating by laser absorption,'' European Biophysics Journal 40 , 1109--1114 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00249-011-0723-2

work page doi:10.1007/s00249-011-0723-2 2011
[5]

X., Micevic, G., Damsky, W., and Bosenberg, M

Meeth, K., Wang, J. X., Micevic, G., Damsky, W., and Bosenberg, M. W., ``The yumm lines: a series of congenic mouse melanoma cell lines with defined genetic alterations,'' Pigment cell & melanoma research 29 (5), 590--597 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Gottschalk, S., Estrada, H., Degtyaruk, O., Rebling, J., Klymenko, O., Rosemann, M., and Razansky, D., ``Short and long-term phototoxicity in cells expressing genetic reporters under nanosecond laser exposure,'' Biomaterials 69 , 38--44 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

I., and Yakovlev, V

Harrington, J., Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Kulagin, I., Petrov, G. I., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Highly sensitive, low-cost deep-uv resonant raman microspectroscopy systems,'' Chemistry–Methods n/a (n/a), 2500006 (2025). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cmtd.202500006, URL: https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cmtd.202500006

work page doi:10.1002/cmtd.202500006 2025
[8]

T., Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Kulagin, I., Petrov, G., and Yakovlev, V

Harrington, J. T., Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Kulagin, I., Petrov, G., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Deep ultraviolet resonant raman (duvrr) spectroscopy for spectroscopic evaluation and disinfection of food and agricultural samples,'' in [ Photonic Technologies in Plant and Agricultural Science II 0.1em ] , 13357 , 1335702, International Society for Optics a...

work page 2025

Show all 12 references

[9]

R., Seddon, A

Kizilov, M., Cheburkanov, V., Harrington, J., and Yakovlev, V., ``Advanced preprocessing and analysis techniques for enhanced raman spectroscopy data interpretation,'' in [ Optical Biopsy XXIII: Toward Real-Time Spectroscopic Imaging and Diagnosis 0.1em ] , Alfano, R. R., Sedd...

2025
[10]

and Golay, M

Savitzky, A. and Golay, M. J., ``Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures.,'' Analytical chemistry 36 (8), 1627--1639 (1964)

1964
[11]

Czyz, M., ``Hgf/c-met signaling in melanocytes and melanoma,'' International journal of molecular sciences 19 (12), 3844 (2018)

2018
[12]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION blank.sep after.quote 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry output.state after.quoted.block = 'skip 'add.period if write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip output.state after.quote = after.quoted.blo...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Y., and Yakovlev, V

Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Jung, S., Berezin, M. Y., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Non-invasive remote assessment of tissue fibrogenesis using brillouin microscopy,'' in [ Optical Elastography and Tissue Biomechanics XII 0.1em ] , Larin, K. V. and Scarcelli, G., eds., 13321 , 133210H, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (2025)

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Jung, S., Sandoval, K. I. O., Raghavan, S., and Yakovlev, V., ``Noninvasive investigation of enteric glia culture viscoelastic properties,'' in [ Label-free Biomedical Imaging and Sensing (LBIS) 2025 0.1em ] , Shaked, N. T. and Hayden, O., eds., 13331 , 1333106, International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE (January 26 2025)

work page 2025

[3] [3]

V., ``Differentiating melanoma and healthy tissues based on elasticity-specific brillouin microspectroscopy,'' Biomedical optics express 10 (4), 1774--1781 (2019)

Troyanova-Wood, M., Meng, Z., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Differentiating melanoma and healthy tissues based on elasticity-specific brillouin microspectroscopy,'' Biomedical optics express 10 (4), 1774--1781 (2019)

work page 2019

[4] [4]

doi: 10.1007/s00249-011-0723-2

Wetzel, F., Rönicke, S., Müller, K., Gyger, M., Rose, D., Zink, M., and Käs, J., ``Single cell viability and impact of heating by laser absorption,'' European Biophysics Journal 40 , 1109--1114 (2011). doi: 10.1007/s00249-011-0723-2

work page doi:10.1007/s00249-011-0723-2 2011

[5] [5]

X., Micevic, G., Damsky, W., and Bosenberg, M

Meeth, K., Wang, J. X., Micevic, G., Damsky, W., and Bosenberg, M. W., ``The yumm lines: a series of congenic mouse melanoma cell lines with defined genetic alterations,'' Pigment cell & melanoma research 29 (5), 590--597 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Gottschalk, S., Estrada, H., Degtyaruk, O., Rebling, J., Klymenko, O., Rosemann, M., and Razansky, D., ``Short and long-term phototoxicity in cells expressing genetic reporters under nanosecond laser exposure,'' Biomaterials 69 , 38--44 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

I., and Yakovlev, V

Harrington, J., Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Kulagin, I., Petrov, G. I., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Highly sensitive, low-cost deep-uv resonant raman microspectroscopy systems,'' Chemistry–Methods n/a (n/a), 2500006 (2025). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cmtd.202500006, URL: https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cmtd.202500006

work page doi:10.1002/cmtd.202500006 2025

[8] [8]

T., Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Kulagin, I., Petrov, G., and Yakovlev, V

Harrington, J. T., Cheburkanov, V., Kizilov, M., Kulagin, I., Petrov, G., and Yakovlev, V. V., ``Deep ultraviolet resonant raman (duvrr) spectroscopy for spectroscopic evaluation and disinfection of food and agricultural samples,'' in [ Photonic Technologies in Plant and Agricultural Science II 0.1em ] , 13357 , 1335702, International Society for Optics a...

work page 2025