Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Differentiation of Wild-Type and CRISPR-Modified Colon Cancer Cells Using Brillouin Microscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Brillouin microscopy can tell CRISPR-edited colon cancer cells from wild-type cells by their mechanical signatures.

desk verdict Solid Brillouin instrumentation with a central biological claim the data don't yet support; the abstract overstates what the results show. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05329 v1 pith:7ISWCR62 submitted 2025-07-07 physics.bio-ph physics.med-phphysics.optics

Mykyta Kizilov , Vsevolod Cheburkanov , Vladislav V. Yakovlev This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phphysics.med-phphysics.optics
keywords BrillouinmicroscopyshiftfullwidthathalfmaximumcoloncancerCRISPRcellviscoelasticitylabel-freeimaging
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 tries to establish that Brillouin microscopy can distinguish CRISPR-edited colon cancer cells from their wild-type counterparts by measuring their mechanical properties without any label. The evidence is a set of two cell populations imaged with a custom confocal Brillouin microspectrometer: twenty cells from each group gave median Brillouin shifts of 7.591 GHz (wild-type) versus 7.567 GHz (CRISPR) and median linewidths of 0.987 GHz versus 0.861 GHz. The paper reads the shift as a proxy for stiffness and the linewidth as a proxy for viscosity, so the CRISPR cells appear slightly less stiff and less viscous. A reader should care because a label-free optical readout of genetic state could feed into non-invasive cancer diagnostics and mechanobiology studies.

What carries the argument

The central readout is the Brillouin shift, the frequency change of light inelastically scattered by acoustic phonons, together with the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Brillouin peak. In the paper's setup, the shift is treated as a proxy for longitudinal stiffness and the FWHM as a proxy for viscous damping, so the two numbers together describe a cell's viscoelastic signature. The machinery that carries the claim is a custom-built confocal Brillouin microspectrometer with a VIPA spectrometer, iodine-cell rejection of elastic scattering, and a Savitzky-Golay spectral preprocessing step that converts CCD positions into calibrated frequency shifts and linewidths.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be PCR or sequencing of the flask populations showing that the intended CRISPR modification is absent or present in only a minority of cells, or a blinded replication in which passage- and media-matched wild-type and edited clones produce overlapping medians for shift and FWHM. Another concrete check is to swap the sample identities between flasks and see whether the assignment follows the physical flask rather than the genotype.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Brillouin spectroscopy resolves a subtle but consistent mechanical difference between wild-type and CRISPR-modified colon cancer cells in vitro. In the paper's own numbers, the wild-type population had a higher median Brillouin shift (7.591 GHz) and a broader Brillouin peak (FWHM 0.987 GHz) than the CRISPR population (7.567 GHz and 0.861 GHz). The conclusion states that Brillouin spectroscopy can effectively resolve subtle differences in viscoelastic properties, and interprets the decrease in both parameters as a measurable alteration of cellular stiffness and viscosity linked to the genetic modification.

Load-bearing premise

The two cell populations are assumed to differ only by the intended CRISPR edit, yet the samples were identified by handwritten flask labels alone, with no genotyping to confirm the edit or rule out passage, media, or batch differences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the difference is real, Brillouin microscopy can serve as a label-free phenotypic assay for CRISPR-induced changes in cancer cell mechanics.
  • The same readout could be used to screen edited cell populations for mechanical side effects before functional studies.
  • Because the measurement is non-invasive and works in culture flasks, it can be applied to living cells over time without fixation.
  • Lower Brillouin shift and FWHM in the edited cells suggest CRISPR modification altered both elastic and viscous components, not just stiffness.
  • The approach extends the prior use of Brillouin spectroscopy on tumor tissue to intact cultured cells at subcellular resolution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the 0.024 GHz median shift difference is close to the system's frequency precision, so the paper's conclusion leans heavily on the FWHM difference, which is larger in relative terms.
  • Editorial inference: because the two samples differ in passage number, culture date, and medium label, a replication with passage-matched isogenic clones would be needed to attribute the mechanical change to the CRISPR edit itself.
  • Editorial inference: combining Brillouin maps with Raman spectra at the same pixels could test whether the mechanical change tracks a specific biochemical change, such as altered lipid or protein content.
  • Editorial inference: if the mechanical signature proves robust, it could be used to monitor organoid or patient-derived colon cancer models after gene editing without disrupting the culture.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a proof-of-concept application of custom-built confocal Brillouin microspectroscopy to compare wild-type (WT) and CRISPR-modified colon cancer cells. The authors measured Brillouin shift and full width at half maximum (FWHM) from selected cells and report median values of 7.591 GHz versus 7.567 GHz for the shift and 0.987 GHz versus 0.861 GHz for the FWHM, concluding that Brillouin spectroscopy can effectively resolve subtle viscoelastic differences between the two groups. The paper includes a detailed description of the optical setup, spectral pre-processing, and representative heatmaps and box plots, but it provides no inferential statistics, no validation of the CRISPR modification, and only descriptive comparisons of the two sample groups.

Significance. If the reported differences were established, the result would be a useful proof-of-concept for label-free, non-invasive mechanical phenotyping of genetically modified cells, with potential relevance to cancer research and diagnostics. The instrumentation description is a genuine strength: the authors specify calibration through the VIPA free spectral range and the iodine absorption line, report >40 dB elastic suppression, and describe confocal pinhole validation. They also took a sensible step to mitigate confirmation bias by withholding expected stiffness values. However, the central claim currently rests entirely on descriptive medians without statistical support, and the biological identity of the comparison groups is not verified. The paper's own text concedes that significance testing is incomplete, so the conclusion as written is not supported by the data presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Section 3] The Abstract states that "Statistical analysis revealed that WT cells had different stiffness and viscosity compared to CRISPR-modified cells," but Section 3 explicitly states: "Further statistical analysis is underway to ascertain the significance of these differences." No p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes, or measures of variability relative to the 0.024 GHz shift difference are reported. Since the central claim depends on demonstrating that the observed median differences are not measurement noise, the manuscript's own text concedes that the claim is not yet established.
  2. [Section 2 / Section 3] The two comparison groups are not validated as wild-type versus CRISPR-modified. Section 2 identifies the samples only by handwritten flask labels ("RKo P7 9/10/24 AC P8 9/12/24" and "RKo mutant DMEM P7 9/13/24 KM"), with no description of the edited gene, no genotyping, and no characterization of the intended modification. The labels also reveal different passage dates and a medium label ("DMEM"), so passage number and culture medium are visible confounders. The attribution of the Brillouin differences to the CRISPR edit is therefore unsupported.
  3. [Section 3] The quantitative analysis is based on "twenty representative cells [that] were arbitrarily selected" from each group. No sampling protocol, no replicate cultures, and no account of inter-cell or inter-pixel variability are given beyond the box plots. Without replicates or a defined selection criterion, the median differences could reflect selection bias, batch effects, or other uncontrolled experimental factors rather than a genuine biological difference.
  4. [Section 2.1] Section 2.1, titled "Sample preparation," is empty. No information is provided about the cell line, culture conditions, CRISPR protocol, or sample handling. This omission prevents reproducibility and makes it impossible to assess the confounders noted above.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] Several citations are malformed: "tumorigenesis3" and "as a potential therapeutic target6" appear without brackets, and some reference entries are incomplete (e.g., reference [42] lacks a title).
  2. [Figure 4] The box plots would benefit from annotations specifying the number of cells/pixels, the whisker definition, and any outliers; currently the reader cannot determine the spread or robustness of the medians.
  3. [Section 2.2.3] The statement that "the observed light pattern closely resembled the Fraunhofer diffraction pattern on the power meter" is unclear, since a power meter measures integrated power rather than spatial pattern; this should be reworded or supported by an image.
  4. [Section 2.3] The Savitzky-Golay filter parameters (window width 7, polynomial order 3) are stated but no sensitivity analysis or justification is provided for their optimality.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Brillouin shift and FWHM are directly measured and calibrated spectral quantities, and the WT-vs-CRISPR comparison is not derived from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that wild-type and CRISPR-modified colon cancer cells differ in Brillouin shift (7.591 vs 7.567 GHz) and FWHM (0.987 vs 0.861 GHz). These numbers are extracted from measured spectra using a VIPA spectrometer calibrated by its 29.98 GHz free spectral range and an iodine absorption line, with no model parameter fitted to the group comparison. The interpretation of shift and FWHM as stiffness and viscosity is imported from prior Brillouin literature, but that is an external physical assumption, not a circular derivation. The authors' self-citations concern instrumentation and prior applications; none is used to define the measured quantities or to justify the group difference. The paper's own Section 3 states that 'Further statistical analysis is underway to ascertain the significance of these differences,' which conflicts with the abstract's claim that 'Statistical analysis revealed' differences; this is an internal evidentiary inconsistency, not circularity. Similarly, the absence of genotyping or replicate flasks undermines causal attribution to CRISPR, but it does not make the measurement equal to its inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entity. It relies on four unverified background assumptions about sample identity, mechanical interpretation, calibration accuracy, and processing bias. The free parameters listed are data-processing and sampling choices that directly affect the reported values.

free parameters (3)
  • Savitzky-Golay filter window width = 7
    Chosen by SNR optimization in Sec. 2.3; window size changes apparent peak position and width, so it directly affects the reported Brillouin shift and FWHM.
  • Savitzky-Golay polynomial order = 3
    Chosen together with the window width; polynomial order changes the smoothing and the extracted peak metrics.
  • Number of cells selected per group = 20 (presumably per group)
    Section 3: cells were 'arbitrarily selected'; sampling choice defines the box plot distributions and is not randomized or blinded.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The WT and CRISPR-modified samples are isogenic except for the intended edit.
    Section 2 labels are the only evidence of genotype; no sequencing, Western blot, or CRISPR guide information is provided. Different passage dates and media labels make confounding likely.
  • domain assumption Brillouin shift and FWHM correspond directly to cell stiffness and viscosity.
    The mechanical interpretation is inherited from cited literature; no calibration standard with known modulus is measured in this paper (Secs. 1 and 4).
  • domain assumption The spectral calibration resolves a 0.024 GHz median difference.
    Dispersion is computed from Rayleigh line positions (Sec. 2.3), but no uncertainty in the calibration or repeatability test is reported.
  • standard math Savitzky-Golay filtering does not bias peak parameters.
    Smoothing is a standard technique [49], but parameters were tuned on the same data and no bias check is provided (Sec. 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Differentiation of Wild-Type and CRISPR-Modified Colon Cancer Cells Using Brillouin Microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ISWCR62

@misc{pith2026250705329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Differentiation of Wild-Type and CRISPR-Modified Colon Cancer Cells Using Brillouin Microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ISWCR62}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05329}
}
read the original abstract

This study investigates the mechanical properties of colon cancer cells through Brillouin microscopy, focusing on the differentiation between wild-type (WT) and CRISPR-modified cells. Brillouin microspectroscopy, a non-invasive technique, was employed to measure Brillouin shifts and full width at half maximum (FWHM) values of the cells in vitro. Using a custom-built confocal Brillouin microspectrometer, both WT and CRISPR-modified cells exhibited distinct mechanical responses. Statistical analysis revealed that WT cells had different stiffness and viscosity compared to CRISPR-modified cells, as indicated by their Brillouin shift and FWHM values. The data suggest that Brillouin spectroscopy offers a viable method to differentiate between normal and mutated cells at the subcellular level, providing new insights into cellular mechanical properties relevant to cancer research. These findings hold potential for advancing non-invasive diagnostic techniques and understanding cellular mechanics in oncology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05329 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Brillouin confocal microspectrometer layout. C - fiber collimator, HWP – half-wave plate, PPLN - periodically poled lithium niobate second harmonic generation crystal, BB – beam block, LPF - long-pass filter, M - mirror, SPF - short-pass filter, BS – polarizing beamsplitter cube, SL - achromatic doublet scan lens, Ph - precision pinhole, ATL - achromatic tube lens (200mm EFFL), BBS - broadband beamsplitter in quick-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Processed signal for a single pixel 3 RESULTS Following the acquisition and pre-processing of the Brillouin spectra, we extracted the Brillouin shift and full width at half maximum (FWHM) values from each pixel. For quantitative analysis, twenty representative cells were arbitrarily selected from both the wild-type (WT) and CRISPR-modified groups. 6/11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Processed Brillouin shift and FWHM heatmaps. The regions corresponding to these cells were isolated, and the distributions of the Brillouin shift and FWHM values were compiled into box plots (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Box plots showing the distributions of (a) Brillouin shift and (b) FWHM values for wild-type (WT) and CRISPR-modified colon cancer cells. 4 CONCLUSION In summary, our study demonstrates that Brillouin spectroscopy can effectively resolve subtle dif￾ferences in the visc…

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

  1. 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

49 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Araghi, I

    M. Araghi, I. Soerjomataram, A. Bardot, J. Ferlay, C. Cabasag, D. Morrison, P. De, H. Tervonen, P. Walsh, O. Bucher, et al. Changes in colorectal cancer incidence in seven high-income countries: a population-based study. The Lancet. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 4(7):511–518, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    O’Connell, M

    J. O’Connell, M. Maggard, J. H. Liu, D. Etzioni, E. Livingston, and C. Ko. Rates of colon and rectal cancers are increasing in young adults. The American Surgeon, 69:866–872, 2003

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Siegel, N

    R. Siegel, N. S. Wagle, A. Cercek, Robert A. Smith, and A. Jemal. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Liss and D

    D. Liss and D. Baker. Understanding current racial/ethnic disparities in colorectal cancer screening in the united states: the contribution of socioeconomic status and access to care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(3):228–236, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Singh and A

    Gopal K. Singh and A. Jemal. Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in cancer mortality, incidence, and survival in the united states, 1950–2014: over six decades of changing patterns and widening inequalities. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2017, 2017. 8/11

    work page 1950

  6. [6]

    Miller, Leticia M

    K. Miller, Leticia M. Nogueira, A. Mariotto, J. Rowland, K. R. Yabroff, C. Alfano, A. Jemal, J. Kramer, and R. Siegel. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 69, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Egeberg, J

    R. Egeberg, J. Halkjaer, N. Rottmann, Louise Hansen, and I. Holten. Social inequality and incidence of and survival from cancers of the colon and rectum in a population-based study in denmark, 1994-2003. European Journal of Cancer, 44(14):1978–1988, 2008

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    Stock, U

    C. Stock, U. Haug, and H. Brenner. Population-based prevalence estimates of history of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy: review and analysis of recent trends. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 71(2):366– 381.e2, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Association between cancer prevalence and different socioeconomic strata in the us: The national health and nutrition examination survey, 1999–2018

    Mingsi Wang, Yang Liu, Yi Ma, Yue Li, Cheng-yao Sun, Yi Cheng, Guoxiang Liu, and Xin Zhang. Association between cancer prevalence and different socioeconomic strata in the us: The national health and nutrition examination survey, 1999–2018. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 2022

    1999

  2. [10]

    Seifeldin and J

    R. Seifeldin and J. J. Hantsch. The economic burden associated with colon cancer in the united states. Clinical Therapeutics, 21(8):1370–1379, 1999

    1999

  3. [11]

    Laranger, and J

    Busola R Alabi, R. Laranger, and J. Shay. Decellularized mice colons as models to study the contri- bution of the extracellular matrix to cell behavior and colon cancer progression. Acta biomaterialia, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Chen, Zhubo Wei, Jian Sun, Asmita Bhattacharya, D

    H. Chen, Zhubo Wei, Jian Sun, Asmita Bhattacharya, D. Savage, R. Serda, Y . Mackeyev, S. Curley, Pengcheng Bu, Lihua Wang, Shuibing Chen, L. Cohen-Gould, E. Huang, Xiling Shen, S. Lipkin, N. Copeland, N. Jenkins, and M. Shuler. A recellularized human colon model identifies can...

    2016

  5. [13]

    Roper, T

    J. Roper, T. Tammela, N. Cetinbas, Adam Akkad, A. Roghanian, S. Rickelt, Mohammad Almeqdadi, Katherine Wu, M. Oberli, Francisco J. S´anchez-Rivera, Yoona K Park, Xu Liang, G. Eng, Martin S. Taylor, Roxana Azimi, Dmitriy Kedrin, R. Neupane, S. Beyaz, E. Sicinska, Yvelisse Suare...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Parsons and Meagan B Myers

    B. Parsons and Meagan B Myers. Personalized cancer treatment and the myth of kras wild-type colon tumors. Discovery medicine, 15 83:259–67, 2013

    2013

  7. [15]

    B. Yang, J. Eshleman, N. Berger, and S. Markowitz. Wild-type p53 protein potentiates cytotoxicity of therapeutic agents in human colon cancer cells. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2 10:1649–57, 1996

    1996

  8. [16]

    Ogawa, T

    N. Ogawa, T. Fujiwara, S. Kagawa, M. Nishizaki, Y . Morimoto, T. Tanida, A. Hizuta, Tatsuji Yasuda, J. Roth, and N. Tanaka. Novel combination therapy for human colon cancer with adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer and dna-damaging chemotherapeutic agent. Internatio...

    1997

  9. [17]

    Bouvet, L

    M. Bouvet, L. Ellis, M. Nishizaki, T. Fujiwara, Wenbiao Liu, C. Bucana, B. Fang, J. Lee, and J. Roth. Adenovirus-mediated wild-type p53 gene transfer down-regulates vascular endothelial growth factor expression and inhibits angiogenesis in human colon cancer. Cancer research, ...

    1998

  10. [18]

    Ding, Yuhui Yin, and Mingzhi Zhang

    Hui Meng, Manman Nan, Yizhen Li, Y . Ding, Yuhui Yin, and Mingzhi Zhang. Application of crispr- cas9 gene editing technology in basic research, diagnosis and treatment of colon cancer. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 14, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Abbaszadegan

    Saeideh Khorshid Sokhangouy, Farzaneh Alizadeh, Malihe Lotfi, Samaneh Sharif, Atefeh Ashouri, Yasamin Yoosefi, Saeed Bozorg Qomi, and M. Abbaszadegan. Recent advances in crispr-cas systems for colorectal cancer research and therapeutics. Expert review of molecular diagnostics,...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Michels, Mohammed H

    Birgitta E. Michels, Mohammed H. Mosa, Barbara I. Streibl, T. Zhan, C. Menche, K. Abou-El-Ardat, Tahmineh Darvishi, E. Członka, Sebastian A. Wagner, Jan Winter, H. Medyouf, M. Boutros, and H. Farin. Pooled in vitro and in vivo crispr-cas9 screening identifies tumor suppressors...

    2020

  13. [21]

    The use of plant-derived exosome-like nanoparticles as a delivery system of crispr/cas9-based therapeutics for editing long non-coding rnas in cancer colon cells

    Tatiana Hillman. The use of plant-derived exosome-like nanoparticles as a delivery system of crispr/cas9-based therapeutics for editing long non-coding rnas in cancer colon cells. Frontiers in Oncology, 13, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Drost, R

    J. Drost, R. van Boxtel, Francis Blokzijl, Tomohiro Mizutani, Nobuo Sasaki, Valentina Sasselli, J. de Ligt, S. Behjati, Judith E. Grolleman, T. van Wezel, S. Nik-Zainal, R. Kuiper, E. Cuppen, and 9/11 H. Clevers. Use of crispr-modified human stem cell organoids to study the or...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Babu, Ravinder Singh, and Nirupma Trehanpati

    Gayatri Ramakrishna, Preedia E. Babu, Ravinder Singh, and Nirupma Trehanpati. Application of crispr-cas9 based gene editing to study the pathogenesis of colon and liver cancer using organoids. Hepatology International, 2021

    2021

  16. [24]

    Buckhaults, Sanam Khalili, Carolyn E

    P. Buckhaults, Sanam Khalili, Carolyn E. Banister, P. Gokare, D. Pocalyko, and K. Bachman. Abstract 251: Identification of therapeutic vulnerabilities by genome-wide crispr knockout library screening of colon cancer organoids. Cancer Research, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Shanshan Gao, Fraser Soares, Shiyan Wang, Chi Chun Wong, Huarong Chen, Zhenjie Yang, Weixin Liu, Minnie Y . Y . Go, Musaddeque Ahmed, Yong Zeng, Catherine Adell O’Brien, Joseph J. Y . Sung, Housheng Hansen He, and Jun Yu. Crispr screens identify cholesterol biosynthesis as a t...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Sahranavard, S

    T. Sahranavard, S. Mehrabadi, Ghazaleh Pourali, Mina Maftooh, H. Akbarzade, S. M. Hassanian, M. Mobarhan, G. Ferns, M. Khazaei, and A. Avan. The potential therapeutic applications of crispr/cas9 in colorectal cancer. Current medicinal chemistry, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Anderson

    Hao Yin, Wen Xue, and Daniel G. Anderson. Crispr–cas: a tool for cancer research and therapeutics. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 16:281–295, 2019

    2019

  20. [28]

    Palombo and D

    F. Palombo and D. Fioretto. Brillouin light scattering: Applications in biomedical sciences. Chemical Reviews, 119:7833 – 7847, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Riob ´oo, Nuria Gont ´an, Daniel Sanderson, M

    R. Riob ´oo, Nuria Gont ´an, Daniel Sanderson, M. Desco, and M. G ´omez-Gaviro. Brillouin spec- troscopy: From biomedical research to new generation pathology diagnosis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Troyanova-Wood and V

    Maria A. Troyanova-Wood and V . Yakovlev. Multi-wavelength excitation brillouin spectroscopy. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 27:1–5, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Ishijima, Shinga Okabe, I

    A. Ishijima, Shinga Okabe, I. Sakuma, and K. Nakagawa. Dispersive coherent brillouin scattering spectroscopy. Photoacoustics, 29, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Ballmann, Zhaokai Meng, and V

    C. Ballmann, Zhaokai Meng, and V . Yakovlev. Nonlinear brillouin spectroscopy: what makes it a better tool for biological viscoelastic measurements. Biomedical optics express, 10 4:1750–1759, 2019

    2019

  25. [33]

    Seiler, Peng Shao, A

    T. Seiler, Peng Shao, A. Eltony, T. Seiler, and S. Yun. Brillouin spectroscopy of normal and keratoconus corneas. American journal of ophthalmology, 202:118–125, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Berezin, and Vladislav V

    Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Mykyta Kizilov, Sujeong Jung, Mikhail Y . Berezin, and Vladislav V . Yakovlev. Non-invasive remote assessment of tissue fibrogenesis using brillouin microscopy. In Kirill V . Larin and Giuliano Scarcelli, editors,Optical Elastography and Tissue Biomechani...

    2025

  27. [35]

    Ortega Sandoval, Shreya Raghavan, and Vladislav Yakovlev

    Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Mykyta Kizilov, Sujeong Jung, Karla I. Ortega Sandoval, Shreya Raghavan, and Vladislav Yakovlev. Noninvasive investigation of enteric glia culture viscoelastic properties. In Natan T. Shaked and Oliver Hayden, editors, Label-free Biomedical Imaging and Se...

    2025

  28. [36]

    Scarcelli

    Jitao Zhang and G. Scarcelli. Mapping mechanical properties of biological materials via an add-on brillouin module to confocal microscopes. Nature Protocols, 16:1251 – 1275, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Scarcelli

    Eitan Edrei and G. Scarcelli. Brillouin micro-spectroscopy through aberrations via sensorless adaptive optics. Applied Physics Letters, 112, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Yakovlev, and G

    Tian Li, Fu Li, Xinghua Liu, V . Yakovlev, and G. S. Agarwal. Quantum-enhanced stimulated brillouin scattering spectroscopy and imaging. Optica, 9 8:959–964, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Elsayad, F

    K. Elsayad, F. Palombo, T. Dehoux, and D. Fioretto. Brillouin light scattering microspectroscopy for biomedical research and applications: introduction to feature issue. Biomedical optics express, 10 5:2670–2673, 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Troyanova-Wood, Zhaokai Meng, and V

    Maria A. Troyanova-Wood, Zhaokai Meng, and V . Yakovlev. Differentiating melanoma and healthy tissues based on elasticity-specific brillouin microspectroscopy. Biomedical optics express , 10 4:1774–1781, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Troyanova-Wood, Zhaokai Meng, and V

    Maria A. Troyanova-Wood, Zhaokai Meng, and V . Yakovlev. Elasticity-based identification of tumor margins using brillouin spectroscopy. 9719, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Kavya Pendyala, Maria Parlani, T. Lele, P. Friedl, and V . Yakovlev. Imag- 10/11 ing mechanical properties of cancer cells during metastasis with brillouin microspectroscopy. 11944:119440C – 119440C–9, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Harrington, Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Mykyta Kizilov, Ilya Kulagin, Georgi Petrov, and Vladislav V

    Joseph T. Harrington, Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Mykyta Kizilov, Ilya Kulagin, Georgi Petrov, and Vladislav V . Yakovlev. Deep ultraviolet resonant raman (duvrr) spectroscopy for spectroscopic evaluation and disinfection of food and agricultural samples. In Photonic Technologies in...

    2025

  36. [44]

    Petrov, and Vladislav V

    Joseph Harrington, Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Mykyta Kizilov, Ilya Kulagin, Georgi I. Petrov, and Vladislav V . Yakovlev. Highly sensitive, low-cost deep-uv resonant raman microspectroscopy systems. Chemistry–Methods, n/a(n/a):2500006, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Advanced preprocessing and analysis techniques for enhanced raman spectroscopy data interpretation

    Mykyta Kizilov, Vsevolod Cheburkanov, Joseph Harrington, and Vladislav Yakovlev. Advanced preprocessing and analysis techniques for enhanced raman spectroscopy data interpretation. In Robert R. Alfano, Angela B. Seddon, Lingyan Shi, and Binlin Wu, editors, Optical Biopsy XXIII...

    2025

  38. [46]

    Rix, Ortrud Uckermann, K

    J. Rix, Ortrud Uckermann, K. Kirsche, G. Schackert, E. Koch, M. Kirsch, and R. Galli. Correlation of biomechanics and cancer cell phenotype by combined brillouin and raman spectroscopy of u87-mg glioblastoma cells. bioRxiv, 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Scarcelli

    Miloˇs Nikoli´c, Christina Conrad, Jitao Zhang, and G. Scarcelli. Noninvasive imaging: Brillouin confocal microscopy. Advances in experimental medicine and biology, 1092:351–364, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Moguilnaya, A

    T. Moguilnaya, A. Botikov, and A. A. Agibalov. Using coherent spectroscopy for diagnosing cancer at its early stages. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, 82:1052–1056, 2018

    2018

  41. [49]

    Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures

    Abraham Savitzky and Marcel JE Golay. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analytical chemistry, 36(8):1627–1639, 1964. 11/11

    1964

Pith tools

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