% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Huang:860242,
author = {Huang, Yunfei and Schell, Christoph and Huber, Tobias B.
and Şimşek, Ahmet Nihat and Hersch, Nils and Merkel,
Rudolf and Gompper, Gerhard and Sabass, Benedikt},
title = {{T}raction force microscopy with optimized regularization
and automated {B}ayesian parameter selection for comparing
cells},
journal = {Scientific reports},
volume = {9},
number = {1},
issn = {2045-2322},
address = {[London]},
publisher = {Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature},
reportid = {FZJ-2019-01026},
pages = {539},
year = {2019},
abstract = {Adherent cells exert traction forces on to their
environment which allows them to migrate, to maintain tissue
integrity, and to form complex multicellular structures
during developmental morphogenesis. Traction force
microscopy (TFM) enables the measurement of traction forces
on an elastic substrate and thereby provides quantitative
information on cellular mechanics in a perturbation-free
fashion. In TFM, traction is usually calculated via the
solution of a linear system, which is complicated by
undersampled input data, acquisition noise, and large
condition numbers for some methods. Therefore, standard TFM
algorithms either employ data filtering or regularization.
However, these approaches require a manual selection of
filter- or regularization parameters and consequently
exhibit a substantial degree of subjectiveness. This
shortcoming is particularly serious when cells in different
conditions are to be compared because optimal noise
suppression needs to be adapted for every situation, which
invariably results in systematic errors. Here, we
systematically test the performance of new methods from
computer vision and Bayesian inference for solving the
inverse problem in TFM. We compare two classical schemes,
L1- and L2-regularization, with three previously untested
schemes, namely Elastic Net regularization, Proximal
Gradient Lasso, and Proximal Gradient Elastic Net. Overall,
we find that Elastic Net regularization, which combines L1
and L2 regularization, outperforms all other methods with
regard to accuracy of traction reconstruction. Next, we
develop two methods, Bayesian L2 regularization and Advanced
Bayesian L2 regularization, for automatic, optimal L2
regularization. Using artificial data and experimental data,
we show that these methods enable robust reconstruction of
traction without requiring a difficult selection of
regularization parameters specifically for each data set.
Thus, Bayesian methods can mitigate the considerable
uncertainty inherent in comparing cellular tractions in
different conditions.},
cin = {ICS-7 / ICS-2},
ddc = {600},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)ICS-7-20110106 / I:(DE-Juel1)ICS-2-20110106},
pnm = {552 - Engineering Cell Function (POF3-552)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-552},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:30679578},
UT = {WOS:000456553400104},
doi = {10.1038/s41598-018-36896-x},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/860242},
}