1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0006-3495(97)78802-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic strength of molecular adhesion bonds

Abstract: In biology, molecular linkages at, within, and beneath cell interfaces arise mainly from weak noncovalent interactions. These bonds will fail under any level of pulling force if held for sufficient time. Thus, when tested with ultrasensitive force probes, we expect cohesive material strength and strength of adhesion at interfaces to be time- and loading rate-dependent properties. To examine what can be learned from measurements of bond strength, we have extended Kramers' theory for reaction kinetics in liquids… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

140
2,702
3
11

Year Published

1999
1999
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,344 publications
(2,856 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
140
2,702
3
11
Order By: Relevance
“…For simulation C (N), the summation of the matching probability, P n sim %n rand P match ðn rand Þ, was 0.00043 (24), 0.0043 (20), 0.087 (21), (0.15 (20), and 0.37 (21)), indicating that the matches of the peak positions between the experiments and simulation C were not regarded as accidental coincidence, while the concordance rates were less satisfactory for simulation N. This indicates that our simulation condition may be closer to the experimental conditions of Sapra et al (24) and Kessler and Gaub (20) than to those of Voïtch-ovsky et al (21). Note that the peak positions were not recorded in the interval [0,60] in the extraction from the N-terminus by Kessler and Gaub (20), and we could not obtain any match in this portion.…”
Section: Comparison With the Experimental F-d Curvesmentioning
confidence: 77%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For simulation C (N), the summation of the matching probability, P n sim %n rand P match ðn rand Þ, was 0.00043 (24), 0.0043 (20), 0.087 (21), (0.15 (20), and 0.37 (21)), indicating that the matches of the peak positions between the experiments and simulation C were not regarded as accidental coincidence, while the concordance rates were less satisfactory for simulation N. This indicates that our simulation condition may be closer to the experimental conditions of Sapra et al (24) and Kessler and Gaub (20) than to those of Voïtch-ovsky et al (21). Note that the peak positions were not recorded in the interval [0,60] in the extraction from the N-terminus by Kessler and Gaub (20), and we could not obtain any match in this portion.…”
Section: Comparison With the Experimental F-d Curvesmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Note that it is possible to estimate the widths and heights of the energy barriers by using the loading-rate dependence of the magnitude of peak forces (59)(60)(61). Focusing especially on the peaks at 90.2 aa and 158.0 aa, we characterize the energy barriers in detail (Supporting Material).…”
Section: Height and Width Of Energy Barriermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CC junctions dissociate in a force-dependent manner (13,20,26,27) according to a relationship that accounts for different bond rupture rates in two force regimes, similar to Evans and Ritchie's equations (22,28):…”
Section: Dynamics Of Cell-cell Junctionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adhesion in most biological situations is thermally activated with an activation barrier present for the formation/dissociation of bonds. This results in a rate dependent bond strength/energy (Evans and Ritchie, 1997). Here we do not model these details but rather specify a simple phenomenological relation between the bond stress and bond stretch (we do not need to consider the compression of the bond for the purposes of this discussion) that captures the key element of the rate dependence of the bond strength.…”
Section: 2mentioning
confidence: 99%