4.6 Review

Optical Tweezers in Studies of Red Blood Cells

期刊

CELLS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells9030545

关键词

optical tweezers; red blood cells; erythropoiesis; microrheology; cellular biomechanics; pathology

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC) [201706410089]
  2. Tauno Tonning Foundation [20190104]
  3. Suomen Kulttuurirahasto [00190188]
  4. Russian Science Foundation [19-72-3001]
  5. Academy of Finland [326204, 325097]
  6. MEPhI Academic Excellence Project [02.a03.21.0005]
  7. National Research Tomsk State University Academic D.I. Mendeleev Fund Program
  8. EDUFI Fellowship [TM-17-10370, TM-18-10820]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Optical tweezers (OTs) are innovative instruments utilized for the manipulation of microscopic biological objects of interest. Rapid improvements in precision and degree of freedom of multichannel and multifunctional OTs have ushered in a new era of studies in basic physical and chemical properties of living tissues and unknown biomechanics in biological processes. Nowadays, OTs are used extensively for studying living cells and have initiated far-reaching influence in various fundamental studies in life sciences. There is also a high potential for using OTs in haemorheology, investigations of blood microcirculation and the mutual interplay of blood cells. In fact, in spite of their great promise in the application of OTs-based approaches for the study of blood, cell formation and maturation in erythropoiesis have not been fully explored. In this review, the background of OTs, their state-of-the-art applications in exploring single-cell level characteristics and bio-rheological properties of mature red blood cells (RBCs) as well as the OTs-assisted studies on erythropoiesis are summarized and presented. The advance developments and future perspectives of the OTs' application in haemorheology both for fundamental and practical in-depth studies of RBCs formation, functional diagnostics and therapeutic needs are highlighted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据