Comparison of direct and inverse methods for 2.5D traction force microscopy

Essential cellular processes such as cell adhesion, migration and division strongly depend on mechanical forces. The standard method to measure cell forces is traction force microscopy (TFM) on soft elastic substrates with embedded marker beads. While in 2D TFM one only reconstructs tangential forces, in 2.5D TFM one also considers normal forces. Here we present a systematic comparison between two fundamentally different approaches to 2.5D TFM, which in particular require different methods to deal with noise in the displacement data. In the direct method, one calculates strain and stress tensors directly from the displacement data, which in principle requires a divergence correction. In the inverse method, one minimizes the difference between estimated and measured displacements, which requires some kind of regularization. By calculating the required Green's functions in Fourier space from Boussinesq-Cerruti potential functions, we first derive a new variant of 2.5D Fourier Transform Traction Cytometry (FTTC). To simulate realistic traction patterns, we make use of an analytical solution for Hertz-like adhesion patches. We find that FTTC works best if only tangential forces are reconstructed, that 2.5D FTTC is more precise for small noise, but that the performance of the direct method approaches the one of 2.5D FTTC for larger noise, before both fail for very large noise. Moreover we find that a divergence correction is not really needed for the direct method and that it profits more from increased resolution than the inverse method.

Automated summary

The text discusses a systematic comparison between two fundamentally different approaches to 2.5D traction force microscopy (TFM). The direct method involves calculating strain and stress tensors directly from displacement data, while the inverse method minimizes the difference between estimated and measured displacements. Experimental results show that the direct method approaches the performance of 2.5D FTTC for larger noise and does not necessarily require a divergence correction. Additionally, increasing resolution benefits the direct method more than the inverse method.