Skip to main content
. 2017 May 8;7:1541. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01784-3

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Comparison of SLS and PLR models in experiments with PAAm hydrogels and NIH 3T3 fibroblasts. (a) Experimental F-δ curve obtained on a fibroblast with both PLR and SLS model fits. (b) Normalized relaxation functions for PRL and SLS models with adjusted parameters on a logarithmic scale, inset – same functions on a linear scale. (c,d) Modelled F-δ curves with different indentation times. Left – SLS (τ = 0.1 s), right – PLR (α = 0.15). (e,f) Experimental F-δ curves obtained on PAAm hydrogel (left) and fibroblast (right) with different indentation times. The offset is added to the force for clarity. Black lines are SLS (e) or PLR (f) model fits. (g,h) Viscoelastic parameters α and τ for PAAm hydrogels (left, combined data for experiments on 3 gels, mean ± s.d.) and NIH 3T3 fibroblasts (right, combined data for experiments on 12 cells, mean ± s.d.) as a function of piezo displacement speed.