Unfortunately, typos are nearly unavoidable in publishing. On the brighter side, muddy issues at the time of publication can sometimes
be clarified through subsequent research.
Listed below are errata for my publications and the resolution of some topics or effects that were confusing or undetectable at the time. A full list of my publications can be found here.
Analysis and design of
electrothermal actuators fabricated from single crystal silicon (2000)
- On p. 2, "shape conduction factor" should read "conduction shape factor", and "600 × 600 μm" should be "600 × 600 μm²";.
- In Eq. (14), the second equals sign should be replaced with "≈"; we are assuming that the thermal expansion coefficient α(T) has only a small dependence on temperature and can therefore be replaced with a constant and moved outside the integral.
- Fig. 11 and related discussion: We later found that the offset between measured and expected resistivity was caused not by a contact-related voltage drop but by slight photoresist erosion and
lateral etching during DRIE that caused the beam width to be less than expected. This lateral etching is addressed in Large-force electrothermal linear micromotors.
Large-force electrothermal linear micromotors (2004)
- In Conclusions: "High-aspect-ratio" should be capitalized (no text is missing).
Electrothermal Controlled-Exposure Technology (2006)
- On p. 68, in the caption of Figure A-4, "Opening area" should be changed to "Activation time".
Influence of finite thickness and stiffness on cellular
adhesion-induced deformation of compliant substrata (2008)
- In Eq. (1), Poisson's ratio in the center element should not be squared.
Mesenchymal stem cell mechanics from the attached to the suspended state (2010)
- On p. 2483, AIC = 1030 should be AIC = –1030. A lower AIC value indicates a better-fitting model.
Chemomechanics of Attached and Suspended Cells (2012)
At least one conclusion can be amended based on subsequent data collection and analysis:
- On p. 95, the footnote text reading "thought that correlation is not investigated here" should read "although that correlation is not investigated here".
- In Eq. (C.4a) on p. 164, the "4" should not be present; w represents the radius of the beam. Additionally, not stated explicitly was the refractive index value nglass = 1.474 for the borosilicate glass capillaries.
- On p. 157 in Appendix C, "5% serum/supplements" should be "10% serum/supplements".
- On p. 164 in Appendix C, "<5 µs laser pulses" should be "5 ms laser pulses".
- On p. 167 in Appendix C, 10 µm s should be 10 µm s-1.
- Cell stiffness, concluded on p. 66 to be laser-power-independent (and therefore temperature-independent) within error, was later determined, using additional and more precise frequency-domain measurements,
to decrease with increasing laser power and temperature in Mechanical fluidity of fully suspended biological cells (2013),
in which the relationship is shown in Fig. S9 in the supplemental material.
Mechanical fluidity of fully suspended biological cells (2013)
- Regarding the definition of "fluidity" on p. 1767 and the citation of Refs. 28-30, Balland et al., "The dissipative contribution of myosin II in the cytoskeleton dynamics of myoblasts" in Eur Biophys J in 2005 is an even earlier report that associates the power-law exponent with the term "fluidity."
- At the bottom of p. 1768, 2π/ψ should be 2φ/π.
- On p. 1771, Rocha-Cusachs should be Roca-Cusachs.
Chemoenvironmental modulators of fluidity in the suspended biological cell (2014)
- In Table SI in the supplemental material, the standard deviation for ATP should be 0.10 rather than 0.02.
- The following sentence was poorly worded and could lead to confusion: "Fluidity is an especially convenient
parameter to measure by this tool because unlike stiffness, it does
not depend on cell refractive index, which can vary among cells ." It is the derived or estimated stiffness, not the true stiffness, of the cell that is coupled by the refractive index to the measured deformation. A better
statement would be: "Fluidity is an especially convenient parameter to measure because its estimation from the measured deformation is not coupled to the refractive index,
which can vary among cells; the same cannot be said of the estimation of whole-cell stiffness ."