<i>E. histolytica</i> generates significantly larger traction forces on fibronectin-coated micropillars compared to uncoated ones.

<p>(A) Schematic diagram showing how a trophozoite interacts with the micropillar-array surface and thereby generating traction force, leading to the deflection of micropillars. The traction force as a function of <i>F(t)</i> is calculated by multiplying the spring constant of a micropillar <i>k</i>_{<i>pillar</i>} and micropillar displacement over time <i>δ(t)</i>. The cartoon illustration of the <i>E. histolytica</i> trophozoite was adopted and modified from Servier Medical Art (smart.servier.com), licensed under CC BY 4.0. (B) Representative graphs showing the temporal changing of traction force on a micropillar as a trophozoite passing on a micropillar with (left) or without (right) fibronectin (FN) coating. The grey curve indicates background noise of micropillars untouched by the cells. (C) The maximum traction force exerted by <i>E. histolytica</i> on micropillars was compared between fibronectin-coated (n = 44 from 9 cells) and uncoated micropillars (n = 45 from 9 cells) using t-test. (D) The maximum traction force exerted by <i>E. histolytica</i> trophozoites on fibronectin-coated micropillars was analyzed between DMSO-treated controls and those treated with the cysteine protease inhibitor E64d, metronidazole (MNZ), or the F-actin polymerization inhibitor Cytochalasin D (CytD), using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons. The analyses included 45 micropillars from 9 cells for each treatment condition, with 5 pillars analyzed per cell. * <i>P </i>< 0.05, *** <i>P</i> < 0.001, **** <i>P</i> < 0.0001.</p>