ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2009
Modification of Schwann cell gene expression by electroporation in vivo.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transient phrenic nerve stunning during superior vena cava isolation after focal pulsed field ablation.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- In Vivo Gene Transfer to Schwann Cells in the Rodent Sciatic Nerve by Electroporation.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2016Article
- Gene delivery to rat and human Schwann cells and nerve segments: a comparison of AAV 1-9 and lentiviral vectors.Gene therapy · 2015Article
- Gene therapy and peripheral nerve repair: a perspective.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2015Article
- The Comparative Utility of Viromer RED and Lipofectamine for Transient Gene Introduction into Glial Cells.BioMed research international · 2015Article
- Histopathology of the stimulated Vagus nerve: primum non nocere.Heart failure reviews · 2011Review
- An in vitro model of adult mammalian nerve repair.Experimental neurology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical outcomes of nerve grafting are often inferior to those of end-to-end nerve repair. This may be due, in part, to the routine use of cutaneous nerve to support motor axon regeneration. In previous work, we have demonstrated that Schwann cells express distinct sensory and motor phenotypes, and that these promote regeneration in a modality-specific fashion. Intra-operative modification of graft Schwann cell phenotype might therefore improve clinical outcomes. This paper demonstrates the feasibility of electroporating genes into intact nerve to modify Schwann cell gene expression. Initial trials established 70 V, 5 ms as optimum electroporation parameters. Intact, denervated, and reinnervated rat tibial nerves were electroporated with the YFP gene and evaluated serially by counting S-100 positive cells that expressed YFP. In intact nerve, a mean of 28% of Schwann cells expressed the gene at 3 days, falling to 20% at 7 days with little expression at later times. There were no significant differences among the three groups at each time period. Electronmicroscopic evaluation of treated, intact nerve revealed only occasional demyelination and axon degeneration. Intra-operative electroporation of nerve graft is thus a practical means of altering Schwann cell gene expression without the risks inherent in viral transfection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.