ArticlePhotochemistry and photobiology
Laser selection significantly affects cell viability following single-cell nanosurgery.
Article in Photochemistry and photobiology. 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vascularization of Cell-Laden Microfibres by Femtosecond Laser Processing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Evaluation of laser induced sarcomere micro-damage: Role of damage extent and location in cardiomyocytes.PloS one · 2021Article
- Spatially selective manipulation of cells with single-beam acoustical tweezers.Nature communications · 2020Article
- Optoporation and genetic manipulation of cells using femtosecond laser pulses.Biophysical journal · 2013Article
- The potential impact of droplet microfluidics in biology.Analytical chemistry · 2013Article
- Single-cell nanosurgery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2013Article
- Laser photolysis of dye-sensitized nanocapsules occurs via a photothermal pathway.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper compares the viability of over 700 NG108 cells after membrane disruption either with a single 3 ns pulse at 337 nm or with a 5 ms train of 110 fs pulses (80 MHz) at 770 nm. Cell viability was monitored over a period of 12 h so as to understand the effect of laser ablation-induced cell apoptosis. The use of one-photon membrane disruption with the UV-laser resulted in approximately 36% cell viability after 12 h while the use of two-photon ablation with the femtosecond laser resulted in a much higher viability of approximately 79% after 12 h, which was the same within error of the approximately 79% viability of cells in the control group. Changing the laser power to achieve a 90% probability of membrane disruption (PMD) from 50% PMD did not change the percentage of viable cells after 12 h, regardless of whether one- or two-photon ablation was employed. A systematic comparison between different methods of cellular ablation and their effect upon the viability of single cells has not been done before over such a long time frame. These results show the importance of laser choice when cell viability postsurgery is a concern.
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.