ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2010
Analysis and comparison of electrical pulse parameters for gene electrotransfer of two different cell lines.
Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility Study for the Use of Gene Electrotransfer and Cell Electrofusion as a Single-Step Technique for the Generation of Activated Cancer Cell Vaccines.The Journal of membrane biology · 2024Article
- Interplay between Electric Field Strength and Number of Short-Duration Pulses for Efficient Gene Electrotransfer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effect of Experimental Electrical and Biological Parameters on Gene Transfer by Electroporation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Fundamental study on a gene transfection methodology for mammalian cells using water-in-oil droplet deformation in a DC electric field.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2016Article
- Post-pulse addition of trans-cyclohexane-1,2-diol improves electrotransfer mediated gene expression in mammalian cells.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2016Article
- New insights into the mechanisms of gene electrotransfer--experimental and theoretical analysis.Scientific reports · 2015Article
- Cell type-specific response to high intracellular loading of polyacrylic acid-coated magnetic nanoparticles.International journal of nanomedicine · 2015Article
- Comparison of flow cytometry, fluorescence microscopy and spectrofluorometry for analysis of gene electrotransfer efficiency.The Journal of membrane biology · 2014Article
- Design and implementation of a microelectrode assembly for use on noncontact in situ electroporation of adherent cells.The Journal of membrane biology · 2012Article
- Lucifer Yellow uptake by CHO cells exposed to magnetic and electric pulses.Radiology and oncology · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Knowledge of the parameters which influence the efficiency of gene electrotransfer has importance for practical implementation of electrotransfection for gene therapy as well as for better understanding of the underlying mechanism. The focus of this study was to analyze the differences in gene electrotransfer and membrane electropermeabilization between plated cells and cells in a suspension in two different cell lines (CHO and B16F1). Furthermore, we determined the viability and critical induced transmembrane voltage (ITV(c)) for both cell lines. In plated cells we obtained relatively little difference in electropermeabilization and gene electrotransfection between CHO and B16F1 cells. However, significant differences between the two cell lines were observed in a suspension. CHO cells exhibited a much higher gene electrotransfection rate compared to B16F1 cells, whereas B16F1 cells reached maximum electropermeabilization at lower electric fields than CHO cells. Both in a suspension and on plated cells, CHO cells had a slightly better survival rate at higher electric fields than B16F1 cells. Calculation of ITV(c) in a suspension showed that, for both electropermeabilization and gene electrotransfection, CHO cells have lower ITV(c) than B16F1 cells. In all cases, ITV(c) for electropermeabilization was lower than ITV(c) for gene electrotransfer, which is in agreement with other studies. Our results show that there is a marked difference in the efficiency of gene electrotransfer between suspended and plated cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20645081What 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.