ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2010
Electroporation-induced inward current in voltage-clamped guinea pig ventricular myocytes.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization in Dual Activation by Oxaliplatin, a Platinum-Based Chemotherapeutic Agent of Hyperpolarization-Activated Cation and Electroporation-Induced Currents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Evidence for the Effectiveness of Remdesivir (GS-5734), a Nucleoside-Analog Antiviral Drug in the Inhibition ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Electroporation by subnanosecond pulses.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2016Article
- Multiple nanosecond electric pulses increase the number but not the size of long-lived nanopores in the cell membrane.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2015Article
- Gadolinium modifies the cell membrane to inhibit permeabilization by nanosecond electric pulses.Archives of biochemistry and biophysics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroporation induced by high-strength electrical fields has long been used to investigate membrane properties and facilitate transmembrane delivery of molecules and genes for research and clinical purposes. In the heart, electric field-induced passage of ions through electropores is a factor in defibrillation and postshock dysfunction. Voltage-clamp pulses can also induce electroporation, as exemplified by findings in earlier studies on rabbit ventricular myocytes: Long hyperpolarizations to ≤-110 mV induced influx of marker ethidium and irregular inward currents that were as large with external NMDG(+) as Na(+). In the present study, guinea pig ventricular myocytes were bathed with NMDG(+), Na(+) or NMDG(+) + La(3+) solution (36°C) and treated with five channel blockers. Hyperpolarization of myocytes in NMDG(+) solution elicited an irregular inward current (I (ep)) that reversed at -21.5 ± 1.5 mV. In myocytes hyperpolarized with 200-ms steps every 30 s, I (ep) occurred in "episodes" that lasted for one to four steps. Boltzmann fits to data on the incidence of I (ep) per experiment indicate 50% incidence at -129.7 ± 1.4 mV (Na(+)) and -146.3 ± 1.6 mV (NMDG(+)) (slopes ≈-7.5 mV). I (ep) amplitude increased with negative voltage and was larger with Na(+) than NMDG(+) (e.g., -2.83 ± 0.34 vs. -1.40 ± 0.22 nA at -190 mV). La(3+) (0.2 mM) shortened episodes, shifted 50% incidence by -35 mV and decreased amplitude, suggesting that it inhibits opening/promotes closing of electropores. We compare our findings with earlier ones, especially in regard to electropore selectivity. In the Appendix, relative permeabilities and modified excluded-area theory are used to derive estimates of electropore diameters consistent with reversal potential -21.5 mV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21104181What 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.