Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21347394›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Electroporation-induced electrosensitization.

Olga N Pakhomova, Betsy W Gregory, Vera A Khorokhorina, Angela M Bowman, Shu Xiao, Andrei G Pakhomov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Inactivation of antibiotic-resistant bacteriaFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  6. In Vitro Imaging and Molecular Characterization of CaInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Methods for Intracellular Delivery of Quantum Dots.Topics in current chemistry (Cham) · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Olga N PakhomovaFrank Reidy Research Center for Bioelectrics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America.
Betsy W Gregory
Vera A Khorokhorina
Angela M Bowman
Shu Xiao
Andrei G Pakhomov

Funding

Mechanisms and Implications of Nanoelectroporation in Living CellsR01GM088303 · NIGMS · OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY · PI PAKHOMOV, ANDREI G · 2010 to 2013
$1.1M
Cell Death Induction by High-Voltage, Nanosecond-duration Electric PulsesR01CA125482 · NCI · OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY · PI PAKHOMOV, ANDREI G · 2008 to 2011
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA125482NCI NIH HHS R01CA125482NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM088303NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM088303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectroporation is a method of disrupting the integrity of cell membrane by electric pulses (EPs). Electrical modeling is widely employed to explain and study electroporation, but even most advanced models show limited predictive power. No studies have accounted for the biological consequences of electroporation as a factor that alters the cell's susceptibility to forthcoming EPs. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe focused first on the role of EP rate for membrane permeabilization and lethal effects in mammalian cells. The rate was varied from 0.001 to 2,000 Hz while keeping other parameters constant (2 to 3,750 pulses of 60-ns to 9-µs duration, 1.8 to 13.3 kV/cm). The efficiency of all EP treatments was minimal at high rates and started to increase gradually when the rate decreased below a certain value. Although this value ranged widely (0.1-500 Hz), it always corresponded to the overall treatment duration near 10 s. We further found that longer exposures were more efficient irrespective of the EP rate, and that splitting a high-rate EP train in two fractions with 1-5 min delay enhanced the effects severalfold. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: For varied experimental conditions, EPs triggered a delayed and gradual sensitization to EPs. When a portion of a multi-pulse exposure was delivered to already sensitized cells, the overall effect markedly increased. Because of the sensitization, the lethality in EP-treated cells could be increased from 0 to 90% simply by increasing the exposure duration, or the exposure dose could be reduced twofold without reducing the effect. Many applications of electroporation can benefit from accounting for sensitization, by organizing the exposure either to maximize sensitization (e.g., for sterilization) or, for other applications, to completely or partially avoid it. In particular, harmful side effects of electroporation-based therapies (electrochemotherapy, gene therapies, tumor ablation) include convulsions, pain, heart fibrillation, and thermal damage. Sensitization can potentially be employed to reduce these side effects while preserving or increasing therapeutic efficiency.

Indexed as

ElectricityElectroporationBiological TransportCell LineCell MembraneCell SurvivalHumansPropidiumTime FactorsPropidium

Identifiers

PMID21347394
PMCPMC3036735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.