ArticleNano reviews2010
Evaluation of the magnetic field requirements for nanomagnetic gene transfection.
Article in Nano reviews, 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.
- Wireless neuromodulation in vitro and in vivo by intrinsic TRPC-mediated magnetomechanical stimulation.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Force-Mediating Magnetic Nanoparticles to Engineer Neuronal Cell Function.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Review
- Targeted Magnetic Nanotheranostics of Cancer.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Oscillating Magnet Array-Based Nanomagnetic Gene Transfection: A Valuable Tool for Molecular Neurobiology Studies.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Endocytotic potential governs magnetic particle loading in dividing neural cells: studying modes of particle inheritance.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2016Article
- Nanomagnetic Gene Transfection for Non-Viral Gene Delivery in NIH 3T3 Mouse Embryonic Fibroblasts.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2013Article
- Enhanced nanomagnetic gene transfection of human prenatal cardiac progenitor cells and adult cardiomyocytes.PloS one · 2013Article
- Improved transfection of HUVEC and MEF cells using DNA complexes with magnetic nanoparticles in an oscillating field.Journal of genetics · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
unlabelledThe objective of this work was to examine the effects of magnet distance (and by proxy, field strength) on nanomagnetic transfection efficiency.
methodsnon-viral magnetic nanoparticle-based transfection was evaluated using both static and oscillating magnet arrays.
resultsFluorescence intensity (firefly luciferase) of transfected H292 cells showed no increase using a 96-well NdFeB magnet array when the magnets were 5 mm from the cell culture plate or nearer. At 6 mm and higher, fluorescence intensity decreased systematically.
conclusionIn all cases, fluorescence intensity was higher when using an oscillating array compared to a static array. For distances closer than 5 mm, the oscillating system also outperformed Lipofectamine 2000™.
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.