ArticleHuman vaccines & immunotherapeutics2012
Contactless magneto-permeabilization for intracellular plasmid DNA delivery in-vivo.
Article in Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determination of the Impact of High-Intensity Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on the Release of Damage-Associated Molecular Pattern Molecules.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- High-Intensity Pulsed Electromagnetic Field-Mediated Gene Electrotransfection In Vitro.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Membrane Permeabilization of Pathogenic Yeast in Alternating Sub-microsecond Electromagnetic Fields in Combination with Conventional Electroporation.The Journal of membrane biology · 2018Article
- Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Using Bioactive Magnetic Nanoparticles and Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Article
- Membrane permeabilization of mammalian cells using bursts of high magnetic field pulses.PeerJ · 2017Article
- Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Assisted in vitro Electroporation: A Pilot Study.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Electrochemotherapy by pulsed electromagnetic field treatment (PEMF) in mouse melanoma B16F10 in vivo.Radiology and oncology · 2016Article
- Physical energy for drug delivery; poration, concentration and activation.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2014Review
- Gene therapy for skin diseases.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2014Review
- Gene Therapy and its Application in Dermatology.Indian journal of dermatologyReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroporation, an attractive process for delivering DNA and other molecules into target cells in vivo and in vitro is limited by the necessity of electrodes that need to be in contact with the subject or object to be electroporated. We have used magnetic fields, which do not require material contact with the subject, to temporarily permeabilize cells in guinea pig skin in vivo to enhance uptake and expression of GFP plasmid DNA. The results show for the first time that magnetic fields can trigger a process likely similar to electroporation. In designing the magnetic pulses, our most important criterion was a high rate of change of the magnetic field, based on the principle described by Michael Faraday which is expressed by the formula: E = -dB/dt, (E, electric field, B, magnetic field, t, time). Magnetic fields were generated by a flat electromagnet in a hand-held applicator positioned above the target tissue. The magnetic pulses had a peak magnetic flux density of 4 tesla; 50 pulses were applied in 5 sec. Biphasic magnetic pulses were twice as effective as monophasic pulses and about equally effective as traditional electroporation pulses . Advantages of magnetopermeabilization over electoporation include: No contact between applicator and subject ("contact-less"); no need for invasive, disposable, sterile electrodes ("needle-less"); no pain from needles and reduced overall pain; no known side effects; easier and faster to administer than electroporation; less expensive due to absence of disposables; and, importantly, greater tissue penetration of the magnetic field allowing treatment of anatomical areas inaccessible by electroporation.
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.