ArticleRadiology and oncology2012
Lucifer Yellow uptake by CHO cells exposed to magnetic and electric pulses.
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Magnetoporation: New Method for Permeabilization of Cancerous Cells to Hydrophilic Drugs.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2022Article
- Article
- Membrane Permeabilization of Pathogenic Yeast in Alternating Sub-microsecond Electromagnetic Fields in Combination with Conventional Electroporation.The Journal of membrane biology · 2018Article
- Membrane permeabilization of mammalian cells using bursts of high magnetic field pulses.PeerJ · 2017Article
- Overcoming Antimicrobial Resistance in Bacteria Using Bioactive Magnetic Nanoparticles and Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields.Frontiers in microbiology · 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
- Can Lucifer Yellow Indicate Correct Permeability of Biological Cell Membrane under An Electric and Magnetic Field?Cell journal · 2015Article
- Article
- Optimization of electric pulse amplitude and frequency in vitro for low voltage and high frequency electrochemotherapy.The Journal of membrane biology · 2014Article
- Differential cellular effects of electroporation and electrochemotherapy in monolayers of human microvascular endothelial cells.PloS one · 2012Article
- In Vitro and in Vivo Study of the Effect of Osteogenic Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Breast and Lung Cancer Cells.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cell membrane acts as a barrier that hinders free entrance of most hydrophilic molecules into the cell. Due to numerous applications in medicine, biology and biotechnology, the introduction of impermeant molecules into biological cells has drawn considerable attention in the past years. One of the most famous methods in this field is electroporation, in which electric pulses with high intensity and short duration are applied to the cells. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of time-varying magnetic field with different parameters on transmembrane molecular transport. MATERIALS AND
methods'Moreover, a comparison was made between the uptake results due to magnetic pulse exposure and electroporation mediated uptake.' at the end of Background part. The Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells were exposed to magnetic pulses of 2.2 T peak strength and 250 μs duration delivered by Magstim stimulator and double 70 mm coil. Three different frequencies of 0.25, 1 and 10 Hz pulses with 112, 56 and 28 number of pulses were applied (altogether nine experimental groups) and Lucifer Yellow uptake was measured in each group. Moreover, maximum uptake of Lucifer Yellow obtained by magnetic pulses was compared to the measured uptake due to electroporation with typical parameters of 8 pulses of 100 μs, repetition frequency of 1 Hz and electric field intensities of 200 to 600 V/cm. RESULTS AND
conclusionsOur results show that time-varying magnetic field exposure increases transmembrane molecular transport and this uptake is greater for lower frequencies and larger number of pulses. Besides, the comparison shows that electroporation is more effective than pulsed magnetic field, but the observed uptake enhancement due to magnetic exposure is still considerable.
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.