ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2013
A theoretical study of single-cell electroporation in a microchannel.
Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gold Nanoparticles-Enhanced Gene Transfer Driven by MHz-Frequency Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Hybrid analytical-numerical approach for investigation of differential effects in normal and cancer cells under electroporation.RSC advances · 2019Article
- Theoretical Study of Molecular Transport Through a Permeabilized Cell Membrane in a Microchannel.The Journal of membrane biology · 2017Article
- Numerical modeling of bi-polar (AC) pulse electroporation of single cell in microchannel to create nanopores on its membrane.The Journal of membrane biology · 2014Article
- An engineered membrane to measure electroporation: effect of tethers and bioelectronic interface.Biophysical journal · 2014Article
- Scaling relationship and optimization of double-pulse electroporation.Biophysical journal · 2014Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroporation of a single cell in a microchannel was studied. The effects of electrical (e.g., strength of the electric pulse) and geometrical (e.g., microchannel height, electrode size and position) parameters on cell membrane permeabilization were investigated. The electrodes were assumed to be embedded in the walls of the microchannel; the cell was suspended between these two electrodes. By keeping the electric pulse constant, increasing the microchannel height reduces the number and the radius of the biggest nanopores, as well as the electroporated area of the cell membrane. If the width of the electrodes is bigger than the cell diameter, the transmembrane potential will be centralized and have a sinusoidal distribution around the cell if nanopores are not generated. As the width of the electrode decreases and becomes smaller than the cell diameter, the local transmembrane potential decreases; in the nonelectroporative area, the transmembrane potential distribution deviates from the sinusoidal behavior; the induced transmembrane potential also concentrates around the poles of the cell membrane (the nearest points of the cell membrane to the electrodes). During cell membrane permeabilization, the biggest nanopores are initially created at the poles and then the nanopore population expands toward the equator. The number of the created nanopores reaches its maximal value within a few microseconds; further presence of the electric pulse may not influence the number and location of the created nanopores anymore but will develop the generated nanopores. Strengthening the electric pulse intensifies the size and number of the created nanopores as well as the electroporated area on the cell membrane.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23128984What 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.