ArticleBiomicrofluidics2014
Cell-cell proximity effects in multi-cell electroporation.
Article in Biomicrofluidics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances in Microscale Electroporation.Chemical reviews · 2022Review
- Monitoring the molecular composition of live cells exposed to electric pulses via label-free optical methods.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Preface to Special Topic: Selected Papers from the Advances in Microfluidics and Nanofluidics 2014 Conference in Honor of Professor Hsueh-Chia Chang's 60th Birthday.Biomicrofluidics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report a fundamental study of how the electropermeabilization of a cell is affected by nearby cells. Previous researchers studying electroporation of dense suspensions of cells have observed, both theoretically and experimentally, that such samples cannot be treated simply as collections of independent cells. However, the complexity of those systems makes quantitative modeling difficult. We studied the change in the minimum applied electric field, the threshold field, required to affect electropermeabilization of a cell due to the presence of a second cell. Experimentally, we used optical tweezers to accurately position two cells in a custom fluidic electroporation device and measured the threshold field for electropermeabilization. We also captured video of the process. In parallel, finite element simulations of the electrostatic potential distributions in our systems were generated using the 3-layer model and the contact resistance methods. Reasonably good agreement with measurements was found assuming a model in which changes in a cell's threshold field were predicted from the calculated changes in the maximum voltage across the cell's membrane induced by the presence of a second cell. The threshold field required to electroporate a cell is changed ∼5%-10% by a nearby, nearly touching second cell. Cells aligned parallel to the porating field shield one another. Those oriented perpendicular to the field enhance the applied field's effect. In addition, we found that the dynamics of the electropermeabilization process are important in explaining observations for even our simple two-cell system.
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.