ArticlePloS one2015
Elucidating the Role of Injury-Induced Electric Fields (EFs) in Regulating the Astrocytic Response to Injury in the Mammalian Central Nervous System.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perioperative Applications of Electrical Stimulation in Flap Surgeries: Mechanisms and Benefits.Advances in skin & wound care · 2026Review
- Multi-omic spatially resolved analysis of the neuroinflammatory response to intracortical microelectrode arrays.Biomaterials · 2026Article
- Electrical Stimulation of Cells: Drivers, Technology, and Effects.Chemical reviews · 2025Review
- Astrocyte-Derived Extracellular Vesicles Alleviate Optic Nerve Injury Through Remodeling of Retinal Microenvironmental Homeostasis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Effects of the radio electric asymmetric conveyer (REAC) on motor disorders: An integrative review.Frontiers in medical technology · 2023Review
- Electric Fields Induced in the Brain by Transcranial Electric Stimulation: A Review of In Vivo Recordings.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Engineering Tissues of the Central Nervous System: Interfacing Conductive Biomaterials with Neural Stem/Progenitor Cells.Advanced healthcare materials · 2022Review
- Electric field stimulation for tissue engineering applications.BMC biomedical engineering · 2021Review
- Percutaneous Bioelectric Current Stimulation for Chronic Cluster Headache - A Possible Transformative Approach to Cluster Headache.Journal of pain research · 2020Article
- Growing Neural PC-12 Cell on Crosslinked Silica Aerogels Increases Neurite Extension in the Presence of an Electric Field.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2018Article
- Percutaneous direct current stimulation - a new electroceutical solution for severe neurological pain and soft tissue injuries.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Low intensity transcranial electric stimulation: Safety, ethical, legal regulatory and application guidelines.Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2017Review
- Environmental Factors That Influence Stem Cell Migration: An "Electric Field".Stem cells international · 2017Review
- Endogenous bioelectric fields: a putative regulator of wound repair and regeneration in the central nervous system.Neural regeneration research · 2016Review
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Injury to the vertebrate central nervous system (CNS) induces astrocytes to change their morphology, to increase their rate of proliferation, and to display directional migration to the injury site, all to facilitate repair. These astrocytic responses to injury occur in a clear temporal sequence and, by their intensity and duration, can have both beneficial and detrimental effects on the repair of damaged CNS tissue. Studies on highly regenerative tissues in non-mammalian vertebrates have demonstrated that the intensity of direct-current extracellular electric fields (EFs) at the injury site, which are 50-100 fold greater than in uninjured tissue, represent a potent signal to drive tissue repair. In contrast, a 10-fold EF increase has been measured in many injured mammalian tissues where limited regeneration occurs. As the astrocytic response to CNS injury is crucial to the reparative outcome, we exposed purified rat cortical astrocytes to EF intensities associated with intact and injured mammalian tissues, as well as to those EF intensities measured in regenerating non-mammalian vertebrate tissues, to determine whether EFs may contribute to the astrocytic injury response. Astrocytes exposed to EF intensities associated with uninjured tissue showed little change in their cellular behavior. However, astrocytes exposed to EF intensities associated with injured tissue showed a dramatic increase in migration and proliferation. At EF intensities associated with regenerating non-mammalian vertebrate tissues, these cellular responses were even more robust and included morphological changes consistent with a regenerative phenotype. These findings suggest that endogenous EFs may be a crucial signal for regulating the astrocytic response to injury and that their manipulation may be a novel target for facilitating CNS repair.
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.