Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27009275›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2016

Comparison between direct and reverse electroporation of cells in situ: a simulation study.

Leila Towhidi, Delaram Khodadadi, Nataly Maimari, Ryan M Pedrigi, Henry Ip, Zoltan Kis, Brenda R Kwak, Tatiana W Petrova, Mauro Delorenzi, Rob Krams

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Leila TowhidiDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Delaram KhodadadiDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nataly MaimariDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ryan M PedrigiDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Henry IpDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Zoltan KisDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Brenda R KwakDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Department of Medical Specializations - Cardiology, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tatiana W PetrovaDepartment of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mauro DelorenziDepartment of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Rob KramsDepartment of Bioengineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom r.krams@imperial.ac.uk.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Lausanne · CHUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

PREVENTIVE CARDIOLOGY ACADEMIC AWARDK07HL001113 · NHLBI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI REED, ROBERTA G · 1985 to 1987
–
British Heart Foundation RG/11/13/29055
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discovery of the human genome has unveiled new fields of genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, which has produced paradigm shifts on how to study disease mechanisms, wherein a current central focus is the understanding of how gene signatures and gene networks interact within cells. These gene function studies require manipulating genes either through activation or inhibition, which can be achieved by temporarily permeabilizing the cell membrane through transfection to delivercDNAorRNAi. An efficient transfection technique is electroporation, which applies an optimized electric pulse to permeabilize the cells of interest. When the molecules are applied on top of seeded cells, it is called "direct" transfection and when the nucleic acids are printed on the substrate and the cells are seeded on top of them, it is termed "reverse" transfection. Direct transfection has been successfully applied in previous studies, whereas reverse transfection has recently gained more attention in the context of high-throughput experiments. Despite the emerging importance, studies comparing the efficiency of the two methods are lacking. In this study, a model for electroporation of cells in situ is developed to address this deficiency. The results indicate that reverse transfection is less efficient than direct transfection. However, the model also predicts that by increasing the concentration of deliverable molecules by a factor of 2 or increasing the applied voltage by 20%, reverse transfection can be approximately as efficient as direct transfection.

Indexed as

Cell Membrane PermeabilityComputer SimulationElectroporationModels, GeneticAnimalsBiological TransportCell MembraneCells, CulturedDiffusionEndothelial CellsHumansNumerical Analysis, Computer-AssistedPorosityRNA InterferenceRNA, Small InterferingSoftwareRNA, Small InterferingElectroporationhigh‐throughput techniquestransfection efficiency

Identifiers

PMID27009275
PMCPMC4814886
OpenAlexW2310353378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.