ArticleScientific reports2016
Characterizing the malignancy and drug resistance of cancer cells from their membrane resealing response.
Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal analysis of Escherichia coli membrane permeabilization and uptake kinetics induced by a single microbubble cavitation event.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Membrane Fusion-Based Drug Delivery Liposomes Transiently Modify the Material Properties of Synthetic and Biological Membranes.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- Membrane Repairing Capability of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Cells Is Regulated by Drug Resistance and Epithelial-Mesenchymal-Transition.Membranes · 2022Article
- To Close or to Collapse: The Role of Charges on Membrane Stability upon Pore Formation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021Article
- A Novel Electroporation System for Living Cell Staining and Membrane Dynamics Interrogation.Micromachines · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this report, we showed that two tumor cell characteristics, namely the malignancy and drug-resistance status can be evaluated by their membrane resealing response. Specifically, membrane pores in a number of pairs of cancer and normal cell lines originated from nasopharynx, lung and intestine were introduced by nano-mechanical puncturing. Interestingly, such nanometer-sized holes in tumor cells can reseal ~2-3 times faster than those in the corresponding normal cells. Furthermore, the membrane resealing time in cancer cell lines exhibiting resistance to several leading chemotherapeutic drugs was also found to be substantially shorter than that in their drug-sensitive counterparts, demonstrating the potential of using this quantity as a novel marker for future cancer diagnosis and drug resistance detection. Finally, a simple model was proposed to explain the observed resealing dynamics of cells which suggested that the distinct response exhibited by normal, tumor and drug resistant cells is likely due to the different tension levels in their lipid membranes, a conclusion that is also supported by direct cortical tension measurement.
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.