ArticleThe Journal of membrane biology2016
Bystander Effect Induced by Electroporation is Possibly Mediated by Microvesicles and Dependent on Pulse Amplitude, Repetition Frequency and Cell Type.
Article in The Journal of membrane biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peculiarities of Phosphatidylserine Externalization by Nano- and Microsecond Electric Pulses.The Journal of membrane biology · 2026Article
- Article
- Investigation of the Bystander Effect on Cell Viability After Application of Combined Electroporation-Based Methods.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- The Evidence of the Bystander Effect after Bleomycin Electrotransfer and Irreversible Electroporation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
- Electrochemotherapy of radioresistant head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cells and tumor xenografts.Oncology reports · 2019Article
- Quantitative dynamics of VE-cadherin at endothelial cell junctions at a glance: basic requirements and current concepts.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bystander effect, a known phenomenon in radiation biology, where irradiated cells release signals which cause damage to nearby, unirradiated cells, has not been explored in electroporated cells yet. Therefore, our aim was to determine whether bystander effect is present in electroporated melanoma cells in vitro, by determining viability of non-electroporated cells exposed to medium from electroporated cells and by the release of microvesicles as potential indicators of the bystander effect. Here, we demonstrated that electroporation of cells induces bystander effect: Cells exposed to electric pulses mediated their damage to the non-electroporated cells, thus decreasing cell viability. We have shown that shedding microvesicles may be one of the ways used by the cells to mediate the death signals to the neighboring cells. The murine melanoma B16F1 cell line was found to be more electrosensitive and thus more prone to bystander effect than the canine melanoma CMeC-1 cell line. In B16F1 cell line, bystander effect was present above the level of electropermeabilization of the cells, with the threshold at 800 V/cm. Furthermore, with increasing electric field intensities and the number of pulses, the bystander effect also increased. In conclusion, electroporation can induce bystander effect which may be mediated by microvesicles, and depends on pulse amplitude, repetition frequency and cell type.
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.