Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27551529›Full record

ArticleCell death discovery2016

Comparison of biological effects of modulated electro-hyperthermia and conventional heat treatment in human lymphoma U937 cells.

G Andocs, M U Rehman, Q-L Zhao, Y Tabuchi, M Kanamori, T Kondo

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell death discovery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Pulsing Addition to Modulated Electro-Hyperthermia.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Quo Vadis Oncological Hyperthermia (2020)?Frontiers in oncology · 2020
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

G AndocsDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama , Toyama, Japan.
M U RehmanDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama , Toyama, Japan.
Q-L ZhaoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama , Toyama, Japan.
Y TabuchiDivision of Molecular Genetics, Life Science Research Center, University of Toyama , Toyama, Japan.
M KanamoriDepartment of Human Science, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama , Toyama, Japan.
T KondoDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toyama , Toyama, Japan.
University of Toyama · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Loco-regional hyperthermia treatment has long history in oncology. Modulated electro-hyperthermia (mEHT, trade name: oncothermia) is an emerging curative treatment method in this field due to its highly selective actions. The impedance-matched, capacitive-coupled modulated radiofrequency (RF) current is selectively focused in the malignant cell membrane of the cancer cells. Our objective is studying the cell-death process and comparing the cellular effects of conventional water-bath hyperthermia treatment to mEHT. The U937 human histiocytic lymphoma cell line was used for the experiments. In the case of conventional hyperthermia treatment, cells were immersed in a thermoregulated water bath, whereas in the case of mEHT, the cells were treated using a special RF generator (LabEHY, Oncotherm) and an applicator. The heating dynamics, the maximum temperature reached (42 °C) and the treatment duration (30 min) were exactly the same in both cases. Cell samples were analysed using different flow cytometric methods as well as microarray gene expression assay and western blot analysis was also used to reveal the molecular basis of the induced effects. Definite difference was observed in the biological response to different heat treatments. At 42 °C, only mEHT induced significant apoptotic cell death. The GeneChip analysis revealed a whole cluster of genes, which are highly up-regulated in case of only RF heating, but not in conventional heating. The Fas, c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNK) and ERK signalling pathway was the dominant factor to induce apoptotic cell death in mEHT, whereas the cell-protective mechanisms dominated in case of conventional heating. This study has clearly shown that conventional hyperthermia and RF mEHT can result in different biological responses at the same temperature. The reason for the difference is the distinct, non-homogenous energy distribution on the cell membrane, which activates cell death-related signalling pathways in mEHT treatment but not in conventional heat treatment.

Identifiers

PMID27551529
PMCPMC4979466
OpenAlexW2436553359

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.