Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27734871›Full record

ReviewNature2016

In vitro and ex vivo strategies for intracellular delivery.

Martin P Stewart, Armon Sharei, Xiaoyun Ding, Gaurav Sahay, Robert Langer, Klavs F Jensen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 328 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
328citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

328 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. From Nanoparticle Design to Clinical Translation in Cancer Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Just a little prick: careful cell contacts enabled by ceramic nanostraws.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

268 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Martin P StewartDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Armon ShareiDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Xiaoyun DingDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Gaurav SahayDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Collaborative Life Science Building, College of Pharmacy, Oregon State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Robert LangerDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Klavs F JensenDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intracellular delivery of materials has become a critical component of genome-editing approaches, ex vivo cell-based therapies, and a diversity of fundamental research applications. Limitations of current technologies motivate development of next-generation systems that can deliver a broad variety of cargo to diverse cell types. Here we review in vitro and ex vivo intracellular delivery approaches with a focus on mechanisms, challenges and opportunities. In particular, we emphasize membrane-disruption-based delivery methods and the transformative role of nanotechnology, microfluidics and laboratory-on-chip technology in advancing the field.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell MembraneDrug Delivery SystemsHumansIntracellular SpaceIn Vitro TechniquesLab-On-A-Chip DevicesMicrofluidicsNanotechnologyTransfection

Identifiers

PMID27734871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.