ArticleEuropean biophysics journal : EBJ2017
Elasticity and tumorigenic characteristics of cells in a monolayer after nanosecond pulsed electric field exposure.
Article in European biophysics journal : EBJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Tumor Treating Fields: Multimodal Antitumor Action and the Clinical Potential of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields.Current medical science · 2026Review
- Pulsed field ablation in medicine: irreversible electroporation and electropermeabilization theory and applications.Radiology and oncology · 2025Review
- Enhancing suspended cell transfection by inducing localized distribution of the membrane actin cortex before exposure to electromechanical stimulation.Biotechnology letters · 2023Article
- Nanosecond pulsed electric field ablates rabbit VX2 liver tumors in a non-thermal manner.PloS one · 2023Article
- Modifications of Plasma Membrane Organization in Cancer Cells for Targeted Therapy.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Single Cell Forces after Electroporation.ACS nano · 2021Article
- Recent progress in pulsed electric field ablation for liver cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Cytoskeletal Disruption after Electroporation and Its Significance to Pulsed Electric Field Therapies.Cancers · 2020Review
- Cell stimulation versus cell death induced by sequential treatments with pulsed electric fields and cold atmospheric pressure plasma.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanosecond pulsed electric fields (nsPEFs) applied to cells can induce different biological effects depending on pulse duration and field strength. One known process is the induction of apoptosis whereby nsPEFs are currently investigated as a novel cancer therapy. Another and probably related change is the breakdown of the cytoskeleton. We investigated the elasticity of rat liver epithelial cells WB-F344 in a monolayer using atomic force microscopy (AFM) with respect to the potential of cells to undergo malignant transformation or to develop a potential to metastasize. We found that the elastic modulus of the cells decreased significantly within the first 8 min after treatment with 20 pulses of 100 ns and with a field strength of 20 kV/cm but was still higher than the elasticity of their tumorigenic counterpart WB-ras. AFM measurements and immunofluorescent staining showed that the cellular actin cytoskeleton became reorganized within 5 min. However, both a colony formation assay and a cell migration assay revealed no significant changes after nsPEF treatment, implying that cells seem not to adopt malignant characteristics associated with metastasis formation despite the induced transient changes to elasticity and cytoskeleton that can be observed for up to 1 h.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28365791What 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.