ArticlePloS one2018
Cell electrofusion based on nanosecond/microsecond pulsed electric fields.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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.
- Hydrodynamic efficient cell capture and pairing method on microfluidic cell electrofusion chip.APL bioengineering · 2025Article
- Article
- Cell-inspired, massive electromodulation of friction via transmembrane fields across lipid bilayers.Nature materials · 2024Article
- Nanosecond pulse effectively ablated hepatocellular carcinoma with alterations in the gut microbiome and serum metabolites.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Theoretical analysis for the fluctuation in the electric parameters of the electroporated cells before and during the electrofusion.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022Article
- Substantially Improved Electrofusion Efficiency of Hybridoma Cells: Based on the Combination of Nanosecond and Microsecond Pulses.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Single-cell individualized electroporation with real-time impedance monitoring using a microelectrode array chip.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditionally, microsecond pulsed electric field was widely used in cell electrofusion technology. However, it was difficult to fuse the cells with different sizes. Because the effect of electroporation based on microsecond pulses was greatly influenced by cell sizes. It had been reported that the differences between cell sizes can be ignored when cells were exposed to nanosecond pulses. However, pores induced by those short nanosecond pulses tended to be very small (0.9 nm) and the pores were more easy to recover. In this work, a finite element method was used to simulate the distribution, radius and density of the pores. The innovative idea of "cell electrofusion based on nanosecond/microsecond pulses" was proposed in order to combine the advantages of nanosecond pulses and microsecond pulses. The model consisted of two contact cells with different sizes. Three kinds of pulsed electric fields were made up of two 100-ns, 10-kV/cm pulses; two 10-μs, 1-kV/cm pulses; and a sequence of a 100-ns, 10-kV/cm pulse, followed by a 10-μs, 1-kV/cm pulse. Some obvious advantageous can be found when nanosecond/microsecond pulses were considered. The pore radius was large enough (70nm) and density was high (5×1013m-2) in the cell junction area. Moreover, pores in the non-contact area of the cell membrane were small (1-10 nm) and sparse (109-1012m-2). Areas where the transmembrane voltage was higher than 1V were only concentrated in the cell junction. The transmembrane voltage of other areas were at most 0.6V when we tested the rest of the cell membrane. Cell fusion efficiency can be improved remarkably because electroporation was concentrated in the cell contact area.
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.