ArticleBioResearch open access2019
Regulation of Myogenic Activity by Substrate and Electrical Stimulation
Article in BioResearch open access, 2019. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Platform for the Actuation of Magnetically Labeled Skeletal Muscle Cells Using Dynamic Magnetic Stimulation.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Recent advances in electroactive biomaterials and electrical stimulation for skeletal muscle regeneration: materials, strategies, and mechanistic insights.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- The Bionic Interface: Considering the Material Mediated Electrical Stimulation of Stem Cells.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- The Use of Collagen Methacrylate in Actuating Polyethylene Glycol Diacrylate-Acrylic Acid Scaffolds for Muscle Regeneration.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Synergistic stimulation of surface topography and biphasic electric current promotes muscle regeneration.Bioactive materials · 2022Article
- Review
- Regenerative medicine for skeletal muscle loss: a review of current tissue engineering approaches.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2021Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skeletal muscle has a remarkable regenerative capacity in response to mild injury. However, when muscle is severely injured, muscle regeneration is impaired due to the loss of muscle-resident stem cells, known as satellite cells. Fibrotic tissue, primarily comprising collagen I (COL), is deposited with this critical loss of muscle. In recent studies, supplementation of laminin (LM)-111 has been shown to improve skeletal muscle regeneration in several models of disease and injury. Additionally, electrical stimulation (E-stim) has been investigated as a possible rehabilitation therapy to improve muscle's functional recovery. This study investigated the role of E-stim and substrate in regulating myogenic response. C2C12 myoblasts were allowed to differentiate into myotubes on COL- and LM-coated polydimethylsiloxane molds. The myotubes were subjected to E-stim and compared with nonstimulated controls. While E-stim resulted in increased myogenic activity, irrespective of substrate, LM supported increased proliferation and uniform distribution of C2C12 myoblasts. In addition, C2C12 myoblasts cultured on LM showed higher Sirtuin 1, mammalian target of rapamycin, desmin, nitric oxide, and vascular endothelial growth factor expression. Taken together, these results suggest that an LM substrate is more conducive to myoblast growth and differentiation in response to E-stim
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.