Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32415463›Full record

ReviewPflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology2020

Towards the clinical translation of optogenetic skeletal muscle stimulation.

Lili A Gundelach, Marc A Hüser, Dirk Beutner, Patrick Ruther, Tobias Bruegmann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Motor Cortical Output Integrates Distorted Proprioceptive Feedback.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Overexpression of enhanced yellow fluorescent protein fused with Channelrhodopsin-2 causes contractile dysfunction in skeletal muscle.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Potential Therapeutic Strategies for Skeletal Muscle Atrophy.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  8. Biophysics reviews · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
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

5 authors.

Lili A GundelachInstitute of Cardiovascular Physiology, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Marc A HüserInstitute of Cardiovascular Physiology, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Dirk BeutnerDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany.
Patrick RutherMicrosystem Materials Laboratory, Department of Microsystems Engineering (IMTEK), University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Tobias BruegmannInstitute of Cardiovascular Physiology, University Medical Center, Göttingen, Germany. tobias.bruegmann@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-6930-9634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Paralysis is a frequent phenomenon in many diseases, and to date, only functional electrical stimulation (FES) mediated via the innervating nerve can be employed to restore skeletal muscle function in patients. Despite recent progress, FES has several technical limitations and significant side effects. Optogenetic stimulation has been proposed as an alternative, as it may circumvent some of the disadvantages of FES enabling cell type-specific, spatially and temporally precise stimulation of cells expressing light-gated ion channels, commonly Channelrhodopsin2. Two distinct approaches for the restoration of skeletal muscle function with optogenetics have been demonstrated: indirect optogenetic stimulation through the innervating nerve similar to FES and direct optogenetic stimulation of the skeletal muscle. Although both approaches show great promise, both have their limitations and there are several general hurdles that need to be overcome for their translation into clinics. These include successful gene transfer, sustained optogenetic protein expression, and the creation of optically active implantable devices. Herein, a comprehensive summary of the underlying mechanisms of electrical and optogenetic approaches is provided. With this knowledge in mind, we substantiate a detailed discussion of the advantages and limitations of each method. Furthermore, the obstacles in the way of clinical translation of optogenetic stimulation are discussed, and suggestions on how they could be overcome are provided. Finally, four specific examples of pathologies demanding novel therapeutic measures are discussed with a focus on the likelihood of direct versus indirect optogenetic stimulation.

Indexed as

AnimalsElectric Stimulation TherapyHumansMuscle ContractionMuscle, SkeletalOptogeneticsTranslational Research, BiomedicalElectrical stimulationGene transferImmune responseOptical implantsOptogenetic stimulationSkeletal muscle

Identifiers

PMID32415463
PMCPMC7239821

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.