ReviewPflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology2020
Towards the clinical translation of optogenetic skeletal muscle stimulation.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motor Cortical Output Integrates Distorted Proprioceptive Feedback.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Development of visible light-sensitive human neuropsin (OPN5) via single amino acid substitution.FEBS letters · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Tetherless Optical Neuromodulation: Wavelength from Orange-red to Mid-infrared.Neuroscience bulletin · 2024Review
- Actuated tissue engineered muscle grafts restore functional mobility after volumetric muscle loss.Biomaterials · 2023Article
- A flexible and versatile system for multi-color fiber photometry and optogenetic manipulation.Cell reports methods · 2023Article
- Potential Therapeutic Strategies for Skeletal Muscle Atrophy.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Review
- Optogenetic activation of the diaphragm.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Gene delivery to the hypoglossal motor system: preclinical studies and translational potential.Gene therapy · 2021Review
- Direct optogenetic stimulation of smooth muscle cells to control gastric contractility.Theranostics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.