ArticlePloS one2020
Shock wave impact on the viability of MDA-MB-231 cells.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracorporeal shock waves effectively suppress colorectal cancer proliferation and growth.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Advances in modeling cellular mechanical perceptions and responses via the membrane-cytoskeleton-nucleus machinery.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2024Review
- Enhanced Therapeutic Effects of an Antitumor Agent on Subcutaneous Tumors in Mice by Photomechanical Wave-based Transvascular Drug Delivery.Journal of Cancer · 2023Article
- Shockwaves Increase In Vitro Resilience ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shock waves are gaining interests in biological and medical applications. In this work, we investigated the mechanical characteristics of shock waves that affect cell viability. In vitro testing was conducted using the metastatic breast epithelial cell line MDA-MB-231. Shock waves were generated using a high-power pulse laser. Two different coating materials and different laser energy levels were used to vary the peak pressure, decay time, and the strength of subsequent peaks of the shock waves. Within the testing capability of the current study, it is shown that shock waves with a higher impulse led to lower cell viability, a higher detached cell ratio, and a higher cell death ratio, while shock waves with the same peak pressure could lead to different levels of cell damage. The results also showed that the detached cells had a higher cell death ratio compared to the attached cells. Moreover, a critical shock impulse of 5 Pa·s was found to cause the cell death ratio of the detached cells to exceed 50%. This work has demonstrated that, within the testing range shown here, the impulse, rather than the peak pressure, is the governing shock wave parameter for the damage of MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. The result suggests that a lower-pressure shock wave with a longer duration, or multiple sequential low amplitude shock waves can be applied over a duration shorter than the fundamental response period of the cells to achieve the same impact as shock waves with a high peak pressure but a short duration. The finding that cell viability is better correlated with shock impulse rather than peak pressure has potential significant implications on how shock waves should be tailored for cancer treatments, enhanced drug delivery, and diagnostic techniques to maximize efficacy while minimizing potential side effects.
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.