ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Effect of He Plasma Jet Versus Surface Plasma on the Metabolites of Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cells.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A dual-index framework for cold atmospheric plasma dosing: A meta-analysis of parametric control from volumetric redox flux to redox homeostatic status.Redox biology · 2026Pooled it
- Current Status and Future Trends of Cold Atmospheric Plasma as an Oncotherapy.Biomolecules & therapeutics · 2023Review
- An omics approach to delineating the molecular mechanisms that underlie the biological effects of physical plasma.Biophysics reviews · 2023Review
- Adjuvant composite cold atmospheric plasma therapy increases antitumoral effect of doxorubicin hydrochloride.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- In Vivo Metabolic Analysis of the Anticancer Effects of Plasma-Activated Saline in Three Tumor Animal Models.Biomedicines · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cold atmospheric plasma, including plasma jet and surface plasma, can promote the apoptosis of cancer cells without causing significant damage to surrounding normal cells, which was hopeful to be applied to the clinical cancer therapy. However, experimental plasma devices used directly to clinical experiments has challenges in technology and methods, especially the difference in killing tumor cells efficiency of these two common plasma sources. Therefore, it is great necessity to explore the differences in treating tumors between different plasma sources. This paper achieved good killing efficiency by using two kinds of cold atmospheric plasma generating devices, namely plasma jet and surface plasma treatment along acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The results showed that the He plasma jet kills leukemia cells more efficiently than surface plasma with the same voltage and frequency and the same time. By GC-TOFMS and metabolomics analysis, this paper compared the differential metabolites of leukemia cells treated by two plasma devices and the key metabolic pathways closely related to differential metabolites. Simultaneously, we found alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism was most correlated with a key differential metabolite, glutamine. It was found that the glutaminase activity of He plasma jet group was lower than that of surface plasma group, which might be a reason for He plasma jet group to kill tumor cells better. It was also worth noting that relative quantity of glucose metabolites of plasma jet treatment group was lower than that of surface plasma treatment group. This study provides the basis for clinical trials for future.
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.