ArticlePloS one2022
Sensitizing drug-resistant cancer cells from blood using microfluidic electroporator.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Kinesins in Cancer Drug Resistance: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Targeting, and Translational Potential.Cancers · 2026Review
- Integrated Size-Selective Cell Purification and Electroporation for Genetic Manipulation of Primary Cells.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Microfluidics for cell therapy and manufacturing in oncology and regenerative medicine.Lab on a chip · 2026Review
- Review on Bortezomib Resistance in Multiple Myeloma and Potential Role of Emerging Technologies.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Autophagy-related mechanisms for treatment of multiple myeloma.Cancer drug resistance (Alhambra, Calif.) · 2023Review
- Device Processing Challenges for Miniaturized Sensing Systems Targeting Biological Fluids.Biomedical materials & devices (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Recent Advances in Microscale Electroporation.Chemical reviews · 2022Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Direct assessment of patient samples holds unprecedented potential in the treatment of cancer. Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in liquid biopsies are a rapidly evolving source of primary cells in the clinic and are ideal candidates for functional assays to uncover real-time tumor information in real-time. However, a lack of routines allowing direct and active interrogation of CTCs directly from liquid biopsy samples represents a bottleneck for the translational use of liquid biopsies in clinical settings. To address this, we present a workflow for using a microfluidic vortex-assisted electroporation system designed for the functional assessment of CTCs purified from blood. Validation of this approach was assessed through drug response assays on wild-type (HCC827 wt) and gefitinib-resistant (HCC827 GR6) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells. HCC827 cells trapped within microscale vortices were electroporated to sequentially deliver drug agents into the cytosol. Electroporation conditions facilitating multi-agent delivery were characterized for both cell lines using an automatic single-cell image fluorescence intensity algorithm. HCC827 GR6 cells spiked into the blood to emulate drug-resistant CTCs were able to be collected with high purity, demonstrating the ability of the device to minimize background cell impact for downstream sensitive cell assays. Using our proposed workflow, drug agent combinations to restore gefitinib sensitivity reflected the anticipated cytotoxic response. Taken together, these results represent a microfluidics multi-drug screening panel workflow that can enable functional interrogation of patient CTCs in situ, thereby accelerating the clinical standardization of liquid biopsies.
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.