ArticleRSC advances2019
Hybrid analytical-numerical approach for investigation of differential effects in normal and cancer cells under electroporation.
Article in RSC advances, 2019. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Coupling characteristics of cellular electroporation and electrodeformation based on dynamic Young's modulus: influence of membrane thickness].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2026Article
- PIRET-A Platform for Treatment Planning in Electroporation-Based Therapies.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2023Article
- Ultralong-Time Recovery and Low-Voltage Electroporation for Biological Cell Monitoring Enabled by a Microsized Multipulse Framework.ACS omega · 2021Article
- Gradient-based impedance synthesis for breast and lung cancer cell screening deploying planar and nano-structured electrodes.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2021Article
- Continuous electrical lysis of cancer cells in a microfluidic device with passivated interdigitated electrodes.Biomicrofluidics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electroporation has offered important biomedical applications in electrochemotherapy, tissue ablation and gene editing recently. Time and computation efficient analytical and numerical models should be developed to understand the differential effects of electroporation on normal and cancer cells. In this work, we present a hybrid analytical-numerical approach to investigate the behavior of normal and cancer cells under electroporation. We have compared the human breast cancer cell (MCF-7) and non-tumorigenic human breast cell (MCF-10A) under electroporation in terms of change in transmembrane voltage and pore formation on cell surface. The effects of electric pulse time, amplitude and membrane conductivity variation are analyzed in a systematic manner. To accelerate the calculation of transmembrane voltage, we have introduced a simple Multilayer Electric Potential Model (MEPM) which calculates the potential distribution across the cell analytically. The MEPM calculates electric potential distribution across a biological cell sandwiched between two semi-circular electrodes held at fixed potential, by solving the Laplace's equation over an equivalent planar, multilayer geometry. The MEPM model is then used in a Finite Element Method (FEM) based numerical model of electroporation. Transmembrane voltage and pore density for electroporated MCF-10A are estimated to be 1.31 V and 2.98 × 10
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.