Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36229846›Full record

ArticleJournal of biological engineering2022

DC electrical stimulation enhances proliferation and differentiation on N2a and MC3T3 cell lines.

Daniel Martín, J Bocio-Nuñez, Santiago F Scagliusi, Pablo Pérez, Gloria Huertas, Alberto Yúfera, Mercè Giner, Paula Daza

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biological engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Bone Growth Stimulators to Enhance Spinal Fusion Outcomes.Spine surgery and related research · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Accelerated Bone Healing via Electrical Stimulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel MartínElectronics Technology Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain. dmartinf@us.es.
J Bocio-NuñezBone Metabolism Unit, UGC Medicina Interna, HUV Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Santiago F ScagliusiElectronics Technology Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Pablo PérezElectronics Technology Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Gloria HuertasMicroelectronics Institute of Seville, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Alberto YúferaElectronics Technology Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Mercè GinerDepartamento de Citologia e Histologia Normal y Patologica, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Paula DazaCell Biology Department, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Universidad de Sevilla · ESInstituto de Microelectrónica de Sevilla · ESHospital Universitario Virgen Macarena · ES

Funding

Universidad de Sevilla US-1380661
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectrical stimulation is a novel tool to promote the differentiation and proliferation of precursor cells. In this work we have studied the effects of direct current (DC) electrical stimulation on neuroblastoma (N2a) and osteoblast (MC3T3) cell lines as a model for nervous and bone tissue regeneration, respectively. We have developed the electronics and encapsulation of a proposed stimulation system and designed a setup and protocol to stimulate cell cultures.

methodsCell cultures were subjected to several assays to assess the effects of electrical stimulation on them. N2a cells were analyzed using microscope images and an inmunofluorescence assay, differentiated cells were counted and neurites were measured. MC3T3 cells were subjected to an AlamarBlue assay for viability, ALP activity was measured, and a real time PCR was carried out.

resultsOur results show that electrically stimulated cells had more tendency to differentiate in both cell lines when compared to non-stimulated cultures, paired with a promotion of neurite growth and polarization in N2a cells and an increase in proliferation in MC3T3 cell line.

conclusionsThese results prove the effectiveness of electrical stimulation as a tool for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, both for neural and bone injuries. Bone progenitor cells submitted to electrical stimulation have a higher tendency to differentiate and proliferate, filling the gaps present in injuries. On the other hand, neuronal progenitor cells differentiate, and their neurites can be polarized to follow the electric field applied.

Indexed as

Cell differentiationElectrical stimulationMicroelectrodesTissue engineering

Identifiers

PMID36229846
PMCPMC9563743
OpenAlexW4304958903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.