Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36258238›Full record

ArticleBioelectronic medicine2022

Electric field responsive nanotransducers for glioblastoma.

Akhil Jain, Isobel Jobson, Michaela Griffin, Ruman Rahman, Stuart Smith, Frankie J Rawson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioelectronic medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Stimuli-Responsive Materials for Biomedical Applications.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Akhil JainBioelectronics Laboratory, Division of Regenerative Medicine and Cellular Therapies, School of Pharmacy, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. Akhil.Jain@nottingham.ac.uk.
Isobel JobsonBioelectronics Laboratory, Division of Regenerative Medicine and Cellular Therapies, School of Pharmacy, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Michaela GriffinChildren's Brain Tumour Research Centre, School of Medicine, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Ruman RahmanChildren's Brain Tumour Research Centre, School of Medicine, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Stuart SmithChildren's Brain Tumour Research Centre, School of Medicine, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Frankie J RawsonBioelectronics Laboratory, Division of Regenerative Medicine and Cellular Therapies, School of Pharmacy, Biodiscovery Institute, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. Frankie.Rawson@nottingham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4872-8928

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/R004072/1Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/S023054/
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundElectric field therapies such as Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) have emerged as a bioelectronic treatment for isocitrate dehydrogenase wild-type and IDH mutant grade 4 astrocytoma Glioblastoma (GBM). TTFields rely on alternating current (AC) electric fields (EF) leading to the disruption of dipole alignment and induced dielectrophoresis (DEP) during cytokinesis. Although TTFields have a favourable side effect profile, particularly compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy, survival benefits remain limited (~ 4.9 months) after an extensive treatment regime (20 hours/day for 18 months). The cost of the technology also limits its clinical adoption worldwide. Therefore, the discovery of new technology that can enhance both the therapeutic efficiency and efficacy of these TTFields will be of great benefit to cancer treatment and decrease healthcare costs worldwide.

methodsIn this work, we report the role of electrically conductive gold (GNPs), dielectric silica oxide (SiO

resultsIn vitro TTFields studies indicated an enhanced reduction in the metabolic activity of patient-derived Glioma INvasive marginal (GIN 28) and Glioma contrast enhanced core (GCE 28) GBM As per our journal style, article titles should not include capitalised letters unless these are proper nouns/acronyms. We have therefore used the article title "Electric field responsive nanotransducers for glioblastoma" as opposed to "Electric Field Responsive Nanotransducers for Glioblastoma" as given in the submission system. Please check if this is correct.cells in groups treated with NPs vs. control groups, irrespective of NPs dielectric properties. Our results indicate the inorganic NPs used in this work enhance the intracellular EF effects that could be due to the virtue of bipolar dielectrophoretic and electrophoretic effects.

conclusionsThis work presents preliminary evidence which could help to improve future EF applications for bioelectronic medicine. Furthermore, the merits of spherical morphology, excellent colloidal stability, and low toxicity, make these NPs ideal for future studies for elucidating the detailed mechanism and efficacy upon their delivery in GBM preclinical models.

Indexed as

Electric fieldsGlioblastomaInorganic nanoparticlesTumor Treating Fields

Identifiers

PMID36258238
PMCPMC9580136

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.