ArticlePharmaceutics2023
Gene Electrotransfer Efficiency in 2D and 3D Cancer Cell Models Using Different Electroporation Protocols: A Comparative Study.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracellular vesicles delivering TIMP-2 modulate MMP-1, MMP-2, and MMP-9 expression in human lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Gold Nanoparticles-Enhanced Gene Transfer Driven by MHz-Frequency Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Fields.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Precise nanoscale fabrication technologies, the "last mile" of medicinal development.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2025Review
- Smart Nanobiomaterials for Gene Delivery in Localized Cancer Therapy: An Overview from Emerging Materials and Devices to Clinical Applications.Current cancer drug targets · 2025Review
- A Method for Using Cell-Penetrating Peptides for Loading Plasmid DNA into Secreted Extracellular Vesicles.Biomolecules · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Electroporation, a method relying on a pulsed electric field to induce transient cell membrane permeabilization, can be used as a non-viral method to transfer genes in vitro and in vivo. Such transfer holds great promise for cancer treatment, as it can induce or replace missing or non-functioning genes. Yet, while efficient in vitro, gene-electrotherapy remains challenging in tumors. To assess the differences of gene electrotransfer in respect to applied pulses in multi-dimensional (2D, 3D) cellular organizations, we herein compared pulsed electric field protocols applicable to electrochemotherapy and gene electrotherapy and different "High Voltage-Low Voltage" pulses. Our results show that all protocols can result in efficient permeabilization of 2D- and 3D-grown cells. However, their efficiency for gene delivery varies. The gene-electrotherapy protocol is the most efficient in cell suspensions, with a transfection rate of about 50%. Conversely, despite homogenous permeabilization of the entire 3D structure, none of the tested protocols allowed gene delivery beyond the rims of multicellular spheroids. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of electric field intensity and the occurrence of cell permeabilization, and underline the significance of pulses' duration, impacting plasmids' electrophoretic drag. The latter is sterically hindered in 3D structures and prevents the delivery of genes into spheroids' core.
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.