ArticleJournal of nanobiotechnology2024
Coupling of nanostraws with diverse physicochemical perforation strategies for intracellular DNA delivery.
Article in Journal of nanobiotechnology, 2024. 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.
- Poking Pluripotency: Nanoinjection Into Human iPSCs.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Article
- Just a little prick: careful cell contacts enabled by ceramic nanostraws.Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology · 2026Article
- Label-Free Detection of Nuclear Envelope Nucleoporation using 2D Morphological Embeddings and Machine Learning.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2025Article
- Enhancing Photothermal Therapy Against Breast Cancer Cells by Modulating the End Point of Gold Shell-Isolated Nanoparticles Using Nanostraw-Assisted Injection.ACS applied materials & interfaces · 2025Article
- Polymeric nanocarriers for therapeutic gene delivery.Asian journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Effective intracellular DNA transfection is imperative for cell-based therapy and gene therapy. Conventional gene transfection methods, including biochemical carriers, physical electroporation and microinjection, face challenges such as cell type dependency, low efficiency, safety concerns, and technical complexity. Nanoneedle arrays have emerged as a promising avenue for improving cellular nucleic acid delivery through direct penetration of the cell membrane, bypassing endocytosis and endosome escape processes. Nanostraws (NS), characterized by their hollow tubular structure, offer the advantage of flexible solution delivery compared to solid nanoneedles. However, NS struggle to stably self-penetrate the cell membrane, resulting in limited delivery efficiency. Coupling with extra physiochemical perforation strategies is a viable approach to improve their performance. This study systematically compared the efficiency of NS coupled with polyethylenimine (PEI) chemical modification, mechanical force, photothermal effect, and electric field on cell membrane perforation and DNA transfection. The results indicate that coupling NS with PEI modification, mechanical force, photothermal effects provide limited enhancement effects. In contrast, NS-electric field coupling significantly improves intracellular DNA transfection efficiency. This work demonstrates that NS serve as a versatile platform capable of integrating various physicochemical strategies, while electric field coupling stands out as a form worthy of primary consideration for efficient DNA transfection.
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.