ArticleScientific reports2025
Excitation and electroporation in genetically engineered excitable S-HEK cells exposed to electric pulses of different durations.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electroporation affects action potential generation in excitable cells such as nerve, muscle and cardiac cells. Since electroporation-based treatments use different pulse protocols, we investigated how electric pulses of different duration (from 500 ns to 1 ms) trigger action potentials and cause electroporation in genetically engineered cultured excitable cell model. Transmembrane voltage was monitored using a fluorescent potentiometric probe and fluorescence microscopy. We triggered similar responses in these cells using electric pulses of all pulse durations. At lower electric fields, we stimulated action potentials and at higher electric fields, electroporation occurred: the action potentials were gradually prolonged and eventually, ended up in sustained depolarization. For shorter pulses, higher electric fields had to be used to achieve the same effect. However, the shape of the action potential was affected by pulse duration. With shorter pulses (500 ns-10 µs), the action potentials were much longer already at the excitation thresholds, due to more prominent effect of electroporation, compared to longer pulses (e.g., 1 ms) where action potentials were triggered by classical electrostimulation (i.e., excitation) without electroporation. Moreover, we detected a complex, biphasic intracellular calcium response in excitable S-HEK cells that was absent in non-excitable NS-HEK version of these cells.
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.