ArticleRadiology and oncology2025
Invasive properties of patient-derived glioblastoma cells after reversible electroporation
Article in Radiology and oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectroporation-based therapies are being explored in glioblastoma (GB) treatment, as means of enhancing drug delivery or achieving nonthermal ablation. Yet, little is known about how sublethal exposure affects the invasive behaviour of GB tumour cells. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive patient-derived GB cell lines were initially screened for intrinsic invasive potential, and two most invasive (NIB140 CORE and NIB216 CORE) were selected for further experiments with electroporation treatment. Cells in suspension were exposed to bursts of high-frequency biphasic electric pulses resulting in electric field strength of 1 kV/cm, which corresponded to conditions of reversible electroporation. Changes in cell invasion and gene regulation were assessed 24 hours after electroporation using transwell assay and RNA transcriptome analysis, respectively.
resultsReversible electroporation at 1.0 kV/cm enhanced invasion in a cell line-dependent manner. NIB140 CORE showed a consistent and pronounced increase, with a median of 3.74-fold (274%) higher number of invading cells compared to sham control. In contrast, NIB216 CORE exhibited only a modest increase in invasion (1.30-fold; 30%). Transcriptomic profiling identified modulation of genes linked to extracellular matrix organization and ion channel activity in NIB140 CORE, and cytoskeletal remodelling in NIB216 CORE, indicating the activation of invasion-related pathways.
conclusionsThese findings highlight a potential risk of pro-invasive responses in GB cells. In tumour ablation with irreversible electroporation, this concern relates to cells in the peripheral zone that may experience only sublethal electric fields, while in electrochemotherapy, a similar risk may arise if permeabilized cells are not effectively eliminated due to insufficient local drug delivery. Nevertheless, the two tested cell lines responded differently, underscoring patient-specific heterogeneity and the need for validation in more physiologically relevant models.
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.