ArticleBioFactors (Oxford, England)
Optimizing Alternating Current Electrical Stimulation Parameters to Enhance Osteoblasts Differentiation.
Article in BioFactors (Oxford, England). 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Electrical stimulation (ES) has emerged as a promising technique in the field of bioengineering and biomedicine, particularly in bone regeneration and cell differentiation. ES using alternating current (AC) is based on the periodic reversal of current direction, which generates oscillating electric fields. The application of an electric field has effects on cell growth and differentiation, as well as on morphology and migration. This study aimed to explore the effect of applying AC electrostimulation within the proliferation, differentiation, and morphology process of osteoblastic cells. The electrical stimulation signals were daily applied for 3 h during 14 days. Different frequencies were tested (1 Hz, 10 Hz, 100 Hz, and 1 kHz), with amplitudes of 125, 250, 500, 750, 1000, and 1500 mV/mm. Cell viability was estimated using the AlamarBlue, and MC3T3-E1 differentiation levels were evaluated through alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. RUNX2, OSX, ALP, OPG, and RANKL gene expression was assessed by RT-PCR. Morphological analysis was performed through cell transfection followed by immunofluorescence. Statistical analysis was conducted by SPSS.23 and graphs generated through Graph-pad. Viability and ALP activity were optimal at 10 Hz. Once the frequency was defined, RUNX2, OSX, ALP, OPG, and RANKL gene expression revealed an increase in the differentiation and osteogenic activity levels at 10 Hz and 500-750 mV/mm. As well as, morphological studies showed an increase in the area, pseudopodia length, and numbers at 500 mV 10 Hz conditions. The optimal ES condition to differentiate MC3T3-E1 cells is 10 Hz 500-750 mV/mm. Electrostimulation has emerged as a promising technique in the field of bioengineering and biomedicine, particularly in bone regeneration and cell early maturation.
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.