ArticleCell reports. Physical science2026
A critical review of microfluidic electroporation for therapeutic cell engineering.
Article in Cell reports. Physical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Microparticle-enabled single cell multiparameter electronic immunophenotyping for selective electroporation.Lab on a chip · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfluidic electroporation (MFEP) is emerging as a scalable, non-viral modality for engineering therapeutic cells. This review synthesizes recent progress in MFEP, outlining the key advantages of MFEP, including continuous processing at high throughputs, single-cell manipulation and monitoring, electrolysis mitigation, and automation for rapid multi-parameter screening and minimized cell manufacturing complexity. We then survey the waveforms, pulses, and buffers used in MFEP. In doing so, we highlight the diversity of parameters and uncover the inconsistent reporting of outcomes, calling for standardized reporting of electric-field dose, yield, and efficiency. We additionally note the need for investigation into the effects of MFEP on the long-term perturbation of cells given the effects of bulk electroporation compared to other transfection methods. Finally, we conclude that MFEP has many advantages for cell engineering yet must continue to adopt greater validation of short- and long-term efficiency and effects on cells to accelerate clinical adoption.
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.