4.6 Article

Modeling a Conventional Electroporation Pulse Train: Decreased Pore Number, Cumulative Calcium Transport and an Example of Electrosensitization

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 63, 期 3, 页码 571-580

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TBME.2015.2466234

关键词

Electroporation (EP); electrosensitization; pore number; pulse train; system model

资金

  1. NIH [GM063857, RO1-GM63857]
  2. NSF fellowship
  3. HST fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulse trains are widely used in electroporation (EP) for both general biomedical research and clinical applications such as nonthermal tumor ablation. Here we use a computational method based on a meshed transport network to investigate a cell system model's response to a train of identical, evenly spaced electric field pulses. We obtain an unexpected result: the number of membrane pores decreases during the application of twenty 1.0 kV/cm, 100 mu s pulses, delivered at 1 Hz. This pulse train initially creates 13,000 membrane pores, but pore number decreases by a factor of 15 to about 830 pores throughout subsequent pulses. We conclude that pore number can greatly diminish during a train of identical pulses, with direct consequences for the transport of solutes across an electroporated membrane. Although application of additional pulses is generally intended to increase the effects of EP, we show that these pulses do not significantly enhance calcium delivery into the cell. Instead, calcium delivery can be significantly increased by varying inter-pulse intervals. We show that inserting a 300-s interruption midway in a widely used eight-pulse train (a protocol for electrosensitization) yields a similar to twofold delivery increase. Overall, our modeling shows support for electrosensitization, in which multiple pulse protocols that maximize pore number over time can yield significant increase of transport of calcium compared to standard pulse trains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据