Comparison of Electroporation Threshold for Different Cell Lines in vitro

• Authors: G. Saulis , R. Saulė
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The electroporation threshold was compared at various electric pulse durations for three cell lines: two non-tumor cell lines (human erythrocytes and Chinese hamster ovary cells) and one tumor cell line (rat glioma C6 cells). First, the dependences of the fraction of electroporated cells on the pulse intensity were obtained for the cells exposed to single square-wave electric pulses with the durations of 0.02-2 ms. Then, the average cell radii were measured for each cell line and the transmembrane potential induced by the external electric field was calculated. The obtained values of the transmembrane potential were in the range of 480-930 mV and decreased with increasing pulse duration. The obtained dependences of the transmembrane potential required to electroporate 50% of cells on the pulse duration were close to each other for all cell lines studied.

Keywords

EN

87.50.cj; 87.80.Fe; 87.50.cf

Discipline

• 87.50.cf: Biophysical mechanisms of interaction
• 87.50.cj: Electroporation/membrane effects
• 87.80.Fe: Micromanipulation of biological structures

• Publisher: Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Acta Physica Polonica A
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 115
• Issue: 6
• Pages: 1056-1058

Dates

published

2009-06

Contributors

author

G. Saulis

• Vytautas Magnus University, 58 K. Donelaičio str., Kaunas, Lithuania

author

R. Saulė

• Vytautas Magnus University, 58 K. Donelaičio str., Kaunas, Lithuania

References

• 1. J. Gehl, Acta Physiol. Scand. 177, 437 (2003)
• 2. D. Sel, D. Cukjati, D. Batiuskaite, T. Slivnik, L.M. Mir, D. Miklavcic, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 52, 816 (2005)
• 3. J. Gehl, L.M. Mir, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 261, 377 (1999)
• 4. G. Saulis, P.C. Wouters, in Food Preservation by Pulsed Electric Fields: From Research to Application, Eds. H.L.M. Lelieveld, S. Notermans, S.W.H. De Haan, Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge 2007, p. 138
• 5. G. Saulis, M.S. Venslauskas, Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 32, 221 (1993)
• 6. M. Cemazar, T. Jarm, D. Miklavcic, A.M. Lebar, A. Ihan, N.A. Kopitar, G. Sersa, Electro- and Magnetobiology 17, 263 (1998)
• 7. M.J. O'Hare et al., in Electrochemotherapy, Electrogenetherapy, and Transdermal Drug Delivery, Eds. M.J. Jaroszeski, R. Heller, R. Gilbert, Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ 2000, p. 319
• 8. G. Saulis, R. Praneviciute, Anal. Biochem. 345, 340 (2005)
• 9. G. Saulis, S. Satkauskas, R. Praneviciute, Anal. Biochem. 360, 273 (2007)
• 10. H.P. Schwan, Adv. Biol. Med. Phys. 5, 147 (1957)
• 11. B. Gabriel, J. Teissie, Biophys. J. 76, 2158 (1999)

Identifiers

DOI

10.12693/APhysPolA.115.1056