Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorTowhidi, L
dc.contributor.authorKhodadadi, D
dc.contributor.authorMaimari, N
dc.contributor.authorPedrigi, RM
dc.contributor.authorIp, H
dc.contributor.authorKis, Z
dc.contributor.authorKwak, BR
dc.contributor.authorPetrova, TW
dc.contributor.authorDelorenzi, M
dc.contributor.authorKrams, R
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-09T10:58:08Z
dc.date.available2015-12-10
dc.date.available2021-11-09T10:58:08Z
dc.date.issued2016-03
dc.identifier.issn2051-817X
dc.identifier.urihttps://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/75105
dc.description.abstractThe discovery of the human genome has unveiled new fields of genomics, transcriptomics, and proteomics, which has produced paradigm shifts on how to study disease mechanisms, wherein a current central focus is the understanding of how gene signatures and gene networks interact within cells. These gene function studies require manipulating genes either through activation or inhibition, which can be achieved by temporarily permeabilizing the cell membrane through transfection to delivercDNAorRNAi. An efficient transfection technique is electroporation, which applies an optimized electric pulse to permeabilize the cells of interest. When the molecules are applied on top of seeded cells, it is called "direct" transfection and when the nucleic acids are printed on the substrate and the cells are seeded on top of them, it is termed "reverse" transfection. Direct transfection has been successfully applied in previous studies, whereas reverse transfection has recently gained more attention in the context of high-throughput experiments. Despite the emerging importance, studies comparing the efficiency of the two methods are lacking. In this study, a model for electroporation of cells in situ is developed to address this deficiency. The results indicate that reverse transfection is less efficient than direct transfection. However, the model also predicts that by increasing the concentration of deliverable molecules by a factor of 2 or increasing the applied voltage by 20%, reverse transfection can be approximately as efficient as direct transfection.en_US
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofPhysiological Reports
dc.rightsThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
dc.subjectElectroporationen_US
dc.subjecthigh‐throughput techniquesen_US
dc.subjecttransfection efficiencyen_US
dc.subjectAnimalsen_US
dc.subjectBiological Transporten_US
dc.subjectCell Membraneen_US
dc.subjectCell Membrane Permeabilityen_US
dc.subjectCells, Cultureden_US
dc.subjectComputer Simulationen_US
dc.subjectDiffusionen_US
dc.subjectElectroporationen_US
dc.subjectEndothelial Cellsen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectModels, Geneticen_US
dc.subjectNumerical Analysis, Computer-Assisteden_US
dc.subjectPorosityen_US
dc.subjectRNA Interferenceen_US
dc.subjectRNA, Small Interferingen_US
dc.subjectSoftwareen_US
dc.subjectTransfectionen_US
dc.titleComparison between direct and reverse electroporation of cells in situ: a simulation study.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.holder© 2016 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Physiological Society and The Physiological Society.
dc.identifier.doi10.14814/phy2.12673
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27009275en_US
pubs.issue6en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden_US
pubs.publisher-urlhttps://doi.org/10.14814/phy2.12673
pubs.volume4en_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-12-10
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record