lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Electrofusion of B16-F1 and CHO cells: the comparison of the pulse first and contact first protocols
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
2013 (English)In: Bioelectrochemistry, ISSN 1567-5394, E-ISSN 1878-562X, Vol. 89, p. 34-41Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

High voltage electric pulses induce permeabilisation (i.e. electroporation) of cell membranes. Electric pulses also induce fusion of cells which are in contact. Contacts between cells can be established before electroporation, in so-called contact first or after electroporation in pulse first protocol. The lowest fusion yield was obtained by pulse first protocol (0.8%±0.3%) and it was only detected by phase contrast microscopy. Higher fusion yield detected by fluorescence microscopy was obtained by contact first protocol. The highest fusion yield (15%) was obtained by modified adherence method whereas fusion yield obtained by dielectrophoresis was lower (4%). The results are in agreement with current understanding of electrofusion process and with existing electrochemical models. Our data indicate that probability of stalk formation leading to fusion pores and cytoplasmic mixing is higher in contact first protocol where cells in contact are exposed to electric pulses. Another contribution of present study is the comparison of two detection methods. Although fusion yield can be more precisely determined with fluorescence microscopy we should note that by using this detection method single coloured fused cells cannot be detected. Therefore low fusion yields are more reliably detected by phase contrast microscopy.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 89, p. 34-41
Keywords [en]
Electrofusion protocols, Phase contrast microscopy, Fluorescence microscopy, Electroporation, Cell contact
National Category
Medical Biotechnology Other Medical Engineering Other Medical Biotechnology
Research subject
Chemistry, Biotechnology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-75923DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2012.09.001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-75923DiVA, id: diva2:1218582
Available from: 2018-06-14 Created: 2018-06-14 Last updated: 2018-06-15Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Ušaj, Marko

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ušaj, Marko
In the same journal
Bioelectrochemistry
Medical BiotechnologyOther Medical EngineeringOther Medical Biotechnology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 71 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf