A Theoretical Analysis of the Effects of Tumor-Treating Electric Fields on Single Cells
Abstract
Tumor-treating fields (TTFields) are low-intensity and intermediate-frequency alternating electric fields that have been found to inhibit tumor cell growth. While effective, the mechanism by which TTFields affect cell growth is not yet clearly understood. Although numerous mathematical studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields on single cells exist, the effect of TTFields on single cells have been analyzed less frequently. The goal of this study is to explore through a mathematical analysis the effects of TTFields on single cells, with particular emphasis on the thermal effect. We examine herein two single-cell models, a simplified spheroidal model and a simulation of a U-87 MG glioblastoma cell model obtained from microscopic images. A finite element method is used to analyze the electric field distribution, electromagnetic loss, and thermal field distribution. The results further prove that the electric field in the cytoplasm is too weak and its thermal damage can be excluded as a mechanism for cell death in TTFields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2020;41:438-446. © 2020 Bioelectromagnetics Society.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Li et al. predicted that TTFields depolarize the cell membrane by 10-17%, which may be enough to open membrane Cav2+ channels and, at TTFields frequency, would likely freeze the channels in an open state.
“Li et al. [51] predicted that TTFields depolarize the cell membrane by 10-17%, which may be enough to open membrane Cav2+ channels [51] and, at TTFields’ frequency, would likely ‘freeze’ the channels in an open state.”
From Permeabilizing Cell Membranes with Electric Fields (2021) · cites this paper as [51]
The Vm of both non-cancer and cancer cells depolarizes during proliferation to about −15 mV, but post-mitotic non-cancer cells return to a typical resting Vm of −70 mV whereas post-mitotic cancer cells achieve a resting Vm of −25 mV.
“The Vm of both non-cancer and cancer cells depolarizes during proliferation, to about −15 mV, but post-mitotic non-cancer cells return to a typical resting Vm of −70 mV whereas post-mitotic cancer cells achieve a resting Vm of −25 mV [51,69].”
From Permeabilizing Cell Membranes with Electric Fields (2021) · cites this paper as [51]
Modeling studies suggest that the magnitude of the electric field caused by TTFields may not be sufficient to overcome Brownian motion inherent within the cytoplasm of single cancer cells.
“In addition, recent modeling studies in the context of dipole alignment suggest that the magnitude of the electric field caused by TTFields may not be sufficient to overcome Brownian motion inherent within the cytoplasm of single cancer cells [51,69].”
From Permeabilizing Cell Membranes with Electric Fields (2021) · cites this paper as [51]
Finite element modeling predicts that when cells are in close proximity, electric field lines are concentrated between contact points in a frequency-dependent manner.
“Indeed, research by some of us (co-authors TM and ZB, personal communication) shows that finite element modeling predicts that when cells are in close proximity to each other, electric field lines are concentrated between the contact points in a frequency-dependent manner [51,69].”
From Permeabilizing Cell Membranes with Electric Fields (2021) · cites this paper as [51]
The membrane potential could serve as an important read-out to monitor in studies of TTFields.
“Certainly, the recent work of Li et al. [51,69] suggests that the membrane potential could serve as an important read-out to monitor in studies of TTFields.”
From Permeabilizing Cell Membranes with Electric Fields (2021) · cites this paper as [51]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 23 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Li, X., Yang, F., Gao, B., Yu, X., & Rubinsky, B.
- Affiliations
- Chongqing University (CN)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Xing
- Venue
- Bioelectromagnetics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-06-08
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 438-446
- ISSN
- 0197-8462 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-186X
- OpenAlex
- W3033621421
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 1.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Bioelectromagnetics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Electromagnetic Fields and Biological Effects
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
- Keywords
- tumor treating fields, single-cell model, thermal effects, electromagnetic losses, electric field distribution, cell death mechanisms, finite element analysis
- MeSH terms
- Electric Stimulation Therapy, Humans, Models, Biological, Cell Line, Tumor, Cell Proliferation, Single-Cell Analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
