Cited by 53Microbial Inactivation MethodsCell death mechanisms and regulationLipid Membrane Structure and Behavior

Difference in Membrane Repair Capacity Between Cancer Cell Lines and a Normal Cell Line

Open access
Frandsen, Stine Krog, McNeil, Anna K., Novak, Ivana, McNeil, Paul L., Gehl, Julie·2016·The Journal of Membrane Biology

Abstract

Electroporation-based treatments and other therapies that permeabilize the plasma membrane have been shown to be more devastating to malignant cells than to normal cells. In this study, we asked if a difference in repair capacity could explain this observed difference in sensitivity. Membrane repair was investigated by disrupting the plasma membrane using laser followed by monitoring fluorescent dye entry over time in seven cancer cell lines, an immortalized cell line, and a normal primary cell line. The kinetics of repair in living cells can be directly recorded using this technique, providing a sensitive index of repair capacity. The normal primary cell line of all tested cell lines exhibited the slowest rate of dye entry after laser disruption and lowest level of dye uptake. Significantly, more rapid dye uptake and a higher total level of dye uptake occurred in six of the seven tested cancer cell lines (p < 0.05) as well as the immortalized cell line (p < 0.001). This difference in sensitivity was also observed when a viability assay was performed one day after plasma membrane permeabilization by electroporation. Viability in the primary normal cell line (98 % viable cells) was higher than in the three tested cancer cell lines (81-88 % viable cells). These data suggest more effective membrane repair in normal, primary cells and supplement previous explanations why electroporation-based therapies and other therapies permeabilizing the plasma membrane are more effective on malignant cells compared to normal cells in cancer treatment.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00232-016-9910-5

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Cancer cells may be more sensitive to electroporation because they are less equipped to repair and restore the plasma membrane after damage.

    “A study by Frandsen and colleagues investigated the mechanisms of calcium electroporation, leading the authors to hypothesize that cancer cells may be more sensitive to electroporation because they are less equipped to repair and restore the plasma membrane after damage [78,80].”

    From Permeabilizing Cell Membranes with Electric Fields (2021) · cites this paper as [80]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 53

Authors
Frandsen, S. K., McNeil, A. K., Novak, I., McNeil, P. L., & Gehl, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Augusta University (US)
Corresponding author
Gehl, Julie
Venue
The Journal of Membrane Biology
Published
2016-06-16
Volume
249
Issue
4
Pages
569-576
ISSN
  • 0022-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1424
OpenAlex
W2427308694
Cited by
53
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Membrane Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, Københavns Universitet
  • Det Frie Forskningsråd (4002-00162)
  • FP7 Marie Curie ITN "IonTraC" (289648)
  • Kræftens Bekæmpelse (R110-A6996)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Cell death mechanisms and regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Lipid Membrane Structure and Behavior
Keywords
plasma membrane repair, membrane permeabilization, electroporation, cancer cell lines, fluorescent dye uptake, cell viability
MeSH terms
Cell Line, Cell Membrane, Cell Membrane Permeability, Cell Survival, Humans, Melanoma, Regeneration, Electroporation, Cell Line, Tumor, Electrochemotherapy

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