Advertisement

Cancelation Effect of Nanosecond Pulse Electric Fields on Cells In Vitro

  • Bennett Ibey
Living reference work entry

Abstract

The effect of reversing the polarity or direction of the electric field during the application of nanosecond electric pulses (nsEPs) to cells has become a topic of great interest. This topic is highly relevant as it applies directly to clinical use of nsEP for cancer treatment and muscle stimulation. This chapter begins with a brief introduction describing previous observations made when applying single unipolar (UP) nsEP and longer micro- and millisecond duration bipolar (BP) pulses to mammalian cells. The next section offers an in-depth description of the methods and observed effects of BP nsEP exposure of single cells. The observed ineffectiveness of BP nsEP to generate membrane permeabilization at a similar rate to UP nsEP exposures is presented as well as a comparison of different pulse exposures and pulse shapes. The effectiveness of BP pulses to induce cell death will be discussed in the next section as on endpoint of interest in the field of bioelectrics. In agreement with single-cell observation, induction of death by BP pulses is reduced considerably compared to UP exposures in a variety of cell types. In the final section, the open questions related to BP exposures, present hypotheses, and potential technological utility of BP pulses are discussed. It is the intent of this chapter to present existing data related to BP nsEP and act as a catalyst for further theoretical and experimental exploration into the topic.

Keywords

Nanoporation Bipolar Unipolar Nanosecond electric pulse Electroporation 

References

  1. Arena CB et al (2011a) High-frequency irreversible electroporation (H-FIRE) for non-thermal ablation without muscle contraction. Biomed Eng Online 10(1):102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arena CB, Sano MB, Rylander MN, Davalos RV (2011b) Theoretical considerations of tissue electroporation with high-frequency bipolar pulses. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 58(5):1474–1482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Daskalov I, Mudrov N, Peycheva E (1999) Exploring new instrumentation parameters for electrochemotherapy. Attacking tumors with bursts of biphasic pulses instead of single pulses. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 18(1):62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Förster W, Neumann E (1989) Gene transfer by electroporation. In: Electroporation and electrofusion in cell biology. Springer, Boston, pp 299–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Foster KR (2000) Thermal and nonthermal mechanisms of interaction of radio-frequency energy with biological systems. IEEE Trans Plasma Sci 28(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. French DM, Uhler MD, Gilgenbach RM, Lau YY (2009) Conductive versus capacitive coupling for cell electroporation with nanosecond pulses. J Appl Phys 106(7):74701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gianulis EC, Lee J, Jiang C, Xiao S, Ibey BL, Pakhomov AG (2015) Electroporation of mammalian cells by nanosecond electric field oscillations and its inhibition by the electric field reversal. Sci Rep 5:13818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gianulis EC, Casciola M, Xiao S, Pakhomova ON, Pakhomov AG (2017) Electropermeabilization by uni- or bipolar nanosecond electric pulses: the impact of extracellular conductivity. Bioelectrochemistry 119:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ibey BL, Xiao S, Schoenbach KH, Murphy MR, Pakhomov AG (2009) Plasma membrane permeabilization by 60-and 600-ns electric pulses is determined by the absorbed dose. Bioelectromagnetics 30(2):92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ibey BL et al (2014) Bipolar nanosecond electric pulses are less efficient at electropermeabilization and killing cells than monopolar pulses. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 443(2):568–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolb JF, Kono S, Schoenbach KH (2006) Nanosecond pulsed electric field generators for the study of subcellular effects. Bioelectromagnetics 27(3):172–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kotnik T, Miklavčič D (2006) Theoretical evaluation of voltage inducement on internal membranes of biological cells exposed to electric fields. Biophys J 90(2):480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kotnik T, Mir LM, Flisar K, Puc M, Miklavčič D (2001) Cell membrane electropermeabilization by symmetrical bipolar rectangular pulses: part I. Increased efficiency of permeabilization. Bioelectrochemistry 54(1):83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Merla C, Pakhomov AG, Vernier PT (2017) Frequency spectra of induced transmembrane potential correlate with nanosecond bipolar pulse cancellation of electropermeabilization. In: 14th International Conference on Synthesis, Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Methods and Applications to Circuit Design (SMACD), 2017, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  15. Moen EK, Ibey BL, Beier HT, Armani AM (2016) Investigating membrane nanoporation induced by bipolar pulsed electric fields via second harmonic generation. Appl Phys Lett 109(11):113701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Napotnik TB, Reberšek M, Kotnik T, Lebrasseur E, Cabodevila G, Miklavčič D (2010) Electropermeabilization of endocytotic vesicles in B16 F1 mouse melanoma cells. Med Biol Eng Comput 48(5):407–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neumann E, Schaefer-Ridder M, Wang Y, Hofschneider PH (1982) Gene transfer into mouse lyoma cells by electroporation in high electric fields. EMBO J 1(7):841Google Scholar
  18. Pakhomov AG, Bowman AM, Ibey BL, Andre FM, Pakhomova ON, Schoenbach KH (2009) Lipid nanopores can form a stable, ion channel-like conduction pathway in cell membrane. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 385(2):181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pakhomov AG, Miklavcic D, Markov MS (2010) Advanced electroporation techniques in biology and medicine. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  20. Pakhomov AG et al (2014) Cancellation of cellular responses to nanoelectroporation by reversing the stimulus polarity. Cell Mol Life Sci 71(22):4431–4441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rems L, Miklavčič D (2016) Tutorial: electroporation of cells in complex materials and tissue. J Appl Phys 119(20):201101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schoenbach KH et al (2007) Bioelectric effects of intense nanosecond pulses. IEEE Trans Dielectr Electr Insul 14(5):1088–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schoenbach KH, Pakhomov AG, Semenov I, Xiao S, Pakhomova ON, Ibey BL (2015) Ion transport into cells exposed to monopolar and bipolar nanosecond pulses. Bioelectrochemistry 103:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tekle E, Astumian RD, Chock PB (1991) Electroporation by using bipolar oscillating electric field: an improved method for DNA transfection of NIH 3T3 cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 88(10):4230–4234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tolstykh GP, Tarango M, Roth CC, Ibey BL (2017) Nanosecond pulsed electric field induced dose dependent phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate signaling and intracellular electro-sensitization. Biochim Biophys Acta 1859(3):438–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vernier PT, Sun Y, Gundersen MA (2006) Nanoelectropulse-driven membrane perturbation and small molecule permeabilization. BMC Cell Biol 7(1):37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weaver JC (2000) Electroporation of cells and tissues. IEEE Trans plasma Sci 28(1):24–33MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weaver JC, Chizmadzhev YA (1996) Theory of electroporation: a review. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 41(2):135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG (outside the USA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bennett Ibey
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioeffects Division711 Human Performance Wing, Air Force Research LaboratoryFort Sam HoustonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Marie-Pierre Rols
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut de Pharmacologie et de Biologie StructuraleIPBS/CNRS UMR 5089 & University of ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations