Advertisement

Assessment of Electroporation by Electrical Impedance Methods

  • Quim Castellví
  • Borja Mercadal
  • Antoni Ivorra
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Electroporation causes an immediate increase in cell membrane permeability that results in membrane conductivity increase, which has an effect in the measured impedance of the cell suspension or the tissue. Therefore, impedance measurements offer the possibility to perform real-time assessment of the electroporation phenomenon in a minimally invasive fashion. Nevertheless, impedance measurements in biological organisms depend on many factors and other processes besides the membrane permeabilization. This lack of specificity can be an important drawback for using impedance measurements as an electroporation measure. An equivalent electrical model of cell suspensions and tissues is commonly employed to better understand how the different processes that take place during electroporation can affect the measured impedance of a sample. This chapter briefly overviews the information that can be extracted from impedance measurements during and after the application of electroporation pulses. These measurements have been widely used to observe and analyze the dynamics of the phenomenon. Impedance has the potential to be used as a tool to assess electroporation effectiveness of treatment. A significant conclusion from the experimental studies on the topic is that conductivity measured shortly after treatment appears to be correlated with electroporation effectiveness in terms of cell membrane permeabilization. That is, it has the potential to be used as an electroporation effectiveness indicator. On the other hand, dynamic conductivity during the electroporation pulses, which is much easier to be measured, does not seem to be correlated with electroporation effectiveness.

Keywords

Electroporation Bioimpedance Electrical impedance Membrane conductivity Electroporation assessment Real-time monitoring 

References

  1. Abidor IG, Li LH, Hui SW (1994) Studies of cell pellets: II. Osmotic properties, electroporation, and related phenomena: membrane interactions. Biophys J 67:427–435. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(94)80498-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benz R, Zimmermann U (1981) The resealing process of lipid bilayers after reversible electrical breakdown. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 640:169–178. doi:10.1016/0005-2736(81)90542-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cole KS (1968) Membranes, ions, and impulses: a chapter of classical biophysics. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  4. Corovic S, Lackovic I, Sustaric P et al (2013) Modeling of electric field distribution in tissues during electroporation. Biomed Eng Online 12:16. doi:10.1186/1475-925X-12-16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cukjati D, Batiuskaite D, André F et al (2007) Real time electroporation control for accurate and safe in vivo non-viral gene therapy. Bioelectrochemistry 70:501–507. doi:10.1016/j.bioelechem.2006.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fricke H (1925) A mathematical treatment of the electric conductivity and capacity of disperse systems ii. The capacity of a suspension of conducting spheroids surrounded by a non-conducting membrane for a current of low frequency. Phys Rev 26:678–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. García-Sánchez T, Azan A, Leray I et al (2015) Interpulse multifrequency electrical impedance measurements during electroporation of adherent differentiated myotubes. Bioelectrochemistry 105:123–135. doi:10.1016/j.bioelechem.2015.05.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Granot Y, Ivorra A, Maor E, Rubinsky B (2009) In vivo imaging of irreversible electroporation by means of electrical impedance tomography. Phys Med Biol 54:4927–4943. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/16/006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grimnes S, Martinsen ØG (2000) Bioimpedance and bioelectricity basics. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  10. Hibino M, Itoh H, Kinosita K (1993) Time courses of cell electroporation as revealed by submicrosecond imaging of transmembrane potential. Biophys J 64:1789–1800. doi:10.1016/S0006-3495(93)81550-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ivorra A, Rubinsky B (2007) In vivo electrical impedance measurements during and after electroporation of rat liver. Bioelectrochemistry 70:287–295. doi:10.1016/j.bioelechem.2006.10.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ivorra A, Miller L, Rubinsky B (2007) Electrical impedance measurements during electroporation of rat liver and muscle. p 130–133Google Scholar
  13. Ivorra A, Al-Sakere B, Rubinsky B, Mir LM (2009) In vivo electrical conductivity measurements during and after tumor electroporation: conductivity changes reflect the treatment outcome. Phys Med Biol 54:5949–5963. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/54/19/019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kinosita K, Tsong TY (1979) Voltage-induced conductance in human erythrocyte membranes. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 554:479–497. doi:10.1016/0005-2736(79)90386-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Markx GH, Davey CL, Kell DB (1991) To what extent is the magnitude of the cole – cole α of the β-dielectric dispersion of cell suspensions explicable in terms of the cell size distribution? J Electroanal Chem Interfacial Electrochem 320:195–211. doi:10.1016/0022-0728(91)85627-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neal RE, Garcia PA, Robertson JL, Davalos RV (2012) Experimental characterization and numerical modeling of tissue electrical conductivity during pulsed electric fields for irreversible electroporation treatment planning. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 59:1076–1085. doi:10.1109/TBME.2012.2182994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pakhomov AG, Kolb JF, White JA et al (2007) Long-lasting plasma membrane permeabilization in mammalian cells by nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field (nsPEF). Bioelectromagnetics 28:655–663. doi:10.1002/bem.20354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pavlin M, Kandušer M, Reberšek M et al (2005) Effect of cell electroporation on the conductivity of a cell suspension. Biophys J 88:4378–4390. doi:10.1529/biophysj.104.048975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pavselj N, Bregar Z, Cukjati D et al (2005) The course of tissue permeabilization studied on a mathematical model of a subcutaneous tumor in small animals. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52:1373–1381. doi:10.1109/TBME.2005.851524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pliquett U (2010) Bioimpedance: a review for food processing. Food Eng Rev 2:74–94. doi:10.1007/s12393-010-9019-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pliquett U, Langer R, Weaver JC (1995) Changes in the passive electrical properties of human stratum corneum due to electroporation. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1239:111–121. doi:10.1016/0005-2736(95)00139-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pliquett U, Gersing E, Pliquett F (2000) Evaluation of fast time-domain based impedance measurements on biological tissue. Biomed Tech (Berl) 45:6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sel D, Cukjati D, Batiuskaite D et al (2005) Sequential finite element model of tissue electropermeabilization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 52:816–827. doi:10.1109/TBME.2005.845212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silve A, Guimerà Brunet A, Al-Sakere B et al (2014) Comparison of the effects of the repetition rate between microsecond and nanosecond pulses: electropermeabilization-induced electro-desensitization? Biochim Biophys Acta Gen Subj 1840:2139–2151. doi:10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.02.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stämpfli R (1958) Reversible electrical breakdown of the excitable membrane of a ranvier node. An Acad Bras Cienc 30:57–63Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Quim Castellví
    • 1
  • Borja Mercadal
    • 1
  • Antoni Ivorra
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Information and Communication TechnologiesUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Serra Húnter ProgramUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations