Electrode Assemblies Used for Electroporation of Cultured Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electroporation was initially developed for the introduction of DNA into cells which grow in suspension and was performed in a cuvette with two flat electrodes on opposite sides. Different configurations were subsequently developed for the electroporation of adherent cells in situ, while the cells were growing on nonconductive surfaces or a gold-coated, conductive support. We developed an assembly where the cells grow and are electroporated on optically transparent, electrically conductive indium-tin oxide (ITO). This material promotes excellent cell adhesion and growth, is inert and durable, and does not display spontaneous fluorescence, making the examination of the electroporated cells by fluorescence microscopy possible. The molecules to be electroporated are added to the cells and introduced through an electrical pulse delivered by an electrode placed on top of the cells. We describe several electrode and slide configurations which allow the electroporation of large numbers of cells for large-scale biochemical experiments or for the detection of changes in cell morphology and biochemical properties in situ, with control, nonelectroporated cells growing on the same type of ITO-coated surface, side by side with the electroporated ones. In a modified version, this technique can be adapted for the study of intercellular, junctional communication; the pulse is applied in the presence of a fluorescent dye, such as lucifer yellow, causing its penetration into the cells growing on the conductive half of the slide, and the migration of the dye to the nonelectroporated cells growing on the nonconductive area is microscopically observed under fluorescence illumination. An assembly is also described for the electroporation of sensitive cells without the use of an upper electrode.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".