Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioelectrochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioelechem

Predicting electroporation of cells in an inhomogeneous electric eld

based on mathematical modeling and experimental CHO-cell
permeabilization to propidium iodide determination
Janja Dermol, Damijan Miklavi
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Traka 25, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 July 2013
Received in revised form 13 March 2014
Accepted 24 March 2014
Available online 29 March 2014
Keywords:
Electroporation
Mathematical modeling
Propidium iodide
Cell density
CHO cells
Electric eld distribution

a b s t r a c t
High voltage electric pulses cause electroporation of the cell membrane. Consequently, ow of the molecules
across the membrane increases. In our study we investigated possibility to predict the percentage of the
electroporated cells in an inhomogeneous electric eld on the basis of the experimental results obtained when
cells were exposed to a homogeneous electric eld. We compared and evaluated different mathematical models
previously suggested by other authors for interpolation of the results (symmetric sigmoid, asymmetric sigmoid,
hyperbolic tangent and Gompertz curve). We investigated the density of the cells and observed that it has the
most signicant effect on the electroporation of the cells while all four of the mathematical models yielded
similar results. We were able to predict electroporation of cells exposed to an inhomogeneous electric eld
based on mathematical modeling and using mathematical formulations of electroporation probability obtained
experimentally using exposure to the homogeneous eld of the same density of cells. Models describing cell
electroporation probability can be useful for development and presentation of treatment planning for
electrochemotherapy and non-thermal irreversible electroporation.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
High voltage electric pulses affect membrane's selective permeability. According to the theory electroporation of the membrane occurs as
pores are formed in the membrane. Cell membrane thus becomes permeable for different molecules which otherwise cannot pass through
the membrane in or out of the cell [13]. Increased membrane permeability occurs in the regions of the membrane where the transmembrane voltage exceeds a certain threshold, which is characteristic of
each cell line, but also depends on pulse parameters [4,5]. If the cell is
able to recover after the exposure to electric pulses we call this reversible electroporation. If the cell cannot recover and it does not survive
electroporation we call it irreversible [6]. Electroporation is widely
used in different areasgene transfer [79], cancer treatment [1012],
biotechnology [13,14] and food processing [1517].
When predicting the electroporation of cells, for example in a tissue,
it is usually (implicitly) assumed that cells are electroporated if the induced transmembrane voltage exceeds the characteristic threshold
[18,19]. If the induced transmembrane voltage is below the characteristic threshold the cells are not electroporated. In reality the transition
from non-electroporated to reversibly and irreversibly electroporated

Corresponding author. Tel.: +386 1 4768 456.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Miklavi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2014.03.011
1567-5394/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

state is continuous. So far different mathematical models of electroporation have been proposed in the literature [2022]. With the appropriately chosen mathematical model we could predict percentage of cells
affected if a certain voltage is applied using specic electrode geometry.
In recent years electroporation based treatments have paved their
way to clinical use. Electrochemotherapy for solid cutaneous, subcutaneous tumors and metastasis [11,23], as well as for deep seated tumors
[24,25] is being used in clinics. Minimally invasive non-thermal irreversible electroporation as soft tissue ablation has also been proposed
[6] and used in animal [26] and human clinics [27]. In all these cases
treating deep seated tumors or soft tissue using minimally invasive
procedures a need for pretreatment planning was clearly established
[2830]. Until now visualization of electric eld distribution is used
as being the most important predictor of tissue permeabilization and
ablation [25,29,31,32].
There is a considerable number of studies of electroporation in dense
cell suspensions available [3336], but there are much less studies available on tissues [3739]. In these latter studies besides the density of the
cells, applied electric eld, cell line, and cells' mutual electric shielding,
the connections between the cells and their irregular shape could play
an important role as well [4]. In our present study the experiments
were performed on monolayers of cells of different densities.
When dening the duration and the voltage of the applied pulses we
model the geometry of the electrodes and of the cells as a bulk 2D tissue
layer. Electric eld (E eld) distribution is numerically calculated and

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

adequate voltage is determined [40]. Because of the complexity of the tissues and electrodes analytical calculations are usually in most cases not
possible. There is no conventional or easy way to measure E eld in vivo.
We have recently proposed a method based on current density imaging
(CDI) and magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography
(MREIT) to measure E eld in biological tissues [41,42]. However, the
most reliable or even easy way is numerical modeling which we employed.
Until now, the calculated electric eld is thresholded with two different thresholds to obtain three areasthe area where irreversible
electroporation occurs, the area where reversible electroporation occurs
and the area where electroporation does not occur. The cell response
can be approximated with a step function. Electroporation is 100% if
the applied electric eld is above the characteristic electroporation
threshold and 0% if it is below. In the same way area where irreversible
electroporation occurs can be modeled. Irreversible electroporation is
100% if the applied electric eld is above the characteristic threshold
for irreversible electroporation and 0% if it is below.
The aim of our study was to predict a percentage of electroporated
cells grown as a dense monolayer exposed to an inhomogeneous eld.
We performed experiments in a homogeneous electric eld and determined the percentage of cell electroporation for a certain applied E.
We used these results in four different mathematical models, which
interpolated and extrapolated the percentage of electroporated cells to
other values of E. We used homogeneous E for calculating parameters
of the mathematical models because it is possible to determine the
percentage of electroporated cells at a certain E. We validated the
mathematical models by exposing cells to the inhomogeneous eld
and comparing predicted and experimentally determined values of percentage of electroporation. We used the inhomogeneous electric eld
for validation because in tumors and tissues the electric eld around
the electrodes is in almost all cases inhomogeneous. The predicted
values were obtained by using the numerically calculated inhomogeneous E in mathematical models. We obtained the percentage of electroporation in the dependence on E for the area around the electrodes.
The advantage of this approach is that simple electrode geometry
congurations can be used to calculate the parameters of the mathematical models. Mathematical models predicting cell electroporation
can then be applied to arbitrary electrode geometry. This kind of mathematical relationship could allow us to present treatment plans in a
clearer and more understandable way. At the moment, the treatment
plans present the E eld applied to a certain area of a tissue/tumor.
Using this method the percentage of the electroporated area of a tissue/tumor could be shown. Eventually also the number and duration
of pulses could be taken into account [43].
The block scheme on Fig. 1 shows the procedure used in our study.
First, we exposed cells to the homogeneous eld (block 1). Based on
these results we determined the parameters of a mathematical model
of cell electroporation (block 2). We used this mathematical model
and inhomogeneous E eld distribution to predict the percentage of
electroporation (block 3). We then validated the model by exposing
cells to the inhomogeneous eld (block 4) by comparing predicted

electric field

53

and experimental values. If the results were not in good agreement,

we adjusted the mathematical model (block 2) and repeated the prediction of electroporation and the validation of the mathematical model.
2. Methods
2.1. Cell line and cell culture
A series of experiments were performed on Chinese hamster ovary
cells (CHO). Cells were grown in monolayers of different densities in
Petri dishes 40 mm in diameter (TPP, Switzerland) in 2 mL of culture
medium (Ham's Nutrient Mixtures HAM-F12, Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim,
Germany) supplemented with 10% FBS, antibiotics and L-glutamine for
2 days at 37 C and 5% CO2 (Kambi, Slovenia).
2.2. Pulse generator and pulse exposure
For the experiments electric pulse generator Cliniporator (IGEA,
Italy) was used. For each experiment one rectangular pulse in the duration of 1 ms was applied. The voltages were chosen so that the maximal
electric eld in the homogeneous eld was 1.6 kV/cm and in the inhomogeneous eld it was 2.3 kV/cm. Therefore, for the homogeneous
eld the applied voltages were between 200 V and 800 V with a step
of 200 V while for the inhomogeneous eld the applied voltages were
between 80 V and 140 V with a step of 20 V. Two different electrode
congurations were used. For the homogeneous eld two parallel Pt/Ir
wire electrodes with 0.75 mm diameter and distance between the
inner edges of the electrodes set at 5 mm [44] were positioned at the
bottom of the Petri dish (Fig. 2a). For the inhomogeneous eld we
used one needle electrode pair with diameter 0.5 mm and distance between the inner edges of the electrodes set at 1.0 mm (Fig. 2b) [45].
Cells were exposed to the electric pulses in a medium of 1 mL HAMF12 and 100 L of 1.5 mM propidium iodide (PI). PI is a non-permeant
uorescent dye, which emits strong uorescence after entering the cell
and thus allows easy determination of cell electroporation and discrimination between electroporated and non-electroporated cells by
thresholding uorescent images (see 2.3 Fluorescence microscopy).
After the exposure to an electric pulse the cells were incubated for 5
min at room temperature and then washed with HAM-F12.
2.3. Fluorescence microscopy
The cells were observed by an inverted microscope AxioVert 200
(Zeiss, Germany) under 10 magnication. In each experiment in the
homogeneous eld up to ve phase contrast and ve corresponding
uorescent images were acquired from randomly selected elds of
view between the electrodes. In the experiments in the inhomogeneous
eld four images were acquired when 80 V was applied and nine images
when more than 80 V was applied to obtain the area around the electrodes. The number of experiments and images acquired in each experiment for each E for homogeneous eld is shown in Table 1. The number

E field

3 percentage of
permeabilization

distribution

model
validation

1 cell exposed to
homogeneous E

2 mathematical
model of cell
electroporation as f(E)

cell exposed to
inhomogeneous E

Fig. 1. A block scheme showing the layout of the article. Numbers in the blocks show the temporal sequence of our study.

54

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

Table 2
Number of experiments (one petri dish and one composed image for one
experiment) in the inhomogeneous eld.
Voltage applied (V)

Number of experiments

80
100
120
140

9
12
6
8

expression with optimized parameters for each of the equations

(Eqs. (1)(4).
Fig. 2. Photos of electrodes, used in the experiments. aTwo parallel Pt/Ir wire electrodes
with 0.75 mm diameter and distance between their inner edges set at 5 mm. bOne needle Pt/Ir electrode pair with diameter 0.5 mm and distance between the inner edges of the
electrodes set at 1.0 mm.

of images used at different cell densities is also reported in Table 1. For

the inhomogeneous eld the number of experiments is reported in
Table 2. In each experiment one pair of composed images was acquired
(one uorescent and one phase-contrast image). Fluorescent and
phase-contrast images were then stacked together in Adobe Photoshop
CS5 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) to get one image of the
whole area around the electrodes (Fig. 3a,b). For acquisition we used
the VisiCam 1280 camera (Visitron, Germany) and MetaMorph PC software (Molecular Devices, USA).

2.4. Fitting of the mathematical models

First, the acquired uorescent images from experiments in the
homogeneous electric eld were thresholded and electroporated cells
were manually counted. Cells in the phase contrast images were manually counted as well. The percentage of the electroporated cells and
standard deviation were calculated. The results were classied into
three groups on the basis of the density of the cells i.e. on the number
of the cells on the phase contrast images. The rst group was the images
with less than 300 cells, second was the images with density in the
range from 300 to 600 cells and the third was the images with more
than 600 cells per image. In Fig. 4 we can see how different groups of
cell densities look like under the microscope. Fig. 4a shows a typical
example of a least dense monolayer (less than 300 cells per image),
Fig. 4b shows the typical example of a medium dense cell monolayer
(from 300 to 600 cells per image) and Fig. 4c shows the densest monolayer (more than 600 cells per image).
Different mathematical models (symmetric sigmoid (Eq. (1)), asymmetric sigmoid (Eq. (2)), Gompertz curve (Eq. (3)) and hyperbolic tangent (Eq. (4))) suggested previously by other authors [20,46,47] were
tted in Matlab (R2010a, Mathworks, USA) to the experimental data
of the percentage of electroporated cells in the homogeneous eld
using the method of non-linear least squares. We obtained an analytical

pE 1= 1 expEE50% =b 100%



pE 1 v expEE50% =b 1=v 100%

pE exp expEE50% =b 100%



pE 1 tanh B EE50% =2 100%

E50% represents the electric eld at which 50% of the cells are
electroporated and p denotes the percentage of electroporated cells in
the dependence of the applied electric eld. Parameters b and B dene
the width of the curve, e.g. how quickly the cells go from the nonelectroporated state to the electroporated state when the electric eld
is increasing. Parameter v denes the slope of the Eq. (2). E in all four
equations means the applied electric eld.
2.5. Modeling of the inhomogeneous electric eld
Numerical calculations of the distribution of the inhomogeneous
electric eld were performed in COMSOL Multiphysics (version 3.5,
COMSOL, Sweden). The model was made in the AC/DC module. The medium around the electrodes had its electrical conductivity set at 1.0 S/m
which is the conductivity of the pulsing buffer. Since the pulse duration
(1 ms) was much longer than a typical constant for polarization of the
cell membrane (around 1 s) [48] steady-state analysis was made. The
calculated distribution of the electric eld around the electrodes is
shown in Fig. 5a.
The area around the electrodes in the inhomogeneous electric eld
was divided using contours into subareas where the electric eld was
within a certain range. An example of these contours is presented in
Fig. 5b. When 80 V was applied the area was divided into 4 subareas,
when 100 V was applied the area was divided into 5 subareas and
when 120 V or 140 V was applied the area was divided into 6 subareas.
The minimal electric eld still analyzed was 0.300.39 kV/cm. The
limits of the analyzed ranges of electric eld for all of the applied voltages are presented in Table 3. Table 3 shows also the percentage of

Table 1
Number of experiments for each voltage in the applied homogeneous eld. In each experiment at least three images were acquired from randomly chosen points of view. Number of image
pairs (phase-contrast and uorescent) for each density of the cells is reported in the 3rd, 4th and 5th columns.
Applied voltage (V)

Number of experiments

Number of images (N600 cells/image)

Number of images (300600 cells/image)

Number of images (b600 cells/image)

200
300
400
500
600
700
800

6
4
8
9
6
6
8

14
4
11
6
10
9
7

10
6
8
25
8
7
22

5
3
16
20
10
6
7

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

55

size of the area between two contours. The upper and lower limits of
the area were set so that the areas between two contours were approximately the same in size. Therefore, the limits of the areas are not the
same for different voltages applied (Table 3). For each of the applied
voltages the corresponding contours (limits of the ranges of electric
eld) were superimposed to the microscopic images. An example of
contours superimposed to the uorescent image can be seen in Fig. 5c.
The maximal values from Table 3 are based on a numerical calculation
where this was the highest electric eld value achieved when corresponding voltage was applied.
For each subarea from Table 3 cells on phase contrast images and on
thresholded uorescent images (Fig. 6a) were manually counted. The
percentage of the electroporation and standard deviation in each area
were determined.
In Comsol we transformed the calculated inhomogeneous electric
eld into the predicted percentage of the electroporated cells in the
dependence on the geometry (Fig. 6b). We achieved transformation
by using the numerically calculated inhomogeneous electric eld values
(Fig. 5a) in mathematical models (Eqs. (1)(4)) with optimized coefcients to determine the predicted percentage of electroporated cells.
From the continuous distribution of the expected percentage of the
electroporated cells (Fig. 6b) we determined areas with ranges of predicted percentage of electroporated cells. These areas had the same
size and shape as the subareas of electric eld around the electrodes
(Fig. 5b). The values of the borders of these subareas were determined
empirically. We put the image of areas with ranges of predicted percentage of electroporation on top of the image with areas with ranges
of the electric eld. We determined at which values of the borders the
overlapping was complete. This allowed us to compare the predicted
percentage of electroporation and the experimentally determined percentage of electroporation in the same subarea. The comparison was
made for each of the mathematical models (Eqs. (1)(4)) with optimized coefcients.
3. Results

Fig. 3. aPhase contrast composed image from under the microscope, 10 magnication,
approximate position of the electrodes is marked with black circles, polarity of the electrodes is marked with + and signs. bComposed uorescent image from under the microscope, 10 magnication, averaged 6 images, applied one pulse of 120 V, approximate
position of the electrodes is marked with white circles, polarity of the electrodes is marked
with + and signs.

the whole analyzed area without the electrodes taken by each of

the ranges of electric eld when different voltages are applied. Up to
0.8 kV/cm the limits are the same for all the applied voltages. The closer
we get to the electrodes, the faster the electric eld is increasing. Limits
of electric eld values in the inhomogeneous eld were based on the

We rst determined the percentage of the electroporated cells exposed to a homogeneous electric eld, and determined the inuence
of the cell density by tting different mathematical models to the experimental data. Then we used the model with the best t (highest R2) to
predict cell electroporation in the inhomogeneous eld. Predicted values
were compared to experimentally determined cell permeabilization in
the inhomogeneous eld.
3.1. Cell electroporation in a homogeneous electric eld
Each of the four proposed mathematical models of electroporation
(Eqs. (1)(4)) was tted to the experimental data from all three cell
density groups, i.e. less than 300 cells per image, 300 to 600 cells per

Fig. 4. Phase contrast microscopic images with different numbers of cells. aImage belongs to the density group of under 300 cells per image. bImage belongs to the density group of 300
to 600 cells per image. cImage belongs to the density group of more than 600 cells per image.

56

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

E(appl) / (kV/cm)
b

image and more than 600 cells per image. R2 value and optimized parameters for all four mathematical models (Eqs. (1)(2)) and all three
density groups can be seen in Table 4. R2 measures how successful the
t is in explaining the variation of the data i.e. R2 is the correlation
between predicted and observed values. The parameter R2 was 0.990
or higher in all ts. Based on the experimental data which can be seen
in Fig. 7 (triangles) we can see that the percentage of electroporated
cells depends signicantly on the cell density. In Fig. 7 data is presented
only with Gompertz curvethe reason is explained later in this section.
Somewhat surprising, the mathematical models of electroporation are
not shifting to the higher values of E but are changing their slopes
with different densities of the monolayer. All of the curves start to
increase at approximately the same point (0.4 kV/cm) but reach their
plateaus at different values of the electric eld (1.2 kV/cm or more).
At lower values of the electric eld (less than 0.4 kV/cm) there was no
electroporation detected. At the middle values of the electric eld
(0.4 kV/cm1.2 kV/cm) where the curves are approximately linear,
the slopes of the tted models are different for each of the ranges of densities. When the density of the cells was lower the curve was steeper.
We can see the change in the slope in Fig. 7 where the Gompertz
curve (Eq. (3)) was tted to all three density groups.
For further analysis images with the density of the cells in the range
from 300 to 600 cells per image were chosen. In the experiments in the
inhomogeneous electric eld the actual density of the cells was higher
in some areas of the composed image (more than 600 cells per image)
but lower in the others. Therefore, 300 to 600 cells per image were
selected as an approximation for an average cell density and further
analysis was based only on density from 300 to 600 cells per image.
Fig. 8 presents the inuence of the chosen mathematical model on
the predicted percentage of electroporated cells. It seems as if there
were only two different models shown instead of four. Namely, hyperbolic tangent and symmetric sigmoid are completely overlapping and
therefore there is no visible difference on the graph. The same is true
for the Gompertz curve and asymmetric sigmoid. All the mathematical
models were used with parameters tted to data from experiments in
the homogeneous eld. From the R2 coefcients in Table 4 we can
observe that the Gompertz curve and asymmetric sigmoid when the
density of the cells is 300600 cells per image offer the best t to the experimental data of the four curves used. Although Gompertz curve and
asymmetric sigmoid are overlapping and both offer almost equally good
t to the experimental data we have chosen the Gompertz curve (Eq. (3))
for further analysis.
In Fig. 7 we can observe the inuence of the density of the monolayer, whereas in Fig. 8 we can see the inuence of the chosen mathematical model on the percentage of electroporation. Fig. 9 is based on Figs. 7
and 8, as it combines the appropriate density of the monolayer (Fig. 7)
and the best t based on the R2 value (Fig. 8). The appropriate density
is the density of the monolayer exposed to an inhomogeneous eld,
i.e. 300600 cells per image.
3.2. Cell electroporation in an inhomogeneous electric eld
On the basis of the results acquired in experiments in the homogeneous electric eld and the model of geometry of the two needle
electrodes different mathematical models of cell electroporation as a
function of electric eld (Eqs. (1)(4)) were applied to the numerically
calculated inhomogeneous electric eld.
We transformed a numerically calculated electric eld (Fig. 5a) into
the predicted percentage of the electroporated cells (Fig. 6b). In Fig. 9
Fig. 5. Distribution of the electric eld strength in the plane of cell monolayer. aContinuous
distribution of the electric eld strength when 120 V is applied. bContours which mark the
borders between different ranges of the electric eld when 120 V is applied. Range of electric
eld in a certain area is written in the corresponding area. cFluorescent microscopic composed image with superimposed contours of ranges of electric eld, one 1 ms pulse of 120
V applied.

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

57

Table 3
Ranges of E-eld vector when different voltages are applied and the size of the area in percents of the whole analyzed area without the electrodes. If a certain range is not analyzed when
that voltage is applied there is a sign in the corresponding cell. When the sum of percentages is not 100% it is so because of rounding of the numbers.
E-eld strength range (kV/cm)

80 V area (%)

100 V area (%)

120 V area (%)

140 V area (%)

0.30.4
0.40.6
0.60.8
0.81.0
0.81.5
1.01.2
1.01.6
1.22.0
1.22.3

33
47
12

30
33
19
12

29
29
16
13

28
28
15
10

10

we can see both the theoretically predicted and experimentally determined values. With the variation of the different models used for
modeling the phenomena the difference in predicted ranges was minimal. This can be seen from comparing black vertical bars (Gompertz
curve (Eq. (3)), 300 to 600 cells per image) and dark gray vertical bars
(symmetric sigmoid (Eq. (1)), 300 to 600 cells per image) in Fig. 9.
The predicted ranges of the percentage of the electroporated cells are
almost the same. The difference in ranges was maximally 4% at lower
electric eld strengths. If we compare ranges predicted by these two
curves (Eqs. (1) and (3)) based on the same density (300 to 600 cells
per image) with the light gray bars, which represent a denser monolayer (more than 600 cells per image), we can observe that the predicted
ranges are quite different at lower as well as at higher electric eld
strengths. Other combinations of the interpolation curve and the density of the cells were made as well (Table 4) but for the sake of stressing
the inuence of the density and of the mathematical model only the
Gompertz curve for 300600 and more than 600 cells per image and
symmetric sigmoid for 300600 cells per image are shown. Aside from
the symmetric sigmoid (Eq. (1)) also the hyperbolic tangent (Eq. (4))
could be shown.
4. Discussion

p(%)
Fig. 6. aThresholded uorescent microscopic image, averaged 6 images, approximate
position of the electrodes is marked with gray circles; signs + and in the circles mark
the polarity of the electrodes. bPredicted percentage of the electroporated cells (p) in
the plane of cell monolayer when 120 V is applied; transformation from the electric
eld strength to the predicted percentage is made by the Gompertz curve for densities
from 300 to 600 cells per image.

The aim of our study was to compare different mathematical models

that would allow transformation of the numerically calculated values of
the electric eld into the predicted percentage of electroporated cells.
This kind of transformation and prediction would simplify presentation
of treatment plans for electrochemotherapy and non-thermal irreversible electroporation. We upgraded the usual assumption that the percentage of the electroporated cells is 100% if the electric eld is above
the characteristic threshold and 0% if it is below [49]. Here the prediction was continuous and all the values between 0% and 100% were predicted. We investigated and compared the effects of the cell density and
of the used mathematical model (Eqs. (1)(4)). We started our study
with the model of continuous electric eld distribution presented in
Fig. 5a, transforming it into the predicted percentage of electroporated
cells as shown in Fig. 6b. In Fig. 6a we can see that the pattern of the
electroporated and non-electroporated cells is in good agreement
with the predicted shape in Fig. 6b.
If we look at Fig. 6a it appears as if there were more cells electroporated
around the positive electrode. However, the analysis of the percentages of
electroporated cells around each of the electrode (data not shown)
showed that there was no signicant difference between the percentages
around the positive and around the negative electrode.
In the course of the transformation from the electric eld strength in
the homogeneous eld to the percentage of electroporated cells in the
inhomogeneous electric eld we reached two main conclusions. The
rst one was about the changing of the slope of the mathematical
model of electroporation in the homogeneous eld and the second
one was about the choice of the mathematical model, tted to the

58

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

Table 4
Results for the goodness of the t (R2) and the curves' parameters for all of the four proposed curves for all three density groups. The t is based on the percentage of electroporated cells in
the homogenous eld. The parameters are explained in 2.4 Fitting of the mathematical models.
R-square a

Type of the curve

Parameters

b300 cells/image

300600 cells/image

N600 cells/image

b300 cells/image

300600 cells/image

N600 cells/image

Symmetric sigmoid

0.992

0.990

0.964

Asymmetric sigmoid

0.997

0.998

0.965

Gompertz curve

0.997

0.998

0.958

Hyperbolic tangent

0.992

0.990

0.964

E50% = 0.659
b = 0.1090
E50% = 0.5869
v = 5e8 (xed at bound)
b = 0.1529
E50% = 0.5869
b = 0.1529
E50% = 0.659
B = 4.587

E50% = 0.6879
b = 0.1242
E50% = 0.6061
v = 2e8 (xed at bound)
b = 0.1772
E50% = 0.6061
b = 0.1772
E50% = 0.6879
B = 4.027

E50% = 0.9231
b = 0.2353
E50% = 1.057
v = 2.557
b = 0.1494
E50% = 0.7567
b = 0.343
E50% = 0.9231
B = 0.9231

Goodness-of-t.

experimental data. In general results obtained are in good agreement

with the results found in the literature, describing experiments with
suspensions. Nevertheless, the change of the models' slopes with respect to cell density seems rather surprising and contradictory to theoretical considerations [47].
First, we will discuss the change of models' slope. Experimental observation where the slope of the model changes can be observed in [35].
There we can see that the curve of detected uorescence shifted with a
change of pulse parameters (when longer pulses were used the slope
was steeper). No curve which would show the dependence on the cell
density is shown; we can only see that with the same pulse protocol
and higher density of the suspension fewer cells are electroporated.
As it can be observed from Fig. 7, the model of electroporation did
not shift but changed its slope when monolayers of cells with different
densities were used for experiments. In previous studies it has been observed that with increasing densities of cell suspensions the base point
of the curves and the point where the curves reach their plateaus shifted
to the higher electric eld with the slope of the curve being the same
[47]. In our study one part of the observation was similarthe points
where the curves reach their plateau values shifted to the higher electric
eld values when we increased the density of the cell monolayer. On the
other hand, the base point where a minimal uorescence of the cells

was detected was the same for all of the densities. Therefore, the slope
of the curves changed.
It is known that with denser suspensions we get lower induced
transmembrane voltage due to the mutual electrical shielding
[3336]. In the monolayers the situation is the samewith denser
monolayers we get lower induced transmembrane voltage and
lower percentage of the electroporated cells. However, we should
not neglect the effect of the cells' geometry [50,51] which is deviatory from spheres and the electrical connections between the cells, e.g.
gap junctions [52]. It seems that the cell's geometry and connections
between the cells are related to the curves' slopes, which might be an
area of further research.
The standard deviation in Figs. 7 and 8 is relatively high; the reason is
counting of the cells. All means of cell counting are subjected to errors because of noise and artifacts, various cell shapes, and cells in close contact
without clear boundaries between them. Considering that we had monolayers of very high density the calculated standard deviation is within the
expected values as reported in the literature [53]. The error would be
lower if using cells in suspension; however the cells in suspension and
in tissues behave very differently. In a suspension there are no connections between the cells and they are all approximately spherical.

Applied Gompertz curve, hyperbolic tangent, symmetric sigmoid, asymmetric sigmoid

Gompertz curve applied to all three density groups

100

100
90

90

80

80

70

70

60

p/%

p/%

60
50

50
40

40
Up to 300 cells per image
300 to 600 cells per image
Above 600 cells per image
Up to 300 cells per image
300 to 600 cells per image
Above 600 cells per image

30
20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

E(appl) / (kV/cm)
Fig. 7. Percentage (p) of electroporated cells determined by propidium iodide staining in
the dependence on the applied electric eld. The Gompertz curve is tted to all three
groups of different densities of the cells. Mean experimental values from experiments,
made in the homogeneous eld are marked with triangles; vertical bar denotes one standard deviation. Black triangle and gray solid line represent density up to 300 cells per
image, hollow triangle and dotted black line represent density from 300 to 600 cells per
image, and gray triangle and dashed black line represent density above 600 cells per
image.

30

Gompertz curve
Asymmetric sigmoid
Hyperbolic tangent
Symmetric sigmoid
300 to 600 cells per image

20
10
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

E(appl) / (kV/cm)
Fig. 8. Percentage (p) of electroporated cells determined by propidium iodide staining in
dependence on the applied electric eld. Four different models of electroporation were
tted to the experimental data of the percentage of electroporated cells in the homogeneous eld. Triangles represent the mean experimental values for the percentage of
electroporated cells in the homogeneous electric eld; vertical bar denotes one standard
deviation. Black solid line represents Gompertz line, black dashed line represents asymmetric sigmoid, gray solid line represents hyperbolic tangent and gray dashed line represents symmetric sigmoid.

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

59

100
90
80
70

p/%

60
50
40
30
20
Gompertz curve, from 300 to 600 cells/image
Symmetric sigmoid, from 300 to 600 cells/image
Gompertz curve, more than 600 cells/image

10
0

9 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 0 9 9 9 0
9 9 9 9
9 9 9 9
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.9 2.3
0 .30 .30 .30 .40 .40 .40 .40 .60 .60 .60 .60 .80 .80 .80 .80 .00 .00 .00 .20 .20
3
.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
80: 100: 120: 140: 80: 100: 120: 140: 80: 100: 120: 140: 80: 100: 120: 140: 100: 120: 140: 120: 140:

U / V : E(appl) / (kV/cm)
Fig. 9. Predicted (vertical bars) and experimentally determined percentage (triangles) of the electroporation; model for a cell response made by the Gompertz curve (Eq. (3)) and symmetric sigmoid (Eq. (1)) for different densities. Three bars in one set from left to right are the Gompertz curve for densities from 300 to 600 cells per image (black bar), the symmetric
sigmoid for densities from 300 to 600 cells per image (dark gray bar) and the last bar the Gompertz curve for densities of more than 600 cells per image (light gray bar). The vertical
bar at experimentally determined values represents one standard deviation. Labels on the x-axis mean the applied voltage and the area with the corresponding electric eld range for
that applied voltage.

In the past, different mathematical models have been proposed for describing the dependence between the percentage of the electroporated
cells and the electric eld. For example, a hyperbolic tangent law for
permeabilization as a function of the electric eld has been proposed
[47]. In statistical physics the hyperbolic tangent is commonly used for
describing two-state systems, for example the polarized light. Similarly, electroporated and non-electroporated cells can also be viewed
as two states in a system and hyperbolic tangent law describes the
crossover from the non-electroporated to the electroporated state.
In [20] two different ways of describing the cell electroporation fraction have been used. The rst one was sigmoid function which is often
tted to the experimental data. The second one was a curve which derived
from a hypothetical normal distribution of cell radii. In this case the curve
was obtained from a step function (electroporation is 0% when the applied electric eld is under the threshold for electroporation and 100%
when the applied electric eld is above the threshold). Cell radius was
varied according to the normal distribution with empirically determined
values for mean cell radius and its standard deviation. Goodness-of-t between the normal distribution curve on one side and the experiments on
the other showed that experimental results were in good agreement with
the theoretically predicted values. Nevertheless, the authors could not decide which of the two curves was more appropriate.
The Gompertz curve is used for describing the systems which saturate in a long period of time, for example the growth of the tumors
[46]. The growth is slower at the beginning. Then the size starts to increase faster. The growth is limited after a certain time period when
the size of the tumor reaches a plateau value. The growth can be compared to the percentage of cell electroporation as a function of the electric eld where we obtain high percentage of cells being electroporated,
but with an increasing electric eld the increase e.g. from 97% to 100% of
electroporated cells is difcult to obtain.
Up to a certain electric eld reached there are almost no cells
electroporated. From 0.4 kV/cm to 1.0 kV/cm the percentage of the
electroporated cells quickly increases and then it reaches the plateau
value. The described logic is the reason that we proposed the Gompertz
curve for describing the electroporation of the cells. It is not necessary

that the Gompertz curve is symmetric. The asymmetry in the model is

appropriate because in reality the percentage of the electroporated
cells depends also on the cell radius, and according to the literature
the cell radii are not symmetrically distributed [20] which was also
the case in our study (data not shown).
Therefore, we can expect that the mathematical model of electroporation is asymmetric as well. This asymmetry was also the reason why
we chose the asymmetric sigmoid curve for analysis.
So far not many studies of a statistical evaluation of electroporation
are available. For evaluating the area of irreversible electroporation a
statistical model based on the PelegFermi model combined with a
numerical solution of the multidimensional electric eld equation cast
in a dimensionless form was used [21]. This model directly incorporates
the dependence of cell death on pulse number (n) and on electric eld
(E). It is expressed by Eqs. (5)(7), where S means the survival ratio and
Ec marks the intersection of the curve with the y-axis. Coefcients k1
and k2 are cell type and pulse type specic.
S 1=1 expEEc n=An


Ec n Ec0 exp k1 n


An A0 exp k2 n

5
6
7

The problem with this model is that it was not validated since it was
tested only on extrapolated data reported in the literature for prostate
cancer cell death caused by irreversible electroporation [54]. Authors
stated that real curves and parameters should be developed for each
specic tissue. Also the FermiPeleg model should be validated rst
in vitro and then in vivo.
Several microbial inactivation curves have been effectively described
by Weibull distribution. In this model parameters were dependent on
the media type and treatment parameters (electric eld and treatment
time) [22,55] but not on pulse number and pulse length like the
PelegFermi statistical model. Therefore, this model is not as interesting

60

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

for our study as the PelegFermi model. Also, in the area of microbial inactivation by pulsed electric elds many mathematical models exist [22,
56], but they all describe survival of the cells in dependence on applied
electric eld and treatment time, with treatment time most often
reported as the sum of duration of all of the applied pulses. All these
models (Weibull, PelegFermi, log-linear etc.) describe the survival
of the cells. In our study on the other hand, survival of the cells has
not been determined. Therefore, these models were not used in our
study.
In our study four mathematical models (Eqs. (1)(4)) were chosen,
used and evaluated. We achieved good agreement with all of them since
R2 was 0.990 or higher in all four cases (see Table 4); therefore, for the
analysis of the effect of the cell density on electroporation any of them
might be used. For further analysis of the effect of cell density we considered the two curves with the highest R2Gompertz curve and asymmetric sigmoid. If parameter v in the asymmetric sigmoid model
(Eq. (2)) was negative, no t could be achieved because complex values
were computed by model function. Therefore, we set a lower limit for
this parameter at 0. Although we managed to complete the tting, the
parameter v was xed at bound, which meant that the best t was not
achieved. The asymmetric sigmoid model was thus not used in the
next step of the analysis.
For the analysis of the effect of the interpolation curve on the prediction of the percentage of electroporation we used only the Gompertz
curve (Eq. (3)) and symmetric sigmoid (Eq. (1)). There was no need
to do the analysis both with hyperbolic tangent (Eq. (4)) and symmetric
sigmoid (Eq. (1)) since they can be seen as equivalent (see their overlapping in Fig. 8).
If we look at Fig. 9 we can see that under our experimental conditions the percentage of the affected cells depends more on the density
of the cells than on a type of the curve. When different curve was
used for the same density (compare dark gray bars for the symmetric
sigmoid (Eq. (1)) and black bars for the Gompertz curve (Eq. (3)) in
Fig. 9) the difference between predicted ranges was 4% at lower electric
eld strengths (0.300.39 kV/cm) and even less for the higher ones. The
reason for the 4% difference can be observed from Fig. 8. There we can
see that at lower electric eld values Eqs. (1) and (3) deviate the most
one from another.
At lower electric eld values the symmetric sigmoid overestimates
the experimental results while the Gompertz curve offers better t.
This means that the percentage predicted by the symmetric sigmoid
(Eq. (1)) is higher than the one predicted by the Gompertz curve
(Eq. (3)) which is not in very good agreement with experimental
results. But since the predicted ranges of electroporation are still quite
similar (04% for Eq. (3) and 48% for Eq. (1)) and they both underestimate experimental results we can conclude that the choice of the curve
is not of highest importance.
The reason for discrepancy at the higher electric eld could be the
fact that mathematical models for electroporation allow 100% electroporation although in reality there are always some cells which do not
respond to electric pulses and stay unaffected at least to very high
values of electric eld. This is particularly true with single pulse applied
at very high electric elds (data not shown) as was the case in our
experiments. This could be the reason why the predicted ranges in
Fig. 9 are above the experimentally measured values.
In vitro a small fraction of dead cells is always detected, which explains the deviation of experimental data at the lowest electric eld
strength from theoretical prediction by mathematical models for
electroporation.
If we look at the light gray bars at Fig. 9 (Gompertz curve (Eq. (3)) for
densities above 600 cells) per image, we can see that they do not reproduce the experimental results (triangles) properly. The mathematical
model of electroporation is underestimating the experimental results
at all of the applied electric eld strengths for at least 10%. The reason
is in the density of the cells. Prediction was made on monolayers of
more than 600 cells per image. The experiments were performed

on monolayers of less than 600 cells per image. This means that the
density of the cells is a very important factor. It must be the same
in experiments used for prediction and in experiments where we
predict the percentage of electroporated cells. The prediction offered
better agreement only at the higher values of the electric eld because the electric eld was already strong enough for all of the curves
to reach their plateau values. Therefore, we can say that the density
of the cell monolayer is very important for predicting the percentage
of electroporation.
In previously published works a strong dependence between the
cells' electroporation and the density of the cells was already shown
[33,34]. In our study we went one step further and showed that the
cell density not only has a strong inuence on the cells' electroporation
but is under our experimental conditions the most important factor
inuencing the prediction of electroporation. We eliminated the effect
of the size of the cells since the experiments in homogeneous and inhomogeneous eld were made on monolayers of similar density. Our
experiments have been performed in vitro on CHO cells. Our results
were obtained using single pulse of 1 ms duration; however we need
to establish how the parameters of curves depend on duration and
number of pulses, and different cells. In addition, there might be other
parameters besides the density of the cells which have an important inuence on the prediction of electroporation. How this translates into tissue remains to be determined; tissue level determination and validation
are still needed [38,39].

Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS)
and conducted within the scope of the Electroporation in Biology and
Medicine European Associated Laboratory (LEA-EBAM). Authors (J.D.)
would like to acknowledge doc. dr. Gorazd Pucihar and Dua Hodi
for their guidance when starting to work in cell laboratory. Experimental work was performed in the infrastructure center Cellular Electrical
Engineering.

References
[1] E. Neumann, K. Rosenheck, Permeability changes induced by electric impulses in
vesicular membranes, J. Membr. Biol. 10 (1972) 279290.
[2] T. Kotnik, P. Kramar, G. Pucihar, D. Miklavi, M. Tarek, Cell membrane electroporationPart 1: the phenomenon, Electr. Insul. Mag. 28 (2012) 1423.
[3] T.Y. Tsong, Electroporation of cell membranes, Biophys. J. 60 (1991) 297306.
[4] T. Kotnik, G. Pucihar, D. Miklavi, Induced transmembrane voltage and its correlation with electroporation-mediated molecular transport, J. Membr. Biol. 236 (2010)
313.
[5] M. emaar, T. Jarm, D. Miklavi, A. Maek Lebar, A. Ihan, N.A. Kopitar, et al., Effect
of electric-eld intensity on electropermeabilization and electrosensitivity of various
tumor-cell lines in vitro, Electro- Magnetobiol. 17 (1998) 263272.
[6] B. Rubinsky, G. Onik, P. Mikus, Irreversible electroporation: a new ablation modality
clinical implications, Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 6 (2007).
[7] E. Neumann, M. Schaefer-Ridder, Y. Wang, P.H. Hofschneider, Gene transfer into
mouse lyoma cells by electroporation in high electric elds, EMBO J. 1 (1982)
841845.
[8] L.C. Heller, R. Heller, Electroporation gene therapy preclinical and clinical trials for
melanoma, Curr. Gene Ther. 10 (2010) 312317.
[9] A.I. Daud, R.C. DeConti, S. Andrews, P. Urbas, A.I. Riker, V.K. Sondak, et al., Phase I
trial of interleukin-12 plasmid electroporation in patients with metastatic melanoma, J. Clin. Oncol. 26 (2008) 58965903.
[10] L.M. Mir, Therapeutic perspectives of in vivo cell electropermeabilization,
Bioelectrochemistry 53 (2001) 110.
[11] B. Mali, T. Jarm, M. Snoj, G. Sera, D. Miklavi, Antitumor effectiveness of
electrochemo-therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Eur. J. Surg. Oncol.
39 (2013) 416.
[12] D. Miklavi, G. Sera, E. Brecelj, J. Gehl, D. Soden, G. Bianchi, et al.,
Electrochemotherapy: technological advancements for efcient electroporationbased treatment of internal tumors, Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 50 (2012) 12131225.
[13] J. Teissi, N. Eynard, M.-C. Vernhes, A. Bnichou, V. Ganeva, B. Galutzov, et al., Recent biotechnological developments of electropulsation. A prospective review,
Bioelectrochemistry 55 (2002) 107112.
[14] S. Haberl, M. Jarc, A. trancar, M. Peterka, D. Hodi, D. Miklavi, Comparison of
alkaline lysis with electroextraction and optimization of electric pulses to extract
plasmid DNA from Escherichia coli, J. Membr. Biol. 246 (11) (2013) 861867.

J. Dermol, D. Miklavi / Bioelectrochemistry 100 (2014) 5261

[15] H.L.M. Lelieved, S. Notermans, S.W.H. de Haan, Food Preservation by Pulsed Electric
Fields: From Research to Application, World Publishing Limited, Cambridge,
England, 2007.
[16] S. Schilling, S. Schmid, H. Jaeger, M. Ludwig, H. Dietrich, S. Toep, et al., Comparative
study of pulsed electric eld and thermal processing of apple juice with particular
consideration of juice quality and enzyme deactivation, J. Agric. Food Chem. 56
(2008) 45454554.
[17] S. Haberl, D. Miklavi, G. Sera, W. Frey, B. Rubinsky, Cell membrane electroporationPart 2: the applications, IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 29 (2013) 2937.
[18] E. Tekle, R.D. Astumian, P.B. Chock, Electro-permeabilization of cell membranes:
effect of the resting membrane potential, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 172
(1990) 282287.
[19] J. Teissi, M.-P. Rols, An experimental evaluation of the critical potential difference
inducing cell membrane electropermeabilization, Biophys. J. 65 (1993) 409413.
[20] M. Puc, T. Kotnik, L.M. Mir, D. Miklavi, Quantitative model of small molecules uptake after in vitro cell electropermeabilization, Bioelectrochemistry 60 (2003) 110.
[21] A. Goldberg, B. Rubinsky, A statistical model for multidimensional irreversible electroporation cell death in tissue, Biomed. Eng. OnLine 9 (2010).
[22] M.F. San Martn, D.R. Seplveda, B. Altunakar, M.M. Gngora-Nieto, B.G. Swanson, G.
V. Barbosa-Cnovas, Evaluation of selected mathematical models to predict the inactivation of Listeria innocua by pulsed electric elds, LWT 40 (2007) 12711279.
[23] B. Mali, D. Miklavi, L.G. Campana, M. emaar, G. Sera, M. Snoj, et al., Tumor size
and effectiveness of electrochemotherapy, Radiol. Oncol. 47 (2013) 3241.
[24] I. Edhemovic, E.M. Gadzijev, E. Brecelj, D. Miklavi, B. Kos, A. upani, et al.,
Electrochemotherapy: a new technological approach in treatment of metastases
in the liver, Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 10 (2011) 475485.
[25] F. Mahmood, J. Gehl, Optimizing clinical performance and geometrical robustness of
a new electrode device for intracranial tumor electroporation, Bioelectrochemistry
81 (2011) 1016.
[26] R.E. Neal, J.H. Rossmeisl, P.A. Garcia, O.I. Lanz, N. Henao-Guerrero, R.V. Davalos, Successful treatment of a large soft tissue sarcoma with irreversible electroporation, J.
Clin. Oncol. 29 (2011) e372e377.
[27] G. Onik, B. Rubinsky, Irreversible electroporation: rst patient experience focal therapy of prostate cancer, in: B. Rubinsky (Ed.), Irreversible Electroporation, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 235247.
[28] D. Miklavcic, M. Snoj, A. Zupanic, B. Kos, M. Cemazar, M. Kropivnik, et al., Towards treatment planning and treatment of deep-seated solid tumors by electrochemotherapy,
Biomed. Eng. OnLine 9 (2010) 10.
[29] D. Pavliha, B. Kos, A. upani, M. Maran, G. Sera, D. Miklavi, Patient-specic
treatment planning of electrochemotherapy: procedure design and possible pitfalls,
Bioelectrochemistry 87 (2012) 265273.
[30] P.A. Garcia, J.H. Rossmeisl, R.E. Neal, T.L. Ellis, R.V. Davalos, A parametric study
delineating irreversible electroporation from thermal damage based on a minimally
invasive intracranial procedure, Biomed. Eng. OnLine 10 (2011) 34.
[31] A. upani, B. Kos, D. Miklavi, Treatment planning of electroporation-based
medical interventions: electrochemotherapy, gene electrotransfer and irreversible
electroporation, Phys. Med. Biol. 57 (2012) 54255440.
[32] A. upani, D. Miklavi, Tissue heating during tumor ablation with irreversible electroporation, Elektroteh. Vestn. 78 (2011) 4247.
[33] M. Pavlin, N. Pavelj, D. Miklavi, Dependence of induced transmembrane potential
on cell density, arrangement, and cell position inside a cell system, IEEE Trans.
Biomed. Eng. 49 (2002) 605612.
[34] R. Susil, D. emrov, D. Miklavi, Electric eld induced transmembrane potential depends on cell density and organization, Electro- Magnetobiol. 17 (1998) 391399.
[35] G. Pucihar, T. Kotnik, J. Teissi, D. Miklavi, Electropermeabilization of dense cell
suspensions, Eur. Biophys. J. 36 (2007) 172185.
[36] M. Pavlin, D. Miklavi, The effective conductivity and the induced transmembrane
potential in dense cell systems exposed to DC and AC electric elds, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 37 (2009).

61

[37] D. Miklavi, D. emrov, H. Mekid, L.M. Mir, A validated model of in vivo electric
eld distribution in tissues for electrochemotherapy and for DNA electrotransfer
for gene therapy, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1523 (2000) 7383.
[38] Z. Qin, J. Jiang, G. Long, B. Lindgren, J.C. Bischof, Irreversible electroporation: an
in vivo study with dorsal skin fold chamber, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 41 (2013)
619629.
[39] R.E. Neal, J.L. Millar, H. Kavnoudias, P. Royce, F. Rosenfeldt, A. Pham, et al., In vivo
characterization and numerical simulation of prostate properties for non-thermal
irreversible electroporation ablation: characterized and simulated prostate IRE,
Prostate 74 (5) (2014) 458468.
[40] N. Pavelj, D. Miklavi, Numerical modeling in electroporation-based biomedical
applications, Radiol. Oncol. 42 (2008) 159168.
[41] M. Kranjc, F. Bajd, I. Sersa, D. Miklavcic, Magnetic resonance electrical impedance tomography for monitoring electric eld distribution during tissue electroporation,
IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 30 (2011) 17711778.
[42] M. Kranjc, F. Bajd, I. Sersa, E.J. Woo, D. Miklavcic, Ex vivo and in silico feasibility
study of monitoring electric eld distribution in tissue during electroporation
based treatments, PLoS One 7 (2012) e45737.
[43] G. Pucihar, J. Krmelj, M. Reberek, T. Napotnik, D. Miklavi, Equivalent pulse parameters for electroporation, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58 (2011) 32793288.
[44] S. Mazres, D. el, M. Golzio, G. Pucihar, Y. Tamzali, D. Miklavi, et al., Non invasive
contact electrodes for in vivo localized cutaneous electropulsation and associated
drug and nucleic acid delivery, J. Controlled Release (2009) 125131.
[45] M. Golzio, J. Teissi, Direct assay of electropermeabilization in a 2D pseudo tissue,
Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 12 (2010) 14670.
[46] A.K. Laird, Dynamics of tumour growth, Br. J. Cancer 18 (1964) 490502.
[47] M. Essone Mezeme, G. Pucihar, M. Pavlin, C. Brosseau, D. Miklavi, A numerical
analysis of multicellular environment for modeling tissue electroporation, Appl.
Phys. Lett. 100 (2012) 143701.
[48] C. Polk, E. Postow, Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, 2nd ed.
CRC Press, Florida, 2000.
[49] B. Kos, A. upani, T. Kotnik, M. Snoj, G. Sera, D. Miklavi, Robustness of treatment
planning for electrochemotherapy of deep-seated tumors, J. Membr. Biol. 236
(2010) 147153.
[50] L. Towhidi, T. Kotnik, G. Pucihar, S.M.P. Firoozabadi, H. Mozdarani, D. Miklavi, Variability of the minimal transmembrane voltage resulting in detectable membrane
electroporation, Electromagn. Biol. Med. 27 (2008) 372385.
[51] B. Vali, M. Golzio, M. Pavlin, A. Schatz, C. Faurie, B. Gabriel, et al., Effect of electric
eld induced transmembrane potential on spheroidal cells: theory and experiment,
Eur. Biophys. J. (2003) 519528.
[52] G. Pucihar, D. Miklavi, The inuence of intracellular connections on the electric
eld induced membrane voltage and electroporation of cells in clusters, in: O.
Dssel, W.C. Schlegel (Eds.), World Congr. Med. Phys. Biomed. Eng. Sept. 712
2009 Munich Ger, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 7477.
[53] M. Usaj, D. Torkar, M. Kanduser, D. Miklavcic, Cell counting tool parameters optimization approach for electroporation efciency determination of attached cells
in phase contrast images: cell counting tool parameters optimization approach, J.
Microsc. 241 (2011) 303314.
[54] P.J. Canatella, J.F. Karr, J.A. Petros, M.R. Prausnitz, Quantitative study of electroporationmediated molecular uptake and cell viability, Biophys. J. 80 (2001) 755764.
[55] I. lvarez, J. Raso, F.J. Sala, S. Condn, Inactivation of Yersinia enterocolitica by pulsed
electric elds, Food Microbiol. 20 (2003) 691700.
[56] I. lvarez, R. Virto, J. Raso, S. Condn, Comparing predicting models for the Escherichia
coli inactivation by pulsed electric elds, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 4 (2003)
195202.