Direct current (DC) electrical stimulation has been shown to have remarkable effects on regulating cell behaviors. Translation of this technology to clinical uses, however, has to overcome several obstacles, including Joule heat production, changes in pH and ion concentration, and electrode products that are detrimental to cells. Application of DC voltages in thick tissues where their thickness is >0.8 mm caused significant changes in temperature, pH, and ion concentrations. In this study, we developed a multifield and -chamber electrotaxis chip, and various stimulation schemes to determine effective and safe stimulation strategies to guide the migration of human vascular endothelial cells. The electrotaxis chip with a chamber thickness of 1 mm allows 10 voltages applied in one experiment. DC electric fields caused detrimental effects on cells in a 1 mm chamber that mimicking 3D tissue with a decrease in cell migration speed and an increase in necrosis and apoptosis. Using the chip, we were able to select optimal stimulation schemes that were effective in guiding cells with minimal detrimental effects. This experimental system can be used to determine optimal electrical stimulation schemes for cell migration, survival with minimal detrimental effects on cells, which will facilitate to bring electrical stimulation for in vivo use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ZhaoZ, WattC, KarystinouA, et al.Directed migration of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells in a physiological direct current electric field. Eur Cells Mat, 2011; 22:344–358.
2.
HuangCW, ChengJY, YenMH, et al.Electrotaxis of lung cancer cells in a multiple-electric-field chip. Biosen Bioelectron, 2009; 24:3510–3516.
3.
SongS, HanH, KoUH, et al.Collaborative effects of electric field and fluid shear stress on fibroblast migration. Lab on a Chip, 2013; 13:1602–1611.
4.
WuD, MaX, LinF. DC electric fields direct breast cancer cell migration, induce EGFR polarization, and increase the intracellular level of calcium ions. Cell Biochem Biophy, 2013; 67:1115–1125.
5.
LiY, WeissM, YaoL. Directed migration of embryonic stem cell-derived neural cells in an applied electric field. Stem Cell Reviews, 2014; 10:653–662.
6.
McCaigCD, RajnicekAM, SongB, et al.Controlling cell behavior electrically: Current views and future potential. Physiol Rev, 2005; 85:943–978.
7.
PullarCE, BaierBS, KariyaY, et al.Beta4 integrin and epidermal growth factor coordinately regulate electric field-mediated directional migration via Rac1. Mol Biol Cell, 2006; 17:4925–4935.
8.
MycielskaME, DjamgozMB. Cellular mechanisms of direct-current electric field effects: Galvanotaxis and metastatic disease. J Cell Sci, 2004; 117:1631–1639.
9.
MartinP. Wound healing—aiming for perfect skin regeneration. Science, 1997; 276:75–81.
10.
KuppermanE, AnS, OsborneN, et al.A sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor regulates cell migration during vertebrate heart development. Nature, 2000; 406:192–195.
11.
ZhaoM, SongB, PuJ, et al.Electrical signals control wound healing through phosphatidylinositol-3-OH kinase-gamma and PTEN. Nature, 2006; 442:457–460.
12.
Granero-MoltoF, WeisJA, MigaMI, et al.Regenerative effects of transplanted mesenchymal stem cells in fracture healing. Stem Cells, 2009; 27:1887–1898.
13.
ShapiroS, BorgensR, PascuzziR, et al.Oscillating field stimulation for complete spinal cord injury in humans: A phase 1 trial. J Neurosurg Spine, 2005; 2:3–10.
14.
PanL, CirilloJ, BorgensRB. Neuronal responses to an asymmetrical alternating current field can mimic those produced by an imposed direct current field in vitro. J Neurosci Res, 2012; 90:1522–1532.
15.
SongB, GuY, PuJ, et al.Application of direct current electric fields to cells and tissues in vitro and modulation of wound electric field in vivo. Nat Protoc, 2007; 2:1479–1489.
16.
BardosDC, ThompsonCJ, YangYS, et al.Nonlinear cell response to strong electric fields. Phy Med Biol, 2000; 45:1965–1988.
17.
GrantPF, LoweryMM. Electric field distribution in a finite-volume head model of deep brain stimulation. Med Eng Phy, 2009; 31:1095–1103.
18.
EricksonCA, NuccitelliR. Embryonic fibroblast motility and orientation can be influenced by physiological electric fields. J Cell Biol, 1984; 98:296–307.
19.
NuccitelliR, EricksonCA. Embryonic cell motility can be guided by physiological electric fields. Exp Cell Res, 1983; 147:195–201.
20.
GrahamDM, HuangL, RobinsonKR, et al.Epidermal keratinocyte polarity and motility require Ca(2)(+) influx through TRPV1. J Cell Science, 2013; 126:4602–4613.
21.
CarmelietP, DorY, HerbertJM, et al.Role of HIF-1alpha in hypoxia-mediated apoptosis, cell proliferation and tumour angiogenesis. Nature, 1998; 394:485–490.
22.
KuhnertF, MancusoMR, ShamlooA, et al.Essential regulation of CNS angiogenesis by the orphan G protein-coupled receptor GPR124. Science, 2010; 330:985–989.
23.
ZhaoZ, WalczyskoP, ZhaoM. Intracellular Ca2+ stores are essential for injury induced Ca2+ signaling and re-endothelialization. J Cell Physiol, 2008; 214:595–603.
24.
ChangPC, SulikGI, SoongHK, et al.Galvanotropic and galvanotaxic responses of corneal endothelial cells. J Formosan Med Assoc = Taiwan yi zhi, 1996; 95:623–627.
25.
LiX, KolegaJ. Effects of direct current electric fields on cell migration and actin filament distribution in bovine vascular endothelial cells. J Vasc Res, 2002; 39:391–404.
26.
ZhaoS, ZhuK, ZhangY, et al.ElectroTaxis-on-a-Chip (ETC): An integrated quantitative high-throughput screening platform for electrical field-directed cell migration. Lab on a Chip, 2014; 14:4398–4405.
27.
ZhaoZ, QinL, ReidB, et al.Directing migration of endothelial progenitor cells with applied DC electric fields. Stem Cell Res, 2012; 8:38–48.
28.
MiyagiA, ChipotC, RanglM, et al.High-speed atomic force microscopy shows that annexin V stabilizes membranes on the second timescale. Nat Nanotechnol, 2016; 11:783–790.
29.
ZhaoM, BaiH, WangE, et al.Electrical stimulation directly induces pre-angiogenic responses in vascular endothelial cells by signaling through VEGF receptors. J Cell Sci, 2004; 117:397–405.
30.
ZhangJ, CalafioreM, ZengQ, et al.Electrically guiding migration of human induced pluripotent stem cells. Stem Cell Rev Rep, 2011; 7:987–996.
31.
FengJF, LiuJ, ZhangXZ, et al.Guided migration of neural stem cells derived from human embryonic stem cells by an electric field. Stem Cells, 2012; 30:349–355.
32.
LinF, BaldessariF, GyengeCC, et al.Lymphocyte electrotaxis in vitro and in vivo. J Immunol, 2008; 181:2465–2471.
33.
WangE, ZhaoM, ForresterJV, et al.Bi-directional migration of lens epithelial cells in a physiological electrical field. Exp Eye Res, 2003; 76:29–37.
34.
BaiH, McCaigCD, ForresterJV, et al.DC electric fields induce distinct preangiogenic responses in microvascular and macrovascular cells. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, 2004; 24:1234–1239.
35.
SunY, DoH, GaoJ, et al.Keratocyte fragments and cells utilize competing pathways to move in opposite directions in an electric field. Curr Biol, 2013; 23:569–574.
36.
SatoMJ, KuwayamaH, van EgmondWN, et al.Switching direction in electric-signal-induced cell migration by cyclic guanosine monophosphate and phosphatidylinositol signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009; 106:6667–6672.
37.
ZhuK, SunY, MiuA, et al.cAMP and cGMP play an essential role in galvanotaxis of cell fragments. J Cell Physiol, 2016; 231:1291–1300.
38.
ZhuK, TakadaY, NakajimaK, et al.Expression of integrins to control migration direction of electrotaxis. FASEB J, 2019; 33:9131–9141.
39.
SunY, ReidB, FerreiraF, et al.Infection-generated electric field in gut epithelium drives bidirectional migration of macrophages. PLoS Biol, 2019; 17:e3000044.
40.
LiY, GuY, WangH, et al.Electric pulses can influence galvanotaxis of dictyostelium discoideum. Biomed Res Int, 2018; 2018:2534625.
41.
RenX, SunH, LiuJ, et al.Keratinocyte electrotaxis induced by physiological pulsed direct current electric fields. Bioelectrochemistry, 2019; 127:113–124.
42.
TongJ, RezaiP, SalamS, et al.Microfluidic-based electrotaxis for on-demand quantitative analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans' locomotion. J Vis Exp, 2013:e50226.
43.
RezaiP, SalamS, SelvaganapathyPR, et al.Effect of pulse direct current signals on electrotactic movement of nematodes Caenorhabditis elegans and Caenorhabditis briggsae. Biomicrofluidics, 2011; 5:44116–441169.
44.
KlothLC. Electrical Stimulation Technologies for Wound Healing. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle), 2014; 3:81–90.
45.
EnnisWJ, LeeC, GelladaK, et al.Advanced technologies to improve wound healing: electrical stimulation, vibration therapy, and ultrasound-what is the evidence?. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2016; 138:94S–104S.
46.
Wolf-GoldbergT, BarbulA, Ben-DovN, et al.Low electric fields induce ligand-independent activation of EGF receptor and ERK via electrochemical elevation of H(+) and ROS concentrations. Biochim Biophy Acta, 2013; 1833:1396–1408.
47.
SwiontekT, MaimanD, SancesA Jr., et al.Effect of electrical current on temperature and pH in cerebellum and spinal cord. Surg Neurol, 1980; 14:365–369.
48.
PakhomovaON, KhorokhorinaVA, BowmanAM, et al.Oxidative effects of nanosecond pulsed electric field exposure in cells and cell-free media. Arch Biochem Biophy, 2012; 527:55–64.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
