ArticleExperimental physiology2025
In vitro muscle contraction: A technical review on electrical pulse stimulation in C2C12 cells.
Article in Experimental physiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cooperative Lactate Capture from Water Using Functionalized Zirconium-Based Frameworks.Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids · 2026Article
- New perspectives on the physiological basis of muscle loss.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
- In vitro muscle contraction: A technical review on electrical pulse stimulation in C2C12 cells.Experimental physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical pulse stimulation (EPS) of skeletal muscle cells is increasingly used to model exercise In vitro. The murine C2C12 myotube system has become a common platform for such studies, yet wide variability in EPS protocols hampers reproducibility and cross-study comparisons. In this technical review, we analysed 54 peer-reviewed studies that employed EPS in C2C12 and extracted used EPS protocols to provide an overview of the most commonly used settings for the EPS parameters (pulse duration, frequency, voltage and stimulation duration). Additionally, we summarized the biological processes investigated in these studies to illustrate the range of research topics typically addressed using this model. The majority of studies used 2 ms pulses at 1 Hz and moderate voltages (10-20 V), often over 24 h of stimulation. Glucose uptake was the most commonly assessed endpoint, followed by AMPK activation, inflammation and mitochondrial adaptations. Correlation analyses revealed interdependence between pulse duration, voltage and EPS duration, indicating that these parameters are often balanced to avoid excessive or suboptimal stimulation. While frequency was largely standardized, voltage and pulse duration showed greater variation. Our findings underscore the need for more detailed parameter reporting and deliberate protocol design aligned with specific experimental objectives, such as mimicking endurance- or resistance-type exercise stimuli. This review serves as a resource for selecting EPS parameters tailored to specific biological processes and encourages standardization to improve translational relevance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.