FOREIGN GENE TRANSFER METHOD BY ELECTROPORATION TECHNIQUE

Information

  • Patent Application
  • 20130122592
  • Publication Number
    20130122592
  • Date Filed
    January 12, 2011
    13 years ago
  • Date Published
    May 16, 2013
    11 years ago
Abstract
Provided is a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, which is applicable to a wide range of animal cells and is extremely remarkably improved in viability and gene transferring rate. Also provided is a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique with high viability and gene transferring rate even in the case where no specialized transferring buffer is used. Also provided are: a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, which is remarkably improved in viability and gene transferring rate, the method including continuously applying, to an animal cell, a first electric pulse (strong electric pulse) and a second electric pulse (weak electric pulse) under specific conditions; and a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, in which a liquid medium capable of being used for culturing of the animal cell is used as a transferring buffer.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, and more particularly, to a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, which is remarkably improved in viability and gene transferring rate, the method including continuously applying, to an animal cell, a first electric pulse (strong electric pulse) and a second electric pulse (weak electric pulse) under specific conditions.


BACKGROUND ART

The gene transferring method is classified into two methods, the virus vector method and the non-virus vector method. As the non-virus vector method for transferring an extraneous gene into animal cells of fertilized egg, blood corpuscle, skin, muscle, internal organs, etc., there are various methods such as the microinjection method, the particle gun method, the hydrodynamic method, the sonoporation method and the electroporation method. And as the method for transferring an extraneous gene into suspension (culture) cells (cells suspended in the solution), there are the lipofection method, the sonoporation method and the electroporation method. In addition, as the method for transferring an extraneous gene into adherent cells (cells adhered to petri dish, well plate, etc.), there are the lipofection method, the phosphoric acid method, the DAEA dextran method, and the microinjection method.


Among the above methods, the electroporation method is a method to make temporally a micro hole in the cell membrane by applying a high voltage electric pulse so that the extraneous DNA such as plasmid can pass through the hole and be taken in the cells. This method is highly evaluated as the most advantageous and productive gene transferring method among the others from various view points. This method has various advantageous features such as wide applicability to various living things including plants, high gene transferring rate, excellent reproducibility, easier operation, no need to use special reagents, and possibility to treat many cells at the same time.


The electroporation technique is more effective gene transferring method comparing to the method such as the phosphoric acid method, although the gene transferring rate of the electroporation technique is still lower and not sufficient. Depending on the kind of cells, the electroporation technique achieves only extremely lower transferring rate.


In the conventional electroporation technique, one time of the electric pulse delivered from the exponential output device, or one or more times of electric pulses (at fixed constant higher voltage) delivered from the square pulse type electric pulse outputting device is applied for gene transferring.


In the case of applying one time of the electric pulse delivered from the exponential output device, it is inevitably needed to apply so strong electric pulse that might kill at least 50% of the cells. And its gene transferring rate remains very low, only 1-10% of the survived cells, even only 30% in the best case. Further, in the case of the square pulse type electric pulse outputting device, it is needed to apply the strong electric pulse that might kill at least 20% of the cells. And its gene transferring rate remains very low, only 1-15% of the survived cells, even only 30% in the best case (see Non-Patent Literature 1).


And it is possible to increase the gene transferring rate by applying stronger electric pulse, but it affects the viability of the cells and decreases extremely the number of the gene transferred cells actually obtained.


In the electroporation using the conventional electric pulse outputting device, use of the specialized buffer for electroporation is needed essentially, resulting in high running cost. And without specialized buffer, these methods were not applicable because of extremely lower efficiency.


CITATION LIST
Non Patent Literature



  • Non-Patent Literature 1: Biotechniques Vol. 17, No. 6 (1994) “Short Technical Report”



SUMMARY OF INVENTION
Technical Problem

An object of this invention is to provide a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, which solves the above problems, is applicable to a wide range of animal cells, and is extremely remarkably improved in viability and gene transferring rate.


Another object of this invention is to provide a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique with high viability and gene transferring rate even in the case where no specialized electroporation buffer is used.


Solution to Problem

The inventors of this invention have made extensive studies. As a result, the inventors have found that significantly improved viability and gene transferring rate can be achieved by a method for transferring an extraneous gene into an animal cell by an electroporation technique, the method including continuously applying a first electric pulse (strong electric pulse) and a second electric pulse (weak electric pulse) under specific conditions.


The inventors also have found that the method allows extraneous gene to be transferred with high viability and gene transferring rate even in the case where a liquid medium capable of being used for culturing of the animal cell is used as an electroporation buffer (in the case where no specialized buffer is used).


Note that a possible principle for the method is as follows: a first electric pulse (stronger electric pulse) is first applied to make a micro hole in the cell membrane of a targeted animal cell, thereby transferring a nucleic acid into the animal cell, and a second electric pulse (weaker electric pulse) is then applied, thereby further transferring a nucleic acid into the animal cell and simultaneously restoring the cell membrane positively.


This invention has been completed based on those findings.


That is, this invention according to the first aspect relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene into an animal cell by an electroporation technique, the method including: applying, to the animal cell, a first electric pulse having an electric field strength of at least 300 V/cm or more so that a total calorie strength is 0.2-40 J/100 μL; and applying a second electric pulse having an electric field strength of at least 15 V/cm or more so that a calorie strength per pulse is 0.01-5 J/100 μL.


This invention according to the second aspect relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene according to the first aspect, in which the applying of the second electric pulse is carried out twice or more.


This invention according to the third aspect relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene according to the first or the second aspect, in which the applying of the second electric pulse is carried out less than one minute after the applying of the first electric pulse.


This invention according to the fourth aspect relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene according to any one of the first to the third aspect, in which the animal cell includes a mammalian cell.


This invention according to the fifth aspect relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene according to any one of the first to the fourth aspects, in which the animal cell includes an animal cell suspended in a solution.


This invention according to the sixth aspect relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene according to any one of the first to the fifth aspects, in which the solution includes a liquid medium capable of being used for culturing of the animal cell.


Advantageous Effects of Invention

This invention provides the method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, which is applicable to a wide range of animal cells (in particular, vertebrate and insect cells) and is extremely remarkably improved in viability and gene transferring rate.


Thus, this invention allows extraneous gene to be transferred with high viability and gene transferring rate even in the case where a liquid medium capable of being used for culturing of the above cells is used as an electroporation buffer (in the case where no expensive specialized buffer is used). That is, this invention allows running costs to be reduced significantly.


This invention also allows extraneous gene to be efficiently transferred into primary cells, ES cells, some cell lines and non-adherent cells (e.g., lymphoid lineage cells and some cancer cells), in each of which it has been difficult to achieve gene transferring by the conventional electroporation technique.


This invention also allows animal gene transferred cells (e.g., iPS cells) useful in a wide range of industrial fields to be prepared efficiently at low cost.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 2 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 3 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 4 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 5 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 6 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 7 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 8 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 9 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 10 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 11 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 12 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 13 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 14 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 15 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 16 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 17 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 18 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 19 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 20 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 21 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 22 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 23 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 24 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 25 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 26 A photo image showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 27 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 28 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 29 A photo image showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 30 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 31 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 32 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 33 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 34 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 35 Photo images showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 28.



FIG. 36 A photo image showing the detected fluorescent-labeled protein originated from the transferred DNA in Example 29.





DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENTS

Hereinafter, this invention is described in detail.


This invention relates to a method for transferring an extraneous gene by an electroporation technique, and more particularly, to a method for transferring an extraneous gene by electroporation, which is remarkably improved in viability and gene transferring rate, the method including continuously applying, to an animal cell, a first electric pulse (strong electric pulse) and a second electric pulse (weak electric pulse) under specific conditions.


<Device and Method for Outputting Electric Pulse>


In this invention, any conventional square pulse type electric pulse outputting device (electroporator) can be used by devising its usage as long as the device can output a first electric pulse and a second electric pulse under specific conditions (two stepped electric pulses under specific conditions) to be described later.


For example, there are given square pulse type outputting devices such as Gene Pulser Xcell (BioRad) and ECM830 (BTX). These devices can output continuously electric pulses set so as to have the same voltage and pulse length, but cannot output continuously electric pulses set so as to have different voltages and pulse lengths (two stepped electric pulses under specific conditions). Thus, two stepped electric pulses under specific conditions are output by a method including outputting a first electric pulse from the first device of two devices arranged side by side, changing the connection of a cuvette electrode holder to the second device, and a few seconds later, outputting a second electric pulse. Alternatively, in the case where a single device is used, there may be employed a method including outputting a first electric pulse, setting new conditions for a second electric pulse, and a few seconds later, outputting the second electric pulse.


Note that in this invention, the conventional square pulse type electric pulse outputting device (e.g., an outputting device such as Gene Pulser Xcell (BioRad) and ECM830 (BTX)) may be used by devising its usage as described above, but preferably, it is desired to use a specialized device which can output a first electric pulse and a second electric pulse under specific conditions (two stepped electric pulses under specific conditions) to be described later.


An operation of applying an electric pulse to cells in this invention is carried out through the use of a cuvette electrode holder connected to an electric pulse outputting device and an electrode container for holding a cell/nucleic acid mixed solution (cuvette electrode).


An electric pulse output from the electric pulse outputting device is output through the container for holding the cuvette electrode to the cuvette electrode inserted in the electrode holder, and is delivered into the cells in the electrode container.


As the cuvette electrode, any cuvette electrode may be used as long as it has a capacity for general applications. For example, there are given 1 mm gap (capacity: 20-70 μm), 2 mm gap (capacity: 40-400 μm) and 4 mm gap (capacity: 80-800 μm).


In this invention, the operation is performed by filling the container with a solution containing targeted animal cells and extraneous gene (nucleic acid) to be transferred.


Herein, as the ‘solution,’ there may be used a conventional buffer and a liquid medium in which targeted animal cells can be proliferated (e.g., an MEM medium, a DMEM medium, an Opti-MEM medium, an α-MEM medium, an RPMI-1640 medium, a DMEM/F-12 medium, a Williams medium or an ES medium) as well as a buffer capable of being used for the conventional electroporation technique, such as PBS or HEPES. Note that a less serum concentration is preferred in any of these liquid media in terms of increasing the gene transferring rate, and in particular, it is desired to use a ‘serum-free medium.’ Further, it is preferred to use a medium containing no antibiotic.


Note that the serum and the antibiotic can be added freely to the medium after the application of the electric pulse.


Herein, the ‘extraneous gene’ refers to a wide range of extraneous nucleic acid sequences intended to be transferred, and for example, refers to not only a full-length sequence (cDNA sequence and genome sequence) but also a partial sequence, a regulatory region, a spacer region, a mutated sequence and a construct of a gene. In particular, gene transfer using a vector DNA, an oligonucleotide (antisense, siRNA) or a virus vector is widely applied.


The amount of the nucleic acid (specifically, DNA) contained in the solution may be such an amount that the conventional electroporation technique is applicable. However, the amount is suitably 0.01-1 μg/μL, particularly suitably about 0.03-0.2 μg/μL from the viewpoint of increasing the viability and gene transferring rate.


A case where the amount of the nucleic acid is too large is not preferred because the viability lowers. On the other hand, a case where the amount of the nucleic acid is too small is not preferred because the gene transferring rate lowers.


In the case where the targeted animal cells are adherent cells, it is desired to treat the cells in an adherent state with trypsin or the like for separating the adhered cells to make a suspension, remove the trypsin and then mix the cells into a serum-free medium for electroporation.


Further, in the case where the animal cells are normally in a suspended state like blood cells, it is desired to wash the animal cells with an appropriate solution (e.g., a PBS buffer) and then mix the animal cells into a serum-free medium for electroporation.


From the viewpoint of improving the gene transferring rate, it is desired to subject the solution containing the animal cells and the nucleic acid to an operation such as pipetting or stirring with a vortex mixer for 1-2 seconds, to thereby sufficiently mix the animal cells and the nucleic acid in the solution. The number of the cells to be suspended is about 104-108 cells/100 μL, preferably about 105-107 cells/100 μL. Note that it is not preferred to foam the solution by excessively performing the operation such as stirring.


The operation of applying the electric pulse can be performed at room temperature (e.g., about 15-40° C.). Note that it is preferred to avoid cooling with ice for preventing a water droplet from adhering to a metal (aluminum) part of the electrode container.


<Condition of Electric Pulse>


In this invention, both the viability and the gene transferring rate can be drastically improved as compared to the conventional electroporation technique by continuously applying, to a targeted animal cell, a first electric pulse and a second electric pulse under specific conditions (two stepped electric pulses under specific conditions).


The first electric pulse and the second electric pulse in this invention refer to such electric pulses that both the ‘electric field strength’ and the ‘calorie strength’ fall within a specific range to be described later.


On the other hand, when any one of the electric field strength and the calorie strength does not fall within the specific range, no sufficient effect can be obtained.


Herein, the “electric field strength” is a value indicating a voltage V to be applied per unit cm of an electrode gap (e.g., a cuvette electrode gap) in the electrode container as indicated by Equation 1. Its unit is indicated as (V/cm).


For example, in order to provide an electric field strength of 300 V/cm, a voltage of 30 V has only to be applied in a 1 mm gap cuvette (electrode gap: 1 mm), a voltage of 60 V has only to be applied in a 2 mm gap cuvette (electrode gap: 2 mm), and a voltage of 120 V has only to be applied in a 4 mm gap cuvette (electrode gap: 4 mm).


[Math. 1]




Electric field strength (V/cm)=Voltage (V)/Electrode gap (cm)  (Equation 1)


Further, the “calorie strength” is a value indicating a calorie J to be applied per 100 μL of the solution (electroporation buffer) as indicated by Equation 2. Its unit is indicated as (J/100 μL). Note that the calorie (J) is a value indicated by the product of a voltage, a current and a time as indicated by Equation 3.


For example, when a voltage of 150 V with a pulse length of 5 m sec is applied to 100 μL of a solution (electroporation buffer) having an electric impedance of 50Ω, a current of 3 A is generated. As a result, the calorie to be applied per 100 μL of the solution is 2.25 (J/100 μL).


Note that even in the case where the voltage, the capacity (electric impedance), the pulse length (time) and the like are changed, similar results (viability and gene transferring rate) can be obtained as long as the electric field strength and the calorie strength are kept constant.


[Math. 2]




Calorie strength (J/100 μL)=Calorie (J)/Solution volume (100 μL)  (Equation 2)


[Math. 3]




Calorie (J)=Voltage (V)×Current (A)×Time (sec)  (Equation 3)


The “first electric pulse” in this invention is a strong electric pulse to be applied in order to make a micro hole in the cell membrane of an animal cell to transfer an extraneous nucleic acid (DNA, RNA) into the cell through the micro hole. The “first electric pulse” allows a large amount of DNA to be transferred into the cytoplasm through the cell membrane, but causes major damage in the cell membrane.


It is desired that the ‘electric field strength’ of the first electric pulse be at least 300 V/cm or more, preferably 375 V/cm or more. Note that when the electric field strength is less than this level, no sufficient gene transferring rate can be obtained. Note that the upper limit of the electric field strength has only to be such a value that the viability of cells does not remarkably lower, and it is desired that the upper limit be, for example, 15,000 V/cm or less, preferably 7,500 V/cm or less, more preferably 5,000 V/cm or less, most preferably 4,500 V/cm or less.


In addition, it is desired that the ‘total calorie strength’ of the first electric pulse be 0.2 J/100 μL or more, preferably 0.25 J/100 μL or more, more preferably 0.3 J/100 μL or more. Further, it is desired that the upper limit of the total calorie strength to be applied be 40 J/100 μL or less, preferably 20 J/100 μL or less, particularly preferably 17 J/100 μL or less, more particularly preferably 7 J/100 μL or less (Note that the upper limit is 5.3 J/100 μL or less for Hela cells, in particular).


In addition, the frequency of the first electric pulse to be applied may be any frequency as long as the total calorie strength of the electric pulse falls within the above range. For example, an electric pulse having a calorie strength within the range described above may be applied one time. Alternatively, an electric pulse having a calorie strength less than that described above may be applied ten times so that the total calorie strength falls within the range of the calorie strength described above.


The second electric pulse in this invention is applied after the application of the first electric pulse (output of the last pulse of the first electric pulse). An interval between the pulses may be an extremely long interval such as about 10 minutes. However, the interval is preferably less than one minute from the viewpoint of improving the viability. The interval is particularly preferably less than 100 milliseconds.


The “second electric pulse” in this invention is a weak electric pulse to be applied in order to transfer the remaining DNA, which has not been transferred by the application of the first electric pulse through the micro hole of the cell membrane, into the cytoplasm through the cell membrane, and to restore the cell membrane positively to elevate the viability of cells (to provide a healing effect).


It is desired that the ‘electric field strength’ of the second electric pulse be at least 15 V/cm or more, preferably 25 V/cm or more. Note that the upper limit of the electric field strength has only to be such a value that the viability of cells does not remarkably lower, and it is desired that the upper limit be, for example, 300 V/cm or less, preferably 150 V/cm or less.


Further, it is desired that the ‘calorie strength’ of the second electric pulse be 0.01 J/100 μL or more, preferably 0.02 J/100 μl, or more, more preferably 0.09 J/100 μL or more. Further, it is desired that the upper limit of the calorie strength be 5 J/100 μL or less, preferably 4.5 J/100 μL or less, more preferably 3.6 J/100 μL or less.


Further, as the frequency of the second electric pulse, the electric pulse within the above range may be applied one time. However, a significant improvement in viability is remarkably found when the application is performed preferably two or more times, particularly preferably three or more times, more particularly preferably five or more times, most preferably ten or more times. Note that even when the application is performed more than ten times, no particularly significant change in viability is found.


Gene transferred cells with high viability and gene transferring rate can be obtained by culturing, in a general medium, the cells obtained after the application of the electric pulses within the specific range described above.


Note that in the case where a serum-free medium is used as an electroporation buffer, the cells can be directly collected in the medium containing serum and an antibiotic after the application of the electric pulses. In other words, the cells can be collected without causing any damage and loss of the cells due to liquid exchange and then cultured.


<The Targeted Cells>


The electroporation in this invention can be applied to a wide range of animal cells.


Here the term “animal cells” means the cells of eukaryotic multiple cells creature classified as the ‘animal’ in taxonomy. Examples are Deuterostomes such as vertebrates (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibias, fishes, etc.), chordates (ascidians, etc.), hemichordates (balanoglossus, etc.), and echinoderms (starfishes, sea cucumbers, etc.); Protostomia such as arthropods (insects, crustaceans, etc.), mollusks (shellfishes, squids, etc.), nematodes (roundworms, etc.), annelidas (earthworms, etc.), and flatworms (planarians, etc.); Diploblastic animals such as cnidarians (jellyfishes, coral, etc.); and No blastoderm animals such as porifera (sponges, etc.).


The electroporation in this invention is most effectively applied especially to any animals classified in Vertebrates such as mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibias, fishes, etc., and Arthropods such as insects. And its higher effectiveness to the animals is expected to have wide and versatile industrial applications, because its higher effectiveness was confirmed with mammals (human, horse, mouse, rat and hamster), insects (drosophila) and amphibias (soft shelled turtle) as written in Examples described later.


The electroporation in this invention basically can be applied to the “animal cells” of any organs and tissues of animals. For instances, it can be effectively applied to cell lines of stem cells, cancer cells, or normal cells, as well as primary cells as written below.


For examples, it can be applied to various ‘stem cells’ such as embryonic stem cells (ES cells), neural stem cells, hematopoietic stem cells, mesenchymal stem cells, hepatic stem cells, pancreatic stem cells, skin stem cells, muscle stem cells, germ stem cells, etc.


And it can be applied to ‘cancer cells’ including various cancer cells and oncocytes such as breast cancer cells, cervical cancer cells, pancreas cancer cells, liver cancer cells, lung cancer cells, epithelial cancer cells, lung cancer cells, esophagus cancer cells, prostate cancer cells, leukemia cells, sarcoma cells, lymphoma cells, etc.


And also, it can be applied to ‘normal cells’ such as primary cells or various tissue cells differentiated normally. For examples, it can be applied to hemocytes, lymphocytes (T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, macrophages, etc.), epidermic cells (epidermic cells, keratinocytes, endothelial cells, etc.), connective tissue cells (fibroblasts, etc.), muscular tissues (myoblasts, skeletal muscle cells, tunica muscular cells, myocardial cells, etc.), neural cells (neuron, neuroblastoma, glial cells, etc.), various organ cells (kidney cells, lung cells, pancreatic cells, etc.), osseous tissues (osteoblasts, bone cells, cartilage cells, etc.), and germ cells (oocytes, spermatocyte, etc.).


In addition, the electroporation in this invention can be effectively applied to the primary cells, in which it has been difficult to achieve gene transferring, such as human amniotic mesenchymal cells, mouse neurons (embryonic day 14 cerebral cortex), mouse neurons (embryonic day 14 hippocampus), mouse neural stem cells, mouse embryonic fibroblasts, rat medullary neurons, rat meningeal fibroblasts, and rat olfactory ensheathing cells; and to the ES cells, in which it has been difficult to achieve gene transferring, such as mouse TT2 ES cells and ddy mouse ES cells; and to the cell lines, in which it has been difficult to achieve gene transferring, such as human embryonic lung fibroblasts (TIG-7), human immortalized fibroblasts (SUSM-1), human fibrosarcoma cells (HT1080), human pancreatic carcinoma cells (MIA-PaCa-2), human hepatoma cells (HepG2), human squamous carcinoma cells (HSC-2), human breast cancer cells (MCF-7), human esophageal carcinoma cells (TE-1), human prostate carcinoma cells (LNCaP), human ovarian carcinoma cells (OVCAR-3), human neuroblastoma cells (SK-N-SH), human B-cells precursor leukemia cells (Nalm-6), human burkitt's lymphoma cells (Raji), mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF), mouse macrophage cells (RAW264.7), mouse pancreatic β cells (MIN6), rat embryonic fibroblasts (REF), and rat ventricular myoblasts (H9c2).


This invention is most effectively applied especially to primary cells, cancer cells, neural cells, and stem cells in the cells listed above.


EXAMPLES

We will explain our invention in detail by introducing many examples hereunder. But applicable field of our invention is never limited in the applications introduced as examples below.


Example 1
Effects of the First Electric Pulse and the Second Electric Pulse
(1) Preparation of Cells

A medium was removed from a culture vessel in which HeLa Cells (human cervical cancer cell line: adherent cells) were cultured. The cells were then washed two or more times with a 0.02% EDTA-PBS solution for eliminating the influence of serum contained in the medium. The cells in an adherent state were then separated by trypsin treatment.


After confirming the separation of the cells, trypsin was removed by adding the same volume of an electroporation buffer (ES medium as a serum/antibiotic-free medium (NISSUI PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.)) as that of the enzyme liquid used for the trypsin treatment and centrifuging the mixture (˜1,000 rpm, 5 min).


The supernatant was then discarded. The separated cells were dispersed in the electroporation buffer, and 50 μL of the dispersion was sampled to measure the number of the cells with a hemocytometer. Centrifugation (˜1,000 rpm, 5 min) was performed again for removing the residual supernatant, and the electroporation buffer was added again to the collected cells to prepare a suspension at 1×107 cells/900 μL.


Next, 100 μL of a DNA solution (pCMV-EGFP vector, concentration: 1 μg/μL) was added to the above suspension so that the total volume was 1,000 μL. 100 μL each of the resultant suspension (cell: 1×106 cells, DNA: 0.1 μg/μL) was put into a 2 mm gap cuvette after careful sufficient stirring not to cause bubbling.


Note that in the case where the number of the cells was small, the electroporation buffer was added to the cells to prepare a suspension at 2.5×106 cells/450 μL during the adjustment of the number of the cells, and 50 μL of the DNA solution (pCMV-EGFP vector, concentration: 1 μg/μL) was added so that the total volume was 500 μL, and 50 μL each of the resultant suspension (cell: 2.5×105 cells, DNA: 0.1 μg/μL) was put into a 2 mm gap cuvette.


(2) Electric Pulse Treatment

The cuvette into which the cells prepared as above were put was inserted in a cuvette electrode chamber of an NEPA21 electroporator (NEPA GENE Co., Ltd.) and an electric pulse was output from the NEPA21 electroporator.


As shown in Tables 1, electroporation was then performed under the conditions of different combinations of the presence or absence of a first electric pulse and a second electric pulse and different frequencies of the second electric pulse (samples 53-56, 60). Note that this treatment was done at room temperature without cooling with ice for preventing a water droplet from adhering to the cuvette.


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 52).


After the electric pulse treatment, an MEM medium containing serum and an antibiotic was put into the cuvette. The whole volume of the liquid (including the cells after the electric pulse treatment) was then collected with a syringe, added to a culture plate filled with the MEM medium containing serum and an antibiotic and cultured under usual conditions (37° C., carbon dioxide concentration: 5%). The viability (calculated with Equation 4) was calculated. Further, the gene transferring rate (calculated with Equation 5) was calculated by detecting a fluorescent protein EGFP. The result is shown in Tables 1.


Note that in the following results, for Hela cells, such a condition that both of the viability and the gene transferring rate are 40% or more can be determined to be suitable. Further, for a series of cells, in each of which it is extremely difficult to achieve gene transferring, such a condition that both the values are about 10% can also be determined to be suitable.


[Math. 4]




Viability=Number of viable cells after electric pulse treatment/Number of cells before electric pulse treatment×100  (Equation 4)


[Math. 5]




Gene transferring rate=Number of gene transferred cells/Number of viable cells after electric pulse treatment×100  (Equation 5)


The results show that both of the viability and the gene transferring rate are drastically improved by continuously applying the suitable first electric pulse and second electric pulse.


Note that in the case where the first electric pulse was not applied, gene transferring itself did not occur. This result suggests that a process for applying the first electric pulse is a process essential for making a micro hole in the cell membrane to transfer extraneous DNA through the hole into cells.


The results also show that the viability is significantly improved by applying the second electric pulse, and that the viability is additionally improved by increasing the frequency of the second electric pulse (two or more times, optimally 10 times). This result suggests that the second electric pulse has an effect of accelerating the restoration of the micro hole formed by applying the first electric pulse.












TABLE 1-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





52
2 mm
0.10
100









53
2 mm
0.10
100
36
0
0
0
0.000
0.000



54
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232



55
2 mm
0.10
100
34
125
625
5
2.298
2.298
50


56
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


60
2 mm
0.10
100
34
125
625
5
2.298
2.298
50



















TABLE 1-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















52







>90
0


53
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
90
0


54
0
0
0

0
0.000
0.000
50
79


55
20
100
50

1
0.588
0.588
80
86


56
20
100
50
50
2
1.111
0.556
90
86


60
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
>90
86









Example 2
Examination of Voltage of the First Electric Pulse (1)

As shown in Tables 2, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 2-11).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 1).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 2.


The result showed that both the viability and the gene transferring rate were as high as 50% or more, when voltage of the first electric pulse was adjusted so as to be controlled in the range of electric field strength=500-875 V/cm and total calorie strength=1.39-4.37 J/100 μL. Especially in the case of electric field strength=500-750 V/cm and total calorie strength=1.39-3.21 J/100 μL, the viability and the gene transferring rate were as high as 80% or more.












TABLE 2-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)




















1
2 mm
0.10
100









2
2 mm
0.10
100
35
25
125
5
0.089
0.089
50


3
2 mm
0.10
100
35
50
250
5
0.357
0.357
50


4
2 mm
0.10
100
34
75
375
5
0.827
0.827
50


5
2 mm
0.10
100
36
100
500
5
1.389
1.389
50


6
2 mm
0.10
100
40
125
625
5
1.953
1.953
50


7
2 mm
0.10
100
35
150
750
5
3.214
3.214
50


8
2 mm
0.10
100
35
175
875
5
4.375
4.375
50


9
2 mm
0.10
100
38
200
1000
5
5.263
5.263
50


10
2 mm
0.10
100
36
225
1125
5
7.031
7.031
50


11
2 mm
0.10
100
35
250
1250
5
8.929
8.929
50



















TABLE 2-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















1







>95
0


2
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
>95
0


3
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
>95
0


4
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
>95
30


5
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
90
80


6
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
90
92


7
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
80
94


8
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
50
96


9
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
20
87


10
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
0
0


11
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
0
0









Example 3
Examination of Voltage of the Second Electric Pulse (1)

As shown in Tables 3, the second electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 13-20).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 12).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 3.


The result showed that the second electric pulse applied under a suitable condition can elevate largely the viability.


Specifically, when voltage of the second electric pulse was adjusted so as to be controlled in the range of electric field strength=50-250 V/cm and calorie strength per pulse=0.13-3.57 J/100 μL, both the viability and the gene transferring rate were as high as 50% or more. Especially in the case of electric field strength=75-125 V/cm and calorie strength per pulse=0.31-0.68 J/100 μL, the viability and the gene transferring rate were as high as 80% or more.












TABLE 3-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





12
2 mm
0.10
100









13
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


14
2 mm
0.10
100
37
125
625
5
2.111
2.111
50


15
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


16
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


17
2 mm
0.10
100
46
125
625
5
1.698
1.698
50


18
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


19
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232
50


20
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232
50



















TABLE 3-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















12







>95
0


13
5
25
50
50
10
0.347
0.035
20
66


14
10
50
50
50
10
1.351
0.135
80
88


15
15
75
50
50
10
3.125
0.313
90
91


16
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
90
91


17
25
125
50
50
10
6.793
0.679
80
89


18
30
150
50
50
10
12.500
1.250
60~70
94


19
40
200
50
50
10
22.857
2.286
50
95


20
50
250
50
50
10
35.714
3.571
50
92









Example 4
Examination of Voltage of the Second Electric Pulse (2)

As shown in Tables 4, the second electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 57-60).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 52).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 4.


The result showed that the second electric pulse applied under a suitable condition can elevate largely the viability. Specifically, when voltage of the second electric pulse was adjusted so as to be controlled in the range of electric field strength=15-100 V/cm and calorie strength per pulse=0.01-0.59 J/100 μL, both the viability and the gene transferring rate were as high as 60% or more. Especially in the case of electric field strength=35-100 V/cm and calorie strength per pulse=0.07-0.59 J/100 μL, the viability and the gene transferring rate were 80% or more.












TABLE 4-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





52
2 mm
0.10
100









57
2 mm
0.10
100
38
125
625
5
2.056
2.056
50


58
2 mm
0.10
100
37
125
625
5
2.111
2.111
50


59
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232
50


60
2 mm
0.10
100
34
125
625
5
2.298
2.298
50



















TABLE 4-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















52







>90
0


57
3
15
50
50
10
0.118
0.012
60
83


58
5
25
50
50
10
0.338
0.034
60
83


59
7
35
50
50
10
0.700
0.070
80
85


60
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
>90
86









Example 5
Examination of Electric Field Strength of the First Electric Pulse (1)

As shown in Tables 5, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage and pulse length so as to keep the calorie strength constant. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 28-36).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 27).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 5.


The result showed that gene transferring was never achieved under electric field strength of 250 V/cm or less (less than 357 V/cm), even if the total calorie strength of the first electric pulse was kept almost constant (1.69-2.35 J/100 μL).


This result suggests that an electric field strength equal to or more than a specific value is necessary to enable the effect of the first electric pulse to be exhibited.












TABLE 5-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





27
2 mm
0.10
100









28
2 mm
0.10
100
48
30
150
90
1.688
1.688
50


29
2 mm
0.10
100
34
50
250
35
2.574
2.574
50


30
2 mm
0.10
100
38
50
250
50
3.289
3.289
50


31
2 mm
0.10
100
41
75
375
15
2.058
2.058
50


32
2 mm
0.10
100
34
100
500
8
2.353
2.353
50


33
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


34
2 mm
0.10
100
38
150
750
4
2.368
2.368
50


35
2 mm
0.10
100
33
175
875
3
2.784
2.784
50


36
2 mm
0.10
100
34
200
1000
2
2.353
2.353
50


















TABLE 5-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















27







>95
0


28
20
100
50
50
10
4.167
0.417
>90
0


29
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
>90
0


30
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
>90
0


31
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
90
45


32
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
90
93


33
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
70
94


34
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
70
96


35
20
100
50
50
10
6.061
0.606
50
92


36
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
50
95









Example 6
Examination of Electric Field Strength of the First Electric Pulse (2)

As shown in Tables 6, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage and pulse length so as to keep the calorie strength constant. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 104-112).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 103).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 6.


The result showed that high viability and gene transferring rate were obtained by keeping the calorie strength of the first electric pulse almost constant (1.66-2.08 J/100 μL), even if high electric field strength of 4,500 V/cm was applied.


This result suggests that the calorie strength, not voltage itself, of the first electric pulse has an impact on the viability.











TABLE 6-A








First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





103
2 mm
0.10
100









104
2 mm
0.10
100
42
100
500
8
1.905
1.905
50


105
2 mm
0.10
100
47
125
625
5
1.662
1.662
50


106
2 mm
0.10
100
41
150
750
3.5
1.921
1.921
50


107
2 mm
0.10
100
39
175
875
2.5
1.963
1.963
50


108
2 mm
0.10
100
40
200
1000
2
2.000
2.000
50


109
2 mm
0.10
100
39
300
1500
0.9
2.077
2.077
50


110
2 mm
0.10
100
45
500
2500
0.3
1.667
1.667
50


111
2 mm
0.10
100
41
750
3750
0.15
2.058
2.058
50


112
2 mm
0.10
100
41
900
4500
0.1
1.976
1.976
50


















TABLE 6-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















103







>95
0


104
20
100
50
50
10
4.762
0.476
90
86


105
20
100
50
50
10
4.255
0.426
80
95


106
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
70
97


107
20
100
50
50
10
5.128
0.513
70
95


108
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
70
95


109
20
100
50
50
10
5.128
0.513
70
96


110
20
100
50
50
10
4.444
0.444
70
93


111
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
70
96


112
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
80
91









Example 7
Examination of Pulse Length of the First Electric Pulse

As shown in Tables 7, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its pulse length under the constant electric field strength. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 76-78).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 7.


The result showed that extremely higher viability and gene transferring rate (both rates=90% or more) were obtained by applying the first electric pulse of short pulse length (=10-20 m sec) under keeping its electric field strength=500 V/cm constant.


But in the case where a pulse length was as long as 30 m sec, decreased viability was observed. It is thought that an increase in calorie strength resulted in the decreased viability.











TABLE 7-A








First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





76
2 mm
0.10
100
40
100
500
10
2.500
2.500
50


77
2 mm
0.10
100
47
100
500
20
4.255
4.255
50


78
2 mm
0.10
100
41
100
500
30
7.317
7.317
50


















TABLE 7-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)





76
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
90
93


77
20
100
50
50
10
4.255
0.426
90
95


78
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
50
91









Example 8
Examination of Pulse Frequency of the First Electric Pulse (1)

As shown in Tables 8, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its pulse frequency and pulse length. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 71-74).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 70).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 8.


The result showed that similar results of the viability and the gene transferring rate were obtained when the first electric pulse was applied so that the total calorie strength was kept constant (samples 71-73).


But the result showed that decreased viability was obtained in the case where the total calorie strength became excessively high by increasing only the frequency (samples 71 and 74).


These results suggest that the total calorie strength, not calorie strength per pulse, of the first electric pulse has an impact on the viability and the gene transferring rate.











TABLE 8-A








First electric pulse






















DNA



Electric



Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(ms)





70
2 mm
0.1
100











71
2 mm
0.1
100
41
125
625
5
5
1
1.905
1.905
50


72
2 mm
0.1
100
37
125
625
1
5
5
2.111
0.422
50


73
2 mm
0.1
100
36
125
625
2.5
5
2
2.170
1.005
50


74
2 mm
0.1
100
36
125
625
5
5
2
4.340
2.170
50


















TABLE 8-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















70







>95
0


71
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
90
94


72
20
100
50
50
10
5.405
0.541
90
88


73
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
80
93


74
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
60
94









Example 9
Examination of Pulse Frequency of the First Electric Pulse (2)

As shown in Tables 9, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its pulse frequency and pulse length. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 179-190).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 178).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 9.


The result showed that the gene transferring rate was elevated by increasing the frequency to increase the total calorie strength, even if the calorie strength per pulse was lower (for example, less than 0.2 J/100 μL in samples 182, 184-188).


But it suggested that gene transferring was never achieved under total calorie strength of 0.286 J/100 μL or less, even if the frequency was increased (samples 189 and 190).











TABLE 9-A








First electric pulse






















DNA



Electric



Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(ms)





178
2 mm
0.1
100











179
2 mm
0.1
100
140
125
625
5
50
1
0.558
0.558
50


180
2 mm
0.1
100
175
125
625
5
50
2
0.893
0.446
50


181
2 mm
0.1
100
102
125
625
5
50
3
2.298
0.766
50


182
2 mm
0.1
100
124
125
625
2.5
50
2
0.630
0.315
50


183
2 mm
0.1
100
61
125
625
2.5
50
3
1.921
0.640
50


184
2 mm
0.1
100
164
125
625
1
50
3
0.286
0.095
50


185
2 mm
0.1
100
92
125
625
1
50
5
0.849
0.170
50


186
2 mm
0.1
100
74
125
625
1
50
10
2.111
0.211
50


187
2 mm
0.1
100
73
125
625
0.5
50
5
0.535
0.107
50


188
2 mm
0.1
100
153
125
625
0.5
50
10
0.511
0.051
50


189
2 mm
0.1
100
82
125
625
0.1
50
5
0.005
0.019
50


190
2 mm
0.1
100
195
125
625
0.1
50
10
0.030
0.008
50


















TABLE 9-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















178







>95
 0


179
20
100
50
50
1
0.143
0.143
90
72


180
20
100
50
50
1
0.114
0.114
80
92


181
20
100
50
50
1
0.196
0.196
70
96


182
20
100
50
50
1
0.161
0.161
90
76


183
20
100
50
50
1
0.328
0.328
80
95


184
20
100
50
50
1
0.122
0.122
90
51


185
20
100
50
50
1
0.217
0.217
80
87


186
20
100
50
50
1
0.270
0.270
70
94


187
20
100
50
50
1
0.274
0.274
90
73


188
20
100
50
50
1
0.131
0.131
90
45


189
20
100
50
50
1
0.244
0.244
90
 <10 *


190
20
100
50
50
1
0.103
0.103
90
 ~0 *









Example 10
Examination of Calorie (V2I√T) of the First Electric Pulse

As shown in Tables 10, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage and pulse length so as to keep V2I√T (calorie value) constant. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 62-67).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 61).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 10.


The result showed that the viability and the gene transferring rate had no correlation with V2I√T (calorie value) of the first electric pulse but depended upon its calorie strength (J/100 μL) and electric field strength (V/cm).











TABLE 10-A








First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





61
2 mm
0.10
100









62
2 mm
0.10
100
35
75
375
99.9
16.055
16.055
50


63
2 mm
0.10
100
34
100
500
15
4.412
4.412
50


64
2 mm
0.10
100
37
125
625
5
2.111
2.111
50


65
2 mm
0.10
100
37
150
750
2
1.216
1.216
50


66
2 mm
0.10
100
35
175
875
0.5
0.438
0.438
50


67
2 mm
0.10
100
35
200
1000
0.3
0.343
0.343
50


















TABLE 10-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















61







>95
0


62
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
>90
49


63
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
80~90
91


64
20
100
50
50
10
5.405
0.541
  80
76


65
20
100
50
50
10
5.405
0.541
80~90
85


66
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
80~90
63


67
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
  80
61









Example 11
Examination of Calorie (V2IT) of the First Electric Pulse

As shown in Tables 11, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage and pulse length so as to keep a V2IT value (calorie value) constant. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 113-122).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 113).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 11.


The result showed that the viability and the gene transferring rate had no correlation with V2IT (calorie value) of the first electric pulse but depended upon its calorie strength (J/100 μL).


And the result showed also that the gene transferring rate would drop down largely when the calorie strength dropped down under ca. 0.28 J/100 μL.











TABLE 11-A








First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





113
2 mm
0.10
100









114
2 mm
0.10
100
44
100
500
10
2.273
2.273
50


115
2 mm
0.10
100
49
125
625
5
1.594
1.594
50


116
2 mm
0.10
100
41
150
750
3
1.646
1.646
50


117
2 mm
0.10
100
41
175
875
1.8
1.345
1.345
50


118
2 mm
0.10
100
40
200
1000
1.2
1.200
1.200
50


119
2 mm
0.10
100
39
300
1500
0.35
0.808
0.808
50


120
2 mm
0.10
100
42
500
2500
0.08
0.476
0.476
50


121
2 mm
0.10
100
40
750
3750
0.02
0.281
0.281
50


122
2 mm
0.10
100
38
900
4500
0.01
0.213
0.213
50


















TABLE 11-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















113







>95
0


114
20
100
50
50
10
4.545
0.455
>95
85


115
20
100
50
50
10
4.082
0.408
90
90


116
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
80
93


117
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
70
91


118
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
70
88


119
20
100
50
50
10
5.128
0.513
80
87


120
20
100
50
50
10
4.762
0.476
80
71


121
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
80
37


122
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
90
19









Example 12
Examination of Calorie (VI√T) of the First Electric Pulse

As shown in Tables 12, the first electric pulse was applied by varying its voltage and pulse length so as to keep its calorie strength constant. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 124-131).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 123).


And the viability and gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 12.


The result showed that the viability and the gene transferring rate had no correlation with VI√T (calorie value) of the first electric pulse but depended upon calorie strength (J/100 μL).


And the result showed also that the gene transferring rate would drop down largely when the calorie strength dropped down under ca. 0.34 J/100 μL.











TABLE 12-A








First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





123
2 mm
0.10
100









124
2 mm
0.10
100
34
100
500
15
4.412
4.412
50


125
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232
50


126
2 mm
0.10
100
36
150
750
2.5
1.563
1.563
50


127
2 mm
0.10
100
49
175
875
1.5
0.938
0.938
50


128
2 mm
0.10
100
38
200
1000
1
1.053
1.053
50


129
2 mm
0.10
100
40
300
1500
0.15
0.338
0.338
50


130
2 mm
0.10
100
39
500
2500
0.02
0.128
0.128
50


131
2 mm
0.10
100
54
600
3000
0.01
0.067
0.067
50


















TABLE 12-B








Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















123







>95
0


124
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
90
90


125
20
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
90
95


126
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
80
94


127
20
100
50
50
10
4.082
0.408
80
91


128
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
80
87


129
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
70
40


130
20
100
50
50
10
5.128
0.513
80
18


131
20
100
50
50
10
3.704
0.370
90
8









Example 13
Examination of Pulse Frequency of the Second Electric Pulse

As shown in Tables 13, the second electric pulse was applied by varying its pulse frequency. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 22-26).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 21).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 13.


The result showed that repeated application of the second electric pulse (more than three times, optimally 10 times) was able to elevate the viability further.












TABLE 13-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





21
2 mm
0.10
100









22
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


23
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232
50


24
2 mm
0.10
100
35
125
625
5
2.232
2.232
50


25
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50


26
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
50



















TABLE 13-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















21







>95
0


22
20
100
50
50
1
0.556
0.556
80
91


23
20
100
50
50
3
1.714
0.571
90
90


24
20
100
50
50
5
2.857
0.571
90
90


25
20
100
50
50
7
3.889
0.556
85
88


26
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
95
91









Example 14
Examination of Pulse Interval Between the First Electric Pulse and the Second Electric Pulse (1)

As shown in Tables 14, electric pulses were applied by varying the pulse interval between the first electric pulse and the second electric pulse. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 38-44).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 37).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 14.


The result showed that a shorter pulse interval tended to result in higher viability and a longer pulse interval tended to result in lower viability, and that the viability was elevated largely especially by setting the pulse interval to 99.9 m sec (about 0.1 sec) or less.


But the result suggested that comparatively higher viability was obtained even under as a long pulse interval as one minute.













TABLE 14-A









First electric pulse

















DNA

Electric

Calorie
Calorie




















concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





37
2 mm
0.10
100

























38
2 mm
0.10
100
34
125
625
5
2.298
2.298
5
msec


39
2 mm
0.10
100
32
125
625
5
2.441
2.441
50
msec


40
2 mm
0.10
100
34
125
625
5
2.298
2.298
99.9
msec


41
2 mm
0.10
100
33
125
625
5
2.367
2.367
5
sec


42
2 mm
0.10
100
33
125
625
5
2.367
2.367
10
sec


43
2 mm
0.10
100
34
125
625
5
2.298
2.298
1
min


44
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
10
min



















TABLE 14-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















37







>95
0


38
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
80
93


39
20
100
50
50
10
6.250
0.625
80
93


40
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
80
91


41
20
100
50
50
10
6.061
0.606
50
91


42
20
100
50
50
10
6.061
0.606
70
93


43
20
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
50
88


44
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
40
88









Example 15
Examination of Pulse Interval Between the First Electric Pulse and the Second Electric Pulse (2)

As shown in Tables 15, electric pulses were applied by varying the pulse interval between the first electric pulse and the second electric pulse. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 46-51).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 45).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 15.


The result showed that a shorter pulse interval tended to result in higher viability and a longer pulse interval tended to result in lower viability, and that the viability was elevated largely especially by setting the pulse interval to 99.9 m sec (about 0.1 sec) or less.


But the result suggested that comparatively higher viability was obtained even under as a long pulse interval as one minute.












TABLE 15-A









First electric pulse
















DNA

Electric

Calorie
Calorie




















concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





45
2 mm
0.10
100

























46
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
5
msec


47
2 mm
0.10
100
38
125
625
5
2.056
2.056
50
msec


48
2 mm
0.10
100
38
125
625
5
2.056
2.056
99.9
msec


49
2 mm
0.10
100
37
125
625
5
2.111
2.111
10
sec


50
2 mm
0.10
100
40
125
625
5
1.953
1.953
1
min


51
2 mm
0.10
100
36
125
625
5
2.170
2.170
10
min



















TABLE 15-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















45







>95
0


46
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
90
88


47
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
90
87


48
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
90
85


49
20
100
50
50
10
5.405
0.541
70
81


50
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
60
79


51
20
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
40
82









Example 16
Examination of Buffer Volume (1)

As shown in Tables 16, electroporation was done by varying the buffer volume. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 85-92).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 84).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 16.


The result showed that the electroporating conditions (electric field strength and calorie strength) at 100 μL were also applicable to the case of buffer volume=100-400 μL.












TABLE 16-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





84
2 mm
0.10
100









85
2 mm
0.10
100
38
125
625
5
2.056
2.056
50


86
2 mm
0.10
200
21
60
300
5
0.429
0.429
50


87
2 mm
0.10
200
20
90
450
5
1.013
1.013
50


88
2 mm
0.10
200
25
125
625
5
1.563
1.563
50


89
2 mm
0.10
400
12
30
150
5
0.094
0.094
50


90
2 mm
0.10
400
16
60
300
5
0.281
0.281
50


91
2 mm
0.10
400
12
90
450
5
0.844
0.844
50


92
2 mm
0.10
400
15
125
625
5
1.302
1.302
50



















TABLE 16-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















84







>95
0


85
20
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
>90
94


86
10
50
50
50
10
1.190
0.119
>95
0


87
15
75
50
50
10
2.813
0.281
>90
33


88
20
100
50
50
10
4.000
0.400
90
90


89
5
25
50
50
10
0.260
0.026
>95
0


90
10
50
50
50
10
0.781
0.078
>96
0


91
15
75
50
50
10
2.344
0.234
>97
14


92
20
100
50
50
10
3.333
0.333
>98
88









Example 17
Examination of Buffer Volume (2)

As shown in Tables 17, electroporation was done by varying the buffer volume. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 147-151).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 146).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 17.


The result showed that the electroporating conditions (electric field strength and calorie strength) at 100 μL were also applicable to the case of buffer volume=50-400 μL.












TABLE 17-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)




















146
2 mm
0.10
100









147
2 mm
0.10
50
81
125
625
5
1.929
1.929
50


148
2 mm
0.10
100
44
125
625
5
1.776
1.776
50


149
2 mm
0.10
200
21
125
625
5
1.860
1.860
50


150
2 mm
0.10
300
17
125
625
5
1.532
1.532
50


151
2 mm
0.10
400
15
125
625
5
1.302
1.302
50



















TABLE 17-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















146







>95
0


147
20
100
50
50
10
4.938
0.494
80
84


148
20
100
50
50
10
4.545
0.455
90
86


149
20
100
50
50
10
4.762
0.476
90
87


150
20
100
50
50
10
3.922
0.392
>90
86


151
20
100
50
50
10
3.333
0.333
>90
83









Example 18
Examination by Using 1 mm Gap Cuvette (1)

As shown in Tables 18, electroporation was done by varying the voltage by using 1 mm gap cuvette. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 80-83).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 79).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 18.


The result showed that the conditions of electric field strength and calorie strength in the case of using 2 mm gap cuvette were also applicable to the case of using 1 mm gap cuvette.












TABLE 18-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





79
1 mm
0.10
50









80
1 mm
0.10
50
30
30
300
5
0.300
0.300
50


81
1 mm
0.10
50
29
60
600
5
1.241
1.241
50


82
1 mm
0.10
50
34
90
900
5
2.382
2.382
50


83
1 mm
0.10
50
40
125
1250
5
3.906
3.906
50



















TABLE 18-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















79







>95
0


80
5
50
50
50
10
0.833
0.083
90
0


81
10
100
50
50
10
3.448
0.345
70
74


82
15
150
50
50
10
6.618
0.662
50~60
89


83
20
200
50
50
10
10.000
1.000
10
83









Example 19
Examination by Using 1 mm Gap Cuvette (2)

As shown in Tables 19, electroporation was done by varying the voltage by using 1 mm gap cuvette. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 133-143).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 132).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 19.


The result showed that the conditions of electric field strength and calorie strength in the case of using 2 mm gap cuvette were also applicable to the case of using 1 mm gap cuvette.












TABLE 19-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





132
1 mm
0.10
50









133
1 mm
0.10
50
26
60
600
5
1.385
1.385
50


134
1 mm
0.10
50
35
60
600
5
1.029
1.029
50


135
1 mm
0.10
50
33
70
700
5
1.485
1.485
50


136
1 mm
0.10
50
35
70
700
5
1.400
1.400
50


137
1 mm
0.10
50
34
70
700
5
1.441
1.441
50


138
1 mm
0.10
50
34
80
800
5
1.882
1.882
50


139
1 mm
0.10
50
27
80
800
5
2.370
2.370
50


140
1 mm
0.10
50
33
80
800
5
1.939
1.939
50


141
1 mm
0.10
50
29
90
900
5
2.793
2.793
50


142
1 mm
0.10
50
37
90
900
5
2.189
2.189
50


143
1 mm
0.10
50
34
100
1000
5
2.941
2.941
50



















TABLE 19-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















132







>95
0


133
5
50
50
50
10
0.962
0.096
90
41


134
15
150
50
50
10
6.429
0.643
80
39


135
5
50
50
50
10
0.758
0.076
60
67


136
10
100
50
50
10
2.857
0.286
60
74


137
15
150
50
50
10
6.618
0.662
60
72


138
5
50
50
50
10
0.735
0.074
50
59


139
10
100
50
50
10
3.704
0.370
50
83


140
15
150
50
50
10
6.818
0.682
50
85


141
5
50
50
50
10
0.862
0.086
30
76


142
10
100
50
50
10
2.703
0.270
50
85


143
10
100
50
50
10
2.941
0.294
50
85









Example 20
Examination by Using 4 mm Gap Cuvette (1)

As shown in Tables 20, electroporation was done by varying the voltage by using 4 mm gap cuvette. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 154-159).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 153).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 20.


The result showed that the conditions of electric field strength and calorie strength in the case of using 2 mm gap cuvette were also applicable to the case of using 4 mm gap cuvette by varying the voltage.












TABLE 20-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





153
4 mm
0.10
200









154
4 mm
0.10
200
68
230
575
5
1.945
1.945
50


155
4 mm
0.10
200
70
270
675
5
2.604
2.604
50


156
4 mm
0.10
200
73
290
725
5
2.880
2.880
50


157
4 mm
0.10
200
78
310
775
5
3.080
3.080
50


158
4 mm
0.10
200
72
330
825
5
3.781
3.781
50


159
4 mm
0.10
200
75
350
875
5
4.083
4.083
50



















TABLE 20-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















153







>90
0


154
40
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
90
88


155
40
100
50
50
10
5.714
0.571
80
91


156
40
100
50
50
10
5.479
0.548
70
92


157
40
100
50
50
10
5.128
0.513
60
93


158
40
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
50
92


159
40
100
50
50
10
5.333
0.533
40
93









Example 21
Examination by Using 4 mm Gap Cuvette (2)

As shown in Tables 21, electroporation was done by varying the voltage by using 4 mm gap cuvette. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 161-168).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 160).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 21.


The result showed that the conditions of electric field strength and calorie strength in the case of using 2 mm gap cuvette were also applicable to the case of using 4 mm gap cuvette by varying the voltage.












TABLE 21-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





160
4 mm
0.10
200









161
4 mm
0.10
200
79
200
500
5
1.266
1.266
50


162
4 mm
0.10
200
72
210
525
5
1.531
1.531
50


163
4 mm
0.10
200
74
220
550
5
1.635
1.635
50


164
4 mm
0.10
200
76
230
575
5
1.740
1.740
50


165
4 mm
0.10
200
75
240
600
5
1.920
1.920
50


166
4 mm
0.10
200
68
250
625
5
2.298
2.298
50


167
4 mm
0.10
200
72
260
650
5
2.347
2.347
50


168
4 mm
0.10
200
72
270
675
5
2.531
2.531
50



















TABLE 21-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















160







>95
0


161
40
100
50
50
10
5.063
0.506
>90
83


162
40
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
>90
90


163
40
100
50
50
10
5.405
0.541
80
90


164
40
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
70
91


165
40
100
50
50
10
5.333
0.533
70
91


166
40
100
50
50
10
5.882
0.588
70
94


167
40
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
70
92


168
40
100
50
50
10
5.556
0.556
70
93









Example 22
Examination by Using 4 mm Gap Cuvette (3)

As shown in Tables 22, electroporation was done by varying the buffer volume by using 4 mm gap cuvette. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 94-102).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 93).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 22.


The result showed that the electroporating conditions of electric field strength and calorie strength at 100 μL in the case of using 2 mm gap cuvette were also applicable to the case where 4 mm gap cuvette was used and buffer volume was 200-800 μL.












TABLE 22-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)




















93
4 mm
0.10
200









94
4 mm
0.10
200
65
125
312.5
5
0.601
0.601
50


95
4 mm
0.10
200
67
185
462.5
5
1.277
1.277
50


96
4 mm
0.10
200
65
250
625
5
2.404
2.404
50


97
4 mm
0.10
400
38
90
225
5
0.266
0.266
50


98
4 mm
0.10
400
36
125
312.5
5
0.543
0.543
50


99
4 mm
0.10
400
37
150
375
5
0.760
0.760
50


100
4 mm
0.10
800
23
60
150
5
0.098
0.098
50


101
4 mm
0.10
800
18
90
225
5
0.281
0.281
50


102
4 mm
0.10
800
19
125
312.5
5
0.514
0.514
50



















TABLE 22-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















93







>95
0


94
20
50
50
50
10
1.538
0.154
90
0


95
30
75
50
50
10
3.358
0.336
>90
64


96
40
100
50
50
10
6.154
0.615
90
66


97
15
37.5
50
50
10
0.740
0.074
>90
0


98
20
50
50
50
10
1.389
0.139
>90
0


99
25
62.5
50
50
10
2.111
0.211
90
10


100
10
25
50
50
10
0.272
0.027
>90
0


101
15
37.5
50
50
10
0.781
0.078
>90
0


102
20
50
50
50
10
1.316
0.132
>90
0









Example 23
Examination by Using 4 mm Gap Cuvette (4)

As shown in Tables 23, electroporation was done by varying the buffer volume by using 4 mm gap cuvette. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 170-177).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 169).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 23.


The result showed that the electroporating conditions of electric field strength and calorie strength at 100 μL in the case of using 2 mm gap cuvette were also applicable to the case where 4 mm gap cuvette was used and buffer volume was 200-800 μL.












TABLE 23-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





169
4 mm
0.10
200









170
4 mm
0.10
100
146
210
525
5
1.510
1.510
50


171
4 mm
0.10
200
75
210
525
5
1.470
1.470
50


172
4 mm
0.10
300
52
210
525
5
1.413
1.413
50


173
4 mm
0.10
400
37
210
525
5
1.490
1.490
50


174
4 mm
0.10
500
38
210
525
5
1.161
1.161
50


175
4 mm
0.10
600
28
210
525
5
1.313
1.313
50


176
4 mm
0.10
700
28
210
525
5
1.125
1.125
50


177
4 mm
0.10
800
19
210
525
5
1.451
1.451
50



















TABLE 23-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















169







>90
0


170
40
100
50
50
10
5.479
0.548
80
76


171
40
100
50
50
10
5.333
0.533
90
72


172
40
100
50
50
10
5.128
0.513
90
63


173
40
100
50
50
10
5.405
0.541
90
69


174
40
100
50
50
10
4.211
0.421
90
70


175
40
100
50
50
10
4.762
0.476
90
71


176
40
100
50
50
10
4.082
0.408
90
66


177
40
100
50
50
10
5.263
0.526
90
65









Example 24
Examination of DNA Concentration

As shown in Tables 24, electric pulses were applied by varying DNA concentration. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 193-202).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 192).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 24.


The result showed that the gene transferring rate was going up but the viability was going down as the DNA concentration was increasing, but that the viability was going up but the gene transferring rate was going down as the DNA concentration was decreasing.


Specifically it suggested that the DNA concentration more than 0.01 μg/μL, especially 0.03-0.5 μg/μL was suitable.












TABLE 24-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





192
2 mm
0.10
100









193
2 mm
0.01
100
47
125
625
5
1.662
1.662
50


194
2 mm
0.03
100
51
125
625
5
1.532
1.532
50


195
2 mm
0.05
100
49
125
625
5
1.594
1.594
50


196
2 mm
0.07
100
48
125
625
5
1.628
1.628
50


197
2 mm
0.10
100
46
125
625
5
1.698
1.698
50


198
2 mm
0.15
100
48
125
625
5
1.628
1.628
50


199
2 mm
0.20
100
58
125
625
5
1.347
1.347
50


200
2 mm
0.30
100
59
125
625
5
1.324
1.324
50


201
2 mm
0.40
100
78
125
625
5
1.002
1.002
50


202
2 mm
0.50
100
75
125
625
5
1.042
1.042
50



















TABLE 24-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















192







>95
0


193
20
100
50
50
10
4.255
0.426
>95
39


194
20
100
50
50
10
3.922
0.392
>95
72


195
20
100
50
50
10
4.082
0.408
90
74


196
20
100
50
50
10
4.167
0.417
90
82


197
20
100
50
50
10
4.348
0.435
90
92


198
20
100
50
50
10
4.167
0.417
80
93


199
20
100
50
50
10
3.448
0.345
80
90


200
20
100
50
50
10
3.390
0.339
70
91


201
20
100
50
50
10
2.564
0.256
70
93


202
20
100
50
50
10
2.667
0.267
70
93









Example 25
Examination of Serum Concentration

As shown in Tables 25, TIG-7 cells (human embryonic lung cells) were used as the targeted cells, and antibiotic-free ES media were used as electroporation buffers by varying serum concentrations. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 204-207).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 203).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1. The result is shown in Tables 25.


The result showed that the gene transferring rate was decreased when serum was contained in the medium. This result suggested that it was preferred to use a serum-free medium obtained by removing serum in the case where a medium is used as an electroporation buffer.


This result also suggested that the same conditions as in the case of Hela cells (human cervical cancer cells) as cancer cells were applicable to TIG-7 cells (human embryonic lung cells) as normal cells.












TABLE 25-A









First electric pulse





















DNA
Serum



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-
concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(%)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





















203
2 mm
0.10
0
100









204
2 mm
0.10
0
100
40
110
550
30
9.075
9.075
50


205
2 mm
0.10
1
100
50
110
550
30
7.260
7.260
50


206
2 mm
0.10
5
100
41
110
550
30
8.854
8.854
50


207
2 mm
0.10
10
100
45
110
550
30
8.067
8.067
50



















TABLE 25-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















203







90
0


204
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
80
75


205
20
100
50
50
10
4.000
0.400
83
50


206
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
85
20


207
20
100
50
50
10
4.444
0.444
85
15









Example 26
Examination to Rat Embryonic Fibroblasts

As shown in Tables 26, REF cells (rat embryonic fibroblasts) were used as the targeted cells, an Opti-MEM medium not containing any serum/antibiotic (serum and antibiotic free buffer) was used as an electroporation buffer, and electric pulses were applied by varying pulse length and DNA concentration. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 215-219).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 208).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1 except culturing was done by using a DMEM medium. The result is shown in Tables 26.


The result showed that the same conditions as in the case of the human Hela cells (human cervical cancer cells) were applicable to the rat REF cells (rat embryonic fibroblasts).


And it showed also that slightly higher total calorie strength of the first electric pulse was better to the REF cells than the case of the Hela cells.












TABLE 26-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





208
2 mm
0.10
100









215
2 mm
0.10
100
46
275
1375
0.5
0.822
0.822
50


216
2 mm
0.10
100
52
275
1375
2
2.909
2.909
50


217
2 mm
0.10
100
54
275
1375
5
7.002
7.002
50


218
2 mm
0.05
100
54
275
1375
5
7.002
7.002
50


219
2 mm
0.02
100
54
275
1375
5
7.002
7.002
50



















TABLE 26-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















208







100
0


215
20
100
50
50
10
4.348
0.435
95
40


216
20
100
50
50
10
3.846
0.385
95
60


217
20
100
50
50
10
3.704
0.370
90
99


218
20
100
50
50
10
3.704
0.370
90
95


219
20
100
50
50
10
3.704
0.370
90
70









Example 27
Examination to Human Hepatoma Cells

As shown in Tables 27, HepG2 cells (human hepatoma cells) were used as the targeted cells, a DMEM medium not containing any serum/antibiotic (serum and antibiotic free buffer) was used as an electroporation buffer, and electric pulses were applied by varying voltage, pulse length and DNA concentration. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1 (samples 221-228).


Note that a sample, which was not subjected to electric pulse treatment after put into the cuvette, was used as a control (sample 220).


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1 except culturing was done by using a DMEM medium. The result is shown in Tables 27.


The result showed that the same conditions as in the case of the Hela cells (human cervical cancer cells) as cervical cancer were applicable to the HepG2 cells (human hepatoma cells) as hapatoma.


And it showed also that slightly lower electric field strength and higher calorie strength (longer pulse length) of the first electric pulse were better to the HepG2 cells than the case of the Hela cells.












TABLE 27-A









First electric pulse




















DNA



Electric

Calorie
Calorie





concen-

Electric

field
Pulse
strength
strength
Pulse




tration
Volume
impedance
Voltage
strength
length
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
interval


Sample
Cuvette
(μg/μl)
(μl)
(Ω)
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
total
per one pulse
(ms)





220
2 mm
0.10
100









221
2 mm
0.10
100
46
110
550
75
19.728
19.728
50


222
2 mm
0.10
100
41
110
550
99
29.217
29.217
50


223
2 mm
0.10
100
40
125
625
15
5.859
5.859
50


224
2 mm
0.10
100
46
125
625
30
10.190
10.190
50


225
2 mm
0.10
100
41
150
750
2
1.098
1.098
50


226
2 mm
0.10
100
47
150
750
5
2.394
2.394
50


227
2 mm
0.05
100
47
150
750
10
4.787
4.787
50


228
2 mm
0.02
100
45
200
1000
2
1.778
1.778
50



















TABLE 27-B









Second electric pulse



















Electric



Calorie
Calorie

Gene




field
Pulse
Pulse
Number
strength
strength

transferring



Voltage
strength
length
interval
of
(J/100 μl)
(J/100 μl)
Viability
rate


Sample
(V)
(V/cm)
(ms)
(ms)
pulses
total
per one pulse
(%)
(%)



















220







>95
0


221
20
100
50
50
10
4.348
0.435
85
69


222
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
80
76


223
20
100
50
50
10
5.000
0.500
55
69


224
20
100
50
50
10
4.348
0.435
45
82


225
20
100
50
50
10
4.878
0.488
85
23


226
20
100
50
50
10
4.255
0.426
75
36


227
20
100
50
50
10
4.255
0.426
70
76


228
20
100
50
50
10
4.444
0.444
75
32









Example 28
Application to Various Animal Cells

Various cells (cell lines and primary cells) shown in Tables 28-32 were used, various serum/antibiotic-free growth media were used as electroporation buffers, and electric pulses suitable for various cells were applied. Other conditions for electroporation were same to Example 1. Typical electric pulse conditions for various cells are shown in Tables 28-32.


And the viability and the gene transferring rate were calculated in the same manner as in Example 1 except culturing was done by using various growth media. The results are shown in Tables 33-36.


Further, the photo images of the cells are shown in FIGS. 1-35. In the photo images, the left side photo images each show the cells after culturing and the right side photo images each show the detected fluorescent-labeled protein of the transferred gene (FIGS. 18, 22, 26, 28, 29 and 31 each show only the detected fluorescent-labeled protein).









TABLE 28







<Hela/Human Cervical Carcinoma cells:


An example of human cancer cells>










Parameters
Values















First
Electric field strength
625 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
 1



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
2.170 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
2.170 J/100 μl








Pulse interval
  50 m sec











Second
Electric field strength
100 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
10



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
0.556 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
5.556 J/100 μl

















TABLE 29







<293T(HEK293T) Human Embryonic Kidney cells:


An example of human normal cells>










Parameters
Values















First
Electric field strength
625 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
 1



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
4.006 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
4.006 J/100 μl








Pulse interval
  50 m sec











Second
Electric field strength
100 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
10



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
0.513 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
5.128 J/100 μl

















TABLE 30







<REF Rat Embryonic Fibroblasts: An example of mouse/rat cells>










Parameters
Values















First
Electric field strength
1375 V/cm 



electric
Number of Pulses
 1



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
7.002 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
7.002 J/100 μl








Pulse interval
  50 m sec











Second
Electric field strength
100 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
10



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
0.370 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
3.704 J/100 μl

















TABLE 31







<SACT-1 ddy Mouse ES cells (XY): An example of ES cells>










Parameters
Values















First
Electric field strength
625 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
 1



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
2.232 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
2.232 J/100 μl








Pulse interval
  50 m sec











Second
Electric field strength
100 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
10



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
0.571 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
5.714 J/100 μl

















TABLE 32







<Mouse Neurons (Embryonic Day 14 Mouse Cerebral


Cortex): An example of primary cells>










Parameters
Values















First
Electric field strength
1375 V/cm 



electric
Number of Pulses
 1



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
2.140 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
2.140 J/100 μl








Pulse interval
  50 m sec











Second
Electric field strength
100 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
10



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
0.377 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
3.773 J/100 μl










These results showed that the electroporation technique involving applying the first electric pulse and the second electric pulse under the above conditions was applicable to the cell lines and the primary cells originated from various tissues as well. For example, the results showed that electroporation was able to be performed with high viability and gene transferring rate in neural cells (FIGS. 18, 19, 28 and 33) and ES cells (FIGS. 34 and 35) as well.


Further, the results show that the electroporation technique is applicable not only to mammals such as humans, mice, rats, dogs, and horses but also to drosophila as an insect (FIG. 33), suggesting the applicability to general animals.














TABLE 33





Cell
Description/
Characteristics,
Via-
Effi-
Photo


Name
Species
etc.
bility
ciency
Image







HeLa
Human Cervical
Epithelial,
86%
96%
FIG. 1



Carcinoma cells
Immortalized,




Adherent


293T
Human Embryonic
Epithelial, Adherent,
90%
90%
FIG. 2


(HEK293T)
Kidney cells
SV40 large T antigen


TIG-7
Human Embryonic
Normal Diploid
89%
76%
FIG. 3



Lung Fibroblasts
Fibroblasts,




Adherent


SUSM-1
Human
Somewhat epithelial,
77%
71%
FIG. 4



Immortalized
Normal cells,



Fibroblasts
Immortalized,




Adherent


KMST-6
Human
Somewhat epithelial,
70%
60%
FIG. 5



Immortalized
Normal cells,



Fibroblasts
Immortalized,




Adherent


HT1080
Human
Adherent, Invasive
93%
81%
FIG. 6



Fibrosarcoma
cancer cells



cells


MIA-PaCa-2
Human Pancreatic
Epithelial, Adherent
80%
77%
FIG. 7



Carcinoma cells


HepG2
Human Hepatoma
Epithelial, Adherent,
80%
76%
FIG. 8



cells
Well-differentiated




liver cancer cells


HuH-7
Human Hepatoma
Epithelial, Adherent,
70%
60%
FIG. 11



cells
Well-differentiated




liver cancer cells


H1299
Human Lung
Epithelial, Adherent,
90%
90%
FIG. 12


(NCI-H1299)
Cancer cells
p53 gene defect


HSC-2
Human Squamous
Oral, Adherent
90-95%   
98%
FIG. 13



Carcinoma cells


HSC-3
Human Squamous
Tongue, Adherent
90-95%   
98%
FIG. 14



Carcinoma cells


HSC-4
Human Squamous
Tongue, Adherent
80%
34%
FIG. 15



Carcinoma cells


HGF
Human Gingival
Normal cells,
Good
Good



Fibroblasts
Adherent


MCF-7
Human Breast
Epithelial,
90%
90-95%   



Cancer cells
Polygonal, Adherent,




Metastatic exudative




pleural effusion




breast cancer cells


T47D
Human Breast
Epithelial, Adherent,
90%
80-90%   



Cancer cells
Invasive ductal




breast cancer cells


A549
Human Lung
Epithelial, Adherent
80-90%   
90%



Adenocarcinoma



cells





















TABLE 34





Cell
Description,
Characteristics,
Via-
Effi-
Photo


Name
Species
etc.
bility
ciency
Image







TE-1
Human Esophageal
Polyangular,
80-90%   
41%
FIG. 16



Carcinoma cells
Adherent,




Esophagus cancer




primary focus


TE-8
Human Esophageal
Polyangular,
80-90%   
40%
FIG. 17



Carcinoma cells
Adherent,




Esophagus cancer




primary focus


LNCaP
Human Prostate
Epithelial,
71%
90.3%



Carcinoma cells
Adherent


SK-N-SH
Human
Adherent
95%
95%
FIG. 18



Neuroblastoma



cells


KG-1-C
Human
Adherent
85%
60%
FIG. 19



Oligodendroglial



cells


HaCaT
Human
Normal cells,
40%
80%
FIG. 20



Keratinocyte
Immortalized,



cells
Adherent


Hs52.sk
Human Skin
Adherent
38.5%
10.8%



Fibroblasts


iHAM-4
Human Amniotic
Adherent
59%
95%



Mesenchymal cells


iHAE-7
Human Amniotic
Adherent
70%
40%



Epithelial cells


Jurkat
Human T-cell
Lymphoid,
81.8%
38.3%



Leukemia cells
Suspension,




IL-2 production


Nalm-6
Human B-cell
Suspension
65%
63%



Precursor



Leukemia cells


Raji
Human Burkitt's
B lymphocyte,
74. 1% 
52.6%



Lymphoma cells
Suspension, EB




virus nuclear




antigen positive


LCL
Human
Immortalized,
41.2%
40.4%
FIG. 9



Lymphoblastoid
Suspension



cells


K562
Human
Lymphoid,
34.4%
42.4%
FIG. 10



Erythroleukemia
Suspension,



cells
NK-cell




sensitivity


U937
Human Histiocytic
Monocytoid,
96%
15%



Lymphoma cells
Suspension,




Histiocytic




lymphoma


CMK-85
Human
Suspension,
50.2%
12.9%



Megakaryoblastic
Partially adherent,



Leukemia cells
Down syndrome





















TABLE 35





Cell
Description,
Characteristics,
Via-
Effi-
Photo


Name
Species
etc.
bility
ciency
Image







NIH/3T3
Mouse Embryonic
Spindle-shaped,
Good
54.7%
FIG. 22



Fibroblasts
Fibroblastic,




Immortalized,




Adherent


MEF
Mouse Embryonic
Adherent
95%
60-70%   
FIG. 26



Fibroblasts


MC3T3-
Mouse Osteoblastic
Fibroblastic,
40%
80%
FIG. 21


E1
cells
Adherent, Skull


MS-1
Mouse Pancreatic
Adherent, Vascular
90%
90%



Endothelial cells
endothelial



ddy Mouse
Fibroblasts,
60%
80%



Endometrial cells
Adherent



Mouse Pancreatic
Suspension
60%
40%
FIG. 23



Islet Beta cells


MEL
Mouse
Spleen origin,
70%
50%



Erythroleukemia
Spherical,



cells
Suspension


BMMC
Mouse Bone
Suspension
35%
26%



Marrow-Derived



Mast cells


mDC
Mouse Myeloid
Suspension
79.4%
71.9%



Dendritic cells


TS
Mouse Trophoblast
Adherent
59%
47%
FIG. 24



Stem cells


TT2
Mouse TT2 ES cells
Adherent
50-60%   
50-60%   
FIG. 34


SACT-1
ddy Mouse ES cells
Adherent
30%
50%
FIG. 35



(XY)


PC12
Rat Adrenal
Epitherial, Weak
70%
50%



Pheochromocytoma
adherent,



cells
Sympathetic




neuron-like (NGF)


H9c2
Rat Ventricular
Skeletal
80%
40%
FIG. 25



Myoblasts
muscle-like,




Cardiac




muscle-like,




Adherent


REF
Rat Embryonic
Adherent
90%
99%
FIG. 27



Fibroblasts



Rat WDA ES-like
Adherent
60%
80%



cells


CHO
Chinese Hamster
Fibroblasts,
70%
90%



Ovary cells
Epithelial,




Adherent


MDCK
Madrin-Darby
Epithelial,
Good
17.8%



Canine Kidney
Adherent



cells





















TABLE 36





Cell
Description,
Characteristics,
Via-
Effi-
Photo


Name
Species
etc.
bility
ciency
Image








Human Amniotic
Primary,
70%
40%




Mesenchymal cells
Adherent



Mouse Neurons
Primary,
80%
50%
FIG. 28



(Embryonic day 14
Adherent



cerebral cortex)



Mouse Neurons
Primary,
50%
20%



(Embryonic day
Adherent



16.5 hippocampus)



Rat Meningeal
Primary,
90%
95%
FIGS. 29,



Fibroblasts
Adherent


30 & 31



(Postnatal day 3)


OEC
Rat Olfactory
Primary,
93%
46%
FIG. 32



Ensheathing cells
Adherent



(Postnatal week 3)




Drosophila

Primary,
50%
31%
FIG. 33



Neurons
Adherent



Horse
Primary,
Good
Good



Monocyte-Derived
Suspension



Dendritic cells









Example 29
Application to Adherent Cells

First, SH-SY5Y cells (human neuroblastoma cells: adherent cells) cultured in a 12-well plate were washed twice with PBS. Next, 240-350 μL of an electroporation buffer containing 1 μg/μL of DNA (pCMV-EGFP vector) was put into the wells and an adherent cell electrode with legs (CUC513-5 electrode) was set on the cells.


The cells in an adherent state were then subjected to electroporation by carrying out electric pulse treatment under the conditions shown in Table 37.


The viability and the gene transferring rate were then calculated in the same manner as in Example 1 except culturing was done continuously after the liquid was exchanged to a DMEM medium. The result is shown in Table 38.


Further, a photo image of the cells is shown in FIG. 36. In the figure, the left side photo image shows the cells after culturing and the right side photo image shows the detected fluorescent-labeled protein.









TABLE 37







<SH-SY5Y Human Neuroblastoma cells: Adherent state>










Parameters
Values















First
Electric field strength
400 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
 1



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
1.980 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
1.980 J/100 μl








Pulse interval
  50 m sec











Second
Electric field strength
 60 V/cm



electric
Number of Pulses
10



pulse
Calorie strength per one pulse
0.093 J/100 μl




Total calorie strength
0.928 J/100 μl










From these results it was shown that the electroporation technique involving applying the first electric pulse and the second pulse under the above conditions was directly applicable to the cells in an adherent state.














TABLE 38





Cell
Description,
Characteristics,
Via-
Effi-
Photo


Name
Species
etc.
bility
ciency
Image







SH-SY5Y
Human
Adherent
90%
50%
FIG. 36



Neuroblastoma



cells









INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

This invention is expected to be usefully applied to experiments and research in a wide range of industrial fields such as medical, food, agricultural and other fields.


Further, this invention allows useful animal gene transferred cells (e.g., iPS cells, living stem cells) to be prepared efficiently at low cost and to be applied to a wide range of industrial fields.

Claims
  • 1. A method for transferring an extraneous gene into an animal cell by an electroporation technique, the method comprising: applying, to the animal cell, a first electric pulse having an electric field strength of at least 300 V/cm such that a total calorie strength is 0.2 to 40 J/100 μL; and applying a second electric pulse having an electric field strength of at least 15 V/cm or more such that a calorie strength per pulse is 0.01 to 5 J/100 μl.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the second electric pulse is performed two or more times.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the second electric pulse is performed less than one minute after the applying of the first electric pulse.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the animal cell is a mammalian cell.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the animal cell is an animal cell suspended in a solution.
  • 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the solution comprises a liquid medium suitable for culturing the animal cell.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the animal cell is a vertebrate cell.
  • 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the animal cell is an insect cell.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the animal cell is a primary cell, an ES cell, or a non-adherent cell.
  • 10. The method of claim 6, wherein the liquid medium comprises at least one medium selected from the group consisting of an MEM medium, a DMEM medium, an Opti-MEM medium, an α-MEM medium, an RPMI-1640 medium, a DMEM/F-12 medium, a Williams medium and an ES medium.
  • 11. The method of claim 5, wherein the extraneous gene is in the form of DNA, and the solution comprises 0.01 to 1 μg/μl of the DNA.
  • 12. The method of claim 5, wherein the extraneous gene is in the form of DNA, and the solution comprises 0.03 to 0.2 μg/μl of the DNA.
  • 13. The method of claim 5, wherein the solution comprises about 105-107 cells/100 μL.
  • 14. The method of claim 1, wherein the first electric pulse has an electric field strength of at least 375 V/cm.
  • 15. The method of claim 1, wherein the total calorie strength of the first electric pulse is 0.3 to 7 J/100 μL.
  • 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the second electric pulse is performed less than 100 milliseconds after the applying of the first electric pulse.
  • 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the second electric pulse has an electric field strength of at least 25 V/cm.
  • 18. The method of claim 1, wherein the calorie strength per pulse of the second electric pulse is 0.09 to 3.6 J/100 μL.
  • 19. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying of the second pulse is performed ten or more times.
  • 20. The method of claim 1, wherein the first electric pulse has an electric field strength of at least 375 V/cm such that the total calorie strength of the first electric pulse is 0.3 to 7 J/100 μL, and the second electric pulse has an electric field strength of at least 25 V/cm such that the calorie strength per pulse of the second electric pulse is 0.09 to 3.6 J/100 μL.
Priority Claims (1)
Number Date Country Kind
2010-011881 Jan 2010 JP national
PCT Information
Filing Document Filing Date Country Kind 371c Date
PCT/JP11/50307 1/12/2011 WO 00 7/6/2012