Table 1.

Indicative examples of the influence of electric field stimulation in various human cell types in vitro and in vivo

Cell type	Power Supply	Electric Field Strength (V/cm)	Stimulation Duration (h)	Preferred Direction	Major Result
Chondrocytes	DC, Keithley Instruments (USA)	6	3	Bidirectional (dependent on passage of cells)	EF directed migration was influenced by passage [27]
Keratinocytes	DC & AC PASCO Scientific (USA)	0.4 at 1.6 or 160 Hz (AC) / 1 (DC)	1	Cathode	Verification of electromechanical model for migration [93]
Mammary epithelial cells	DC, Pine (USA)	0.13–1.0	6	Anode	Clustered cells were more sensitive to alignment, but migrated slower than isolated cells [83]
Osteoblasts	DC, Biometra (Germany)	0.15–0.45	7	Anode	Upregulation of ion channel gene, associating Ca2+ with migration speed [96]
Peripheral blood lymphocytes	DC, Agilent Technologies (USA)	0.15–2	0.5–2.0	Cathode	Directed migration in vitro and in vivo and activated intracellular kinase pathways [37]
Neuroblastoma cells	DC, AMPI (Israel)	0.045–4.5	4	Anode	Enhancement of cell mobility [61]
Bone marrow stem cells	DC, Glassman FC (USA)	0.2–5	15	Cathode	Donor did not influence migration direction and morphological changes but affected response time to EF, migration speed and cell viability [22]