Wound healing is essential for maintaining the integrity of multicellular organisms. In every species studied, disruption of an epithelial layer instantaneously generates endogenous electric fields, which have been proposed to be important in wound healing. The identity of signalling pathways that guide both cell migration to electric cues and electric-field-induced wound healing have not been elucidated at a genetic level. Here we show that electric fields, of a strength equal to those detected endogenously, direct cell migration during wound healing as a prime directional cue. Manipulation of endogenous wound electric fields affects wound healing in vivo. Electric stimulation triggers activation of Src and inositol-phospholipid signalling, which polarizes in the direction of cell migration. Notably, genetic disruption of phosphatidylinositol-3-OH kinase-gamma (PI(3)Kgamma) decreases electric-field-induced signalling and abolishes directed movements of healing epithelium in response to electric signals. Deletion of the tumour suppressor phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) enhances signalling and electrotactic responses. These data identify genes essential for electrical-signal-induced wound healing and show that PI(3)Kgamma and PTEN control electrotaxis.

Direct-current (DC) electric fields are present in all developing and regenerating animal tissues, yet their existence and potential impact on tissue repair and development are largely ignored. This is primarily due to ignorance of the phenomenon by most researchers, some technically poor early studies of the effects of applied fields on cells, and widespread misunderstanding of the fundamental concepts that underlie bioelectricity. This review aims to resolve these issues by describing: 1) the historical context of bioelectricity, 2) the fundamental principles of physics and physiology responsible for DC electric fields within cells and tissues, 3) the cellular mechanisms for the effects of small electric fields on cell behavior, and 4) the clinical potential for electric field treatment of damaged tissues such as epithelia and the nervous system.

Low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) in humans, encompassing transcranial direct current (tDCS), transcutaneous spinal Direct Current Stimulation (tsDCS), transcranial alternating current (tACS), and transcranial random noise (tRNS) stimulation or their combinations, appears to be safe. No serious adverse events (SAEs) have been reported so far in over 18,000 sessions administered to healthy subjects, neurological and psychiatric patients, as summarized here. Moderate adverse events (AEs), as defined by the necessity to intervene, are rare, and include skin burns with tDCS due to suboptimal electrode-skin contact. Very rarely mania or hypomania was induced in patients with depression (11 documented cases), yet a causal relationship is difficult to prove because of the low incidence rate and limited numbers of subjects in controlled trials. Mild AEs (MAEs) include headache and fatigue following stimulation as well as prickling and burning sensations occurring during tDCS at peak-to-baseline intensities of 1–2 mA and during tACS at higher peak-to-peak intensities above 2 mA. The prevalence of published AEs is different in studies specifically assessing AEs vs. those not assessing them, being higher in the former. AEs are frequently reported by individuals receiving placebo stimulation. The profile of AEs in terms of frequency, magnitude and type is comparable in healthy and clinical populations, and this is also the case for more vulnerable populations, such as children, elderly persons, or pregnant women. Combined interventions (e.g., co-application of drugs, electrophysiological measurements, neuroimaging) were not associated with further safety issues. Safety is established for low-intensity ‘conventional’ TES defined as <4 mA, up to 60 min duration per day. Animal studies and modeling evidence indicate that brain injury could occur at predicted current densities in the brain of 6.3–13 A/m2 that are over an order of magnitude above those produced by tDCS in humans. Using AC stimulation fewer AEs were reported compared to DC. In specific paradigms with amplitudes of up to 10 mA, frequencies in the kHz range appear to be safe. In this paper we provide structured interviews and recommend their use in future controlled studies, in particular when trying to extend the parameters applied. We also discuss recent regulatory issues, reporting practices and ethical issues. These recommendations achieved consensus in a meeting, which took place in Göttingen, Germany, on September 6–7, 2016 and were refined thereafter by email correspondence.

Controlling angiogenesis is crucial. Growth factors and cytokines are key regulators but a full understanding remains elusive. Endogenous electrical potential differences exist within and around the vasculature, both in relation to blood flow and in situations where active angiogenesis occurs, such as wound healing, development and tumor growth. Recent work shows that electrical stimulation induces significant angiogenesis in vivo, through enhanced vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) production by muscle cells. We report that applied electric fields (EFs) of small physiological magnitude directly stimulate VEGF production by endothelial cells in culture without the presence of any other cell type. EFs as low as 75–100 mV mm−1 (1.5–2.0 mV across an endothelial cell) directed the reorientation, elongation and migration of endothelial cells in culture. These pre-angiogenic responses required VEGF receptor activation and were mediated through PI3K-Akt and Rho-ROCK signaling pathways, resulting in reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton. This indicates that endogenous EFs might play a role in angiogenesis in vivo by stimulating the VEGF receptor signaling pathway, to induce key pre-angiogenic responses. In addition, it raises the feasibility of using applied EFs to initiate and guide angiogenesis through direct effects on endothelial cells.

No abstract