Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Frequency-Dependent Evaluation of the Role of Definity in Producing Sonoporation of Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells

2011; Wiley; Volume: 30; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.7863/jum.2011.30.1.61

1550-9613

Monica M. Forbes, Ryan L. Steinberg, William D. O’Brien,

Photoacoustic and Ultrasonic Imaging

Journal of Ultrasound in MedicineVolume 30, Issue 1 p. 61-69 Original Research Frequency-Dependent Evaluation of the Role of Definity in Producing Sonoporation of Chinese Hamster Ovary Cells Monica M. Forbes PhD, Monica M. Forbes PhD Department of Bio-engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USASearch for more papers by this authorRyan L. Steinberg BS, Ryan L. Steinberg BS Department of Bio-engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USASearch for more papers by this authorWilliam D. O'Brien Jr PhD, Corresponding Author William D. O'Brien Jr PhD [email protected] Department of Bio-engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USA Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USAAddress correspondence to William D. O'Brien, Jr, PhD, ECE Department, UIUC, 405 N Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801 USA.Search for more papers by this author Monica M. Forbes PhD, Monica M. Forbes PhD Department of Bio-engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USASearch for more papers by this authorRyan L. Steinberg BS, Ryan L. Steinberg BS Department of Bio-engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USASearch for more papers by this authorWilliam D. O'Brien Jr PhD, Corresponding Author William D. O'Brien Jr PhD [email protected] Department of Bio-engineering University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USA Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois USAAddress correspondence to William D. O'Brien, Jr, PhD, ECE Department, UIUC, 405 N Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801 USA.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 January 2011 https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2011.30.1.61Citations: 32Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract Objectives Sonoporation uses ultrasound (US) and ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) to enhance cell permeabilization, thereby allowing delivery of therapeutic compounds non-invasively into specific target cells. The objective of this study was to elucidate the biophysical mechanism of sonoporation, specifically the role of UCAs as well as exposure frequency. The inertial cavitation (IC) thresholds of the lipid-shelled octafluoropropane UCA were directly compared to the levels of generated sonoporation to determine the involvement of UCAs in producing sonoporation. Methods Chinese hamster ovary cells were exposed as a monolayer in a solution of the UCA, 500,000-Da fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran, and phosphate-buffered saline to 30 seconds of pulsed US (pulse duration, 5 cycles; pulse repetition frequency, 10 Hz) at 3 frequencies (0.92, 3.2, and 5.6 MHz). The peak rarefactional pressure (Pr) was varied over a range from 4 kPa to 4.1 MPa, and 5 to 7 independent replicates were performed at each pressure. Results The experimental observations demonstrated that IC was likely not the physical mechanism for sonoporation. Sonoporation activity was observed at pressure levels below the threshold for IC of the UCA (1.27 ± 0.32 MPa at 0.92 MHz, 0.84 ± 0.19 MPa at 3.2 MHz, and 2.57 ± 0.26 MPa at 5.6 MHz) for all 3 frequencies examined. The Pr values at which the peak sonoporation activity occurred were 1.4 MPa at 0.92 MHz, 0.25 MPa at 3.2 MHz, and 2.3 MPa at 5.6 MHz. The UCA collapse thresholds followed a similar trend. A 1-way analysis of variance test confirmed that sonoporation activity differed among the 3 frequencies examined (P = 10−8). Conclusions These results thus suggest that sonoporation is related to linear and/or nonlinear oscillation of the UCA occurring at pressure levels below the IC threshold. References 1Datta S, Coussios CC, Ammi AY, Mast TD, de Courten-Myers GM, Holland CK. Ultrasound-enhanced thrombolysis using Definity as a cavitation nucleation agent. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008; 34: 1421–1433. 2Maxwell AD, Cain CA, Duryea AP, Yuan L, Gurm HS, Xu Z. Noninvasive thrombolysis using pulsed ultrasound cavitation therapy: histotripsy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009; 35: 1982–1994. 3Barzelai S, Sharabani-Yosef O, Holbova R, et al. Low-intensity ultrasound induces angiogenesis in rat hind-limb ischemia. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32: 139–145. 4Young SR, Dyson M. The effect of therapeutic ultrasound on angiogenesis. Ultrasound Med Biol 1990; 16: 261–269. 5Choi JJ, Pernot M, Small SA, Konofagou EE. Noninvasive, transcranial and localized opening of the blood-brain barrier using focused ultrasound in mice. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007; 33: 95–104. 6Liu HL, Pan CH, Ting CY, Hsiao MJ. Opening of the blood-brain barrier by low-frequency (28-kHz) ultrasound: a novel pinhole-assisted mechanical scanning device. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010; 36: 325–335. 7Bao S, Thrall BD, Miller DL. Transfection of a reporter plasmid into cultured cells by sonoporation in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23: 953–959. 8Greenleaf WJ, Bolander ME, Sarkar G, Goldring MB, Greenleaf JF. Artificial cavitation nuclei significantly enhance acoustically induced cell transfection. Ultrasound Med Biol 1998; 24: 587–595. 9Kim HJ, Greenleaf JF, Kinnick RR, Bronk JT, Bolander ME. Ultrasound-mediated transfection of mammalian cells. Hum Gene Ther 1996; 7: 1339–1346. 10Ammi AY, Cleveland RO, Mamou J, Wang GI, Bridal SL, O'Brien WD Jr. Ultrasonic contrast agent shell rupture detected by inertial cavitation and rebound signals. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2006; 53: 126–136. 11Chen WS, Brayman AA, Matula TJ, Crum LA, Miller MW. The pulse length-dependence of inertial cavitation dose and hemolysis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29: 739–748. 12Chomas JE, Dayton P, May D, Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biomed Opt 2001; 6: 141–150. 13Giesecke T, Hynynen K. Ultrasound-mediated cavitation thresholds of liquid perfluorocarbon droplets in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003; 29: 1359–1365. 14Prentice P, Cuschieri A, Dholakia K, Prausnitz MR, Campbell P. Membrane disruption by optically controlled microbubble cavitation. Nat Phys 2005; 1: 107–110. 15Hynynen K. The threshold for thermally significant cavitation in dog's thigh muscle in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 1991; 17: 157–169. 16Clarke PR, Hill CR. Physical and chemical aspects of ultrasonic disruption of cells. J Acoust Soc Am 1970; 47: 649–653. 17Miller DL, Thomas RM. Ultrasonic gas body activation in elodea leaves and the mechanical index. Ultrasound Med Biol 1993; 19: 343–351. 18Prise KM, Davies S, Michael BD. Cell killing and DNA damage in Chinese hamster V79 cells treated with hydrogen peroxide. Int J Radiat Biol 1989; 55: 583–592. 19Brayman AA, Strickler PL, Luan H, et al. Hemolysis of 40% hematocrit, Albunex-suplemented human erythrocytes by pulsed ultrasound: frequency, acoustic pressure and pulse length dependence. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23: 1237–1250. 20Deng CX, Xu Q, Apfel RE, Holland CK. In vitro measurements of inertial cavitation thresholds in human blood. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22: 939–948. 21Miller DL, Gies RA, Chrisler WB. Ultrasonically induced hemolysis at high cell and gas body concentrations in a thin-disc exposure chamber. Ultrasound Med Biol 1997; 23: 625–633. 22Miller DL, Thomas RM. Contrast-agent gas bodies enhance hemolysis induced by lithotripter shock waves and high-intensity focused ultrasound in whole blood. Ultrasound Med Biol 1996; 22: 1089–1095. 23Forbes MM, Steinberg RL, O'Brien WD Jr. Examination of inertial cavitation of Optison in producing sonoporation of Chinese hamster ovary cells. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008; 34: 2009–2018. 24Brujan E, Nahen K, Schmidt P, Vogel A. Dynamics of laser-induced cavitation bubbles near elastic boundaries: influence of the elastic modulus. J Fluid Mech 2001; 433: 293–314. 25Prosperetti A. A new mechanism for sonoluminescence. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 101: 2003–2007. 26Él'Piner IY, Faikin IM, Basurmanova OK. Intracellular microflow produced by ultrasonic radiation. Biophysics 1965; 10: 889–897. 27Hughes DE, Nyborg WL. Cell disruption by ultrasound: streaming and other activity around sonically induced bubbles is a cause of damage to living cells. Science 1962; 138: 108–114. 28Wu J, Ross JP, Chiu J. Reparable sonoporation generated by microstreaming. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 111: 1460–1464. 29Williams AR. Disorganization and disruption of mammalian and amoeboid cells by acoustic microstreaming. J Acoust Soc Am 1971; 51: 688–693. 30Rooney JA. Hemolysis near an ultrasonically pulsating gas bubble. Science 1970; 169: 869–871. 31Marmottant P, Hilgenfeldt S. Controlled vesicle deformation and lysis by single oscillating bubbles. Nature 2003; 423: 153–156. 32Rooney JA. Shear as a mechanism for sonically induced biological effects. J Acoust Soc Am 1972; 52: 1718–1724. 33van Wamel A, Kooiman K, Harteveld M, et al. Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. J Control Release 2006; 112: 149–155. 34Raum K, O'Brien WD Jr. Pulse-echo field distribution measurements technique for high-frequency ultrasound sources. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 1997; 44: 810–815. 35Preston RC, Bacon DR, Livett AJ, Rajendran K. PVDF membrane hydrophone performance properties and their relevance to the measurement of the acoustic output of medical ultrasound equipment. J Phys E Sci Instrum 1983; 16: 786–796. 36Zachary JF, Sepsrott JM, Frizzell LA, Simpson DG, O'Brien WD Jr. Superthreshold behavior and threshold estimation of ultrasound-induced lung hemorrhage in adult mice and rats. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control 2001; 48: 581–592. 37Haak A, O'Brien WD Jr. Automatic detection of microbubble ultrasound contrast agent destruction applied to Definity. Paper presented at: International Congress on Ultrasound; Vienna, Austria; 2007. 38Coakley WT, Nyborg WL. Cavitation; dynamics of gas bubbles; applications. In: Fry FJ (ed). Ultrasound: Its Applications in Medicine and Biology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co; 1978:77–159. 39Madanshetty SI, Roy RA, Apfel RE. Acoustic microcavitation: its active and passive acoustic detection. J Acoust Soc Am 1991; 90: 1515–1526. 40Hallow DM, Mahajan AD, McCutchen TE, Prausnitz MR. Measurement and correlation of acoustic cavitation with cellular bioeffects. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006; 32: 1111–1122. 41Kamaev PP, Hutcheson JD, Wilson ML, Prausnitz MR. Quantification of Optison bubble size and lifetime during sonication: dominant role of secondary cavitation bubbles causing acoustic bioeffects. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115: 1818–1825. Citing Literature Volume30, Issue1January 2011Pages 61-69 ReferencesRelatedInformation