Transfection effect of microbubbles on cells in superposed ultrasound waves and behavior of cavitation bubble.

The combination of ultrasound and ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) is able to induce transient membrane permeability leading to direct delivery of exogenous molecules into cells. Cavitation bubbles are believed to be involved in the membrane permeability; however, the detailed mechanism is still unknown. In the present study, the effects of ultrasound and the UCAs, Optison on transfection in vitro for different medium heights and the related dynamic behaviors of cavitation bubbles were investigated. Cultured CHO-E cells mixed with reporter genes (luciferase or beta-gal plasmid DNA) and UCAs were exposed to 1 MHz ultrasound in 24-well plates. Ultrasound was applied from the bottom of the well and reflected at the free surface of the medium, resulting in the superposition of ultrasound waves within the well. Cells cultured on the bottom of 24-well plates were located near the first node (displacement node) of the incident ultrasound downstream. Transfection activity was a function determined with the height of the medium (wave traveling distance), as well as the concentration of UCAs and the exposure time was also determined with the concentration of UCAs and the exposure duration. Survival fraction was determined by MTT assay, also changes with these values in the reverse pattern compared with luciferase activity. With shallow medium height, high transfection efficacy and high survival fraction were obtained at a low concentration of UCAs. In addition, capillary waves and subsequent atomized particles became significant as the medium height decreased. These phenomena suggested cavitation bubbles were being generated in the medium. To determine the effect of UCAs on bubble generation, we repeated the experiments using crushed heat-treated Optison solution instead of the standard microbubble preparation. The transfection ratio and survival fraction showed no additional benefit when ultrasound was used. These results suggested that cavitation bubbles created by the collapse of UCAs were a key factor for transfection, and their intensities were enhanced by the interaction of the superpose ultrasound with the decreasing the height of the medium. Hypothesizing that free cavitation bubbles were generated from cavitation nuclei created by fragmented UCA shells, we carried out numerical analysis of a free spherical bubble motion in the field of ultrasound. Analyzing the interaction of the shock wave generated by a cavitation bubble and a cell membrane, we estimated the shock wave propagation distance that would induce cell membrane damage from the center of the cavitation bubble.

[1]  D. Crossman,et al.  Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound for vascular gene delivery , 2000, Gene Therapy.

[2]  K. Tachibana,et al.  Enhancement of ultrasound-induced apoptosis and cell lysis by echo-contrast agents. , 2003, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[3]  Yukio Tomita,et al.  Interaction of laser-induced cavitation bubbles with composite surfaces , 2003 .

[4]  RyuichiMorishita,et al.  Local Delivery of Plasmid DNA Into Rat Carotid Artery Using Ultrasound , 2002 .

[5]  Douglas L. Miller,et al.  Transfection of a reporter plasmid into cultured cells by sonoporation in vitro. , 1997, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[6]  K. Tachibana,et al.  Gene transfer with echo-enhanced contrast agents: comparison between Albunex, Optison, and Levovist in mice--initial results. , 2003, Radiology.

[7]  Michael R Hamblin,et al.  Cytoplasmic molecular delivery with shock waves: importance of impulse. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[8]  P P Dendy,et al.  Studies of the cavitational effects of clinical ultrasound by sonoluminescence. , 1988 .

[9]  M. le Gall,et al.  Adhesion‐dependent control of Akt/protein kinase B occurs at multiple levels , 2003, Journal of cellular physiology.

[10]  Michael J. Miksis,et al.  Bubble Oscillations of Large Amplitude , 1980 .

[11]  Y. Kaneda,et al.  Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound for gene transfer into living skin equivalents. , 2005, Journal of dermatological science.

[12]  R. Guy,et al.  Physical methods for gene transfer: improving the kinetics of gene delivery into cells. , 2005, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[13]  J. G. Abbott,et al.  Rationale and derivation of MI and TI--a review. , 1999, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[14]  D. Miller,et al.  Lysis and sonoporation of epidermoid and phagocytic monolayer cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies. , 2001, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[15]  Wen-Shiang Chen,et al.  The effect of surface agitation on ultrasound-mediated gene transfer in vitro. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[16]  Q. Lu,et al.  Gene transfer with microbubble ultrasound and plasmid DNA into skeletal muscle of mice: comparison between commercially available microbubble contrast agents. , 2005, Radiology.

[17]  Morton W. Miller,et al.  Acoustic cavitation nuclei survive the apparent ultrasonic destruction of Albunex microspheres. , 1997, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[18]  F Dunn,et al.  Selective clinical ultrasound signals mediate differential gene transfer and expression in two human prostate cancer cell lines: LnCap and PC-3. , 1997, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[19]  Y. Rojanasakul,et al.  Novel non-endocytic delivery of antisense oligonucleotides. , 2000, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[20]  R L Juliano,et al.  Cell adhesion differentially regulates the nucleocytoplasmic distribution of active MAP kinases. , 2002, Journal of cell science.

[21]  J. Nalbantoglu,et al.  Ultrasound increases plasmid-mediated gene transfer to dystrophic muscles without collateral damage. , 2002, Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy.

[22]  M. Prausnitz,et al.  Physical parameters influencing optimization of ultrasound-mediated DNA transfection. , 2004, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[23]  Joshua D. Hutcheson,et al.  Quantification of optison bubble size and lifetime during sonication dominant role of secondary cavitation bubbles causing acoustic bioeffects. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[24]  Jonathan R. Lindner,et al.  Microbubbles in medical imaging: current applications and future directions , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[25]  Ryuichi Morishita,et al.  An efficient gene transfer method mediated by ultrasound and microbubbles into the kidney , 2005, The journal of gene medicine.

[26]  J. Tennant EVALUATION OF THE TRYPAN BLUE TECHNIQUE FOR DETERMINATION OF CELL VIABILITY , 1964, Transplantation.

[27]  N. Xia,et al.  A rapid and efficient method to express target genes in mammalian cells by baculovirus. , 2004, World journal of gastroenterology.

[28]  Anthony G Lee,et al.  How lipids affect the activities of integral membrane proteins. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[29]  R S Meltzer,et al.  Correlation of ultrasound-induced hemolysis with cavitation detector output in vitro. , 1997, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[30]  R. Waugh,et al.  Elastic area compressibility modulus of red cell membrane. , 1976, Biophysical journal.

[31]  W. E. Fahl,et al.  Adhesion-dependent control of cyclin E/cdk2 activity and cell cycle progression in normal cells but not in Ha-ras transformed NRK cells. , 1996, Experimental cell research.

[32]  Kenneth W. Cooper,et al.  Bubble formation in animals. I. Physical factors , 1944 .

[33]  M. Suga,et al.  HISTOCHEMICAL STAINS FOR MACROPHAGES IN CELL SMEARS AND TISSUE SECTIONS: β-GALACTOSIDASE, ACID PHOSPHATASE, NONSPECIFIC ESTERASE, SUCCINIC DEHYDROGENASE, AND CYTOCHROME OXIDASE , 1981 .

[34]  Samir Mitragotri,et al.  An experimental and theoretical analysis of ultrasound-induced permeabilization of cell membranes. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[35]  J F Greenleaf,et al.  Artificial cavitation nuclei significantly enhance acoustically induced cell transfection. , 1998, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[36]  A. George,et al.  Delivery of oligodeoxynucleotides into human saphenous veins and the adjunct effect of ultrasound and microbubbles. , 2005, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[37]  Tetsuya Kodama,et al.  Cavitation bubble behavior and bubble–shock wave interaction near a gelatin surface as a study of in vivo bubble dynamics , 2000 .

[38]  W. Wieland,et al.  In vitro investigations on cellular damage induced by high energy shock waves. , 1992, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[39]  Shigekazu Fukuda,et al.  Effects of dissolved gases and an echo contrast agent on ultrasound mediated in vitro gene transfection. , 2002, Ultrasonics sonochemistry.

[40]  T. Partridge,et al.  Microbubble ultrasound improves the efficiency of gene transduction in skeletal muscle in vivo with reduced tissue damage , 2003, Gene Therapy.

[41]  Raffi Bekeredjian,et al.  Ultrasound-Targeted Microbubble Destruction Can Repeatedly Direct Highly Specific Plasmid Expression to the Heart , 2003, Circulation.

[42]  J B Fowlkes,et al.  Mechanical bioeffects from diagnostic ultrasound: AIUM consensus statements. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine. , 2000, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[43]  L. Weiss,et al.  Cell adhesion. , 1978, International dental journal.

[44]  Michael R Hamblin,et al.  Delivery of ribosome-inactivating protein toxin into cancer cells with shock waves. , 2003, Cancer letters.

[45]  E. A. Neppiras Acoustic cavitation thresholds and cyclic processes , 1980 .

[46]  Christopher E. Brennen,et al.  Fission of collapsing cavitation bubbles , 2002, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.