Analysis of ultrasound fields in cell culture wells for in vitro ultrasound therapy experiments.

Ultrasound is an established therapy method for bone fracture healing, hyperthermia and the ablation of solid tumors. In this new emerging field, ultrasound is further used for microbubble-enhanced drug delivery, gene therapy, sonoporation and thrombolysis. To study selected therapeutic effects in defined experimental conditions, in vitro setups are designed for cell and tissue therapy. However, in vitro studies often lack reproducibility and the successful transfer to other experimental conditions. This is partly because of the uncertainty of the experimental conditions in vitro. In this paper, the ultrasound wave propagation in the most common in vitro ultrasound therapy setups for cell culture wells is analyzed in simulations and verified by hydrophone measurements. The acoustic parameters of the materials used for culture plates and growth media are determined. The appearance and origin of standing waves and ring interference patterns caused by reflections at interfaces is revealed in simulations and measurements. This causes a local maximal pressure amplitude increase by up to the factor of 5. Minor variations of quantities (e.g., growth medium volume variation of 2.56%) increase or decrease the peak rarefaction pressure at a cell layer by the factor of 2. These pressure variations can affect cell therapy results to a large extent. A sealed cell culture well submersed in a water bath provides the best reproducibility and therefore promises transferable therapy results.

[1]  Jeffrey C Bamber,et al.  Physical parameters affecting ultrasound/microbubble-mediated gene delivery efficiency in vitro. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[2]  D. Chenery,et al.  Pulsed low intensity ultrasound enhances mineralisation in preosteoblast cells. , 2007, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[3]  Ryuichi Morishita,et al.  Local Delivery of Plasmid DNA Into Rat Carotid Artery Using Ultrasound , 2002, Circulation.

[4]  N. de Jong,et al.  P2A-3 High Frequency Attenuation and Size Distribution Measurements of Definity and Manipulated Definity Populations , 2006, 2006 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium.

[5]  Manabu Kinoshita,et al.  Key factors that affect sonoporation efficiency in in vitro settings: the importance of standing wave in sonoporation. , 2007, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[6]  F. Duck Physical properties of tissue , 1990 .

[7]  A. Daigeler,et al.  Monitoring of Insonicated Microbubble Behavior and their Effect on Sonoporation Supported Chemotherapy of Fibrosarcoma Cells , 2009 .

[8]  Yukio Tomita,et al.  Transfection effect of microbubbles on cells in superposed ultrasound waves and behavior of cavitation bubble. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[9]  Yun Zhou,et al.  Dynamics of sonoporation correlated with acoustic cavitation activities. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[10]  R. C. Weast CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics , 1973 .

[11]  Jonathan A. Kopechek,et al.  Ultrasound-triggered release of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator from echogenic liposomes. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[12]  C. Porter,et al.  Spatial and acoustic pressure dependence of microbubble‐mediated gene delivery targeted using focused ultrasound , 2006, The journal of gene medicine.

[13]  J. Hossack,et al.  Targeted gene transfection from microbubbles into vascular smooth muscle cells using focused, ultrasound-mediated delivery. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[14]  A. Maghnouj,et al.  Evaluation of subharmonic emission from encapsulated microbubbles as an indicator for sonoporation of cell monolayers , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium.

[15]  K. Tachibana,et al.  Sonothrombolysis for intraocular fibrin formation in an animal model. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[16]  Hairong Zheng,et al.  Ultrasound-driven microbubble oscillation and translation within small phantom vessels. , 2007, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[17]  S. Pye,et al.  Guidance on reporting ultrasound exposure conditions for bio-effects studies. , 2011, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[18]  G. R. ter Haar,et al.  Ultrasound bioeffects and safety , 2010 .

[19]  Saurabh Datta,et al.  Correlation of cavitation with ultrasound enhancement of thrombolysis. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[20]  Nico de Jong,et al.  Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. , 2006, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[21]  Samir Mitragotri,et al.  Healing sound: the use of ultrasound in drug delivery and other therapeutic applications , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[22]  Raffi Karshafian,et al.  Sonoporation by ultrasound-activated microbubble contrast agents: effect of acoustic exposure parameters on cell membrane permeability and cell viability. , 2009, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[23]  K. Avin,et al.  Ultrasound Produced by a Conventional Therapeutic Ultrasound Unit Accelerates Fracture Repair , 2006 .

[24]  T. Bettinger,et al.  Ultrasonic microbubble-mediated gene delivery causes phenotypic changes of human aortic endothelial cells. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[25]  L. Klein-Hitpass,et al.  Synergistic effects of sonoporation and taurolidin/TRAIL on apoptosis in human fibrosarcoma. , 2010, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[26]  Nobuki Kudo,et al.  Modulation control over ultrasound-mediated gene delivery: evaluating the importance of standing waves. , 2010, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[27]  R. Marti,et al.  Low‐intensity ultrasound stimulates endochondral ossification in vitro , 2001, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.