Modulation control over ultrasound-mediated gene delivery: evaluating the importance of standing waves.

Low modulation frequencies from 0.5 to 100Hz were shown to alter the characteristics of the ultrasound field producing solution agitation (<5Hz; region of "ultrasound streaming" prevalence) or stagnancy (>5Hz; region of standing waves establishment) (Buldakov et al., Ultrason. Sonochem., 2009). In this study, the same conditions were used to depict the changes in exogenous DNA delivery in these regions. The luciferase expression data revealed that lower modulations were more capable of enhancing delivery at the expense of viability. On the contrary, the viability was conserved at higher modulations whereas delivery was found to be null. Cavitational activity and acoustic streaming were the effecters beyond the observed pattern and delivery enhancement was shown to be mediated mainly through sonopermeation. To promote transfection, the addition of calcium ions or an echo contrast agent (Levovist((R))) was proposed. Depending on the mechanism involved in each approach, differential enhancement was observed in both regions and at the interim zone (5Hz). In both cases, enhancement in standing waves field was significant reaching 16.0 and 3.3 folds increase, respectively. Therefore, it is concluded that although the establishment of standing waves is not the only prerequisite for high transfection rates, yet, it is a key element in optimization when other factors such as proximity and cavitation are considered.

[1]  E. Shimoni,et al.  Therapeutic ultrasound-mediated DNA to cell and nucleus: bioeffects revealed by confocal and atomic force microscopy , 2006, Gene Therapy.

[2]  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.

[3]  E. vanBavel,et al.  Effects of shear stress on endothelial cells: possible relevance for ultrasound applications. , 2007, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

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

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

[6]  Jindrich Kopecek,et al.  Prospects for cationic polymers in gene and oligonucleotide therapy against cancer. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[7]  M. Shieh,et al.  The effects of power on–off durations of pulsed ultrasound on the destruction of cancer cells , 2007, International journal of hyperthermia : the official journal of European Society for Hyperthermic Oncology, North American Hyperthermia Group.

[8]  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.

[9]  Morton W. Miller,et al.  Pulsed Enhancement of acoustic cavitation: a postulated model. , 1981, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[10]  K. Tachibana,et al.  Optimized ultrasound‐mediated gene transfection in cancer cells , 2006, Cancer science.

[11]  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.

[12]  A. Henglein,et al.  Sonochemistry : historical developments and modern aspects , 1987 .

[13]  N. Amso,et al.  Fluorescein isothiocynate-dextran uptake by chinese hamster ovary cells in a 1.5 MHz ultrasonic standing wave in the presence of contrast agent. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[14]  D. Burgess,et al.  DNA-based therapeutics and DNA delivery systems: A comprehensive review , 2005, The AAPS Journal.

[15]  Pai-Chi Li,et al.  Quantitative relations of acoustic inertial cavitation with sonoporation and cell viability. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[16]  Shao-ling Huang,et al.  Liposomes in ultrasonic drug and gene delivery. , 2008, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

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

[18]  Cheri X Deng,et al.  Ultrasound-induced cell membrane porosity. , 2004, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[19]  C. Peng,et al.  Nonviral transfection of suspension cells in ultrasound standing wave fields. , 2007, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[20]  Qing‐Li Zhao,et al.  Effects of dissolved gases and an echo contrast agent on apoptosis induced by ultrasound and its mechanism via the mitochondria-caspase pathway. , 2002, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[21]  Thierry Bettinger,et al.  Plasma membrane poration induced by ultrasound exposure: implication for drug delivery. , 2005, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[22]  W. Pitt,et al.  Ultrasonic drug delivery – a general review , 2004, Expert opinion on drug delivery.

[23]  Yun Zhou,et al.  Study of sonoporation dynamics affected by ultrasound duty cycle. , 2005, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[24]  M. Machluf,et al.  Therapeutic ultrasound optimization for gene delivery: a key factor achieving nuclear DNA localization. , 2005, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[25]  A. Bouakaz,et al.  Effect of ultrasound-activated microbubbles on the cell electrophysiological properties. , 2007, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[26]  Shubiao Zhang,et al.  Cationic compounds used in lipoplexes and polyplexes for gene delivery. , 2004, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[27]  N. Amso,et al.  Contrast agent bubble and erythrocyte behavior in a 1.5-MHz standing ultrasound wave. , 2003, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[28]  E. Benes,et al.  In vitro thrombolysis enhanced by standing and travelling ultrasound wave fields. , 2002, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[29]  V F Humphrey,et al.  An experimental investigation of streaming in pulsed diagnostic ultrasound beams. , 1989, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[30]  Qing‐Li Zhao,et al.  Influence of changing pulse repetition frequency on chemical and biological effects induced by low-intensity ultrasound in vitro. , 2009, Ultrasonics sonochemistry.

[31]  F. Wurm,et al.  Calfection: a novel gene transfer method for suspension cells. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[32]  N. Gu,et al.  Experimental study on cell self-sealing during sonoporation. , 2008, Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society.

[33]  E. Benes,et al.  2MHz ultrasound enhances t-PA-mediated thrombolysis: comparison of continuous versus pulsed ultrasound and standing versus travelling acoustic waves , 2003, Thrombosis and Haemostasis.