Effect of Albumin and Dextrose Concentration on Ultrasound and Microbubble Mediated Gene Transfection In Vivo

Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology

Volumn 38, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1067-1077

  Browning, Richard J ^a   Mulvana, Helen ^a   Tang, Meng Xing ^a   Hajnal, Jo V ^a   Wells, Dominic J ^b   Eckersley, Robert J ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Albumin; Attenuation; Dextrose; Gene transfection; In vivo bioluminescence; Luciferase; Microbubble; Scattering; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ALBUMIN; ATTENUATION; GENE TRANSFECTION; IN-VIVO; LUCIFERASE; MICRO-BUBBLE;

GENE TRANSFER; GENES; SCATTERING; ULTRASONICS;

DEXTROSE;

ALBUMIN; GLUCOSE; LUCIFERASE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENETIC TRANSFECTION; HEART MUSCLE; IN VIVO GENE TRANSFER; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PLASMID; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION SCATTERING; RADIOSENSITIVITY; ULTRASOUND AND MICROBUBBLE MEDIATED GENE TRANSFECTION;

ALBUMINS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; AREA UNDER CURVE; FEMALE; GENETIC THERAPY; GLUCOSE; HUMANS; LUCIFERASES; MICE; MICROBUBBLES; MYOCARDIUM; PLASMIDS; SONICATION; TRANSFECTION;

EID: 84860478786     PISSN: 03015629     EISSN: 1879291X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.02.020     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Alter J., Sennoga C.A., Lopes D.M., Eckersley R.J., Wells D.J. Microbubble stability is a major determinant of the efficiency of ultrasound and microbubble mediated in vivo gene transfer. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009, 35:976-984.
2. Blomley M. Which US microbubble contrast agent is best for gene therapy?. Radiology 2003, 229:297-298.
3. Bouakaz A., Versluis M., de Jong N. High-speed optical observations of contrast agent destruction. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31:391-399.
4. Browning R.J., Mulvana H., Tang M., Hajnal J.V., Wells D.J., Eckersley R.J. Influence of needle gauge on in vivo ultrasound and microbubble-mediated gene transfection. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011, 37:1531-1537.
5. Buldakov M.A., Hassan M.A., Zhao Q.-L., Feril L.B., Kudo N., Kondo T., Litvyakov N.V., Bolshakov M.A., Rostov V.V., Cherdyntseva N.V., Riesz P. Influence of changing pulse repetition frequency on chemical and biological effects induced by low-intensity ultrasound in vitro. Ultrason Sonochem 2009, 16:392-397.
6. Chai R., Chen S., Ding J., Grayburn P.A. Efficient, glucose responsive and islet-specific transgene expression by a modified rat insulin promoter. Gene Ther 2009, 16:1202-1209.
7. Chen S., Shohet R.V., Bekeredjian R., Frenkel P., Grayburn P.A. Optimization of ultrasound parameters for cardiac gene delivery of adenoviral or plasmid deoxyribonucleic acid by ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003, 42:301-308.
8. Chen Y.-C., Jiang L.-P., Liu N.-X., Wang Z.-H., Hong K., Zhang Q- P. P85, Optison microbubbles and ultrasound cooperate in mediating plasmid DNA transfection in mouse skeletal muscles in vivo. Ultrason Sonochem 2011, 18:513-519.
9. Chomas J.E., Dayton P., May D., Ferrara K. Threshold of fragmentation for ultrasonic contrast agents. J Biomed Opt 2001, 6:141-150.
10. D'Arrigo J.S., Imae T. Physical characteristics of ultrastable lipid-coated microbubbles. J Colloid Interface Sci 1992, 149:592-595.
11. Du Y.-f., Wan M.-x., Zhao W.-m. Study on the preparation of a new sugar albumin microbubble ultrasound contrast agent. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica 2001, 36:859-862.
12. Duck F.A. Hazards, risks and safety of diagnostic ultrasound. Med Eng Phys 2008, 30:1338-1348.
13. Duvshani-Eshet M., Machluf M. Therapeutic ultrasound optimization for gene delivery: A key factor achieving nuclear DNA localization. J Control Release 2005, 108:513-528.
14. Haar G.T. Ultrasonic contrast agents: Safety considerations reviewed. Eur J Radiol 2002, 41:217-221.
15. Hacein-Bey-Abina S., von Kalle C., Schmidt M., Le Deist F., Wulffraat N., McIntyre E., Radford I., Villeval J.-L., Fraser C.C., Cavazzana-Calvo M., Fischer A. A serious adverse event after successful gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency. N Engl J Med 2003, 348:255-256.
16. Hoff L. Acoustic properties of ultrasonic contrast agents. Ultrasonics 1996, 34:591-593.
17. Horie S., Watanabe Y., Chen R., Mori S., Matsumura Y., Kodama T. Development of localized gene delivery using a dual-intensity ultrasound system in the bladder. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010, 36:1867-1875.
18. Juffermans L.J.M., Dijkmans P.A., Musters R.J.P., Visser C.A., Kamp O. Transient permeabilization of cell membranes by ultrasound-exposed microbubbles is related to formation of hydrogen peroxide. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2006, 291:H1595-H1601.
19. Karshafian R., Bevan P.D., Williams R., Samac S., Burns P.N. Sonoporation by ultrasound-activated microbubble contrast agents: Effect of acoustic exposure parameters on cell membrane permeability and cell viability. Ultrasound Med Biol 2009, 35:847-860.
20. Katiyar A., Sarkar K. Stability analysis of an encapsulated microbubble against gas diffusion. J Colloid Interface Sci 2010, 343:42-47.
21. Kobulnik J., Kuliszewski M.A., Stewart D.J., Lindner J.R., Leong-Poi H. Comparison of gene delivery techniques for therapeutic angiogenesis: Ultrasound-mediated destruction of carrier microbubbles versus direct intramuscular injection. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009, 54:1735-1742.
22. Koike H., Tomita N., Azuma H., Taniyama Y., Yamasaki K., Kunugiza Y., Tachibana K., Ogihara T., Morishita R. An efficient gene transfer method mediated by ultrasound and microbubbles into the kidney. J Gene Med 2005, 7:108-116.
23. Kusumanto Y.H., Mulder N.H., Dam W.A., Losen M.H., Meijer C., Hospers G.A.P. Improvement of in vivo transfer of plasmid DNA in muscle: Comparison of electroporation versus ultrasound. Drug Delivery 2007, 14:273-277.
24. Kwan J.J., Borden M.A. Microbubble dissolution in a multigas environment. Langmuir 2010, 26:6542-6548.
25. Lensen D., Gelderblom E.C., Vriezema D.M., Marmottant P., Verdonschot N., Versluis M., de Jong N., van Hest J.C.M. Biodegradable polymeric microcapsules for selective ultrasound-triggered drug release. Soft Matter 2011, 7:5417-5422.
26. Li P., Armstrong W.F., Miller D.L. Impact of myocardial contrast echocardiography on vascular permeability: Comparison of three different contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004, 30:83-91.
27. Li T., Tachibana K., Kuroki M. Gene transfer with echo-enhanced contrast agents: Comparison between Albunex, Optison, and Levovist in mice-Initial results. Radiology 2003, 229:423-428.
28. Li Y.S., Davidson E., Reid C.N., McHale A.P. Optimising ultrasound-mediated gene transfer (sonoporation) in vitro and prolonged expression of a transgene in vivo: Potential applications for gene therapy of cancer. Cancer Lett 2009, 273:62-69.
29. Lu Q.L., Liang H.D., Partridge T., Blomley M.J. Microbubble ultrasound improves the efficiency of gene transduction in skeletal muscle in vivo with reduced tissue damage. Gene Ther 2003, 10:396-405.
30. Marshall E. Gene therapy death prompts review of adenovirus vector. Science 1999, 286:2244-2245.
31. Marshall E. Second child in French trial is found to have leukemia. Science 2003, 299:320.
32. McDonald J.H. Handbook of biological statistics 2009, Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, MD. 2nd edition.
33. Meijering B.D.M., Juffermans L.J.M., van Wamel A., Henning R.H., Zuhorn I.S., Emmer M., Versteilen A.M.G., Paulus W., van Gilst W.H., Kooiman K., de Jong N., Musters R.J.P., Deelman L.E., Kamp O. Ultrasound and microbubble-targeted delivery of macromolecules is regulated by induction of endocytosis and pore formation. Circ Res 2009, 104:679-687.
34. Miller D.L. Frequency relationships for ultrasonic activation of free microbubbles, encapsulated microbubbles, and gas-filled micropores. J Acoust Soc Am 1998, 104:2498-2505.
35. Miller D.L., Averkiou M.A., Brayman A.A., Everbach E.C., Holland C.K., Wible J.H., Wu J.R. Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 2008, 27:611-632.
36. Mulvana H., Stride E., Hajnal J.V., Eckersley R.J. Temperature dependent behavior of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010, 36:925-934.
37. Myrset A.H., Fjerdingstad H.B., Bendiksen R., Arbo B.E., Bjerke R.M., Johansen J.H., Kulseth M.A., Skurtveit R. Design and characterization of targeted ultrasound microbubbles for diagnostic use. Ultrasound Med Biol 2011, 37:136-150.
38. Negishi Y., Endo Y., Fukuyama T., Suzuki R., Takizawa T., Omata D., Maruyama K., Aramaki Y. Delivery of siRNA into the cytoplasm by liposomal bubbles and ultrasound. J Control Release 2008, 132:124-130.
39. Pingel TJ. mackskill: Mack-Skillings test for nonparametric two-way ANOVA with unbalanced, incomplete, block designs. A MATLAB file. Available at: 2010. Date accessed: 28 June 2011. http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/%7Epingel/matlabCode/files/mackskill.m.
40. Porter T.R., Xie F., Kricsfeld A. The mechanism and clinical implication of improved left ventricular videointensity following intravenous injection of multi-fold dilutions of albumin with dextrose. Int J Card Imaging 1995, 11:117-125.
41. Saïda AB. swtest: Shapiro-Wilk & Shapiro-Francia parametric hypothesis test of composite normality. A MATLAB file. Available at: 2007. Date accessed: 19 May 2009. http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/13964.
42. Sakai T., Kawaguchi M., Kosuge Y. siRNA-mediated gene silencing in the salivary gland using in vivo microbubble-enhanced sonoporation. Oral Dis 2009, 15:505-511.
43. Sboros V. Response of contrast agents to ultrasound. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 2008, 60:1117-1136.
44. Schneider M. SonoVue, a new ultrasound contrast agent. Eur Radiol 1999, 9:S347-S348.
45. Sennoga C.A., Mahue V., Loughran J., Casey J., Tang M., Eckersley R.J. On sizing and counting of microbubbles using optical microscopy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010, 36:2093-2096.
46. Thomas D.H., Looney P., Steel R., Pelekasis N., McDicken W.N., Anderson T., Sboros V. Acoustic detection of microbubble resonance. Appl Phys Lett 2009, 94:243902-243903.
47. Tlaxca J.L., Anderson C.R., Klibanov A.L., Lowrey B., Hossack J.A., Alexander J.S., Lawrence M.B., Rychak J.J. Analysis of in vitro transfection by sonoporation using cationic and neutral microbubbles. Ultrasound Med Biol 2010, 36:1907-1918.
48. Trujillo-Ortiz A, Hernandez-Walls R. Btest: Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variances. A MATLAB file. Available at: 2003a. Date accessed: 19 May 2009. http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do?objectId=3314&objectType=FILE.
49. Trujillo-Ortiz A, Hernandez-Walls R. DagosPtest: D'Agostino-Pearson's K2 test for assessing normality of data using skewness and kurtosis. A MATLAB file. Available at: 2003b. Date accessed: 19 May 2009. http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do?objectId=3954&objectType=FILE.
50. Vandenbroucke R.E., Lentacker I., Demeester J., De Smedt S.C., Sanders N.N. Ultrasound assisted siRNA delivery using PEG-siPlex loaded microbubbles. J Control Release 2008, 126:265-273.
51. Wang X., Liang H.-D., Dong B., Lu Q.-L., Blomley M.J.K. Gene transfer with microbubble ultrasound and plasmid DNA into skeletal muscle of mice: Comparison between commercially available microbubble contrast agents. Radiology 2005, 237:224-229.
52. Wolff J., Malone R., Williams P., Chong W., Acsadi G., Jani A., Felgner P. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science 1990, 247:1465-1468.
53. Yoon C.S., Jung H.S., Kim T.K., Kwon M.J., Kim M.K., Lee M., Koh K.S., Rhee B.D., Park J.H. Comparison of the efficiency and toxicity of sonoporation with branched polyethylenimine-mediated gene transfection in various cultured cell lines. J Drug Target 2008, 16:773-779.
54. 165 for wound healing of diabetic mice. Pharm Res 2009, 26:794-801.