Literature DB >> 12667957

In vitro modulation of intracellular oxidative stress of endothelial cells by diagnostic cardiac ultrasound.

Giuseppina Basta1, Lucia Venneri, Guido Lazzerini, Emilio Pasanisi, Mascia Pianelli, Nicoletta Vesentini, Serena Del Turco, Claudia Kusmic, Eugenio Picano.   

Abstract

Diagnostic cardiac ultrasound are commonly assumed to pose no hazard to the patient-but this is not synonymous with being biologically inert. The production of intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) on endothelial cells is a key modulator of atheroprotective (at low level) and atherogenic (at high levels) actions. The aim of the study was to evaluate in vitro the effects on intracellular ROS of endothelial cells after ultrasound exposure of variable duration with commercially available cardiac imaging systems. Endothelial cells fluorescence was evaluated in vitro after sham (transducer off) exposure to ultrasound and after 5', 15' and 30' of ultrasound irradiation with second harmonic 1.3/2.6 MHz cardiac ultrasound scan (mechanical index 1.5). Intracellular ROS were 83 at baseline, and rose to 86, 112 and 122 fluorescence intensity at 1 h incubation after 5', 15' and 30' of ultrasound exposure respectively (P<0.01 for 30' versus baseline and 5' comparison). There were microscopic signs of endothelial damage only following 30' stage. Ultrasound exposure induced significant DNA laddering and LDH leakage after 15' of ultrasound exposure. Effects on endothelial cells could be reproduced by adding exposed extracellular medium to unexposed cells, and could be prevented removing exposed medium from cell culture or pretreating the medium with catalase. Cardiac ultrasound of current clinical diagnostic use increases intracellular oxidative stress on endothelial cells in vitro. This increase is accompanied by morphological evidence of endothelial damage only after longer exposure times, persists 1 h after withdrawal of ultrasound, and can be modulated over a wide range according to the duration of ultrasound exposure. Free radical production in the extracellular medium is the likely mediator of ultrasound effect.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12667957     DOI: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00665-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Res        ISSN: 0008-6363            Impact factor:   10.787


  18 in total

1.  Optimization of low-frequency low-intensity ultrasound-mediated microvessel disruption on prostate cancer xenografts in nude mice using an orthogonal experimental design.

Authors:  Y U Yang; Wenkun Bai; Yini Chen; Yanduan Lin; Bing Hu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 2.  Microbubbles in ultrasound-triggered drug and gene delivery.

Authors:  Sophie Hernot; Alexander L Klibanov
Journal:  Adv Drug Deliv Rev       Date:  2008-04-03       Impact factor: 15.470

Review 3.  Local drug and gene delivery through microbubbles and ultrasound.

Authors:  L J M Juffermans; P A Dijkmans; R J P Musters; A van Wamel; A Bouakaz; F J Ten Cate; L Deelman; C A Visser; N de Jong; O Kamp
Journal:  Neth Heart J       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  Microbubble destruction with ultrasound augments neovascularisation by bone marrow cell transplantation in rat hind limb ischaemia.

Authors:  S Enomoto; M Yoshiyama; T Omura; R Matsumoto; T Kusuyama; D Nishiya; Y Izumi; K Akioka; H Iwao; K Takeuchi; J Yoshikawa
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-07-01       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 5.  Rise of cyborg microrobot: different story for different configuration.

Authors:  Fanan Wei; Chao Yin; Jianghong Zheng; Ziheng Zhan; Ligang Yao
Journal:  IET Nanobiotechnol       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 1.847

Review 6.  Ultrasound-mediated drug delivery to the brain: principles, progress and prospects.

Authors:  Anshuman Dasgupta; Mengjiao Liu; Tarun Ojha; Gert Storm; Fabian Kiessling; Twan Lammers
Journal:  Drug Discov Today Technol       Date:  2016-10-25

7.  Mechanisms of nanoparticle-mediated photomechanical cell damage.

Authors:  Sara Peeters; Michael Kitz; Stefan Preisser; Antoinette Wetterwald; Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser; George N Thalmann; Christina Brandenberger; Arthur Bailey; Martin Frenz
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2012-02-07       Impact factor: 3.732

8.  Does contrast echocardiography induce increases in markers of myocardial necrosis, inflammation and oxidative stress suggesting myocardial injury?

Authors:  Fabian Knebel; Ingolf Schimke; Stephan Eddicks; Torsten Walde; Reinhard Ziebig; Sebastian Schattke; Gert Baumann; Adrian Constantin Borges
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 2.062

9.  Can pulsed ultrasound increase tissue damage during ischemia? A study of the effects of ultrasound on infarcted and non-infarcted myocardium in anesthetized pigs.

Authors:  Göran K Olivecrona; Bjarne Madsen Härdig; Anders Roijer; Mattias Block; Edgars Grins; Hans W Persson; Leif Johansson; Bertil Olsson
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2005-04-15       Impact factor: 2.298

10.  Ultrasound-induced new cellular mechanism involved in drug resistance.

Authors:  Mariame A Hassan; Yukihiro Furusawa; Masami Minemura; Natalya Rapoport; Toshiro Sugiyama; Takashi Kondo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.