Literature DB >> 22723497

Cationic versus neutral microbubbles for ultrasound-mediated gene delivery in cancer.

David S Wang1, Cedric Panje, Marybeth A Pysz, Ramasamy Paulmurugan, Jarrett Rosenberg, Sanjiv S Gambhir, Michel Schneider, Jürgen K Willmann.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test whether plasmid-binding cationic microbubbles (MBs) enhance ultrasound-mediated gene delivery efficiency relative to control neutral MBs in cell culture and in vivo tumors in mice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Animal studies were approved by the institutional animal care committee. Cationic and neutral MBs were characterized in terms of size, charge, circulation time, and DNA binding. Click beetle luciferase (CBLuc) reporter plasmids were mixed with cationic or neutral MBs. The ability of cationic MBs to protect bound plasmids from nuclease degradation was tested by means of a deoxyribonuclease (DNase) protection assay. Relative efficiencies of ultrasound-mediated transfection (ultrasound parameters: 1 MHz, 1 W/cm(2), 20% duty cycle, 1 minute) of CBLuc to endothelial cells by using cationic, neutral, or no MBs were compared in cell culture. Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery to mouse hind limb tumors was performed in vivo (n = 24) with insonation (1 MHz, 2 W/cm(2), 50% duty cycle, 5 minutes) after intravenous administration of CBLuc with cationic, neutral, or no MBs. Tumor luciferase activity was assessed by means of serial in vivo bioluminescence imaging and ex vivo analysis. Results were compared by using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Cationic MBs (+15.8 mV; DNA binding capacity, 0.03 pg per MB) partially protected bound DNA from DNase degradation. Mean CBLuc expression of treated endothelial cells in culture was 20-fold higher with cationic than with neutral MBs (219.0 relative light units [RLUs]/µg protein ± 92.5 [standard deviation] vs 10.9 RLUs/µg protein ± 2.7, P = .001) and was significantly higher (P < .001) than that in the no MB and no ultrasound control groups. Serial in vivo bioluminescence of mouse tumors was significantly higher with cationic than with neutral MBs ([5.9 ± 2.2] to [9.3 ± 5.2] vs [2.4 ± 0.8] to [2.9 ± 1.1] × 10(4) photons/sec/cm(2)/steradian, P < .0001) and versus no MB and no ultrasound controls (P < .0001). Results of ex vivo analysis confirmed these results (ρ = 0.88, P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Plasmid-binding cationic MBs enhance ultrasound-mediated gene delivery efficiency relative to neutral MBs in both cell culture and mouse hind limb tumors. © RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22723497      PMCID: PMC3426857          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  41 in total

1.  Induction of cell-membrane porosity by ultrasound.

Authors:  K Tachibana; T Uchida; K Ogawa; N Yamashita; K Tamura
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-04-24       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Optimisation of ultrasound-mediated gene transfer (sonoporation) in skeletal muscle cells.

Authors:  Hai-Dong Liang; Qi Long Lu; Shao-An Xue; Michael Halliwell; Tetsuya Kodama; David O Cosgrove; Hans J Stauss; Terence A Partridge; Martin J K Blomley
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.998

3.  Therapeutic ultrasound-mediated DNA to cell and nucleus: bioeffects revealed by confocal and atomic force microscopy.

Authors:  M Duvshani-Eshet; L Baruch; E Kesselman; E Shimoni; M Machluf
Journal:  Gene Ther       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.250

4.  Mechanism of intracellular delivery by acoustic cavitation.

Authors:  Robyn K Schlicher; Harish Radhakrishna; Timothy P Tolentino; Robert P Apkarian; Vladimir Zarnitsyn; Mark R Prausnitz
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.998

Review 5.  Cavitation bioeffects.

Authors:  Eitan Kimmel
Journal:  Crit Rev Biomed Eng       Date:  2006

6.  Artificial cavitation nuclei significantly enhance acoustically induced cell transfection.

Authors:  W J Greenleaf; M E Bolander; G Sarkar; M B Goldring; J F Greenleaf
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Ultrasound-responsive polymer-coated microbubbles that bind and protect DNA.

Authors:  Ine Lentacker; Bruno G De Geest; Roosmarijn E Vandenbroucke; Liesbeth Peeters; Joseph Demeester; Stefaan C De Smedt; Niek N Sanders
Journal:  Langmuir       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 3.882

Review 8.  Towards safe, non-viral therapeutic gene expression in humans.

Authors:  Dominic J Glover; Hans J Lipps; David A Jans
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  Efficient gene delivery to pancreatic islets with ultrasonic microbubble destruction technology.

Authors:  Shuyuan Chen; Jia-huan Ding; Raffi Bekeredjian; Bing-zhi Yang; Ralph V Shohet; Stephen A Johnston; Hans E Hohmeier; Christopher B Newgard; Paul A Grayburn
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-05-18       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  An efficient gene transfer method mediated by ultrasound and microbubbles into the kidney.

Authors:  Hiromi Koike; Naruya Tomita; Haruhito Azuma; Yoshiaki Taniyama; Keita Yamasaki; Yasuo Kunugiza; Katsuro Tachibana; Toshio Ogihara; Ryuichi Morishita
Journal:  J Gene Med       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 4.565

View more
  36 in total

Review 1.  A review of low-intensity ultrasound for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Andrew K W Wood; Chandra M Sehgal
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.998

2.  In Vivo Transfection and Detection of Gene Expression of Stem Cells Preloaded with DNA-carrying Microbubbles.

Authors:  Sidhartha Tavri; Alexander Vezeridis; Wenjin Cui; Robert F Mattrey
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Targeted nanobubbles in low-frequency ultrasound-mediated gene transfection and growth inhibition of hepatocellular carcinoma cells.

Authors:  Bolin Wu; Qiang Qiao; Xue Han; Hui Jing; Hao Zhang; Hongjian Liang; Wen Cheng
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2016-05-23

Review 4.  Ultrasound molecular imaging: Moving toward clinical translation.

Authors:  Lotfi Abou-Elkacem; Sunitha V Bachawal; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Removal of ligand-bound liposomes from cell surfaces by microbubbles exposed to ultrasound.

Authors:  Stuart Ibsen; Ruben Mora; Guixin Shi; Carolyn Schutt; Wenjin Cui; Michael Benchimol; Viviana Serra; Sadik Esener
Journal:  J Biol Phys       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 1.365

Review 6.  Targeting of microbubbles: contrast agents for ultrasound molecular imaging.

Authors:  Shiying Wang; John A Hossack; Alexander L Klibanov
Journal:  J Drug Target       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 5.121

7.  Ultrasound for molecular imaging and therapy in cancer.

Authors:  Osamu F Kaneko; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2012-06

8.  Development of therapeutic microbubbles for enhancing ultrasound-mediated gene delivery.

Authors:  Ryan R Sun; Misty L Noble; Samuel S Sun; Shuxian Song; Carol H Miao
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 9.776

9.  Ultrasound-guided therapeutic modulation of hepatocellular carcinoma using complementary microRNAs.

Authors:  Sayan Mullick Chowdhury; Tzu-Yin Wang; Sunitha Bachawal; Rammohan Devulapally; Jung Woo Choe; Lotfi Abou Elkacem; Butrus Khuri Yakub; David S Wang; Lu Tian; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 9.776

Review 10.  Drug and gene delivery across the blood-brain barrier with focused ultrasound.

Authors:  Kelsie F Timbie; Brian P Mead; Richard J Price
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 9.776

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.