Literature DB >> 28287967

Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles.

Tom van Rooij, Ines Beekers, Kirby R Lattwein, Antonius F W van der Steen, Nico de Jong, Klazina Kooiman.   

Abstract

One of the main challenges for ultrasound molecular imaging is acoustically distinguishing nonbound microbubbles from those bound to their molecular target. In this in vitro study, we compared two types of in-house produced targeted lipid-coated microbubbles, either consisting of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C16:0 (DPPC) or 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C18:0 (DSPC) as the main lipid, using the Brandaris 128 ultrahigh-speed camera to determine vibrational response differences between bound and nonbound biotinylated microbubbles. In contrast to previous studies that studied vibrational differences upon binding, we used a covalently bound model biomarker (i.e., streptavidin) rather than physisorption, to ensure binding of the biomarker to the membrane. The microbubbles were insonified at frequencies between 1 and 4 MHz at pressures of 50 and 150 kPa. This paper shows lower acoustic stability of bound microbubbles, of which DPPC-based microbubbles deflated most. For DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and [Formula: see text] driven at 50 kPa, resonance frequencies of bound microbubbles were all higher than 1.8 MHz, whereas those of nonbound microbubbles were significantly lower. In addition, the relative radial excursions at resonance were also higher for bound DPPC microbubbles. These differences did not persist when the pressure was increased to 150 kPa, except for the acoustic stability which further decreased. No differences in resonance frequencies were observed between bound and nonbound DSPC microbubbles. Nonlinear responses in terms of emissions at the subharmonic and second harmonic frequencies were similar for bound and nonbound microbubbles at both pressures. In conclusion, we identified differences in vibrational responses of bound DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and [Formula: see text] that distinguish them from nonbound ones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28287967     DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2679160

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control        ISSN: 0885-3010            Impact factor:   2.725


  5 in total

1.  Changes in microbubble dynamics upon adhesion to a solid surface.

Authors:  Jordan S Lum; Verya Daeichin; Daniel F Kienle; Daniel K Schwartz; Todd W Murray; Mark A Borden
Journal:  Appl Phys Lett       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 3.791

Review 2.  Sonobactericide: An Emerging Treatment Strategy for Bacterial Infections.

Authors:  Kirby R Lattwein; Himanshu Shekhar; Joop J P Kouijzer; Willem J B van Wamel; Christy K Holland; Klazina Kooiman
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.694

3.  Ligand Distribution and Lipid Phase Behavior in Phospholipid-Coated Microbubbles and Monolayers.

Authors:  Simone A G Langeveld; Christian Schwieger; Inés Beekers; Jacob Blaffert; Tom van Rooij; Alfred Blume; Klazina Kooiman
Journal:  Langmuir       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 3.882

4.  The Impact of Lipid Handling and Phase Distribution on the Acoustic Behavior of Microbubbles.

Authors:  Simone A G Langeveld; Inés Beekers; Gonzalo Collado-Lara; Antonius F W van der Steen; Nico de Jong; Klazina Kooiman
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 6.321

5.  Dispersing and Sonoporating Biofilm-Associated Bacteria with Sonobactericide.

Authors:  Kirby R Lattwein; Inés Beekers; Joop J P Kouijzer; Mariël Leon-Grooters; Simone A G Langeveld; Tom van Rooij; Antonius F W van der Steen; Nico de Jong; Willem J B van Wamel; Klazina Kooiman
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 6.525

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.