| Literature DB >> 29109793 |
Dallan McMahon1,2, Kullervo Hynynen1,2,3.
Abstract
Rationale: Focused ultrasound (FUS), in conjunction with circulating microbubbles (MBs), can be used to transiently increase the permeability of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in a targeted manner, allowing therapeutic agents to enter the brain from systemic circulation. While promising preclinical work has paved the way for the initiation of 3 human trials, there remains concern regarding neuroinflammation following treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude of this response following sonication and explore the influence of MB dose.Entities:
Keywords: blood-brain barrier; focused ultrasound; inflammation; microbubbles.
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29109793 PMCID: PMC5667420 DOI: 10.7150/thno.21630
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Theranostics ISSN: 1838-7640 Impact factor: 11.556
FUS parameters used for each sonication scheme
| Scheme | MB Dose (μl Definity/kg) | PNP (MPa) | Pulse Repetition Frequency (Hz) | Pulse Length (ms) | Sonication Duration (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | acoustic controller used | 1 | 10 | 120 |
| 2 | 100 | 0.290 | 1 | 10 | 120 |
| 3 | 100 | acoustic controller used | 1 | 10 | 120 |
MRI parameters
| Parameter | T1w | T2w | T2*w |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequence type | RARE | RARE | GEFC |
| Echo time (ms) | 10 | 70 | 19 |
| Repetition time (ms) | 500 | 4000 | 1043.9 |
| RARE factor | 2 | 10 | NA |
| Averages | 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Field of view (mm) | 50 x 50 | 50 x 50 | 30 x 30 |
| Matrix | 150 x 150 | 200 x 200 | 150 x 150 |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 |
Genes displaying significant changes in expression relative to control regions 6 h post-FUS
| Gene Names | Scheme 1 vs Control Region | Scheme 2 vs Control Region | Scheme 3 vs Control Region | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Log2 FC | P-Value* | Log2 FC | P-Value* | Log2 FC | P-Value* | |
| Bcl3 | 0.25 | 0.503 | 1.77 | 0.074 | 1.78 | 0.053 |
| Birc3 | 0.6 | 0.450 | 3.82 | 0.014 | 3.66 | 0.004 |
| Ccl2 | 1.94 | 0.219 | 5.73 | 0.024 | 5.44 | 0.014 |
| Cd40 | -0.04 | 0.881 | 1.87 | 0.119 | 1.72 | 0.143 |
| Fos | 0.53 | 0.457 | 2.36 | 0.025 | 2.16 | 0.025 |
| Icam1 | 0.69 | 0.237 | 2.63 | 0.065 | 2.14 | 0.071 |
| Il1b | 0.6 | 0.366 | 4.36 | 0.058 | 3.53 | 0.053 |
| Irf1 | 0.06 | 0.822 | 1.79 | 0.134 | 1.61 | 0.182 |
| Nfkb2 | 0.11 | 0.575 | 2.04 | 0.056 | 1.49 | 0.184 |
| Timp1 | 0.21 | 0.695 | 3.3 | 0.079 | 2.78 | 0.151 |
| Tlr1 | 0.28 | 0.732 | 2.22 | 0.046 | 1.91 | 0.051 |
| Tnf | 0.84 | 0.302 | 4.02 | 0.023 | 3.18 | 0.012 |
*P-values for post-hoc student's t-test of genes found to be differentially expressed by ANOVA
Histological events at the focal plane summated across animals
| 6 h Post-FUS | 4 days Post-FUS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | |
| RBCs | 0 | 12 | 3 | 0 | 26 | 6 |
| Granular Leukocytes | 0 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Microglial Nodules | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 1 |
n = 4 for each time point/scheme combination
Comparing differential gene expression 6 h post-FUS for each scheme to previously published research
| Gene | Fold Change in Gene Expression (relative to control) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kovacs | Scheme 1 | Scheme 2 | Scheme 3 | |
| Tnf | 10.87 | 1.87 | 16.22 | 9.00 |
| Il1b | 31.2 | 1.55 | 20.53 | 11.55 |
| Ccl5 | 6.86 | 0.93 | 4.00 | 3.41 |
| Birc3 | 18.96 | 1.77 | 14.52 | 12.55 |
| Icam1 | 6.35 | 1.58 | 6.19 | 4.44 |
| Il1a | 5.31 | 0.75 | 3.95 | 1.71 |
| Nfkb2 | 2.57 | 1.23 | 4.11 | 2.81 |
| Bcl2a1 | 3.84 | 1.45 | 5.35 | 2.64 |
| Cd40 | 2.62 | 1.22 | 3.66 | 3.29 |
| Csf3 | 4.43 | 0.73 | 2.46 | 0.73 |
| Irf1 | 3.12 | 1.25 | 3.43 | 3.07 |
| Nfkbia | 2.25 | 1.12 | 3.73 | 2.25 |
| Tnfrsf1b | 1.70 | 0.62 | 2.77 | 1.34 |
Linear regression between Kovacs et al. 2017 and scheme 2: r2 = 0.84; p = 0.00001