Sonoporation by Ultrasound-Activated Microbubble Contrast Agents: Effect of Acoustic Exposure Parameters on Cell Membrane Permeability and Cell Viability

Sonoluminescence and acoustic emission spectra at different stages of cavitation zone development

“…This interest is motivated by the promising results obtained during the study of ultrasonically induced biological effects including, I) enhanced cell membrane permeability which improves the delivery of small compounds, macromolecules and other therapeutics into cells and tissues, i.e. sonoporation [6][7][8][9]; II) DNA-mediated transfection [10,11]; III) tumour growth reduction [12,13], and IV) the activation of specific compounds triggering antitumor or antimicrobial activity [14][15][16][17]. It is believed that cavitation plays an important role in these bio-effects.…”

“…It is believed that cavitation plays an important role in these bio-effects. Three types of ultrasound action on biological cells have been identified [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]; damping viability, reversible cell damage (sonoporation) and irreversible damage/cytotoxicity. It is possible that these types of action derive from the different properties that cavitation displays under different conditions, meaning that the monitoring and control of cavitation is therefore an important factor in the successful use of ultrasound in medicine and biology.…”

Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy: a potential strategy to stimulate tendon-bone junction healing

“…The exact physical mechanisms underpinning cell membrane change are not fully understood. The effects of ultrasound alone or in combination with externally administered microbubbles are likely associated with the generation of shockwaves and microjets (Ohl et al, 2006;Juffermans et al, 2008) and with acoustic microstreaming (Karshafian et al, 2009). Furthermore, LIPUS stimulates the growth of bacteria and physiological cells by increasing the rate of oxygen and nutrient transport to the cells and by increasing the rate of transport of waste of products away from cells (Pitt and Ross, 2003).…”

Enhancement of Non-Invasive Trans-Membrane Drug Delivery Using Ultrasound and Microbubbles During Physiologically Relevant Flow

“…These pores are up to 1 μm in size and have been shown to reseal within seconds (Hu et al, 2013;Newman 5 and Bettinger, 2007;Qiu et al, 2010;Zhou et al, 2009), minutes (Schlicher et al, 2006) or even hours (Zhao et al, 2008). Inertial cavitation produces higher rates of intracellular delivery than stable cavitation (Fan et al, 2013;Karshafian et al, 2009;Park et al, 2011;Qiu et al, 2010), however the cellular membrane is more likely to be disrupted and that influences cell viability (Newman and Bettinger, 2007). Furthermore, at diagnostic 10 frequencies and acoustic pressures, endothelial damage can occur when contrast agents are under ultrasound exposure, due to the generation of inertial cavitation.…”

“…Furthermore, the cavitation nuclei kinetics within the focal volume can be adjusted by varying the pulse-off time (Goertz et al, 2010). Although it has been previously shown that the employed pulse sequence 10 parameters greatly influence the cell viability and membrane permeability (Karshafian et al, 2009), there has been no feasibility study on a physiologically relevant flow setup.…”