ArticleActa pharmacologica Sinica2010
Vascular gene transfer and drug delivery in vitro using low-frequency ultrasound and microbubbles.
Article in Acta pharmacologica Sinica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- mRNA Sonotransfection of Tumors with Polymeric Microbubbles: Co-Formulation versus Co-Administration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the effects of ultrasound exposure in combination with a microbubble contrast agent (SonoVue) on the cellular uptake and delivery of drugs/genes into human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) as well as their biological effects on migration.
methodsHUVECs in suspension were exposed to pulsed ultrasound with a 10% duty cycle in combination with various concentrations of a microbubble contrast agent (SonoVue) using a digital sonifier at a frequency of 20 kHz and an intensity of 3.77 W/cm(2) on the surface of a horn tip. Cell culture inserts were used to determine the cell migration ability.
resultsExposure to pulsed ultrasound resulted in enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) gene transfection efficiencies ranging from 0.2% to 2%. The transfection efficiency of HUVECs was approximately 3-fold higher in the presence of SonoVue than in its absence at the effective exposure time of 6 s. For drug delivery to HUVECs using ultrasound, the delivery efficiencies of a low-molecular-weight model drug (TO-PRO-1, M(W) 645.38) were significantly higher when compared to drug delivery without ultrasound, with a maximum efficiency of approximately 34%. However, the delivery efficiencies of a high-molecular-weight model drug (Dextran-Rhodamine B, M(W) 70,000) were low, with a maximum delivery efficiency of nearly 0.5%, and gene transfection results were similarly poor. The migration ability of HUVECs exposed to ultrasound was also lower than that of the control (no exposure).
conclusionThe use of low-frequency and low-energy ultrasound in combination with microbubbles could be a potent physical method of increasing drug/gene delivery efficiency. This technique is a promising nonviral approach that can be used in cardiovascular disease therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.