Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20665479›Full record

ArticleBiotechnology and bioengineering2010

Optimization of ultrasound contrast agents with computational models to improve selection of ligands and binding strength.

Timothy M Maul, Drew D Dudgeon, Michael T Beste, Daniel A Hammer, John S Lazo, Flordeliza S Villanueva, William R Wagner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biotechnology and bioengineering, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Applications of aptamers in targeted imaging: state of the art.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2015
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Molecular imaging with nucleic acid aptamers.Current medicinal chemistry · 2011
    Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Timothy M MaulDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Drew D Dudgeon
Michael T Beste
Daniel A Hammer
John S Lazo
Flordeliza S Villanueva
William R Wagner

Funding

University of Pittsburgh Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000005 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI REIS, STEVEN E · 2012 to 2015
$50.8M
Leuko-polymersomes for Optical ImagingR01EB003457 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HAMMER, DANIEL A · 2004 to 2007
$1.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000005NIBIB NIH HHS 1R01EB003457-01NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB003457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnosis of cardiovascular disease is currently limited by the testing modality. Serum tests for biomarkers can provide quantification of severity but lack the ability to localize the source of the cardiovascular disease, while imaging technology such as angiography and ultrasound can only determine areas of reduced flow but not the severity of tissue ischemia. Targeted imaging with ultrasound contrast agents offers the ability to locally image as well as determine the degree of ischemia by utilizing agents that will cause the contrast agent to home to the affected tissue. Ultrasound molecular imaging via targeted microbubbles (MB) is currently limited by its sensitivity to molecular markers of disease relative to other techniques (e.g., radiolabeling). We hypothesize that computational modeling may provide a useful first approach to maximize microbubble binding by defining key parameters governing adhesion. Adhesive dynamics (AD) was used to simulate the fluid dynamic and stochastic molecular binding of microbubbles to inflamed endothelial cells. Sialyl Lewis(X) (sLe(x)), P-selectin aptamer (PSA), and ICAM-1 antibody (abICAM) were modeled as the targeting receptors on the microbubble surface in both single- and dual-targeted arrangements. Microbubble properties (radius [R(c)], kinetics [k(f), k(r)], and densities of targeting receptors) and the physical environment (shear rate and target ligand densities) were modeled. The kinetics for sLe(x) and PSA were measured with surface plasmon resonance. R(c), shear rate, and densities of sLe(x), PSA, or abICAM were varied independently to assess model sensitivity. Firm adhesion was defined as MB velocity <2% of the free stream velocity. AD simulations revealed an optimal microbubble radius of 1-2 µm and thresholds for kf(in) ( >10(2) s(-1)) and kr(o) (<10(-3) s(-1)) for firm adhesion in a multi-targeted system. State diagrams for multi-targeted microbubbles suggest sLe(x) and abICAM microbubbles may require 10-fold more ligand to achieve firm adhesion at higher shear rates than sLe(x) and PSA microbubbles. The AD model gives useful insight into the key parameters for stable microbubble binding, and may allow flexible, prospective design, and optimization of microbubbles to enhance clinical translation of ultrasound molecular imaging.

Indexed as

MicrobubblesComputer SimulationContrast MediaEndothelial CellsLigandsSurface Plasmon ResonanceUltrasonographyContrast MediaLigands

Identifiers

PMID20665479
PMCPMC3225194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.