ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2013
In vitro gene delivery with ultrasound-triggered polymer microbubbles.
Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining Ultrasound Parameters for Bursting Polymer Microbubbles for Future Use in Spinal Cord Injury.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2024Article
- mRNA Sonotransfection of Tumors with Polymeric Microbubbles: Co-Formulation versus Co-Administration.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Polymeric materials for ultrasound imaging and therapy.Chemical science · 2023Review
- Sonoporation of Cells by a Parallel Stable Cavitation Microbubble Array.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2019Article
- Mechanistic Insight into Sonoporation with Ultrasound-Stimulated Polymer Microbubbles.Ultrasound in medicine & biology · 2017Article
- Inhibitory effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound sonication on the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells.Oncology letters · 2017Article
- In vitro methods to study bubble-cell interactions: Fundamentals and therapeutic applications.Biomicrofluidics · 2016Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the work described here, gene delivery using polymer microbubbles triggered by ultrasound in vitro was investigated. The effects of pressure amplitude (0-2 MPa), center frequency (1-5 MHz), pulse length (3-12,000 μs), pulse repetition frequency (5-20,000 Hz) and exposure time (0-30 s) on transfection efficiency and cell viability were examined. The effects of radiation force, calcium ion concentration and timing of treatments were also examined. Cells were successfully transfected with pressure amplitudes as low as 250 kPa. Transfection was most efficient at lower frequencies and longer pulse lengths, with a transfection efficiency of 24.2 ± 2.0% achieved using a center frequency of 1 MHz, pressure amplitude of 1 MPa, pulse length of 12,000 μs and pulse repetition frequency of 5 Hz. Gene delivery was also affected by the extracellular calcium ion concentration and the timing of treatments.
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.