ArticleJournal of therapeutic ultrasound2015
Sonoporation efficacy on SiHa cells in vitro at raised bath temperatures-experimental validation of a prototype sonoporation device.
Article in Journal of therapeutic ultrasound, 2015. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- An evaluation of the sonoporation potential of low-boiling point phase-change ultrasound contrast agents in vitro.Journal of therapeutic ultrasound · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA device was devised which aimed to reduce the time and expertise required to perform sonoporation on adherent cell cultures. This prototype device was used to examine the superficial effect of bath temperature on sonoporation efficacy.
methodsThe prototype device consisted of six ultrasound transducers affixed beneath an Opticell stage. Six transducers with nominal diameters of 20 mm were constructed and the acoustic field of each was characterized using hydrophone scanning. A near field treatment plane was chosen for each transducer to minimize field heterogeneity in the near field. Cervical cancer-derived SiHa cells were exposed to nine different treatments in the presence of plasmid DNA-expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP). Ultrasound treatment with Definity ultrasound contrast agent (US+UCA) present, ultrasound treatment without contrast agent present (US), and a sham ultrasound treatment in the presence of ultrasound contrast agent (CA) were each performed at bath temperatures of 37, 39.5, and 42 °C. Each treatment was performed in biological triplicate. GFP expression and PARP expression following treatment were measured using fluorescent microscopy and digital image processing. Cell detachment was measured using phase contrast microscopy before and after treatment.
resultsMean (± s.d.) transfection rates for the US+UCA treatment were 5.4(±0.92), 5.8(±1.3), and 5.3(±1.1) % at 37, 39.5, and 42 °C, respectively. GFP expression and cell detachment were both significantly affected by the presence of ultrasound contrast agent (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). Neither GFP expression, PARP expression, or detachment differed significantly between bath temperatures.
conclusionsBath temperature did not impact the efficacy of sonoporation treatment on SiHa cells in vitro. The prototype device was found to be suitable for performing sonoporation on adherent cell cultures and will reduce the time and expertise required for conducting sonoporation experiments on adherent cell cultures in the future.
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.