Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30638695›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in medicine & biology2019

Ultrasound Imaging of Microbubble Activity during Sonoporation Pulse Sequences.

Sara Keller, Matthew Bruce, Michalakis A Averkiou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in medicine & biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Delivery of Cavitation Therapy With a Modified Clinical Scanner: In Vitro Evaluation.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. High-Frequency Array-Based Nanobubble Nonlinear Imaging in a Phantom and In Vivo.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sara KellerDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Matthew BruceApplied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Michalakis A AverkiouDepartment of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. Electronic address: maverk@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USUniversity of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory · US

Funding

NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002318 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Megan Moore · 2017 to 2026
$8.4M
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002318
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultrasound-mediated drug delivery using the mechanical action of oscillating and/or collapsing microbubbles has been studied on many different experimental platforms, both in vitro and in vivo; however, the mechanisms remain to be elucidated. Many groups use sterile, enclosed chambers, such as Opticells and Clinicells, to optimize acoustic parameters in vitro needed for effective drug delivery in vivo, as well as for mechanistic investigation of sonoporation or the use of sound to permeate cell membranes. In these containers, cell monolayers are seeded on one side, and the remainder of the volume is filled with a solution containing microbubbles and a model drug. Ultrasound is then applied to study the effect of different parameters on model drug uptake in cell monolayers. Despite the simplicity of this system, the field has been unable to appropriately address what parameters and microbubble concentrations are most effective at enhancing drug uptake and minimizing cellular toxicity. In this work, a common in vitro sonoporation experimental setup was characterized through quantitative analysis of microbubble-dependent acoustic attenuation in combination with high-frame-rate and high-resolution imaging of bubble activity during sonoporation pulse sequences. The goal was to visualize the effect that ultrasound parameters have on microbubble activity. It was observed that under literature-derived sonoporation conditions (0.1-1 MPa, 20-1000 cycles and 10,000 to 10,000,000 microbubbles/mL), there is strong and non-linear acoustic attenuation, as well as bubble destruction, gas diffusion and bubble motion resulting in spatiotemporal pressure and concentration gradients. Ultimately, it was found that the acoustic conditions in common in vitro sonoporation setups are much more complex and confounding than often assumed.

Indexed as

MicrobubblesCell Membrane PermeabilityDrug Delivery SystemsIn Vitro TechniquesSonicationUltrasonographyCavitation imagingDrug deliveryMicrobubble attenuationSonoporation

Identifiers

PMID30638695
PMCPMC6690385
OpenAlexW2909589733

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.