ArticleScientific reports2025
Microfluidic nanobubbles produced using a micromixer for ultrasound imaging and gene delivery.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ultrasound medicine in the era of precision theranostics: Mechanisms, molecular strategies, and clinical translation.Iranian journal of basic medical sciences · 2026Review
- Nanoparticle Detection in Biology and Medicine: A Review.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Therapeutic pCRISPRi Delivery to Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Combining Nanobubbles and Ultrasound.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ultrasound (US)-mediated delivery is considered relatively safe and achieves tissue-specific targeting by simply adjusting the application site of the physical energy. Moreover, combining US with micro- or nanobubbles (MBs or NBs), which serve as US contrast agents, enhances the delivery of drugs, genes, and nucleic acids which also functioning as a tool for US. The performance of US-responsive MBs and NBs, including their therapeutic outcomes, is influenced by the bubble manufacturing methods. Furthermore, productivity and scalability must also be considered for clinical applications. Among various NBs fabrication techniques, microfluidic technology has emerged as a promising approach. However, the potential of NBs generated by microfluidics for drug delivery remains unexplored. In this study, US-responsive NBs were prepared using a microfluidic device, providing a single step gas-filling operation and rapid production method not only for US imaging but also for gene delivery. The effectiveness of these NBs was subsequently evaluated. The preparation conditions for the microfluidic NBs (MF-NBs) were optimized based on their physical properties, including particle size, number concentration, and their performance as US agents. Gene delivery capability was assessed in various tissues, including muscles, heart, kidney, and brain. The results demonstrated that MF-NBs exhibit high monodispersity, enhance US imaging, achieve widespread distribution following administration (including in brain tissue), and enable gene delivery to irradiated areas. These findings suggest that MF-NBs, with their high productivity and uniformity, are promising candidates for practical applications in US imaging, gene delivery, and nucleic acid delivery systems.
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.