ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2026
Gas Vesicles and Acoustic Protein Nanostructures in Molecular Ultrasound Nanomedicine: Translational Archetypes, Biomaterial Design, and Barriers to Clinical Realization.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2026. 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.
- GV21 enables ultrasound molecular imaging of tumor cell-associated VEGFR2 for early therapy assessment.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound is clinically established, portable, and repeatable, but its dominant contrast logic remains anatomical and perfusion-based. Gas vesicles (GVs), acoustic reporter genes (ARGs), targeted GV derivatives, and GV-containing release materials have introduced a protein-based route toward molecular ultrasound nanomedicine. Their translation, however, cannot be inferred from acoustic detectability alone. This Review examines GVs and related acoustic protein nanostructures as biomaterial and nanomedicine systems. We distinguish clinical microbubbles, purified GVs, exogenous GV-labeled cells, intracellular ARG systems, GV-based release materials, and prospective computationally designed acoustic protein nanostructures. These formats differ in biological setting, route of administration, pharmacologic burden, and evidentiary maturity. We define computational molecular sonography as a bounded organizing framework that links reporter design, acoustic signal representation, biological fate, exposure estimation, and clinician-governed safety. The strongest current evidence comes from natural and engineered GV systems, including pressure-dependent collapse, nonlinear detection, gas vesicle protein C (GvpC)-mediated surface engineering, blood-component interactions, and reporter-gene imaging. By contrast, fully de novo acoustic protein nanostructures remain prospective rather than in vivo-ready. The major translational barriers include shell mechanics and stability, surface corona and immune clearance, repeat-dose safety, toxicology, manufacturing consistency, critical quality attributes, and Sim-to-Real uncertainty in tissue and acoustic fields. Future clinical value will require standardized biomaterial characterization, direct acoustic phenotyping, reporter-sensitive acquisition, and regulatory-grade control of product and exposure. Ultrasound visibility is therefore necessary but insufficient; translation will depend on aligning material design, biological fate, signal interpretation, and safety as a coupled problem.
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.