Advertisement

Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 239–249 | Cite as

Evaluation of the Temporal Window for Drug Delivery Following Ultrasound-Mediated Membrane Permeability Enhancement

  • Anna YudinaEmail author
  • Matthieu Lepetit-Coiffé
  • Chrit T. W. Moonen
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Ultrasound-induced cavitation facilitates cellular uptake of drugs via increased membrane permeability. Here, the purpose was to evaluate the duration of enhanced membrane permeability following ultrasound treatment in cell culture.

Procedures

Optical chromophores with fluorescence intensity increasing 100–1,000-fold upon intercalation with nucleic acids served as smart agents for reporting cellular uptake. Opticell chambers with a monolayer of C6 cells were subjected to ultrasound in the presence of microbubbles followed by varying delays between 0 and 24 h before addition of Sytox Green optical contrast agent. Micro- and macroscopic fluorescence were used for qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Results

Up to 25% of viable cells showed uptake of contrast agent with a half time of 8 h, with cellular uptake persisting even at 24 h. Only cells exposed to ultrasound showed the effect.

Conclusion

The temporal window of increased membrane permeability is much longer in these studies than previously suggested. This may have important repercussions for in vivo studies in which membrane permeability may be temporally separated from drug delivery.

Key words

Ultrasound-mediated drug delivery Cavitation Microbubbles Temporal window Live-cell fluorescence imaging Intercalating dyes 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by EC-project FP7-ICT-2007-1-213706 SonoDrugs and Foundation InNaBioSanté-project ULTRAFITT. The authors thank Franck Couillaud for the discussions and Roel Deckers and Sander Allon for the preliminary experiments with Opticell and intercalating dyes. Microscopy was performed in the Bordeaux Imaging Center of the Neurosciences Institute of the University of Bordeaux II; the help of Philippe Legros and Christel Poujol is acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Juillerat-Jeanneret L (2008) The targeted delivery of cancer drugs across the blood–brain barrier: chemical modifications of drugs or drug-nanoparticles? Drug Discov Today 13(23–24):1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Simone E, Ding BS, Muzykantov V (2009) Targeted delivery of therapeutics to endothelium. Cell Tissue Res 335(1):283–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hernot S, Klibanov AL (2008) Microbubbles in ultrasound-triggered drug and gene delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 60(10):1153–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deckers R, Rome C, Moonen CT (2008) The role of ultrasound and magnetic resonance in local drug delivery. J Magn Reson Imaging 27(2):400–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Larkin JO, Casey GD, Tangney M et al (2008) Effective tumor treatment using optimized ultrasound-mediated delivery of bleomycin. Ultrasound Med Biol 34(3):406–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yuh EL, Shulman SG, Mehta SA et al (2005) Delivery of systemic chemotherapeutic agent to tumors by using focused ultrasound: study in a murine model. Radiology 234(2):431–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Treat LH, McDannold N, Vykhodtseva N et al (2007) Targeted delivery of doxorubicin to the rat brain at therapeutic levels using MRI-guided focused ultrasound. Int J Cancer 121(4):901–907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Unger EC, McCreery TP, Sweitzer RH et al (1998) Acoustically active lipospheres containing paclitaxel: a new therapeutic ultrasound contrast agent. Invest Radiol 33(12):886–892PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tartis MS, McCallan J, Lum AF et al (2006) Therapeutic effects of paclitaxel-containing ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasound Med Biol 32(11):1771–1780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rapoport NY, Kennedy AM, Shea JE et al (2009) Controlled and targeted tumor chemotherapy by ultrasound-activated nanoemulsions/microbubbles. J Control Release 138(3):268–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taniyama Y, Tachibana K, Hiraoka K et al (2002) Development of safe and efficient novel nonviral gene transfer using ultrasound: enhancement of transfection efficiency of naked plasmid DNA in skeletal muscle. Gene Ther 9(6):372–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dittmar KM, Xie J, Hunter F et al (2005) Pulsed high-intensity focused ultrasound enhances systemic administration of naked DNA in squamous cell carcinoma model: initial experience. Radiology 235(2):541–546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rome C, Deckers R, Moonen CT (2008) The use of ultrasound in transfection and transgene expression. Handb Exp Pharmacol 185(2):225–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kinoshita M, Hynynen K (2005) A novel method for the intracellular delivery of siRNA using microbubble-enhanced focused ultrasound. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 335(2):393–399PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saito M, Mazda O, Takahashi KA et al (2007) Sonoporation mediated transduction of pDNA/siRNA into joint synovium in vivo. J Orthop Res 25(10):1308–1316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mehier-Humbert S, Yan F, Frinking P et al (2007) Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery: influence of contrast agent on transfection. Bioconjug Chem 18(3):652–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Wamel A, Kooiman K, Harteveld M et al (2006) Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. J Control Release 112(2):149–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schlicher RK, Radhakrishna H, Tolentino TP et al (2006) Mechanism of intracellular delivery by acoustic cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol 32(6):915–924PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Neill BE, Vo H, Angstadt M et al (2009) Pulsed high intensity focused ultrasound mediated nanoparticle delivery: mechanisms and efficacy in murine muscle. Ultrasound Med Biol 35(3):416–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hancock HA, Smith LH, Cuesta J et al (2009) Investigations into pulsed high-intensity focused ultrasound-enhanced delivery: preliminary evidence for a novel mechanism. Ultrasound Med Biol 35(10):1722–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hallow DM, Mahajan AD, Prausnitz MR (2007) Ultrasonically targeted delivery into endothelial and smooth muscle cells in ex vivo arteries. J Control Release 118(3):285–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greis C (2004) Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur Radiol 14(Suppl 8):P11–P15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lepetit-Coiffé MYA, Lourenco de Oliveira P et al (2009) Correlation of ultrasound-mediated drug delivery with acoustical properties of the transducer by macroscopic fluorescence imaging. In: ISTU. Aix on Provence, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lionetti V, Fittipaldi A, Agostini S et al (2009) Enhanced caveolae-mediated endocytosis by diagnostic ultrasound in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 35(1):136–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Meijering BD, Juffermans LJ, van Wamel A et al (2009) Ultrasound and microbubble-targeted delivery of macromolecules is regulated by induction of endocytosis and pore formation. Circ Res 104(5):679–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Molecular Imaging and Society for Molecular Imaging 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anna Yudina
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthieu Lepetit-Coiffé
    • 1
  • Chrit T. W. Moonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Molecular and Functional Imaging: from Physiology to TherapyUMR5231 CNRS/University Victor Segalen BordeauxBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations