Non-Invasive Assessment and Control of Ultrasound-Mediated Membrane Permeabilization
- 259 Downloads
Purpose. Ultrasound has been shown to transiently permeabilize biological membranes, thereby facilitating delivery of large compounds such as proteins and DNA into cells and across tissues such as skin. In this study, we sought to quantitatively determine the dependence of cell membrane permeabilization on ultrasound parameters and to identify acoustic signals which correlate with observed membrane permeabilization.
Methods. Bovine red blood cells were exposed to ultrasound at 24 kHz over a range of controlled conditions. The degree of membrane permeabilization was measured by release of hemoglobin and was determined as a function of ultrasound parameters and measured acoustic signals.
Results. These studies showed that permeabilization increased with incident ultrasound pressure, increased with total exposure time above a threshold of approximately 100 msec, showed a weak dependence on pulse length with a small maximum at 3 msec, and did not depend on duty cycle under the conditions examined. Using measured acoustic spectra we found that red blood cell membrane permeabilization correlated best with the pressure measured at half the driving frequency (f/ 2=12 kHz) and its ultraharmonics, less strongly with the broadband noise pressure measured between peaks, and least strongly with pressure measured at the driving frequency and its higher harmonics. Permeabilization caused by ultrasound applied at any set of conditions tested in this study could be well predicted by the parameter τ⋅Pf /2, which characterizes the total cavitational exposure.
Conclusions. This study provides a quantitative guide to designing ultrasound protocols useful for drug delivery. The acoustic measurements support the hypothesis that ultrasonic cavitation is the mechanism by which membranes are permeabilized. They also suggest that measurable acoustic signals can provide noninvasive, real-time feedback about membrane permeabilization and drug delivery.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.A. R. Williams. A possible alteration in the permeability of ascites cell membranes after exposure to acoustic microstreaming. J. Cell Sci. 12:875-885 (1973).Google Scholar
- 2.A. H. Saad and G. M. Hahn. Ultrasound-enhanced effects of adriamycin against murine tumors. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 18:715-723 (1992).Google Scholar
- 3.M. Fechheimer, J. F. Boylan, S. Parker, J. E. Sisken, F. L. Patel, and S. G. Zimmer. Transfection of mammalian cells with plasmid DNA by scrape loading and sonication loading. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84:8463-8467 (1987).Google Scholar
- 4.H. J. Kim, J. F. Greenleaf, R. R. Kinnick, J. T. Bronk, and M. E. Bolander. Ultrasound-mediated transfection of mammalian cells. Human Gene Ther. 7:1339-1346 (1996).Google Scholar
- 5.S. Bao, B. D. Thrall, and D. L. Miller. Transfection of a reporter plasmid into cultured cells by sonoporation in vitro. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 23:953-959 (1997).Google Scholar
- 6.J. A. Wyber, J. Andrews, and A. D'Emanuele. The use of sonication for the efficient delivery of plasmid DNA into cells. Pharm. Res. 14:750-756 (1997).Google Scholar
- 7.L.-J. Zhang, L.-M. Cheng, N. Xu, N.-M. Zhao, C.-G. Li, J. Yuan, and S.-R. Jia. Efficient transformation of tobacco by ultrasonication, Bio/Technology 9:996-997 (1991).Google Scholar
- 8.R. P. Holmes, L. D. Yeaman, R. G. Taylor, and D. L. McCullough. Altered neutrophil permeability following shock wave exposure in vitro. J. Urol. 147:733-737 (1992).Google Scholar
- 9.S. Gambihler, M. Delius, and J. W. Ellwart. Permeabilization of the plasma membrane of L1210 mouse leukemia cells using lithotripter shock waves. J. Membr. Biol. 141:267-275 (1994).Google Scholar
- 10.J. Kost and R. Langer. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal drug delivery. In V. P. Shah and H. I. Maibach (eds.), Topical Drug Bioavailability, Bioequivalence, and Penetration, Plenum Press, New York, 1993, pp. 91-104.Google Scholar
- 11.S. Mitragotri, D. Blankschtein, and R. Langer. Transdermal drug delivery using low-frequency sonophoresis. Pharm. Res. 13:411-420 (1996).Google Scholar
- 12.S. Mitragotri, D. Blankschtein, and R. Langer. Ultrasound-mediated transdermal protein delivery. Science 269:850-853 (1995).Google Scholar
- 13.M. R. Prausnitz. Reversible skin permeabilization for transdermal delivery of macromolecules. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst. 14:455-483 (1997).Google Scholar
- 14.H. F. Stewart and M. E. Stratmeyer (eds.). An Overview of Ultrasound: Theory, Measurement, Medical Applications, and Biological Effects (FDA 82-8190), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, 1983.Google Scholar
- 15.K. S. Suslick (ed.). Ultrasound: Its Chemical, Physical, and Biological Effects, VCH, Deerfield Beach, FL, 1988.Google Scholar
- 16.S. B. Barnett, G. R. ter Haar, M. C. Ziskin, W. L. Nyborg, K. Maeda, and J. Bang. Current status of research on biophysical effects of ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 20:205-218 (1994).Google Scholar
- 17.NCRP. Exposure Criteria for Medical Diagnostic Ultrasound: I. Criteria Based on Thermal Mechanisms (NCRP Report No. 113), National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 1992.Google Scholar
- 18.A. J. Coleman and J. E. Saunders. A review of the physical properties and biological effects of the high amplitude acoustic fields used in extracorporeal lithotripsy. Ultrasonics 31:75-89 (1993).Google Scholar
- 19.T. G. Leighton. The Acoustic Bubble, Academic Press, London, 1994.Google Scholar
- 20.T. J. Matula, R. A. Roy, and P. D. Mourad. Optical pulse width measurements of sonoluminscence in cavitation-bubble fields. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101:1994-2002 (1997).Google Scholar
- 21.R. C. Weast (ed.). CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1985.Google Scholar
- 22.T. Kimura, T. Sakamoto, J.-M. Leveque, H. Sohmiya, M. Fujita, S. Ikeda, and T. Ando. Standardization of ultrasonic power for sonochemical reaction. Ultrasonics Sonochem. 3:S157-S161 (1996).Google Scholar
- 23.R. J. Jeffers, R. Q. Feng, J. B. Fowlkes, J. W. Hunt, D. Kessel, and C. A. Cain. Dimethylformamide as an enhancer of cavitation-induced cell lysis in vitro. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 97:669-676 (1995).Google Scholar
- 24.E. C. Everbach, I. Raj, S. Makin, M. Azadniv, and R. S. Meltzer. Correlation of ultrasound-induced hemolysis with cavitation detector output in vitro. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 23:619-624 (1997).Google Scholar
- 25.L. O. Kober, J. W. Ellwart, and H. Brettel. Effect of the pulse length of ultrasound on cell membrane damage in vitro. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 86:6-7 (1989).Google Scholar
- 26.A. A. Brayman, M. Azadniv, C. Cox, and M. W. Miller. Hemolysis of albunex-supplemented, 40% hematocrit human erythrocytes in vitro by 1-MHz pulsed ultrasound: acoustic pressure and pulse length dependence. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 22:927-938 (1996).Google Scholar
- 27.M. A. Margulis. Kinetics of the number of cavitation bubbles in an ultrasonic field. Sov. Phys. Acoust. 22:145-147 (1976).Google Scholar
- 28.V. Ciaravino, H. G. Flynn, and M. W. Miller. Pulsed enhancement of acoustic cavitation: a postulated model. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 7:159-166 (1981).Google Scholar