Biomechanical effects of microbubbles: from radiosensitization to cell death

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1 Gramiak R, Shah PM. Echocardiography of the aortic root. Invest. Radiol. 3(5), 356–366 (1968).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2 Caissie A, Karshafian R, Hynynen K, Czarnota GJ. Ultrasound contrast microbubbles: in vivo imaging and potential therapeutic applications. In: Nanoimaging. Goins BA, William T. Phillips Taylor and Francis Group. Boka Raton, FL, USA, 2–25 (2011).
  Google Scholar
• 3 Calliada F, Campani R, Bottinelli O, Bozzini A, Sommaruga MG. Ultrasound contrast agents: basic principles. Eur. J. Radiol. 27(Suppl. 2), S157–S160 (1998).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Haar G Ter, Wells PNT. Ultrasound bioeffects and safety. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 224(2), 363–373 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5 Hassan MA, Feril LB, Suzuki K, Kudo N, Tachibana K, Kondo T. Evaluation and comparison of three novel microbubbles: enhancement of ultrasound-induced cell death and free radicals production. Ultrason. Sonochem. 16(3), 372–378 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6 Miller DL, Averkiou MA, Brayman AA et al. Bioeffects considerations for diagnostic ultrasound contrast agents. Am. Inst. Ultrasound Med. 27, 611–632 (2008)
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7 Stride E. Physical principles of microbubbles for ultrasound imaging and therapy. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 27(Suppl. 2), 1–13 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8 Hudson J. Quantification of blood flow using ultrasound contrast agents (2011). https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca
  Google Scholar
• 9 Ibsen S, Schutt CE, Esener S. Microbubble-mediated ultrasound therapy: a review of its potential in cancer treatment. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 7, 375–388 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10 Pellerito J, Polak JF. Introduction to Vascular Ultrasonography. Elsevier Health Sciences. http://books.google.com
  Google Scholar
• 11 Quaia E. Assessment of tissue perfusion by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur. Radiol. 21(3), 604–615 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Sboros V, Tang M-X, Wells PNT. The assessment of microvascular flow and tissue perfusion using ultrasound imaging. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 224(2), 273–290 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13 Dijkmans P a, Juffermans LJM, Musters RJP et al. Microbubbles and ultrasound: from diagnosis to therapy. Eur. J. Echocardiogr. 5(4), 245–256 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14 Stride EP, Coussios CC, Wells PNT. Cavitation and contrast: the use of bubbles in ultrasound imaging and therapy. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 224(2), 171–191 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15 Czarnota GJ, Hashim A, El Kaffas A et al. Microbubble and ultrasound enhancement of radiation-induced tumour cell death in vivo – asmase dependence. J. Radiosurgery SBRT. 2 (2013)
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16 De Jong N, Cornet R, Lancée CT. Higher harmonics of vibrating gas-filled microspheres. Part one: simulations. Ultrasonics 32(6), 447–453 (1994).
  Google Scholar
• 17 Hoff L. Acoustic Characterization of Contrast Agents for Medical Ultrasound Imaging. Springer. http://books.google.com
  Google Scholar
• 18 Leighton T. The Acoustic Bubble (Google eBook). Academic Press. http://books.google.com
  Google Scholar
• 19 Dicker S, Mleczko M, Schmitz G, Wrenn SP. Determination of microbubble cavitation threshold pressure as function of shell chemistry. Bubble Sci. Eng. Technol. 2(2), 55–64 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 20 Hsieh D-Y Theory of rectified diffusion of mass into gas bubbles. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 33(2), 206 (1961).
  Google Scholar
• 21 Qin S, Caskey C, Ferrara K. Ultrasound contrast microbubbles in imaging and therapy: physical principles and engineering. Phys. Med. Biol. 54(6), 1–42 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22 Postema M, Bouakaz A, Versluis M, de Jong N. Ultrasound-induced gas release from contrast agent microbubbles. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 52(6), 1035–1041 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23 Bevan PD, Karshafian R, Burns PN. The influence of fragmentation on the acoustic response from shrinking bubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 34(7), 1152–1162 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24 Bevan PD, Karshafian R, Tickner EG, Burns PN. Quantitative measurement of ultrasound disruption of polymer-shelled microbubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 33(11), 1777–1786 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Hafez Z. The role of microstreaming in ultrasound-enhanced thrombolysis. (2008). www.brl.uiuc.edu
  Google Scholar
• 26 Tomita Y. Microbubble disruption by ultrasound and induced cavitation phenomena. (109), 1–8 (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 27 Doinikov A a, Bouakaz A. Acoustic microstreaming around a gas bubble. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(2), 703–709 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 28 Wrenn SP, Dicker SM, Small EF et al. Bursting bubbles and bilayers. Theranostics 2(12), 1140–1159 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29 Kudo N, Miyaoka T, Okada K, Yamamoto K, Niwa K. Study on mechanism of cell damage caused by microbubbles exposed to ultrasound. IEEE Ultrason. Symp. 00(c), 1383–1386 (2002).
  Google Scholar
• 30 Wu J, Nyborg WL. Ultrasound, cavitation bubbles and their interaction with cells. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 60, 1103–1116 (2008)
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31 Prentice P, Cuschieri A, Dholakia K, Prausnitz M, Campbell P. Membrane disruption by optically controlled microbubble cavitation. Nat. Phys. 1(2), 107–110 (2005).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 32 Lighthill SJ. Acoustic streaming. J. Sound Vib. 61(3), 391–418 (1978).
  Google Scholar
• 33 William D. O’Brien. Ultrasound – biophysics mechanisms. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 93(1–3), 212–255 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34 Umemura S, Kawabata K, Sasaki K. In vivo acceleration of ultrasonic tissue heating by microbubble agent. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 52(10), 1690–1698 (2005).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35 Hilgenfeldt S, Lohse D, Moss W. Water temperature dependence of single bubble sonoluminescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80(6), 1332–1335 (1998).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 36 Chavrier F, Chapelon JY, Gelet A, Cathignol D. Modeling of high-intensity focused ultrasound-induced lesions in the presence of cavitation bubbles. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108(1), 432 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37 Holt RG, Roy RA. Measurements of bubble-enhanced heating from focused, mhz-frequency ultrasound in a tissue-mimicking material. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 27(10), 1399–1412 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38 Li P, Takahashi M, Chiba K. Enhanced free-radical generation by shrinking microbubbles using a copper catalyst. Chemosphere 77(8), 1157–1160 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39 Juffermans LJM, Kamp O, Dijkmans P, Visser C, Musters RJP. Low-intensity ultrasound-exposed microbubbles provoke local hyperpolarization of the cell membrane via activation of BK(Ca) channels. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 34(3), 502–508 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40 Meijering BDM, Juffermans LJM, van Wamel A et al. Ultrasound and microbubble-targeted delivery of macromolecules is regulated by induction of endocytosis and pore formation. Circ. Res. 104(5), 679–687 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41 Kudo N, Okada K, Yamamoto K. Sonoporation by single-shot pulsed ultrasound with microbubbles adjacent to cells. Biophys. J. 96 (12), 4866–4876 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42 Liang H-D, Tang J, Halliwell M, Wells PNT. Sonoporation, drug delivery, and gene therapy. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part H J. Eng. Med. 224(2), 343–361 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43 Karshafian R, Bevan PD, Samac S, Burns PN. The effect of acoustic exposure parameters on cell membrane permeabilisation by ultrasound and microbubbles. AIP Conf. Proc. 498–504 (2007).
  Google Scholar
• 44 Goertz DE, Todorova M, Mortazavi O et al. Antitumor effects of combining docetaxel (taxotere) with the antivascular action of ultrasound stimulated microbubbles. PLoS ONE 7(12), e52307 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45 Todorova M, Agache V, Mortazavi O et al. Antitumor effects of combining metronomic chemotherapy with the antivascular action of ultrasound stimulated microbubbles. Int. J. Cancer 1–30 (2012).
  Google Scholar
• 46 Tran WT, El Kaffas A, Al-Mahrouki A, Gillies C, Czarnota GJ. A review of vascular disrupting agents as a concomitant anti-tumour modality with radiation. J. Radiother. Pract. 12(03), 255–262 (2013).
  Google Scholar
• 47 Karshafian R. On the permeabilisation and disruption of cell membranes by ultrasound and microbubbles. (2010). https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca
  Google Scholar
• 48 Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PA, USA. http://books.google.com
  Google Scholar
• 49 García-Barros M, Thin TH, Maj J et al. Impact of stromal sensitivity on radiation response of tumors implanted in SCID hosts revisited. Cancer Res. 70(20), 8179–8186 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50 Garcia-Barros M, Paris F, Cordon-Cardo C et al. Tumor response to radiotherapy regulated by endothelial cell apoptosis. Science 300(5622), 1155–1159 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51 Truman J-P, García-Barros M, Kaag M et al. Endothelial membrane remodeling is obligate for anti-angiogenic radiosensitization during tumor radiosurgery. PLoS ONE 5(8), e12310 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52 El Kaffas A, Al-Mahrouki A, Tran WT, Giles A, Czarnota GJ. Sunitinib effects on the radiation response of endothelial and breast tumor cells. Microvasc. Res. 92, 1–9 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53 El Kaffas A, Giles A, Czarnota GJ. Dose-dependent response of tumor vasculature to radiation therapy in combination with Sunitinib depicted by three-dimensional high-frequency power Doppler ultrasound. Angiogenesis 16(2), 443–454 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 54 El Kaffas A, Tran W, Czarnota GJ. Vascular strategies for enhancing tumour response to radiation therapy. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 11(5), 421–432 (2012)
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 55 Fuks Z, Kolesnick R. Engaging the vascular component of the tumor response. Cancer Cell 8(2), 89–91 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56 Paris F, Fuks Z, Kang A et al. Endothelial apoptosis as the primary lesion initiating intestinal radiation damage in mice. Science 293(5528), 293 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57 Peña L a, Fuks Z, Kolesnick RN. Radiation-induced apoptosis of endothelial cells in the murine central nervous system: protection by fibroblast growth factor and sphingomyelinase deficiency. Cancer Res. 60(2), 321–327 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58 Truman J, Hambardzumyan D, Garcia-Barros M et al. Basic fibroblast growth factor inhibits radiation-induced apoptosis of endothelial cells by inhibiting acid sphingomyelinase activity. Radiother. Oncol. 78(2), S74–S74 (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 59 Tabas I. Secretory sphingomyelinase. Chem. Phys. Lipids 102(1–2), 123–130 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60 Nikolova-Karakashian MN, Rozenova KA. Sphingolipids as Signaling and Regulatory Molecules. Springer, NY, USA. http://link.springer.com
  Google Scholar
• 61 Wang N, Ingber DE. Control of cytoskeletal mechanics by extracellular matrix, cell shape, and mechanical tension. Biophys. J. 66(6), 2181–2189 (1994).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62 Ghosh K, Thodeti CK, Dudley AC, Mammoto A, Klagsbrun M, Ingber DE. Tumor-derived endothelial cells exhibit aberrant Rho-mediated mechanosensing and abnormal angiogenesis in vitro. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(32), 11305–11310 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63 Mammoto A, Ingber DE. Cytoskeletal control of growth and cell fate switching. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 21(6), 864–870 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64 Karshafian R, Tchouala JIN, Al-Mahrouki A, Giles A, Czarnota GJ. Enhancement of radiation therapy by ultrasonically-stimulated microbubbles in vitro: effects of treatment scheduling on cell viability and production of ceramide. 2010 IEEE Int. Ultrason. Symp. 2115–2118 (2010).
  Google Scholar
• 65 Nofiele JT, Karshafian R, Furukawa M et al. Ultrasound-activated microbubble cancer therapy: ceramide production leading to enhanced radiation effect in vitro. Technol. Cancer Res. Treat. 12 (1), 53–60 (2013
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66 Al-Mahrouki A, Karshafian R, Giles A, Czarnota GJ. Bioeffects of ultrasound-stimulated microbubbles on endothelial cells: gene expression changes associated with radiation enhancement in vitro. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 38(11), 1958–1969 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 67 Czarnota GJ, Karshafian R, Burns PN et al. Tumor radiation response enhancement by acoustical stimulation of the vasculature. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109(30), E2033–E2041 (2012).•• High-impact publication on the use of ultrasound-stimulated microbubbles (USMB) to radiosensitize prostate tumors.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68 Al-Mahrouki A, Iradji S, Tran WT, Czarnota GJ. Cellular characterization of ultrasound-stimulated microbubble radiation enhancement. Dis. Model. Mech. 7(3), 363–372 (2014). • Accompanying histological work demonstrating histological effects of USMB combined with radiation therapy.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69 Tran WT, Iradji S, Sofroni E, Giles A, Eddy D, Czarnota GJ. Microbubble and ultrasound radioenhancement of bladder cancer. Br. J. Cancer 107(3), 469–476 (2012).• Early publication demonstrating the potential of combined USMB and radiation therapy in a bladder tumor model.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70 Kwok SJJ, El Kaffas A, Lai P et al. Ultrasound-mediated microbubble enhancement of radiation therapy studied using three-dimensional high-frequency power Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 39(11), 1983–1990 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 71 Schueneman AJ, Himmelfarb E, Geng L et al. SU11248 maintenance therapy prevents tumor regrowth after fractionated irradiation of murine tumor models. Cancer Res. 63(14), 4009–4016 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 72 Boehm S, Rothermundt C, Hess D, Joerger M. Antiangiogenic drugs in oncology: a focus on drug safety and the elderly – a mini-review. Gerontology 56(3), 303–309 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 73 El Kaffas A, Nofiele J, Giles A, Cho S, Liu SK, Czarnota GJ. Dll4-notch signalling blockade synergizes combined ultrasound-stimulated microbubble and radiation therapy in human colon cancer xenografts. PLoS ONE 9(4), e93888 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 74 Sathornsumetee S, Cao Y, Marcello JE et al. Tumor angiogenic and hypoxic profiles predict radiographic response and survival in malignant astrocytoma patients treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan. J. Clin. Oncol. 26(2), 271–278 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75 Park M-T, Oh E-T, Song M-J et al. The radiosensitivity of endothelial cells isolated from human breast cancer and normal tissue in vitro. Microvasc. Res. 84(2), 140–148 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76 Hida K, Hida Y, Shindoh M. Understanding tumor endothelial cell abnormalities to develop ideal anti-angiogenic therapies. Cancer Sci. 99(3), 459–466 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77 Kim S-R, Kim E-H. Effect of acidic environment on the response of endothelial cells to irradiation: implication for microbeam radiation therapy. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 78 Baish JW, Gazit Y, Berk DA, Nozue M, Baxter LT, Jain RK. Role of tumor vascular architecture in nutrient and drug delivery: an invasion percolation-based network model. Microvasc. Res. 51(3), 327–346 (1996).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79 Bampi VF, Gomes CF, De Oliveira LBO, Da Silva JLB. The effect of the anti-angiogenic drug sunitinib malate on the vascular architecture of oral squamous cell carcinoma. Microsc. Res. Tech. 77(4), 250–256 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 80 Sabo E, Boltenko A, Sova Y. Microscopic analysis and significance of vascular architectural complexity in renal cell carcinoma microscopic analysis and significance of vascular architectural complexity in renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 7, 533–537 (2001)
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81 Kim HC, Al-Mahrouki A, Gorjizadeh A, Karshafian R, Czarnota GJ. Effects of biophysical parameters in enhancing radiation responses of prostate tumors with ultrasound-stimulated microbubbles. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 39(8), 1376–1387 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 82 Patterson DM, Rustin GJS. Vascular damaging agents. Clin. Oncol. (R. Coll. Radiol). 19(6), 443–456 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 83 Kerbel RS. Tumor angiogenesis: past, present and the near future. Carcinogenesis 21(3), 505–515 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 84 Gupta SC, Sung B, Prasad S, Webb LJ, Aggarwal BB. Cancer drug discovery by repurposing: teaching new tricks to old dogs. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 34(9), 508–517 (2013).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 85 Folkman J, Camphausen K. What does radiotherapy do to endothelial cells? Science 293(5528), 227 (2001).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 86 Klinger AL, Pichette B, Sobolewski P, Eckmann DM. Mechanotransductional basis of endothelial cell response to intravascular bubbles. Integr. Biol. (Camb.). 3(10), 1033–1042 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 87 Janmey P a, Weitz D a. Dealing with mechanics: mechanisms of force transduction in cells. Trends Biochem. Sci. 29(7), 364–370 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 88 Collis J, Manasseh R, Liovic P et al. Cavitation microstreaming and stress fields created by microbubbles. Ultrasonics 50(2), 273–279 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 89 Mizrahi N, Seliktar D, Kimmel E. Ultrasound-induced angiogenic response in endothelial cells. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 33(11), 1818–1829 (2007).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 90 Unga J, Hashida M. Ultrasound induced cancer immunotherapy. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 91 Tran TA, Le Guennec JY, Bougnoux P, Tranquart F, Bouakaz A. Characterization of cell membrane response to ultrasound activated microbubbles. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 55(1), 43–49 (2008).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 92 Tran T a, Roger S, Le Guennec JY, Tranquart F, Bouakaz A. Effect of ultrasound-activated microbubbles on the cell electrophysiological properties. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 33(1), 158–163 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 93 Yoshimura M, Itasaka S, Harada H, Hiraoka M. Microenvironment and radiation therapy. Biomed Res. Int. 685308 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 94 Hospital SC. Radiation enhancement of metastasis: a review hyperbaric oxygen lineolic acid. 9(2), 77–104 (1991)
  Google Scholar
• 95 Rix A, Palmowski M, Gremse F et al. Influence of repetitive contrast agent injections on functional and molecular ultrasound measurements. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 40(10), 2468–2475 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 96 Sorace AG, Saini R, Mahoney M, Hoyt K. Molecular ultrasound imaging using a targeted contrast agent for assessing early tumor response to antiangiogenic therapy. J. Ultrasound Med. 31(10), 1543–1550 (2012).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 97 Turkbey B, Kobayashi H, Ogawa M, Bernardo M, Choyke PL. Imaging of tumor angiogenesis: functional or targeted? AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 193(2), 304–313 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar