Optimization of transfection parameters for ultrasound/Sonovue microbubble-mediated hAng-1 gene delivery in vitro

Zhou,Qing; Chen,Jin-Ling; Chen,Qian; Wang,Xiao; Deng,Qing; Hu,Bo; Guo,Rui-Qiang

doi:10.3892/mmr.2012.1100

Optimization of transfection parameters for ultrasound/Sonovue microbubble-mediated hAng-1 gene delivery in vitro

Authors:
- Qing Zhou
- Jin-Ling Chen
- Qian Chen
- Xiao Wang
- Qing Deng
- Bo Hu
- Rui-Qiang Guo
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Ultrasound Imaging, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan 430060, P.R. China
Published online on: September 26, 2012 https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2012.1100
Pages: 1460-1464

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the effects of microbubble concentration, gene dosage, cell-microbubble mixing mode and fetal bovine serum (FBS) on gene delivery. 293T cells were transfected with Sonovue microbubbles carrying the hAng-1 gene via ultrasound irradiation. Various ultrasound exposure parameters and microbubble and DNA concentrations were investigated. In addition, FBS and the cell suspension or adherent mode was explored. Transfection efficiency and cell viability were used to determine the optimal transfection parameters. hAng-1 gene transfection efficiency gradually increased with elongation of ultrasound exposure and increasing microbubble concentration. However, if ultrasound irradiation exceeded 1.5 W/cm2 and 30 sec or the microbubble concentration was over 20%, hAng-1 gene expression was significantly decreased, coupled with extensive cell death. Gene transfection levels were low under DNA concentrations less than 15 µg/ml. Furthermore, the gene transfer rate was significantly increased under cell suspension mode; FBS had no effect on hAng-1 gene transfection. The integrity of hAng-1 DNA was not affected by ultrasonic irradiation under optimal conditions. The optimal transfection parameters for the hAng-1 gene and Sonovue microbubble were ultrasound exposure of 1.5 W/cm2 and 30 sec, 20% microbubbles, 15 µg/ml of DNA and under cell suspension mode.

View Figures

View References

1	Korpanty G, Chen S, Shohet RV, et al: Targeting of VEGF-mediated angiogenesis to rat myocardium using ultrasonic destruction of microbubbles. Gene Ther. 12:1305–1312. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Inagaki H, Suzuki J, Ogawa M, Taniyama Y, Morishita R and Isobe M: Ultrasound-microbubble-mediated NF-kappaB decoy transfection attenuates neointimal formation after arterial injury in mice. J Vasc Res. 43:12–18. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Yamashita T, Sonoda S, Suzuki R, et al: A novel bubble liposome and ultrasound-mediated gene transfer to ocular surface: RC-1 cells in vitro and conjunctiva in vivo. Exp Eye Res. 85:741–748. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Shen ZP, Brayman AA, Chen L and Miao CH: Ultrasound with microbubbles enhances gene expression of plasmid DNA in the liver via intraportal delivery. Gene Ther. 15:1147–1155. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Larina IV, Evers BM and Esenaliev RO: Optimal drug and gene delivery in cancer cells by ultrasound-induced cavitation. Anticancer Res. 25:149–156. 2005.PubMed/NCBI
6	Duvshani-Eshet M, Adam D and Machluf M: The effects of albumin-coated microbubbles in DNA delivery mediated by therapeutic ultrasound. J Control Release. 112:156–166. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Nie F, Xu HX, Tang Q and Lu MD: Microbubble-enhanced ultrasound exposure improves gene transfer in vascular endothelial cells. World J Gastroenterol. 12:7508–7513. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
8	Taniyama Y, Tachibana K, Hiraoka K, et al: Development of safe and efficient novel nonviral gene transfer using ultrasound: enhancement of transfection efficiency of naked plasmid DNA in skeletal muscle. Gene Ther. 9:372–380. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Guo DP, Li XY, Sun P, et al: Ultrasound/microbubble enhances foreign gene expression in ECV304 cells and murine myocardium. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin. 36:824–831. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Li T, Tachibana K and Kuroki M and Kuroki M: Gene transfer with echo-enhanced contrast agents: comparison between Albunex Optison and Levovist in mice - initial results. Radiology. 229:423–428. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Miller DL, Dou C and Song J: DNA transfer and cell killing in epidermoid cells by diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 29:601–607. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Li YS, Davidson E, Reid CN and McHale AP: Optimising ultrasound-mediated gene transfer (sonoporation) in vitro and prolonged expression of a transgene in vivo: potential applications for gene therapy of cancer. Cancer Lett. 273:62–69. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Kinoshita M and Hynynen K: Key factors that affect sonoporation efficiency in in vitro settings: the importance of standing wave in sonoporation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 359:860–865. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Suzuki R, Takizawa T, Negishi Y, Utoguchi N and Maruyama K: Effective gene delivery with novel liposomal bubbles and ultrasonic destruction technology. Int J Pharm. 354:49–55. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Rahim A, Taylor SL, Bush NL, ter Haar GR, Bamber JC and Porter CD: Physical parameters affecting ultrasound/microbubble-mediated gene delivery efficiency in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol. 32:1269–1279. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Taniyama Y, Tachibana K, Hiraoka K, et al: Development of safe and efficient novel nonviral gene transfer using ultrasound: enhancement of transfection efficiency of naked plasmid DNA in skeletal muscle. Circulation. 105:1233–1239. 2002.PubMed/NCBI
17	Guo DP, Li XY, Sun P, et al: Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction improves the low density lipoprotein receptor gene expression in HepG2 cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 343:470–474. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	O’Brien WD Jr: Ultrasound-biophysics mechanisms. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 93:212–255. 2007.
19	Kimmel E: Cavitation bioeffects. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 34:105–161. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar
20	Glover DJ, Lipps HJ and Jans DA: Towards safe non-viral therapeutic gene expression in humans. Nat Rev Genet. 6:299–310. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Hurtado Picó A, Wang X, Sipo I, et al: Viral and nonviral factors causing nonspecific replication of tumor- and tissue-specific promoter-dependent oncolytic adenoviruses. Mol Ther. 11:245–256. 2005.
22	Mehier-Humbert S, Bettinger T, Yan F and Guy RH: Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery: Kinetics of plasmid internalization and gene expression. J Control Release. 104:203–211. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Suzuki R, Takizawa T, Negishi Y, et al: Tumor specific ultrasound enhanced gene transfer in vivo with novel liposomal bubbles. J Control Release. 125:137–144. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI