Sonoporation by low‑frequency and low‑power ultrasound enhances chemotherapeutic efficacy in prostate cancer cells in vitro

Wang,Yu; Bai,Wen‑Kun; Shen,E.; Hu,Bing

doi:10.3892/ol.2013.1389

Sonoporation by low‑frequency and low‑power ultrasound enhances chemotherapeutic efficacy in prostate cancer cells in vitro

Authors:
- Yu Wang
- Wen‑Kun Bai
- E. Shen
- Bing Hu
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai 200233, P.R. China
Published online on: June 10, 2013 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2013.1389
Pages: 495-498

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

Combination therapy is used to optimize anticancer efficacy and reduce the toxicity and side‑effects of drugs upon systemic administration. Ultrasound (US) combined with microbubbles (UM) enhances the intracellular uptake of cytotoxic drugs by tumor cells, particularly drug‑resistant cells. In the present study, low‑frequency and low‑energy US (US irradiation conditions: frequency, 21 kHz; power density, 0.113 W/cm2; exposure time, 2 min at a duty cycle of 70%; and valid treatment time, 84 sec) were used in combination with microbubbles (100 µl/ml) to deliver mitoxantrone HCl (MIT) to DU145 cells. The results showed that UM did not change the cell viability in the short‑ or long‑term. However, UM statistically enhanced the therapeutic effects and up to 31.26±3.34% of the cells exposed to UM were permeabilized compared with 9.74±2.55% of cells in the control, when using calcein (MW, 622.53) as a fluorogenic marker. Notably, UM affected the migration capability of the DU145 cells at 6 h post‑treatment. In conclusion, the ultrasonic parameters used in the present study enhanced the chemotherapeutic effect and reduced the unwanted side‑effects of MIT.

View Figures

View References

1.	Hensel K, Mienkina MP and Schmitz G: Analysis of ultrasound fields in cell culture wells for in vitro ultrasound therapy experiments. Ultrasound Med Biol. 37:2105–2115. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2.	Husseini GA and Pitt WG: The use of ultrasound and micelles in cancer treatment. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 8:2205–2215. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3.	Casey G, Cashman JP, Morrissey D, et al: Sonoporation mediated immunogene therapy of solid tumors. Ultrasound Med Biol. 36:430–440. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4.	Qin S, Caskey CF and Ferrara KW: Ultrasound contrast microbubbles in imaging and therapy: physical principles and engineering. Phys Med Biol. 54:R27–R57. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5.	van Wamel A, Kooiman K, Harteveld M, et al: Vibrating micro-bubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation. J Control Release. 112:149–155. 2006.PubMed/NCBI
6.	Ohl CD, Arora M, lkink R, de Jong N, Versluis M, Delius M and Lohse D: Sonoporation from jetting cavitation bubbles. Biophys J. 91:4285–4295. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7.	Juffermans LJ, van Dijk A, Jongenelen CA, Drukarch B, Reijerkerk A, de Vries HE, Kamp O and Musters RJ: Ultrasound and microbubble-induced intra- and intercellular bioeffects in primary endothelial cells. Ultrasound Med Biol. 35:1917–1927. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8.	Hoskins P, Thrush A, Martin K and Whittingam T: Diagnostic Ultrasound: Physics and Equipment. 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press; New York, NY: 2010
9.	Schlicher RK, Radhakrishna H, Tolentino TP, Apkarian RP, Zarnitsyn V and Prausnitz MR: Mechanism of intracellular delivery by acoustic cavitation. Ultrasound Med Biol. 32:915–924. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10.	Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J and Ward E: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 60:277–300. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
11.	Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin. 61:212–236. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12.	Carles J, Castellano D, Climent MÁ, Maroto P, Medina R and Alcaraz A: Castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer: current status and treatment possibilities. Clin Transl Oncol. 14:169–176. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13.	Mellott AJ, Forrest ML and Detamore MS: Physical non-viral gene delivery methods for tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng. 41:446–468. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14.	Khanna S, Amso NN, Paynter SJ and Coakley WT: Contrast agent bubble and erythrocyte behavior in a 1.5-MHz standing ultrasound wave. Ultrasound Med Biol. 29:1463–1470. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15.	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
16.	Rodamporn S, Harris NR, Beeby SP, Boltryk RJ and Sanchez-Elsner T: HeLa cell transfection using a novel sonoporation system. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 58:927–934. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17.	Bai WK, Wu ZH, Shen E, Zhang JZ and Hu B: The improvement of liposome-mediated transfection of pEGFP DNA into human prostate cancer cells by combining low-frequency and low-energy ultrasound with microbubbles. Oncol Rep. 27:475–480. 2012.PubMed/NCBI
18.	Hao Q, Liu Q, Wang X, Wang P, Li T and Tong WY: Membrane damage effect of therapeutic ultrasound on Ehrlich ascitic tumor cells. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 24:41–48. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19.	Lentacker I, Geers B, Demeester J, De Smedt SC and Sanders NN: Design and evaluation of doxorubicin-containing microbubbles for ultrasound-triggered doxorubicin delivery: cytotoxicity and mechanisms involved. Mol Ther. 18:101–108. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
20.	Sonoda S, Tachibana K, Uchino E, et al: Inhibition of melanoma by ultrasound-microbubble-aided drug delivery suggests membrane permeabilization. Cancer Biol Ther. 6:1276–1283. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21.	Yoshida T, Kondo T, Ogawa R, et al: Combination of doxorubicin and low-intensity ultrasound causes a synergistic enhancement in cell killing and an additive enhancement in apoptosis induction in human lymphoma U937 cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 61:559–567. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar
22.	Iwanaga K, Tominaga K, Yamamoto K, et al: Local delivery system of cytotoxic agents to tumors by focused sonoporation. Cancer Gene Ther. 14:354–363. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23.	Maeda H, Tominaga K, Iwanaga K, et al: Targeted drug delivery system for oral cancer therapy using sonoporation. J Oral Pathol Med. 38:572–579. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24.	Liu Y, Liu Z, Li T and Ye G: Ultrasonic sonoporation can enhance the prostate permeability. Med Hypotheses. 74:449–451. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI