4.7 Article

Nanoparticle Dynamics in Composite Hydrogels Exposed to Low-Frequency Focused Ultrasound

期刊

GELS
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/gels9100771

关键词

hydrogel; focused ultrasound (FUS); single-particle tracking (SPT); acoustic radiation force (ARF); extracellular matrix (ECM) model; nanoparticles; drug delivery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that pulsed focused ultrasound alone cannot explain the enhanced penetration of nanoparticles. However, it can be used as a tool to enhance the diffusion of particles in the tumor extracellular matrix.
Pulsed focused ultrasound (FUS) in combination with microbubbles has been shown to improve delivery and penetration of nanoparticles in tumors. To understand the mechanisms behind this treatment, it is important to evaluate the contribution of FUS without microbubbles on increased nanoparticle penetration and transport in the tumor extracellular matrix (ECM). A composite agarose hydrogel was made to model the porous structure, the acoustic attenuation and the hydraulic conductivity of the tumor ECM. Single-particle tracking was used as a novel method to monitor nanoparticle dynamics in the hydrogel during FUS exposure. FUS exposure at 1 MHz and 1 MPa was performed to detect any increase in nanoparticle diffusion or particle streaming at acoustic parameters relevant for FUS in combination with microbubbles. Results were compared to a model of acoustic streaming. The nanoparticles displayed anomalous diffusion in the hydrogel, and FUS with a duty cycle of 20% increased the nanoparticle diffusion coefficient by 23%. No increase in diffusion was found for lower duty cycles. FUS displaced the hydrogel itself at duty cycles above 10%; however, acoustic streaming was found to be negligible. In conclusion, pulsed FUS alone cannot explain the enhanced penetration of nanoparticles seen when using FUS and microbubbles for nanoparticle delivery, but it could be used as a tool to enhance diffusion of particles in the tumor ECM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据