4.5 Article

Targeted tissue transfection with ultrasound destruction of plasmid-bearing cationic microbubbles

期刊

ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE AND BIOLOGY
卷 29, 期 12, 页码 1759-1767

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0301-5629(03)00976-1

关键词

contrast agents; contrast ultrasound; gene delivery; microbubbles; plasmid; ultrasound

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01-HL-65704, R01-HL58582, K08-HL-03810, R01-HL-48890] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK063508] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the relative efficacy and mechanism of gene transfection by ultrasound (US) destruction of plasmid-bearing microbubbles. Luciferase reporter plasmid was charge-coupled to cationic lipid microbubbles. Rat hindlimb skeletal muscle was exposed to intermittent high-power US during dose-adjusted intra-arterial (IA) or IV administration of plasmid-bearing microbubbles via the carotid artery or jugular vein, respectively. At 4 days, luciferase activity in US-exposed skeletal muscle was 200-fold greater with IA than with IV administration of plasmid-bearing microbubbles, and was similar to transfection achieved by IM injection of plasmid (positive control). No transfection occurred with US and IA injection of plasmid alone. Intravital microscopy of the cremaster muscle in mice following administration of microbubbles and US exposure demonstrated perivascular deposition of fluorescent plasmid, the extent of which was twofold greater for IA compared to IV injection. Electron microscopy demonstrated a greater extent of myocellular microporations in US-exposed muscle after IA injection of microbubbles. We conclude that muscle transfection by US destruction of plasmid-bearing cationic microbubbles is amplified by IA, rather than TV, injection of microbubbles due to greater extravascular deposition of plasmid and to greater extent of myocellular microporation. (E-mail: jlindner@virginia.edu) (C) 2003 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine Biology.

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

4.5
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