4.7 Article

Gene transfer with echo-enhanced contrast agents: Comparison between Albunex, Optison, and Levovist in mice - Initial results

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 229, 期 2, 页码 423-428

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2292020500

关键词

animals; experimental study; genes and genetics; microbubbles; ultrasound (US), contrast media

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine if commercially available echo-enhanced microbubble contrast agents could be used to increase gene transfection efficiency by means of relatively low-intensity ultrasound-mediated microbubble destruction in skeletal muscles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three types of ultrasound microbubble contrast agents (0.01 mL of albumin [Albunex] and human albumin [Optison] and 10 mg/mL of SH U 508A [Levovist]) were each separately mixed with the reporter plasmid DNA (25 mug) encoding green fluorescent protein (GFP) prior to intramuscular injection into the quadriceps muscle of a mouse thigh bilaterally (seven mice per contrast agent). One of the muscle sites that was injected with plasmid DNA was irradiated with low-intensity therapeutic ultrasound (1 MHz) at an intensity of 2.0 W/cm(2) for 2 minutes. Mice were sacrificed 7 days after ultrasound treatment for gene expression assay. The number of GFP-expressing muscle fibers was counted. Statistical significance was determined with a two-tailed Student t test. P <.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant difference. RESULTS: Muscle tissue exposed to ultrasound with air-filled Albunex or Levovist microbubbles revealed no difference in the number of GFP-expressing muscle fibers compared with the control non-ultrasound exposed muscle. Albumin-coated octafluoropropane gas-filled Optison microbubbles showed a 10-fold increase in the number of GFP-expressing fibers (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Low-intensity ultrasound with echo-enhanced Optison induced efficient gene transfer unlike that with Albunex or Levovist. (C) RSNA, 2003.

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