The angiogenic response is dependent on ultrasound contrast agent concentration

Vascular Cell

William D O’Brien²  Chenara A Johnson¹ 

[1] Department of Bioengineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA;Bioacoustics Research Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 405 N. Mathews, Urbana, IL 61801, 217/333-2407, USA

关键词: Therapeutic ultrasound;    Proangiogenic therapy;    Ultrasound contrast agent;    Ultrasound-induced bioeffects;    VEGF;    Angiogenesis;   

Others  :  802101
DOI  :  10.1186/2045-824X-4-10

 received in 2012-01-30, accepted in 2012-04-14,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Objective

Ultrasound (US) and ultrasound contrast agents (UCAs) provide a way to noninvasively induce targeted angiogenesis. However, there exists a lack of understanding regarding the mechanisms of this process that has impeded progress. This study sought to characterize the angiogenic response, by both exploring the role of UCA concentration ([UCA]) in bioeffect induction at 0 days post exposure (DPE) and assessing the bioeffect as a possible potentiator of angiogenesis at 5 DPE.

Methods

A 1-MHz ultrasonic transducer was used to expose the gracilis muscles of Sprague Dawley rats for 5 min with a 10-μs pulse duration, 10-Hz pulse repetition frequency, and 0.7-MPa peak rarefactional acoustic pressure (p_r). Four [UCA]s were tested: 0x (saline), 1×, 5×, and 10×, where 1× is 5% Definity by volume of solution. Evans blue dye (EBD) was used to quantify changes in acute vascular permeability (0 DPE), and VEGF expression was quantified at 5 DPE to support that angiogenesis had occurred. CD31 staining was used to assess capillary density at both time points.

Results

[UCA] was a significant parameter for determining EBD leakage (permeability) and VEGF expression (p < 0.001 for both). However, [UCA] was not a significant parameter for capillary density at 0 or 5 DPE. Multiple comparisons between 0 and 5 DPE showed that only 10× [UCA] at 5 DPE was significantly different than 0 DPE, suggesting a [UCA] dependence of the angiogenic response.

Conclusions

This study suggests that [UCA] was a significant parameter in the induction of an angiogenic response with US and UCAs. It also suggests that rather than damage from US and UCAs, as previously speculated, a nondestructive mechanical interaction between the UCAs and vascular endothelium induces bioeffects to potentiate the angiogenic response.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Johnson and O'Brien; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Li VW, Kung EF, Li WW: Molecular therapy for wounds: Modalities for stimulating angiogenesis and granulation. In Manual of Wound Management. 5th edition. Edited by Bok Lec. McGraw Hill, New York; 2004:17-43.
• [2]Li W, Talcott K, Zhai A, Kruger E, Li V: The role of therapeutic angiogenesis in tissue repair and regeneration. Adv Skin Wound Care 2005, 18:491-500.
• [3]Johnson CA, Sarwate S, Miller RJ, O’Brien WD: A temporal study of ultrasound contrast agent-induced changes in capillary density. J Ultrasound Med 2010, 29:1267-1275.
• [4]Chappell J, Kilbanov A, Price R: Ultrasound microbubble induced neovascularization in mouse skeletal muscle. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31:1411-1422.
• [5]Hwang JH, Brayman AA, Reidy MA: Vascular effects induced by combined 1-MHz ultrasound and microbubble contrast agent treatments in vivo. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31:553-564.
• [6]Korpanty G, Chen S, Shohet RV, et al.: Targeting of VEGF-mediated angiogenesis to rat myocardium using ultrasonic destruction of microbubbles. Gene Ther 2005, 12:1305-1312.
• [7]Miyake Y, Ohmori K, Yoshida J, et al.: Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor facilitates the angiogenesis induced by ultrasonic microbubble destruction. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007, 33:1796-1804.
• [8]Song X, Zhu H, Jin L, et al.: Ultrasound-mediated microbubble destruction enhances the efficacy of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell transplantation and cardiac function. Clin & Exptl Pharm & Physiol 2008, 36:267-271.
• [9]Bohmer MR, Chlon CHT, Raju BI, Chin CT, Shevchenko T, Kilbanov AL: Focused ultrasound and microbubbles for enhanced extravasation. J Controlled Release 2010, 148:18-24.
• [10]Johnson CA, Miller RJ, O’Brien WD: Ultrasound contrast agents affect angiogenic response. J Ultrasound Med 2011, 30:933-941.
• [11]Billerica N, Definity [package insert]: Lantheus Medical Imaging. 2008.
• [12]Zen K, Okigaki M, Hosokawa Y, et al.: Myocardium-targeted delivery of endothelial progenitor cells by ultrasound mediated microbubble destruction improves cardiac function via an angiogenic response. J of Molec & Cell Cardiol 2006, 40:799-809.
• [13]Chappell J, Song J, Burke C, Kilbanov A, Price R: Ultrasonic microbubble destruction stimulates therapeutic artiogenesis via the CD18-dependent recruitment of bone marrow derived cells. Arterioscler Throm & Vasc Biol 2008, 28:1117-1122.
• [14]Miller DL, Dou C, Lucchesi BR: Cardiac arrhythmia and injury induced in rats by burst and pulsed mode ultrasound with a gas body contrast agent. J Ultrasound Med 2009, 28:1519-1526.
• [15]Leong-Poi H, Kuliszowski M, Lekas M, et al.: Therapeutic artiogenesis by ultrasound-mediated VEGF165 plasmid gene delivery to chronically ischemic skeletal muscle. Circ Res 2007, 101:295-303.
• [16]Gormley G, Wu J: Acoustic streaming near Albunex spheres. J Acoust Soc Am 1998, 104:3115-3118.
• [17]NEMA: Acoustic output measurement standard for diagnostic ultrasound equipment, rev 3. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Laurel, MD and National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn; 2009.
• [18]NEMA: Standard for the real-time display of thermal and mechanical acoustic output indices on diagnostic ultrasound equipment, rev 2. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Laurel, MD and National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn; 2009.
• [19]Sempsrott JM, O'Brien WD: Experimental Verification of Acoustic Saturation.Proc IEEE Ultrason Symn. 1999, 1287-1290.
• [20]Zachary JF, Hartleben SA, Firizzell LA, O’Brien WD: Contrast agent-induced cardiac arrhythmias in rats. Proc Ultrason Symn IEEE 2001, :1709-1712.
• [21]Riederer-Henderson MA, Olerud JE, O’Brien WD, et al.: Biochemical and acoustical parameters of normal canine skin. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1988, 35:967-972.
• [22]Jancar S, Sirois MG, Carrier J, Braquet P, Siros P: PAF induces rat plasma extravasation and releases eicosanoids during anaphylaxis. Inflam 1991, 15:347-354.
• [23]Jackiewicz T, McGeachie J, London R, Tennant M: Evans blue dye modifies the ultrastructure of normal and regenerating arterial endothelium in rats. Microsurgery 1998, 18:47-54.
• [24]Qiagen: RNeasy mini handbook. 4th edition. Qiagen GmbH Hilden, Germany; 2006.
• [25]Fry WJ, Fry RB: Temperature changes produced in tissue during ultrasonic irradiation. J Acoust Soc Am 1953, 25:6-11.
• [26]Fuji H, Sun Z, Li S, et al.: Ultrasound-targeted gene delivery induced angiogenesis after a myocardial infarction in mice. JACC: Cardiovasc Imag 2009, 7:869-879.
• [27]Miller DL, Li P, Dou C, Armstrong W, Gordon D: Evans blue staining of cardiomyocytes induced by myocardial contrast echocardiography in rats: evidence for necrosis instead of apoptosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 2007, 33:1988-1996.
• [28]Miller DL, Dou C, Armstrong W: The influence of agent delivery mode on cardiomyocyte injury induced by myocardial contrast echocardiography in rats. Ultrasound Med Biol 2005, 31:1257-1263.
• [29]Miller DL, Quddus J: Diagnostic ultrasound activation of contrast agent gas bodies induces capillary rupture in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2000, 97:10179-10184.
• [30]Zachary JF, Blue JP, Miller RJ, Ricconi BJ, Eden JG, O’Brien WD: Lesions of ultrasound-induced lung hemorrhage are not consistent with thermal injury. Ultrasound Med Biol 2006, 32:1763-1770.
• [31]Shang X, Wang P, Liu Y, Zhang Z, Xue Y: Mechanism of low-frequency ultrasound in opening blood-tumor barrier by tight junction. J Mol Neurosci[Epub ahead of print]
• [32]King D, Malloy M, Roberts A, et al.: Determination of 176 postexcitation thresholds for single ultrasound contrast agent microbubbles using double passive cavitation detection. J Acoust Soc Am 2010, 127:3449-3455.
• [33]King D, O’Brien WD: Comparison between maximum radial expansion of ultrasound contrast agents and experimental post excitation signal results. J Acoust Soc Am 2011, 129:114-121.
• [34]Shay-Salit A, Shushy M, Wolfowtz E, et al.: VEGF receptor 2 and the adherens junctions as a mechanical transducer in VECs. PNAS 2002, 99:9462-9467.
• [35]Bates DO, Pritchard-Jones RO: The role of vascular endothelial growth factor in wound healing. Intl J of Lower Ext Wounds 2003, 2(2):107-120.