Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles

One of the main challenges for ultrasound molecular imaging is acoustically distinguishing nonbound microbubbles from those bound to their molecular target. In this in vitro study, we compared two types of in-house produced targeted lipid-coated microbubbles, either consisting of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2017-05, Vol.64 (5), p.785-797
Hauptverfasser: van Rooij, Tom, Beekers, Ines, Lattwein, Kirby R., van der Steen, Antonius F. W., de Jong, Nico, Kooiman, Klazina
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 797
container_issue 5
container_start_page 785
container_title IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control
container_volume 64
creator van Rooij, Tom
Beekers, Ines
Lattwein, Kirby R.
van der Steen, Antonius F. W.
de Jong, Nico
Kooiman, Klazina
description One of the main challenges for ultrasound molecular imaging is acoustically distinguishing nonbound microbubbles from those bound to their molecular target. In this in vitro study, we compared two types of in-house produced targeted lipid-coated microbubbles, either consisting of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C16:0 (DPPC) or 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C18:0 (DSPC) as the main lipid, using the Brandaris 128 ultrahigh-speed camera to determine vibrational response differences between bound and nonbound biotinylated microbubbles. In contrast to previous studies that studied vibrational differences upon binding, we used a covalently bound model biomarker (i.e., streptavidin) rather than physisorption, to ensure binding of the biomarker to the membrane. The microbubbles were insonified at frequencies between 1 and 4 MHz at pressures of 50 and 150 kPa. This paper shows lower acoustic stability of bound microbubbles, of which DPPC-based microbubbles deflated most. For DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm driven at 50 kPa, resonance frequencies of bound microbubbles were all higher than 1.8 MHz, whereas those of nonbound microbubbles were significantly lower. In addition, the relative radial excursions at resonance were also higher for bound DPPC microbubbles. These differences did not persist when the pressure was increased to 150 kPa, except for the acoustic stability which further decreased. No differences in resonance frequencies were observed between bound and nonbound DSPC microbubbles. Nonlinear responses in terms of emissions at the subharmonic and second harmonic frequencies were similar for bound and nonbound microbubbles at both pressures. In conclusion, we identified differences in vibrational responses of bound DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm that distinguish them from nonbound ones.
doi_str_mv 10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2679160
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmed_primary_28287967</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ieee_id>7873351</ieee_id><sourcerecordid>1877526738</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-87fd466eb990beb347bd33c9a083abd6351aeb270bf69a62edbd48a9371a37823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kEtPwzAQhC0EoqXwB0BCOXJJ8SPx4wgRBaQCErRcLTveVEZpXOLkwL8nfcBhtVrtzGj0IXRJ8JQQrG4Xy9msmFJMxJRyoQjHR2hMcpqnUuX5MRpjKfOUYYJH6CzGL4xJlil6ikZUUikUF2O0_PS2NZ0PjamTd4ib0ESISaiS-9A3LjHDvIbG7o6FaVfQgUvmfuNdWgSzPT58s6ohefFlG2xvbQ3xHJ1Upo5wcdgTtJw9LIqndP72-FzczdOScdGlUlQu4xysUtiCZZmwjrFSGSyZsY6znBiwVGBbcWU4BWddJo1ighgmJGUTdLPP3bThu4fY6bWPJdS1aSD0URMpRD6wYXKQ0r10aBljC5XetH5t2h9NsN7i1DuceotTH3AOputDfm_X4P4tf_wGwdVe4AHg_y2kYEN39gvAiHnK</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1877526738</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</source><creator>van Rooij, Tom ; Beekers, Ines ; Lattwein, Kirby R. ; van der Steen, Antonius F. W. ; de Jong, Nico ; Kooiman, Klazina</creator><creatorcontrib>van Rooij, Tom ; Beekers, Ines ; Lattwein, Kirby R. ; van der Steen, Antonius F. W. ; de Jong, Nico ; Kooiman, Klazina</creatorcontrib><description>One of the main challenges for ultrasound molecular imaging is acoustically distinguishing nonbound microbubbles from those bound to their molecular target. In this in vitro study, we compared two types of in-house produced targeted lipid-coated microbubbles, either consisting of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C16:0 (DPPC) or 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C18:0 (DSPC) as the main lipid, using the Brandaris 128 ultrahigh-speed camera to determine vibrational response differences between bound and nonbound biotinylated microbubbles. In contrast to previous studies that studied vibrational differences upon binding, we used a covalently bound model biomarker (i.e., streptavidin) rather than physisorption, to ensure binding of the biomarker to the membrane. The microbubbles were insonified at frequencies between 1 and 4 MHz at pressures of 50 and 150 kPa. This paper shows lower acoustic stability of bound microbubbles, of which DPPC-based microbubbles deflated most. For DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm driven at 50 kPa, resonance frequencies of bound microbubbles were all higher than 1.8 MHz, whereas those of nonbound microbubbles were significantly lower. In addition, the relative radial excursions at resonance were also higher for bound DPPC microbubbles. These differences did not persist when the pressure was increased to 150 kPa, except for the acoustic stability which further decreased. No differences in resonance frequencies were observed between bound and nonbound DSPC microbubbles. Nonlinear responses in terms of emissions at the subharmonic and second harmonic frequencies were similar for bound and nonbound microbubbles at both pressures. In conclusion, we identified differences in vibrational responses of bound DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm that distinguish them from nonbound ones.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0885-3010</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-8955</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2679160</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28287967</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ITUCER</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: IEEE</publisher><subject>Acoustics ; Biological system modeling ; Biomembranes ; Biotin - chemistry ; Biotin-streptavidin ; Biotinylation ; Contrast Media - chemistry ; Frequency control ; lipid-coating ; Lipidomics ; Lipids - chemistry ; Microbubbles ; molecular imaging ; Molecular Imaging - methods ; nonlinear behavior ; Optical Imaging ; Resonant frequency ; Streptavidin ; targeted microbubbles ; ultrahigh-speed optical imaging ; Ultrasonic imaging ; ultrasound contrast agents ; Vibration</subject><ispartof>IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2017-05, Vol.64 (5), p.785-797</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-87fd466eb990beb347bd33c9a083abd6351aeb270bf69a62edbd48a9371a37823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-87fd466eb990beb347bd33c9a083abd6351aeb270bf69a62edbd48a9371a37823</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3163-7376</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7873351$$EHTML$$P50$$Gieee$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,798,27933,27934,54767</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287967$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Rooij, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beekers, Ines</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lattwein, Kirby R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Steen, Antonius F. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Nico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kooiman, Klazina</creatorcontrib><title>Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles</title><title>IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control</title><addtitle>T-UFFC</addtitle><addtitle>IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control</addtitle><description>One of the main challenges for ultrasound molecular imaging is acoustically distinguishing nonbound microbubbles from those bound to their molecular target. In this in vitro study, we compared two types of in-house produced targeted lipid-coated microbubbles, either consisting of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C16:0 (DPPC) or 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C18:0 (DSPC) as the main lipid, using the Brandaris 128 ultrahigh-speed camera to determine vibrational response differences between bound and nonbound biotinylated microbubbles. In contrast to previous studies that studied vibrational differences upon binding, we used a covalently bound model biomarker (i.e., streptavidin) rather than physisorption, to ensure binding of the biomarker to the membrane. The microbubbles were insonified at frequencies between 1 and 4 MHz at pressures of 50 and 150 kPa. This paper shows lower acoustic stability of bound microbubbles, of which DPPC-based microbubbles deflated most. For DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm driven at 50 kPa, resonance frequencies of bound microbubbles were all higher than 1.8 MHz, whereas those of nonbound microbubbles were significantly lower. In addition, the relative radial excursions at resonance were also higher for bound DPPC microbubbles. These differences did not persist when the pressure was increased to 150 kPa, except for the acoustic stability which further decreased. No differences in resonance frequencies were observed between bound and nonbound DSPC microbubbles. Nonlinear responses in terms of emissions at the subharmonic and second harmonic frequencies were similar for bound and nonbound microbubbles at both pressures. In conclusion, we identified differences in vibrational responses of bound DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm that distinguish them from nonbound ones.</description><subject>Acoustics</subject><subject>Biological system modeling</subject><subject>Biomembranes</subject><subject>Biotin - chemistry</subject><subject>Biotin-streptavidin</subject><subject>Biotinylation</subject><subject>Contrast Media - chemistry</subject><subject>Frequency control</subject><subject>lipid-coating</subject><subject>Lipidomics</subject><subject>Lipids - chemistry</subject><subject>Microbubbles</subject><subject>molecular imaging</subject><subject>Molecular Imaging - methods</subject><subject>nonlinear behavior</subject><subject>Optical Imaging</subject><subject>Resonant frequency</subject><subject>Streptavidin</subject><subject>targeted microbubbles</subject><subject>ultrahigh-speed optical imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>ultrasound contrast agents</subject><subject>Vibration</subject><issn>0885-3010</issn><issn>1525-8955</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ESBDL</sourceid><sourceid>RIE</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kEtPwzAQhC0EoqXwB0BCOXJJ8SPx4wgRBaQCErRcLTveVEZpXOLkwL8nfcBhtVrtzGj0IXRJ8JQQrG4Xy9msmFJMxJRyoQjHR2hMcpqnUuX5MRpjKfOUYYJH6CzGL4xJlil6ikZUUikUF2O0_PS2NZ0PjamTd4ib0ESISaiS-9A3LjHDvIbG7o6FaVfQgUvmfuNdWgSzPT58s6ohefFlG2xvbQ3xHJ1Upo5wcdgTtJw9LIqndP72-FzczdOScdGlUlQu4xysUtiCZZmwjrFSGSyZsY6znBiwVGBbcWU4BWddJo1ighgmJGUTdLPP3bThu4fY6bWPJdS1aSD0URMpRD6wYXKQ0r10aBljC5XetH5t2h9NsN7i1DuceotTH3AOputDfm_X4P4tf_wGwdVe4AHg_y2kYEN39gvAiHnK</recordid><startdate>201705</startdate><enddate>201705</enddate><creator>van Rooij, Tom</creator><creator>Beekers, Ines</creator><creator>Lattwein, Kirby R.</creator><creator>van der Steen, Antonius F. W.</creator><creator>de Jong, Nico</creator><creator>Kooiman, Klazina</creator><general>IEEE</general><scope>97E</scope><scope>ESBDL</scope><scope>RIA</scope><scope>RIE</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-7376</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201705</creationdate><title>Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles</title><author>van Rooij, Tom ; Beekers, Ines ; Lattwein, Kirby R. ; van der Steen, Antonius F. W. ; de Jong, Nico ; Kooiman, Klazina</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-87fd466eb990beb347bd33c9a083abd6351aeb270bf69a62edbd48a9371a37823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Acoustics</topic><topic>Biological system modeling</topic><topic>Biomembranes</topic><topic>Biotin - chemistry</topic><topic>Biotin-streptavidin</topic><topic>Biotinylation</topic><topic>Contrast Media - chemistry</topic><topic>Frequency control</topic><topic>lipid-coating</topic><topic>Lipidomics</topic><topic>Lipids - chemistry</topic><topic>Microbubbles</topic><topic>molecular imaging</topic><topic>Molecular Imaging - methods</topic><topic>nonlinear behavior</topic><topic>Optical Imaging</topic><topic>Resonant frequency</topic><topic>Streptavidin</topic><topic>targeted microbubbles</topic><topic>ultrahigh-speed optical imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>ultrasound contrast agents</topic><topic>Vibration</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Rooij, Tom</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beekers, Ines</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lattwein, Kirby R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Steen, Antonius F. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Jong, Nico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kooiman, Klazina</creatorcontrib><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 2005-present</collection><collection>IEEE Open Access Journals</collection><collection>IEEE All-Society Periodicals Package (ASPP) 1998-Present</collection><collection>IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Rooij, Tom</au><au>Beekers, Ines</au><au>Lattwein, Kirby R.</au><au>van der Steen, Antonius F. W.</au><au>de Jong, Nico</au><au>Kooiman, Klazina</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles</atitle><jtitle>IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control</jtitle><stitle>T-UFFC</stitle><addtitle>IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control</addtitle><date>2017-05</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>64</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>785</spage><epage>797</epage><pages>785-797</pages><issn>0885-3010</issn><eissn>1525-8955</eissn><coden>ITUCER</coden><abstract>One of the main challenges for ultrasound molecular imaging is acoustically distinguishing nonbound microbubbles from those bound to their molecular target. In this in vitro study, we compared two types of in-house produced targeted lipid-coated microbubbles, either consisting of 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C16:0 (DPPC) or 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, C18:0 (DSPC) as the main lipid, using the Brandaris 128 ultrahigh-speed camera to determine vibrational response differences between bound and nonbound biotinylated microbubbles. In contrast to previous studies that studied vibrational differences upon binding, we used a covalently bound model biomarker (i.e., streptavidin) rather than physisorption, to ensure binding of the biomarker to the membrane. The microbubbles were insonified at frequencies between 1 and 4 MHz at pressures of 50 and 150 kPa. This paper shows lower acoustic stability of bound microbubbles, of which DPPC-based microbubbles deflated most. For DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm driven at 50 kPa, resonance frequencies of bound microbubbles were all higher than 1.8 MHz, whereas those of nonbound microbubbles were significantly lower. In addition, the relative radial excursions at resonance were also higher for bound DPPC microbubbles. These differences did not persist when the pressure was increased to 150 kPa, except for the acoustic stability which further decreased. No differences in resonance frequencies were observed between bound and nonbound DSPC microbubbles. Nonlinear responses in terms of emissions at the subharmonic and second harmonic frequencies were similar for bound and nonbound microbubbles at both pressures. In conclusion, we identified differences in vibrational responses of bound DPPC microbubbles with diameters between 2 and 4 μm that distinguish them from nonbound ones.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>IEEE</pub><pmid>28287967</pmid><doi>10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2679160</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3163-7376</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0885-3010
ispartof IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, 2017-05, Vol.64 (5), p.785-797
issn 0885-3010
1525-8955
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmed_primary_28287967
source MEDLINE; IEEE Electronic Library (IEL)
subjects Acoustics
Biological system modeling
Biomembranes
Biotin - chemistry
Biotin-streptavidin
Biotinylation
Contrast Media - chemistry
Frequency control
lipid-coating
Lipidomics
Lipids - chemistry
Microbubbles
molecular imaging
Molecular Imaging - methods
nonlinear behavior
Optical Imaging
Resonant frequency
Streptavidin
targeted microbubbles
ultrahigh-speed optical imaging
Ultrasonic imaging
ultrasound contrast agents
Vibration
title Vibrational Responses of Bound and Nonbound Targeted Lipid-Coated Single Microbubbles
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-02T21%3A27%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vibrational%20Responses%20of%20Bound%20and%20Nonbound%20Targeted%20Lipid-Coated%20Single%20Microbubbles&rft.jtitle=IEEE%20transactions%20on%20ultrasonics,%20ferroelectrics,%20and%20frequency%20control&rft.au=van%20Rooij,%20Tom&rft.date=2017-05&rft.volume=64&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=785&rft.epage=797&rft.pages=785-797&rft.issn=0885-3010&rft.eissn=1525-8955&rft.coden=ITUCER&rft_id=info:doi/10.1109/TUFFC.2017.2679160&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1877526738%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1877526738&rft_id=info:pmid/28287967&rft_ieee_id=7873351&rfr_iscdi=true