Elsevier

Ultrasonics

Volume 107, September 2020, 106167
Ultrasonics

Therapeutic ultrasound experiments in vitro: Review of factors influencing outcomes and reproducibility

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2020.106167Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Current in vitro sonication experiments show big variability in experimental methods.

  • Many factors influence reproducibility and outcome of sonication experiments in vitro.

  • Reproducibility and validity of in vitro sonication experiments can be altered.

Abstract

Current in vitro sonication experiments show immense variability in experimental set-ups and methods used. As a result, there is uncertainty in the ultrasound field parameters experienced by sonicated samples, poor reproducibility of these experiments and thus reduced scientific value of the results obtained. The scope of this narrative review is to briefly describe mechanisms of action of ultrasound, list the most frequently used experimental set-ups and focus on a description of factors influencing the outcomes and reproducibility of these experiments. The factors assessed include: proper reporting of ultrasound exposure parameters, experimental geometry, coupling medium quality, influence of culture vessels, formation of standing waves, motion/rotation of the sonicated sample and the characteristics of the sample itself. In the discussion we describe pros and cons of particular exposure geometries and factors, and make a few recommendations as to how to increase the reproducibility and validity of the experiments performed.

Introduction

During the past decades, ultrasound has become an indispensable non-invasive medical tool which provides clinicians with a powerful, easily accessible and relatively cheap diagnostic imaging technique [1]. The potential uses of diagnostic ultrasound have still not been fully explored and new methods, encompassing modalities such as 3D and 4D imaging [1], elastography [2], [3], [4], new ultrasound contrast agents [5], [6], speckle tracking technique [7], [8], ultrasonic microscopy [9], [10], [11] and endoscopic [12], [13] and intravascular [14], [15] ultrasound imaging, are still undergoing rapid development [16].

Ultrasound has not only been used as a powerful diagnostic imaging tool, but considerable research has also been conducted on its therapeutic effects. The use of ultrasound for the treatment of diseased organs or structures is referred to as therapeutic ultrasound [17]. In contrast to diagnostic ultrasound, where biological effects are minimized by keeping up to the ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) principle [18], when using ultrasound for therapeutic purposes the parameters of ultrasound field are intentionally set to the levels which provoke some kind of biological response [19]. Some of these applications have already found their way into clinical use and have been approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the EU (European Union). These include physiotherapy procedures, HIFU (High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound), intracorporeal lithotripsy, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, phacoemulsification, liposuction, tissue cutting and vessel sealing, sonothrombolysis, sonophoresis and bone fracture healing [20]. Table 1 gives a very nice shortened overview of these applications which was originally presented in work by Miller et al. [20]. Other possible therapeutic modalities are still being investigated. These include gene therapy, sonodynamic therapy, sonoporation, drug delivery systems and blood-brain barrier opening [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].

A usual first research step is to perform experiments in vitro. Current ultrasound exposure experiments in vitro show considerable variability in methods, experimental geometries and ways of studying biological effects including sonication of ex vivo tissues, tissue mimicking materials, tissue based methods, cultured cells, non-biological-based methods and biological scaffolds. Each of these methods has characteristics that are well suited for a variety of well-defined investigative goals [29]. Great variability of methods within each of the aforementioned categories can also be found. Moreover, the technical equipment (e.g. culture vessels or physiotherapy equipment etc. which are used frequently in these experiments) may not be specified well or it may present with unstable output over time. Consequently, this non-uniformity in ultrasound exposure experiments leads to poor reproducibility of these experiments and uncertainty in the conditions experienced by sonicated samples, both of which decrease the scientific value of results obtained.

Section snippets

Aim

The main scope of this narrative review is to briefly describe mechanisms of action of ultrasound, make a list of the most commonly used set-ups for therapeutic ultrasound exposure experiments in vitro using cultured cells in culture vessels, describe phenomena that influence the outcomes of these experiments, assess their pros and cons, and to make a few recommendations as to how to perform sonication experiments in vitro in culture vessels to increase the validity and reproducibility of these

Mechanisms of action

Therapeutic ultrasound produces effects in biological samples by different mechanisms of action [30]. In some cases, different mechanisms of action may occur simultaneously. One mechanism of action usually predominates however, ascribing a particular biological response to only one mechanism may be more daring than justified. Mechanisms of action of ultrasound are usually categorized to thermal and non-thermal [31].

Factors influencing outcome and reproducibility of sonication experimetns in vitro

When performing therapeutic ultrasound exposure experiment in vitro using culture vessels attention should be paid to following issues: proper reporting of ultrasound exposure conditions, sufficient description of geometrical set-up of the items involved in the experiment, quality of coupling medium, influence of laboratory glass and plastics in which the sonicated samples are placed, standing wave formation, influence of motion or rotation of the sonicated sample and characteristics of the

Proposals for guidelines

In all studies, the overarching purpose of reporting exposure parameters is to enable other investigators to replicate studies and thereby validate, supplement, or call into question published results [52]. Although some studies include extremely thorough characterization of the ultrasound fields used, in many cases this information is either very limited, poorly explained or missing altogether [53]. Evaluating the acoustic pressure field within an ultrasonic bioreactor is a necessary

Choice of experimental set-up

The most common arrangements for sonication experiments performed in vitro are depicted in Fig. 4.

Many experiments are carried out in a tank filled with degassed water (Fig. 4a–f) to facilitate transmission of ultrasound energy to the region of interest. In this type of experiment, the sonicated cells are usually placed either in conventional glass or plastic culture vessels (Fig. 4a–d) or in culture vessels sealed by Parafilm® or Mylar film (Fig. 4e) or in a home-made sample holder with

Focused transducers

During in vitro sonication experiments the position and size of the sonicated sample relative to the ultrasound field significantly influence the final energy seen by particular cells. For focused shockwave transducers, the maximum acoustic pressure reaches only a very limited region. If this region is smaller than the sonicated sample, different cells are affected by significantly different temporal pressure distributions. In this case, a correlation of the shockwave parameters with the

Influence of coupling medium

Coupling medium is used to facilitate transmission of ultrasound waves to the site of interest. In Fig. 4a–f the coupling medium is degassed water and in Fig. 4g ultrasound gel is used to couple ultrasound from the transducer into the culture vessel containing the biological sample. The ideal coupling medium transmits ultrasound energy efficiently, eliminates air spaces between the transducer head and the tissue, and serves as a lubricant for contact applications [85]. Several studies have been

Influence of sample holder

Laboratory glass and plastics alter the ultrasound exposure conditions in the majority of ultrasound exposure experiments in vitro. Indeed, our team has shown that commonly used culture vessels can either reduce, or even locally increase, the ultrasound intensity experienced by sonicated cells, depending on both material and shape of the holder [91].

Origin of standing waves

Standing waves are set up when a significant proportion of a travelling wave is reflected (e.g. at a water/culture medium-air interface), and the incident and reflected waves are superimposed in such a manner that their peaks and troughs coincide. In such a situation there are fixed positions where the particle displacements induced by the 2 waves always add to reinforce each other and produce a maximum displacement amplitude (termed an antinode), and intervening positions where their summation

Influence of rotation

If attached cells are exposed to travelling waves it may be necessary to rotate the sample holder as cavitating bubbles are pushed by radiation force to the far side of the vessel from the transducer [110]. If the cells are attached on the front wall of the holder, then the cavitating bubbles may become ineffective in causing biological response since they are pushed away. On the other hand, if the cells are attached on the back wall, streaming may theoretically detach the cells. Suitable

Influence of the cells

The biological response of the sonicated sample also depends on a number of intrinsic factors. The same stimuli may result in different biological responses in different cell lines. Moreover, even cells of the same type may show different responses to identical stimuli [116].

If cells of the same cell line are sonicated in the form of attached cells and once in the form of cell suspensions, the biological response may be very different [117], [118]. The influence of trypsin (used to detach the

Rated outcome

We chose a narrative format for this review since there are many factors which needed to be described and writing a systematic review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement [143] would be very difficult if not impossible. Rather than giving highly detailed information, we have given a brief structured insight into performing in vitro sonication experiments using cells in culture vessels and drawn attention to the main pitfalls that

Limitations

Since narrative reviews deal with a broad range of topics, the methodology of searching for relevant articles inevitably lacks the methodological quality of systematic reviews, which, in contrast, focus on one precisely defined question or topic. Even though we did our best to collect material of good quality, the reader should be aware of the fact that this is the narrative type of review, not a systematic one. As we already stated, this work does not intend to give highly detailed information

Conclusions

The performance of in vitro sonication experiments is an indispensable research method. However, these experiments are accompanied with many potential pitfalls. Attention should always be paid to proper reporting of ultrasound exposure conditions, sufficient description of the experimental set-up, assessment of alteration of ultrasound field by coupling medium, culture vessel and culture medium, consideration of the influence of standing waves and artificial moving with the sonicated sample, as

Declaration of Competing Interest

All authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Grant Project IGA_LF_2020_015 and by the European Regional Development Fund - Project ENOCH (No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000868).

References (149)

  • A.K.W. Wood et al.

    A review of low-intensity ultrasound for cancer therapy

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2015)
  • F.A. Duck

    Hazards, risks and safety of diagnostic ultrasound

    Med. Eng. Phys.

    (2008)
  • Y. Furusawa et al.

    Effects of therapeutic ultrasound on the nucleus and genomic DNA

    Ultrason. Sonochem.

    (2014)
  • F.J.O. Landa et al.

    Four-dimensional optoacoustic monitoring of tissue heating with medium intensity focused ultrasound

    Ultrasonics

    (2019)
  • M.W. Miller et al.

    A review of in vitro bioeffects of inertial ultrasonic cavitation from a mechanistic perspective

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (1996)
  • I. Lentacker et al.

    Design and Evaluation of Doxorubicin-containing Microbubbles for Ultrasound-triggered Doxorubicin Delivery: Cytotoxicity and Mechanisms Involved

    Mol. Ther.

    (2010)
  • Z. Izadifar et al.

    Mechanical and Biological Effects of Ultrasound: A Review of Present Knowledge

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2017)
  • J. Rooze et al.

    Dissolved gas and ultrasonic cavitation – A review

    Ultrason. Sonochem.

    (2013)
  • H. Kolarova et al.

    Photodynamic and Sonodynamic Treatment by Phthalocyanine on Cancer Cell Lines

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2009)
  • G. ter Haar et al.

    Guidance on Reporting Ultrasound Exposure Conditions for Bio-Effects Studies

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2011)
  • C.B. Ferrari et al.

    Evaluation of therapeutic ultrasound equipments performance

    Ultrasonics

    (2010)
  • M.C. Deshpande et al.

    Synergistic effect of ultrasound and PEI on DNA transfection in vitro

    J. Control. Release

    (2007)
  • K. Milowska et al.

    Effect of ultrasound on nucleated erythrocytes

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2005)
  • Q. Liu et al.

    Sonodynamic effects of protoporphyrin IX disodium salt on isolated sarcoma 180 cells

    Ultrasonics

    (2006)
  • J. Xiang et al.

    Apoptosis of ovarian cancer cells induced by methylene blue-mediated sonodynamic action

    Ultrasonics

    (2011)
  • A. Daigeler et al.

    Synergistic Effects of Sonoporation and Taurolidin/TRAIL on Apoptosis in Human Fibrosarcoma

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2010)
  • M.R. Dhond et al.

    Ultrasound-enhanced thrombolysis at 20 kHz with air-filled and perfluorocarbon-filled contrast bispheres

    J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr.

    (2000)
  • A.A. Brayman et al.

    Erosion of artificial endothelia in vitro by pulsed ultrasound: acoustic pressure, frequency, membrane orientation and microbubble contrast agent dependence

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (1999)
  • L.B. Feril et al.

    Enhancement of ultrasound-induced apoptosis and cell lysis by echo-contrast agents

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2003)
  • C.-H. Su et al.

    Ultrasonic Microbubble-Mediated Gene Delivery Causes Phenotypic Changes of Human Aortic Endothelial Cells

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2010)
  • H. Tsuru et al.

    Tumor growth inhibition by sonodynamic therapy using a novel sonosensitizer

    Free Rad. Biol. Med.

    (2012)
  • Y. Qiu et al.

    Microbubble-induced sonoporation involved in ultrasound-mediated DNA transfection in vitro at low acoustic pressures

    J. Biomech.

    (2012)
  • A. Rahim et al.

    Physical parameters affecting ultrasound/microbubble-mediated gene delivery efficiency in vitro

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2006)
  • J. Wu et al.

    Ultrasound, cavitation bubbles and their interaction with cells

    Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.

    (2008)
  • M.T. Balmaseda et al.

    Ultrasound therapy: A comparative study of different coupling media

    Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilit.

    (1986)
  • S.A. Cage et al.

    Relative Acoustic Transmission of Topical Preparations Used With Therapeutic Ultrasound

    Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilit.

    (2013)
  • R.A. Casarotto et al.

    Coupling agents in therapeutic ultrasound: acoustic and thermal behavior

    Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabilit.

    (2004)
  • L. Poltawski et al.

    Relative transmissivity of ultrasound coupling agents commonly used by therapists in the UK

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2007)
  • Y.A. Pishchalnikov et al.

    Air Pockets Trapped During Routine Coupling in Dry Head Lithotripsy Can Significantly Decrease the Delivery of Shock Wave Energy

    J. Urol.

    (2006)
  • V.F. Humphrey

    Ultrasound and matter—Physical interactions

    Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol.

    (2007)
  • J.J. Leskinen et al.

    Study of Factors Affecting the Magnitude and Nature of Ultrasound Exposure with In Vitro Set-Ups

    Ultrasound Med. Biol.

    (2012)
  • M.A. Hassan et al.

    Modulation control over ultrasound-mediated gene delivery: Evaluating the importance of standing waves

    J. Control. Release

    (2010)
  • M. Kinoshita et al.

    Key factors that affect sonoporation efficiency in in vitro settings: The importance of standing wave in sonoporation

    Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.

    (2007)
  • W. Secomski et al.

    In vitro ultrasound experiments: Standing wave and multiple reflections influence on the outcome

    Ultrasonics

    (2017)
  • P.R. Hoskins, K. Martin, A. Thrush, Diagnostic ultrasound: physics and equipment, second ed., Cambridge University...
  • M. Mirzaei et al.

    3D normalized cross-correlation for estimation of the displacement field in ultrasound elastography

    Ultrasonics

    (2020)
  • R.M.S. Sigrist et al.

    Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications

    Theranostics

    (2017)
  • A. Ignee et al.

    Ultrasound contrast agents

    Endosc. Ultrasound

    (2016)
  • R.H. Perera et al.

    Ultrasound imaging beyond the vasculature with new generation contrast agents

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev.: Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol.

    (2015)
  • H. Blessberger et al.

    Two dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography: basic principles

    Heart

    (2010)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Optimization of a random linear ultrasonic therapeutic array based on a genetic algorithm

      2022, Ultrasonics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Ultrasound is widely used in ultrasonic ablation, physical therapy, and medical beauty because it is non-invasive, radiation-free, portable, economical, and easy to use [1–6].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text