# A brief note on experimental setups for in-vitro optical observations of HeLa cells and phospholipid-shelled microbubbles subjected to ultrasound

Michiel Postema

► To cite this version:

Michiel Postema. A brief note on experimental setups for in-vitro optical observations of HeLa cells and phospholipid-shelled microbubbles subjected to ultrasound. Physics in Medicine, 2022, 13, pp.100043. 10.1016/j.phmed.2021.100043. hal-03366911v2

HAL Id: hal-03366911

https://hal.science/hal-03366911v2

Submitted on 4 Apr 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# A brief note on experimental setups for in-vitro optical observations of HeLa cells and phospholipid-shelled microbubbles subjected to ultrasound

Michiel Postema<sup>a, b, *</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

### Keywords

Microbubble

HeLa cell

Cell mortality rate

Bubble collapse

Fluorescent observation

## ABSTRACT

In a recent issue of Physics in Medicine, Akashi et al. demonstrated increased mortality of HeLa cells in combination with phospholipid-shelled microbubbles under high-amplitude sonication in an in-vitro experimental setup [1]. The authors attributed the increased mortality to cell damage caused by microbubble dynamics and mentioned the term sonoporation early in their paper. Their findings are a most valuable contribution with regards to ultrasonic imaging safety standards. However, the findings would be even more beneficial to the drug delivery community, provided they could be linked to previous outcomes on in-vitro experimental sonoporation. The purpose of this paper is to briefly underscore previous works with similar setups, highlighting the many agreements between early and recent work.

In a recent issue of *Physics in Medicine*, Akashi et al. demonstrated increased mortality of HeLa cells in combination with phospholipid-shelled microbubbles under high-amplitude sonication in an in-vitro experimental setup [1]. The authors attributed the increased mortality to cell damage caused by microbubble dynamics and mentioned the term sonoporation early in their paper. Their findings are a most valuable contribution with regards to ultrasonic imaging safety standards. However, the findings would be even more beneficial to the drug delivery community, provided they could be linked to previous outcomes on in-vitro experimental sonoporation. The purpose of this paper is to briefly underscore previous works with similar setups, highlighting the many agreements between early and recent work.

Sonoporation is the transient permeation of cell membranes by means of ultrasound, typically assisted by the presence of microbubbles. Since the earliest observations of this phenomenon, sonoporation has been associated with the increased uptake of drugs and genes by cells under sonication [2]. Most of these early studies were carried out with cell cultures, under the assumption that the conditions of successful sonoporation in a culturing chamber could eventually be scaled up to sonoporation-based treatment in humans. An overview of such early sonoporation studies was published in 2011 ([3], Chapter 9). Cancer cells were the obvious choice for sonoporation experiments, as to investigate the feasibility of ultrasound-assisted treatment. Before sonication, an ultrasound contrast agent, typically comprising

phospholipid-shelled microbubbles, would be added to the cell culture.

Following basic *before-sonication — after-sonication* studies, the interest arose to study sonoporation in real-time. Given the microscopic sizes of the cells and microbubbles involved, and given their ultra-fast dynamics, such observations required high-numerical-aperture microscopy and high-speed photography. This in itself presented a major challenge, namely how to avoid acoustic interference from a microscope objective at a distance of less than a wavelength from the cells under observation. Around the world, setups were designed with long-distance objectives and large-aperture transducers [4–6].

The now famous experiments by Van Wamel et al. on endothelial cells mixed with phospholipid-shelled microbubbles sonicated at 1 MHz and observed at ten million frames per second [7] were followed by experiments under the same conditions, but now also including fluorescence microscopy [8]. Despite the high frame rates of these ground-breaking works, the total observation duration was limited to a few sonication periods.

Delalande et al. incorporated confocal fluorescence microscopy in their setups, as well as a colour camera that recorded at frame rates up to 10 kHz [9]. Aware of destructive effects at higher acoustics amplitudes, they subjected a mixture of HeLa cells and phospholipid microbubbles to low-amplitude ultrasound and observed microbubbles travelling through the HeLa cell membranes into the cells [9,10]. The low-amplitude acoustic settings used in these in-vitro experiments were

<footnote><sup>a</sup> BioMediTech, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 3, 33720, Tampere, Finland</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> School of Electrical and Information Engineering, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, Jan Smuts Laan 1, Braamfontein, 2050, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote>* BioMediTech, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Korkeakoulunkatu 3, 33720, Tampere, Finland.
E-mail address: michiel.postema@tuni.fi.</footnote>
translated to those chosen for the successful clinical studies on sono-
poration treatment of human pancreatic cancer [11,12].

Still, the question remains why oscillating microbubbles interact with cells and why some cells respond to ultrasound, even at moderate acoustic amplitudes and without microbubble presence [13]. The sonophore hypothesis proposed rectified diffusion into cell membranes, supposedly causing the membranes to dynamically respond to ultrasound [14]. This hypothesis has not been confirmed nor refuted. As the number of groups working on cell sonoporation is growing, we are anticipating an answer to this important question.

Declaration of competing interest

The author declares that he has no known competing financial in-
terests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] R. Akashi, A. Hirayama, D. Koyama, Quantitative evaluation of the mortality rate of HeLa cells induced by microbubble vibration and collapse under pulsed ultrasound irradiation, Phys. Med. 12 (2021) 100041, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phmed.2021.100041.

[2] S. Bao, B.D. Thrall, D.L. Miller, Transfection of a reporter plasmid into cultured cells by sonoporation in vitro, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 23 (1997) 953–959, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-5629(97)00025-2.

[3] M. Postema, Fundamentals of Medical Ultrasonics, Taylor & Francis, London, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1201/9781482266641.

[4] C.T. Chin, C. Lancée, J. Borsboom, F. Mastik, M.E. Frijlink, N. de Jong, M. Versluis, D. Lohse, Brandaris 128: a digital 25 million frames per second camera with 128

highly sensitive frames, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74 (2003) 5026, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1626013.

[5] N. Kudo, High-speed in situ observation system for sonoporation of cells with size- and position-controlled microbubbles, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectrics Freq. Control 64 (2017) 273–280, https://doi.org/10.1109/tuffc.2016.2606551.

[6] M. Fauconnier, J. Ngo, J.-C. Béra, C. Inserra, Mechanical response of a megakaryocyte acoustically coupled with a tethered microbubble, Forum Acusticum, 2020, pp. 1085–1087, https://doi.org/10.48465/fa.2020.0902.

[7] A. van Wamel, A. Bouakaz, M. Versluis, N. de Jong, Micromanipulation of endothelial cells: ultrasound-microbubble-cell interaction, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 30 (2004) 1255–1258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2004.07.015.

[8] A. van Wamel, K. Kooiman, M. Harteveld, M. Emmer, F.J. ten Cate, M. Versluis, N. de Jong, Vibrating microbubbles poking individual cells: drug transfer into cells via sonoporation, J. Contr. Release 112 (2006) 149–155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.02.007.

[9] A. Delalande, S. Kotopoulis, T. Rovers, C. Pichon, M. Postema, Sonoporation at a low mechanical index, Bubble Sci. Eng. Technol. 3 (2011) 3–12. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03186064/document.

[10] S. Kotopoulis, A. Delalande, C. Pichon, M. Postema, Real-time sonoporation through HeLa cells, AIP Conf. Proc. 1474 (2012) 271–274, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4749348.

[11] S. Kotopoulis, G. Dimcevski, O.H. Gilja, D. Hoem, M. Postema, Treatment of human pancreatic cancer using combined ultrasound, microbubbles, and gemcitabine: a clinical case study, Med. Phys. 40 (2013), 072902, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4808149.

[12] G. Dimcevski, S. Kotopoulis, T. Bjånes, D. Hoem, J. Schjøtt, B.T. Gjertsen, M. Biermann, A. Molven, H. Sorbye, E. McCormack, M. Postema, O.H. Gilja, A human clinical trial using ultrasound and microbubbles to enhance gemcitabine treatment of inoperable pancreatic cancer, J. Contr. Release 243 (2016) 172–181, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.10.007.

[13] D.M. Rubin, N. Anderton, C. Smalberger, J. Polliack, M. Nathan, M. Postema, On the behaviour of living cells under the influence of ultrasound, Fluid 3 (2018) 82, https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids3040082.

[14] B. Krasovitski, V. Frenkel, S. Shoham, E. Kimmel, Intramembrane cavitation as a unifying mechanism for ultrasound-induced bioeffects, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 108 (2011) 3258–3263, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1015771108.