Low Intensity Ultrasound Mediated Liposomal Doxorubicin Delivery Using Polymer Microbubbles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiotoxicity is the major dose-limiting factor in the chemotherapeutic use of doxorubicin (Dox). A delivery vehicle that can be triggered to release its payload in the tumoral microvasculature but not in healthy tissue would help improve the therapeutic window of the drug. Delivery strategies combining liposomal encapsulated Dox (LDox), microbubbles (MBs), and ultrasound (US) have been shown to improve therapeutic efficacy of LDox, but much remains to be known about the mechanisms and the US conditions that maximize cytotoxicity using this approach. In this study, we compared different US pulses in terms of drug release and acute toxicity. Drug uptake and proliferation rates using low-intensity US were measured in squamous cell carcinoma cells exposed to LDox conjugated to or coinjected with polymer MBs. The aims of this study were: (1) to compare the effects of low- and high-pressure US on Dox release kinetics; (2) to evaluate whether conjugating the liposome to the MB surface (DoxLPX) is an important factor for drug release and cytotoxicity; and (3) to determine which US parameters most inhibit cell proliferation and whether this inhibition is mediated by drug release or the MB/US interaction with cells. Low-pressure US (170 kPa) at high duty cycle (stable cavitation) released up to ∼ 70% of the encapsulated Dox from the DoxLPX, thus improving Dox bioavailability and cellular uptake and leading to a significant reduction in cell proliferation at 48 h. Flow cytometry showed that US generating stable oscillations of DoxLPX significantly increased cellular Dox uptake at 4 h after US exposure compared to LDox. Drug uptake was correlated with cytotoxicity at 48 h. Our results demonstrate that Dox-containing liposomes conjugated to polymer MBs can be triggered to release ∼ 70% of their payload using noninertial US. Following release, Dox became bioavailable to the cells and induced significantly higher cytotoxicity compared to nonreleased encapsulated drug. Our findings show promise for targeted drug delivery using this theranostic delivery platform at low US intensities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".