A Combination of UTMD-Mediated HIF-1<i>α</i> shRNA Transfection and TAE in the Treatment of Hepatic Cancer

Liao, Yangying; Luo, Haibo; He, Zhizhong; Kuang, Yongpei; Chen, Peifen; Zhang, Xiuzhen; Chen, Junjun; Wen, Qirong; Xie, Yuhuan; Ding, Shangwei

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1937460

BioMed Research International

On this page

Abstract Introduction Results Discussion Abbreviations Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2019 | Article ID 1937460 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1937460

A Combination of UTMD-Mediated HIF-1α shRNA Transfection and TAE in the Treatment of Hepatic Cancer

Yangying Liao,¹Haibo Luo,¹Zhizhong He,¹Yongpei Kuang,¹Peifen Chen,¹Xiuzhen Zhang,¹Junjun Chen,¹Qirong Wen,²Yuhuan Xie,¹and Shangwei Ding^1,3

Academic Editor: Shinichi Aishima

Received22 Jul 2018

Revised08 Nov 2018

Accepted31 Dec 2018

Published19 Feb 2019

Abstract

To explore the antitumor effect of hypoxia-inducible factor-1α short hairpin RNA (HIF-1α shRNA) delivered by ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction (UTMD) and transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) on rats with hepatic cancer. After the models of transplantation hepatoma were established, Wistar rats were randomly divided into 4 groups: Control group, UTMD group, TAE group, and UTMD+TAE group. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) was used to monitor tumor size on day 14 after four different treatments. Western blotting and immunohistochemistry were applied to measure the protein level of HIF-1α and VEGF in the hepatic cancer tissue. In comparison with UTMD+TAE group (21.25±10.68 days), the mean survival time was noticeably shorter in the Control group and TAE group (13.02±4.30 days and 15.03±7.32 days) (p<0.05, respectively). There was no statistical difference between UTMD+TAE group and UTMD group of the mean survival time (p>0.05). In addition, our results proved that the tumor sizes in UTMD+TAE group were obviously smaller than those in other groups (p<0.05, respectively). By CEUS, we clearly found that the tumor size was the smallest on day 14 in the UTMD+TAE group. The western blotting and immunohistochemistry results proved that the protein levels of HIF-1α and VEGF in UTMD+TAE group were obviously lower than those in TAE group and Control group on days 7 and 14 (p<0.05, respectively). However, there was no statistical difference between UTMD+TAE group and UTMD group (p>0.05). In this study we tried to explore the antitumor effect through a combination of UTMD-mediated HIF-1α shRNA transfection and TAE on rats with hepatic cancer. Our results showed that UTMD-mediated HIF-1α shRNA transfection and TAE can obviously silence HIF-1α and VEGF expression, thereby successfully inhibiting the growth of the tumor.

1. Introduction

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a widely used palliative treatment for patients with nonsurgical hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). After blocking the blood supply with TAE, cancer cells are in an intense state, lacking the necessary oxygen, which causes some to appear necrotic. Those that do survive will be in a high expression of HIF-1α, causing tumor recurrence and metastasis after initial treatment. Under the condition of hypoxia, HIF-1α, which can stimulate the formation of new blood vessels and alleviate the cell hypoxia, can be higher in hepatoma cells and increase the survival of cancer cells [1, 2]. Current research shows that HIF-1α plays an important role in signal transduction pathway of VEGF under hypoxic condition. It can increase gene expression and enhance protein translation for VEGF. In the process of gene therapy, the interference gene can effectively silence HIF-1α expression in liver cancer cells under the condition of hypoxia, so as to effectively restrain the formation of new blood vessels in liver cancer tissue after TAE. Then due to the continue hypoxia, necrosis, and apoptosis of cancer cells, the treatment effect of TAE will be improved significantly and the recurrence of liver cancer will be greatly reduced. The combined treatment method (between TAE and gene therapy) would be a great boon for liver cancer patients. A lot of research confirms that UTMD can effectively promote gene delivery [3–9] and has the practical value of transfection in vivo at the same time [10–12]. In this study, HIF-1α shRNA was imported into liver cancer cells in the aid of UTMD and then embolism tumor blood vessels by TAE. Due to the lack of support for the new blood vessels and due to being in a state of continuous hypoxia, liver cancer may eventually be cured through the use of this treatment method.

2. Material and Method

2.1. Animals and Cell Line

Wistar rats (weighing 100~150g) were purchased from the Animal Experimental Center of Southern Medical University (Guangzhou, China). The experimental protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Southern Medical University. The cell line Walker 256 was kindly provided by Cell Biology Laboratory in Tongji Medical College, Huazhong Science and Technology University. Then it cultured in 1640 culture medium containing 15% fetal bovine serum and 1% penicillin and streptomycin in a humidified incubator at 5% CO2 and 95% humidified atmosphere air at 37°C.

2.2. Materials and Instruments

1640 culture medium (Gibco), Opti-MEM (Gibco), FBS (Gibco), penicillin, streptomycin, trypsin, RIPA, and Cell Counting Kit-8 (Gibco), rabbit anti-rat HIF-1α (Novus Biologicals), mouse anti-rat VEGF (Novus Biologicals), mouse anti-rat glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH; Abcam), DNA Ladder (Solarbio, China), SonoVue (Bracco, Italy), HIF-1α shRNA were synthesized by the Genomics Institute, Sonitron 2000V (Nepa Gene, Japan), Microscope (Nikon, Japan), High Speed Freezing Microcentrifuge (SCILOGEX, Americ ), and Multiskan GO (Thermo Scientific, America).

2.3. Plasmid

Based on the previous research, we successfully constructed a gene vector plasmid RSH050798-1-HIVU6 (OS375737). It contained reporter gene (eGFP) and shRNA (with target sequences of CCATCAGTTACTTACGTGT, used to target HIF-1α), which can express green fluorescent protein within the cells and silence the expression of targeted HIF-1α. We have proved them in previous experiments.

2.4. Preparation of Subcutaneous Hepatic Cancer Model in Mice

Walker 256 cell suspension (5×10⁵) was injected into Wistar rats subcutaneously. After 7~10 days, neck tumor tissues was removed and separated when its volume reached nearly 1.0 cm3. The tumor tissue was divided into small pieces (about 2mm in diam). Then the divided small pieces were implanted into the central area of the left lobe of the liver (about 1.0cm far from the edge of the liver) in rats to induce HCC, following a similar path as the previously reported study [13, 14].

2.5. Grouping

Based on the size and the vitality of the transplanted tumor by CUES on day 12, the qualified models were left for the subsequent experiments. Then the tumor-bearing rats were randomly assigned into four groups, including Sham Control group: after opening the abdominal cavity, there was no UTMD or TAE treatment; UTMD group: only HIF-1α shRNA transfection induced by UTMD; TAE group: only treatment with TAE; UTMD+TAE group: a combination treatment of UTMD and TAE.

2.6. The Combined Treatment of UTMD and TAE

Under aseptic conditions the abdominal cavity was opened to expose the liver cancer tissue. Mix the SonoVue suspension (4μL/g) with HIF-1α shRNA (1μg/g) according to the weight of the rats. The mixture remained still for 15min at room temperature and then injected into the rats through the tail vein at a constant speed (0.5mL/min). A probe was then placed onto the liver tissue surface to start irradiation. The irradiation parameters were as follows: intensity 1.5w/cm², duty cycle 20%, time 6min, and frequency 1MHz. After gene transfection was induced by UTMD, the liver, stomach, and duodenum were fully exposed before finding and identifying the structures (such as gastroduodenal artery, common hepatic artery and proper hepatic artery). The gastroduodenal artery was located and its distal artery was litigated. The suture was wrapped around the proximal gastroduodenal artery and tensed when silastic tubing was inserted from the gastroduodenal artery incision. Then iodized oil (0.2mL/kg) and saline was then injected slowly. The speed had to be slow enough to ensure that the iodized oil was delivered into the liver successfully. After the catheter was removed, the proximal gastroduodenal artery was ligated. To finish the procedure, the common hepatic artery should be loosened and intrahepatic arterial blood supply should be restored. After HIF-1α shRNA transfection induced by UTMD, the liver cancer blood vessels were embolized by TAE, then the abdominal cavity was closed.

2.7. Assessment of Therapeutic Effect

Under the four therapeutic methods, the rats were used to evaluate the survival time during the following 28 days. The hepatoma tissue was monitored by CEUS to compare the change of tumor size among the four groups. At the same time, the rats that survived more than 14 days were used for statistical analysis of the tumor size (V(mm³)=(length×width×height×л/6)) [15]. And the hepatoma tissue was also used for western blotting and immunohistochemical staining.

2.8. Immunohistochemical Staining

Following a standard protocol, hepatoma tissue was used for immunostaining of HIF-1α and VEGF on day 14. After deparaffinization and rehydration, slides were treated with antigen retrieval at 97°C for 45 minutes. Sections were then stained with primary antibodies (diluted in 1:100) and corresponding secondary antibodies (diluted in 1:5000) following the Catalyzed Signal Amplification System. Nuclei were counterstained with hematoxylin. Two or three fields from each slide were counted to determine the staining frequency of HIF-1α and VEGF.

2.9. Western Blotting

3, 7, and 14 days after transfection, HIF-1α and VEGF proteins were then extracted by the corresponding protein extraction reagent and preserved at -80°C; following a standard protocol, 40ml/L concentrated gel, 100ml/L separation gel, prestained protein Marker 3.0μL, and 20μg/well sample protein. A sample of 100mL/L SDS-PAGE was added before being put through electrophoresis at 60V. After 30min, it was changed to 100V and stopped when bromophenol blue ran to the bottom. The protein was synchronously transferred to PVDF membrane at 20V for 50min. For 4h the membrane was blocked with 50mL 5% skim milk in tris-buffered saline (TBST) at room temperature. Primary antibody was then added followed by incubation for 2h at room temperature and overnight incubation at 4°C. After washing the membrane, the appropriate concentration of secondary antibody with HRP for incubation was added at 37°C for 2h. Finally, after washing the membrane, chemiluminescence was detected. The protein band was visualized and quantified with Software Quantity One. The relative density of each band was determined by the ratio to that of the internal control, GAPDH.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

Data was expressed as mean±standard deviation (). Student’s t-test was used to analyze experimental data between two groups. The survival was examined via the Kaplan-Meier method with a log rank test between two groups. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed by using the SPSS software version 19.

3. Results

3.1. The Survival Curve and Tumor Growth

Except for those that were executed on a regular basis, anesthetized on accident, and were failures regarding the experiment, we observed the remaining rats for 28 days and record their survival time. The death rate reached 100% (42/42) in the Control group on the 28th day, but it was 87.5% (35/40) in TAE group. After effective treatment, the death rate has dropped into 27.8% (10/36) in UTMD group and 30.0% (12/40) in UTMD+TAE group. The mean survival time in UTMD+TAE group and UTMD group was 21.25±10.68 days versus 22.00±10.03 days, with no statistical difference between the two groups (p>0.05). In comparison with UTMD+TAE group, the mean survival time was obviously shorter in the Control group and TAE group (13.02±4.30 days and 15.03±7.32 days) (p<0.05, respectively) (Figure 1).

The rats that survived more than 14 days were used for tumor size analysis. On days 7 and 14, tumor size was significantly smaller in UTMD+TAE group (with a size of 273.4±136.5 mm³ and 132.3±75.7 mm³) compared with the control group (2625.4±1136.8 mm³ and 4913.1±2014.9 mm³), with UTMD group (796.0±349.3 mm³ and 559.3±329.1 mm³), with TAE group (1455.8±987.1 mm³ and 3534.7±1987.1 mm³) (p<0.05, respectively) (Figure 2). Meanwhile, it showed that the tumor size was the smallest on day 14 in the UTMD+TAE group by CEUS in Figure 3.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

3.2. The Protein Expression of HIF-1α and VEGF in Hepatoma Tissue

To compare the protein expression of HIF-1α and VEGF in tumor tissue, western blot and immunohistochemical staining were both carried out in the four groups in Figures 4–8. On day 7 and 14, the relative expression of HIF-1α was significantly lower in UTMD+TAE group, with a ratio of (0.58±0.10 and 0.19±0.08), compared with the control group (1.00±0.09 and 1.00±0.07), with TAE group (1.70±0.12 and 1.10±0.14) (p<0.05, n=3, respectively). On days 7 and 14, there was no statistical difference between UTMD+TAE group and UTMD group (the ratio of 0.48±0.07 and 0.26±0.08) (p>0.05, n=3). Being similar to HIF-1α, there was no statistical difference between UTMD+TAE group and UTMD group of the protein expression of VEGF (p>0.05, n=3). In comparison with UTMD+TAE group (a ratio of 0.72±0.11 and 0.26±0.08), the protein expression of VEGF was obviously higher in the Control group and TAE group (1.00±0.16 and 1.00±0.11 versus 2.43±0.37 and 1.08±0.16) (p<0.05, n=3, respectively). Following paraffin embedding method, the hepatoma tissue was used for immunohistochemical staining. The above change in the four groups was confirmed again in Figures 7 and 8.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

4. Discussion

In the treatment of liver cancer, whether cancer cells on the edge are death or not is the most important factor that affects the long-term curative effects of the treatment. TAE is not typically the first choice for clinical treatment of liver cancer because it cannot completely kill the cancer cells. Due to this reason, it is usually administered to patients with liver cancer in the middle to late stages where surgery might be too difficult [16]. A prospective trial of TAE for HCC was carried out by Yamashita et al. [17]. In this trial, patients (in different stages) were treated with different methods. They proved that treatment method was the most important factor for therapeutic effect. Currently, there are multiple two way combinations for cancer treatment, such as surgery combined chemotherapy or (and) radiotherapy. This is used to ensure that there is minimal to no tumor recurrence and metastasis. One of the most common combination therapies is TACE [18]. HIF-1α is the important factor that influences the treatment effect, and the low expression of HIF-1α is very important for preventing tumor recurrence and metastasis after TACE. After the expression of HIF-1α mRNA was silenced, cancer cells are in a state of low oxygen and metabolism, as so to the death of cancer [19, 20]. Chen et al. [13] used lentiviral vector to convey the RNAi of HIF-1α to McA RH7777 cell. Results proved that it could significantly reduce the expression of HIF-1α and VEGF and also inhibit the growth of tumors. In our study, we delivered the HIF-1α shRNA into the liver cancer cells, to inhibit blood vessels and the growth of the tumor.

As we all know, the common gene transfection methods (such as virus and liposome) are not applicable for in vivo gene transfection. Virus-mediated gene transfection has the potential of side effects, and the efficiency of liposome-mediated transfection is extremely low in vivo. Presently, there is plenty of research that confirms that UTMD can effectively mediate gene transfection and has many advantages (such as safety, practicality, and target), making it one of the major trends in gene therapy [21–26]. Tang et al. [27] delivered a suicide gene into the hepatic cancer tissue by UTMD. The result showed that the tumor inhibition rate in the treatment group was markedly higher compared with that in the control group (p<0.05). Zhou et al. [28] explored the antitumor effect of UTMD-mediated herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase (HSV-TK) suicide gene system on the models of subcutaneous transplantation tumors. Their results proved that the TK protein expression and tumor inhibitory effect in HSV-TK+MB+US groups were significantly higher than those in other groups (p<0.05). Then it can significantly improve the survival time of tumor-bearing mice. In our study, after the combination treatment between UTMD and TAE, the tumor volume shrank markedly and the survival time was significantly prolonged. It may be caused by blood supply blocking. Through the results of western blotting and immunohistochemical staining, we also found that the protein expression of HIF-1α and VEGF in hepatoma tissue greatly reduced. Cancer cells could not survive without good blood supply. However, the mean survival time in the UTMD+TAE group was a little shorter than what was measured in the UTMD group. We suspect that the combination therapy may aggravate the damage to the rats and to determine if this is true, we believe it deserves our further study. In short, there are still difficulties that are needed to overcome in further research (such as target, safety, and high-efficiency) [29, 30].

Abbreviations

HIF-1α shRNA:	Hypoxia-inducible factor-1α short hairpin RNA
UTMD:	Ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction
TAE:	Transcatheter arterial embolization
CEUS:	Contrast-enhanced ultrasound
TACE:	Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization
HCC:	Hepatocellular carcinoma
IACUC:	Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
TBST:	Tris-buffered saline
HSV-TK:	Herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Authors’ Contributions

Yangying Liao and Haibo Luo contributed equally to this work

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province, China (no. 2015A030310111), Social Science and Technology Development Project of Dongguan City (no. 2016108101031), and Project of Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Foundation (no. A2016172).

References

C. B. Walton, C. D. Anderson, R. Boulay, and R. V. Shohet, “Introduction to the Ultrasound Targeted Microbubble Destruction Technique,” Journal of Visualized Experiments, no. 52, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. L. Semenza, “Hif-1 and human disease: one highly involved factor,” Genes & Development, vol. 14, no. 16, pp. 1983–1991, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
A. R. Carson, C. F. McTiernan, L. Lavery et al., “Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction to deliver siRNA cancer therapy,” Cancer Research, vol. 72, no. 23, pp. 6191–6199, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Chen, Y. Li, Y. Feng et al., “Evaluation of antimetastatic effect of lncRNA-ATB siRNA delivered using ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction,” DNA and Cell Biology, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 393–397, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H.-H. Wang, Y.-X. Song, M. Bai et al., “Ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction for novel dual targeting of HSP72 and HSC70 in prostate cancer,” Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1285–1290, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Jing, W. Cheng, S. Li et al., “Novel cell-penetrating peptide-loaded nanobubbles synergized with ultrasound irradiation enhance EGFR siRNA delivery for triple negative Breast cancer therapy,” Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, vol. 146, pp. 387–395, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Chen and P. A. Grayburn, “Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction for cardiac gene delivery,” Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1521, pp. 205–218, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. R. Sirsi and M. A. Borden, “Advances in ultrasound mediated gene therapy using microbubble contrast agents,” Theranostics, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 1208–1222, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Jin, Z. Wang, F. Yan et al., “A novel cationic microbubble coated with stearic acid-modified polyethylenimine to enhance DNA loading and gene delivery by ultrasound,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 9, Article ID e76544, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J.-M. Escoffre, A. Zeghimi, A. Novell, and A. Bouakaz, “In-vivo gene delivery by sonoporation: Recent progress and prospects,” Current Gene Therapy, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2–14, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Shapiro, A. W. Wong, M. Bez et al., “Multiparameter evaluation of in vivo gene delivery using ultrasound-guided, microbubble-enhanced sonoporation,” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 223, pp. 157–164, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. M. Panje, D. S. Wang, M. A. Pysz et al., “Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery with cationic versus neutral microbubbles: Effect of DNA and microbubble dose on In Vivo transfection efficiency,” Theranostics, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 1078–1091, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Chen, J. Wang, R. Liu, and S. Qian, “RNA interference of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha improves the effects of transcatheter arterial embolization in rat liver tumors,” Tumor Biology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1095–1103, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Kan, S. Kobayashi, S. Phongkitkarun, and C. Charnsangavej, “Functional CT quantification of tumor perfusion after transhepatic arterial embolization in a rat model,” Radiology, vol. 237, no. 1, pp. 144–150, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Shangwei, H. Xiaoyu, Y. Mengyun et al., “Treatment of liver cancer of rat by UTMD-mediated HIF-1α shRNA transfection,” Acta Medicinae Universitatis Scientiae Technologiae Huazhong, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 12–16, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
J. M. Llovet and J. Bruix, “Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival,” Hepatology, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 429–442, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yamashita, M. Takahashi, Y. Koga et al., “Prognostic factors in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with transcatheter arterial embolization and arterial infusion,” Cancer, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 385–391, 1991.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bruix, M. Sala, and J. M. Llovet, “Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma,” Gastroenterology, vol. 127, supplement 1, no. 5, pp. S179–S188, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Morine, M. Shimada, T. Utsunomiya et al., “Hypoxia inducible factor expression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” Hepato-Gastroenterology, vol. 58, no. 110-111, pp. 1439–1444, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
H. E. Ryan, J. Lo, and R. S. Johnson, “HIF-1α is required for solid tumor formation and embryonic vascularization,” EMBO Journal, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3005–3015, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z.-Y. Chen, K. Liang, X.-J. Sheng et al., “Optimization and apoptosis induction by RNAi with UTMD technology in vitro,” Oncology Letters, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1030–1036, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X.-L. Zhou, Y.-L. Shi, and X. Li, “Inhibitory effects of the ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction-mediated herpes simplex virus-thymidine kinase/ganciclovir system on ovarian cancer in mice,” Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1159–1163, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B.-F. Yu, J. Wu, Y. Zhang, H.-W. Sung, J. Xie, and R.-K. Li, “Ultrasound-targeted HSVtk and Timp3 gene delivery for synergistically enhanced antitumor effects in hepatoma,” Cancer Gene Therapy, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 290–297, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. S. Yoon and J. H. Park, “Ultrasound-mediated gene delivery,” Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 321–330, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhou, H. Gu, Y. Xu et al., “Targeted antiangiogenesis gene therapy using targeted cationic microbubbles conjugated with CD105 antibody compared with untargeted cationic and neutral microbubbles,” Theranostics, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 399–417, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z.-Y. Chen, F. Yang, Y. Lin et al., “New development and application of ultrasound targeted microbubble destruction in gene therapy and drug delivery,” Current Gene Therapy, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 250–274, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Tang, X. He, H. Liao et al., “Ultrasound microbubble contrast agent-mediated suicide gene transfection in the treatment of hepatic cancer,” Oncology Letters, vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 970–972, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zhou, S. Li, Z. Liu et al., “Ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction mediated herpes simplex virus-thymidine kinase gene treats hepatoma in mice,” Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 29, no. 1, p. 170, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Delalande, M. Postema, N. Mignet, P. Midoux, and C. Pichon, “Ultrasound and microbubble-assisted gene delivery: recent advances and ongoing challenges,” Therapeutic Delivery, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 1199–1215, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-T. Kang and C.-K. Yeh, “Ultrasound microbubble contrast agents for diagnostic and therapeutic applications: current status and future design,” Chang Gung Medical Journal, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 125–139, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2019 Yangying Liao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

873

Downloads

1317

Citations