Cited by 141Ultrasound and Hyperthermia ApplicationsBarrier Structure and Function StudiesMicrobial Inactivation Methods

Spatio-temporal analysis of molecular delivery through the blood–brain barrier using focused ultrasound

Open access
Choi, J J, Pernot, M, Brown, T R, Small, S A, Konofagou, E E·2007·Physics in Medicine and Biology

Abstract

The deposition of gadolinium through ultrasound-induced blood-brain barrier (BBB) openings in the murine hippocampus was investigated. First, wave propagation simulations through the intact mouse skull revealed minimal beam distortion while thermal deposition simulations, at the same sonication parameters used to induce BBB opening in vivo, revealed temperature increases lower than 0.5 degrees C. The simulation results were validated experimentally in ex vivo skulls (m = 6) and in vitro tissue specimens. Then, in vivo mice (n = 9) were injected with microbubbles (Optison; 25-50 microl) and sonicated (frequency: 1.525 MHz, pressure amplitudes: 0.5-1.1 MPa, burst duration: 20 ms, duty cycle: 20%, durations: 2-4 shots, 30 s per shot, 30 s interval) at the left hippocampus, through intact skin and skull. Sequential, high-resolution, T1-weighted MRI (9.4 Tesla, in-plane resolution: 75 microm, scan time: 45-180 min) with gadolinium (Omniscan; 0.5 ml) injected intraperitoneally revealed a threshold of the BBB opening at 0.67 MPa and BBB closing within 28 h from opening. The contrast-enhancement area and gadolinium deposition path were monitored over time and the influence of vessel density, size and location was determined. Sonicated arteries, or their immediate surroundings, depicted greater contrast enhancement than sonicated homogeneous brain tissue regions. In conclusion, gadolinium was delivered through a transiently opened BBB and contained to a specific brain region (i.e., the hippocampus) using a single-element focused ultrasound transducer. It was also found that the amount of gadolinium deposited in the hippocampal region increased with the acoustic pressure and that the spatial distribution of the BBB opening was determined not only by the ultrasound beam, but also by the vasculature of the targeted brain region.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/0031-9155/52/18/004

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • FUS-MB induces temporary BBB opening even in NHPs.

    “A more localized transient disruption of BBB is accomplished by using magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound in combination with IV infusion of microbubbles (FUS-MB) (Fig. 4b), which induce temporary BBB opening even in NHPs [134–137].”

    From Designing and optimizing AAV-mediated gene therapy for neurodegenerative diseases: from bench to bedside (2024) · cites this paper as [135]

    The Experimental setup (section 2.3.2) describes focused ultrasound with intravenously injected microbubbles in mice, and the In vivo BBB opening study (section 4.2) reports that the opening closed within 28 hours. The paper does not establish temporary BBB opening in nonhuman primates; its experiments used mice. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Choi J J, Small S A and Konofagou E E 2006 Optimization of ultrasound-induced transient blood-brain barrier opening in mice Ultrasonics Symp. IEEE (Vancouver, Canada)
  2. Choi J J, Wang S, Morrison B and Konofagou E E 2007 Molecular delivery and microbubble dependence study of the FUS-induced blood-brain barrier opening in vivo Ultrasonics Symp. IEEE (New York, NY, USA)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Choi, J. J., Pernot, M., Brown, T. R., Small, S. A., & Konofagou, E. E.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Venue
Physics in Medicine and Biology
Published
2007-08-31
Volume
52
Issue
18
Pages
5509-5530
ISSN
  • 0031-9155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1361-6560
OpenAlex
W2105351878
Cited by
141
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
10.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physics in Medicine and Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (P50AG008702)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Ultrasound and Hyperthermia Applications
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Barrier Structure and Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
Keywords
focused ultrasound, blood-brain barrier opening, gadolinium deposition, hippocampus, microbubbles, acoustic pressure threshold, wave propagation simulation, T1-weighted imaging, contrast enhancement, cerebral vasculature, ultrasound-mediated drug delivery
MeSH terms
Albumins, Animals, Blood-Brain Barrier, Computer Simulation, Female, Fluorocarbons, Gadolinium, Hippocampus, Male, Metabolic Clearance Rate, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Models, Biological, Sonication, Tissue Distribution, Drug Delivery Systems, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review