← Explore

Ultrasound Mediated Cellular Deflection Results in Cellular Depolarization

Aditya Vasan, Jeremy Orosco, Uri Magaram, Marc Duque, Connor Weiss, Yusuf Tufail, Sreekanth H Chalasani, James Friend

Advanced Science 2022, 9 · 10.1002/advs.202101950

in vitro cellhealthycellular imaginginvasive electrophysiology

Abstract

Ultrasound has been used to manipulate cells in both humans and animal models. While intramembrane cavitation and lipid clustering have been suggested as likely mechanisms, they lack experimental evidence. Here, high-speed digital holographic microscopy (kiloHertz order) is used to visualize the cellular membrane dynamics. It is shown that neuronal and fibroblast membranes deflect about 150 nm upon ultrasound stimulation. Next, a biomechanical model that predicts changes in membrane voltage after ultrasound exposure is developed. Finally, the model predictions are validated using whole-cell patch clamp electrophysiology on primary neurons. Collectively, it is shown that ultrasound stimulation directly defects the neuronal membrane leading to a change in membrane voltage and subsequent depolarization. The model is consistent with existing data and provides a mechanism for both ultrasound-evoked neurostimulation and sonogenetic control.

Abstract via europepmc.

Specieshuman (HEK293 cell line); rat (primary cortical/hippocampal neuron culture)
Subjects30, 30swept cultures
Sessions per subjectnot applicable
Randomisednot applicable
Blindingnot applicable
Sham / controlnone
Auditory controlnot reported
Readout timingonline
Anaesthesianot applicable
Readoutscellular imaging, invasive electrophysiologyhigh-speed digital holographic microscopy (DHM) of membrane deflection; whole-cell current-clamp electrophysiology
Direction of effectexcitatoryUltrasound-induced membrane deflection produced capacitance changes that the model predicts depolarize the membrane and trigger action potentials at sufficient pressure/duration (1 MPa, or 0.5 MPa with longer stimulus); current-clamp recordings at 0.5 MPa peak pressure showed an initial spike followed by voltage oscillations.
Adverse eventsnot applicable

Exposures

Exposure 1: HEK293 cell membrane deflection imaging

Target: other — “HEK293 cells (coverslip-adherent, in perfusion chamber)
Device: custom-built

Pulse timing
Waveformcontinuous
Fundamental frequency (kHz)6,720✓✓
Pulse duration (ms)not applicable
Pulse repetition frequency (Hz)not applicable
Duty cycle (%)not applicable
Sonication duration (s)0.05✓✓
Pressure and intensity, by domain
Free-field pressure (kPa)not reported
Free-field Isppa (W/cm²)not reported
Free-field Ispta (W/cm²)not reported
In-situ estimatenot applicable
In-situ pressure (kPa)not applicable
In-situ Isppa (W/cm²)not applicable
In-situ Ispta (W/cm²)not applicable
Protocol, in the paper’s words

For imaging, coverslips were mounted in a custom perfusion chamber with a built-in ultrasound transducer. Each recording consisted of a 25 ms baseline, a 50 ms ultrasound stimulus, and a 25 ms post-stimulus dwell; no pressure amplitude was reported for this imaging experiment.

Exposure 2: Primary rat neuron membrane deflection imaging and current-clamp electrophysiology

Target: cultured neurons — “rat primary cortical/hippocampal neurons in culture
Device: custom-built

Pulse timing
Waveformcontinuous
Fundamental frequency (kHz)6,720✓✓
Pulse duration (ms)not applicable
Pulse repetition frequency (Hz)not applicable
Duty cycle (%)not applicable
Sonication duration (s)0.05✓✓
Pressure and intensity, by domain
Free-field pressure (kPa)not reported
Free-field Isppa (W/cm²)not reported
Free-field Ispta (W/cm²)not reported
In-situ estimatenot applicable
In-situ pressure (kPa)not applicable
In-situ Isppa (W/cm²)not applicable
In-situ Ispta (W/cm²)not applicable
Pressure, domain unspecified (kPa)500✓✓
Protocol, in the paper’s words

Each DHM recording consisted of a 25 ms baseline, a 50 ms ultrasound stimulus, and a 25 ms post-stimulus dwell. The same ultrasound delivery rig was used for whole-cell current-clamp electrophysiology; recordings were carried out at peak pressures of 0.5 MPa because access resistance could not be maintained at higher pressures.

Flags from extraction

  • exposures[0].free_field.pressure_kpaNo pressure amplitude was reported for the DHM imaging experiments (only 6.72 MHz frequency and 50 ms pulse duration were stated); the 0.5-1 MPa values elsewhere in the paper are from the theoretical model or the separate patch-clamp experiment.
  • exposures[1].unspecified_domain.pressure_kpaThe paper does not state whether the 0.5 MPa peak pressure used for patch-clamp recordings is a free-field or in-situ value; recorded as unspecified domain.
  • n_subjectsPaper reports N=30 for each of the two cell types (HEK293, neurons) in the DHM imaging experiments; no separate n is given for the patch-clamp electrophysiology experiments, and totals are not summed per instructions.