Volume : 08, Issue : 04, April – 2021

Title:

12.A VALUE AND CONTRIBUTORS TO INCREASED ENERGY POTENTIAL IN A CELL MEMBRANE ESPECIALLY BY LOW INTENSITY FOCUSED ULTRASOUND (LIFU): A REVIEW

Authors :

Dr. Raymond L Venter

Abstract :

Low-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (LIFU) can modulate region-specific brain activity in vivo in a reversible and non-invasive manner, suggesting that it could be used to treat neurological disorders such as epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease. Although in vivo studies demonstrate that LIFU has bioeffects on neuronal activity, they only hint at possible mechanisms and do not fully explain how this technology accomplishes these effects. According to one theory, LIFU may cause local membrane depolarization by mechanically disrupting the neuronal cell membrane or activating channels or other membrane proteins. Proteins that detect membrane mechanical perturbations, such as those regulated by membrane tension, are prime candidates for activation in response to LIFU, resulting in the observed neurological responses. We examine how LIFU affects the activation of the purified and reconstituted in liposomes bacterial mechanosensitive channel MscL.
Additionally, two bacterial voltage-gated channels, KvAP and NaK2K F92A were investigated. Surprisingly, the findings indicate that ultrasound modulation and membrane perturbation do not result in channels but rather in pores at the membrane protein-lipid interface. However, apparent reductions in pore formation have been observed in vesicles containing high MscL mechanosensitive channel concentrations, implying that this membrane-tension-sensitive protein may increase membrane elasticity, presumably through channel expansion of the plane of the membrane independent of channel gating.

Cite This Article:

Please cite this article in press Raymond L Venter., A Value and Contributors to Increased Energy Potential in A Cell Membrane Especially by Low Intensity Focused Ultrasound (LIFU): A Review.., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(04).

Number of Downloads : 10

References:

1. Raymond L Venter., Role Of Bio-Resonance Focused Ultrasound On Stem Cell Proliferation And Growth: A Review.., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(04).
2. Raymond L Venter., Environmental Energy For Cellular Growth And Repair Especially By Bio-Resonance Focused Ultrasound: A Literature Review., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(04).
3. Raymond L Venter., Focused Ultrasound Involving The Usage Of Cell Resonance To Understand The Effect And Its Use As A Therapy For Disease Modification.,Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2021; 08(03).
4. Gaitatzis, A. & Sander, J. W. The long-term safety of antiepileptic drugs. CNS drugs 27, 435–455 (2013).
5. Vonck, K. et al. Neurostimulation for refractory epilepsy. Acta neurologica belgica 103, 212–217 (2003).
6. Chkhenkeli, S. A. et al. Electrophysiological effects and clinical results of direct brain stimulation for intractable epilepsy. Clinical neurology and neurosurgery 106, 318–329 (2004).
7. Engel, J. et al. Practice parameter: Temporal lobe and localized neocortical resections for epilepsy Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology, in Association with the American Epilepsy Society and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Neurology 60, 538–547 (2003).
8. Fitzgerald, P. B. & Daskalakis, Z. J. The effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression (2011).
9. Fry, W. J. & Fry, F. J. Fundamental neurological research and human neurosurgery using intense ultrasound. IRE transactions on medical electronics Me 7, 166–181 (1960).
10. Wulff, V., Fry, W., Tucker, D., Fry, F. J. & Melton, C. Effects of Ultrasonic Vibrations on Nerve Tissues. Experimental Biology and Medicine 76, 361–366 (1951).
11. Tufail, Y., Yoshihiro, A., Pati, S., Li, M. M. & Tyler, W. J. Ultrasonic neuromodulation by brain stimulation with transcranial ultrasound. nature protocols 6, 1453–1470 (2011).
12. Tyler, W. J. et al. Remote excitation of neuronal circuits using low-intensity, low-frequency ultrasound. PLoS One 3, e3511 (2008).
13. Tufail, Y. et al. Transcranial pulsed ultrasound stimulates intact brain circuits. Neuron 66, 681–694 (2010).
14. King, R. L., Brown, J. R., Newsome, W. T. & Pauly, K. B. Effective parameters for ultrasound-induced in vivo neurostimulation. Ultrasound in medicine & biology 39, 312–331 (2013).
15. Kim, H. et al. Noninvasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerve by focused ultrasound. Ultrasound in medicine & biology 38, 1568–1575 (2012).
16. Yoo, S.-S. et al. Focused ultrasound modulates region-specific brain activity. Neuroimage 56, 1267–1275 (2011).
17. Mueller, J., Legon, W., Opitz, A., Sato, T. F. & Tyler, W. J. Transcranial focused ultrasound modulates intrinsic and evoked EEG dynamics. Brain Stimul 7, 900–908, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brs.2014.08.008 (2014).
18. Deffieux, T. et al. Low-intensity focused ultrasound modulates monkey visuomotor behavior. Current Biology 23, 2430–2433 (2013)
19. Legon, W. et al. Transcranial focused ultrasound modulates the activity of primary somatosensory cortex in humans. Nat Neurosci 17, 322–329, https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3620 (2014).
20. Krasovitski, B., Frenkel, V., Shoham, S. & Kimmel, E. Intramembrane cavitation as a unifying mechanism for ultrasound-induced bioeffects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 3258–3263 (2011).
21. Johns, L. D. Nonthermal effects of therapeutic ultrasound: the frequency resonance hypothesis. Journal of athletic training 37, 293 (2002).
22. Iscla, I. & Blount, P. Sensing and responding to membrane tension: the bacterial MscL channel as a model system. Biophys J 103, 169–174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2012.06.021 (2012).
23. Booth, I. R. & Blount, P. The MscS and MscL families of mechanosensitive channels act as microbial emergency release valves. J Bacteriol 194, 4802–4809, https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00576-12 (2012).
24. Patel, A. J., Lazdunski, M. & Honore, E. Lipid and mechano-gated 2P domain K(+) channels. Curr Opin Cell Biol 13, 422–428 (2001).
25. Maingret, F., Patel, A. J., Lesage, F., Lazdunski, M. & Honore, E. Lysophospholipids open the two-pore domain mechano-gated K(+) channels TREK-1 and TRAAK. J Biol Chem 275, 10128–10133 (2000).
26. Brohawn, S. G., Su, Z. & MacKinnon, R. Mechanosensitivity is mediated directly by the lipid membrane in TRAAK and TREK1 K+ channels. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 3614–3619, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320768111 (2014).
27. Gu, C. X., Juranka, P. F. & Morris, C. E. Stretch-activation and stretch-inactivation of Shaker-IR, a voltage-gated K+ channel. Biophys J 80, 2678–2693, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(01)76237-6 (2001).
28. Laitko, U. & Morris, C. E. Membrane tension accelerates rate-limiting voltage-dependent activation and slow inactivation steps in a Shaker channel. J Gen Physiol 123, 135–154, https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.200308965 (2004).
29. Paoletti, P. & Ascher, P. Mechanosensitivity of NMDA receptors in cultured mouse central neurons. Neuron 13, 645–655 (1994).
30. Laitko, U., Juranka, P. F. & Morris, C. E. Membrane stretch slows the concerted step prior to opening in a Kv channel. J Gen Physiol 127, 687–701, https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.200509394 (2006).
31. Moe, P. & Blount, P. Assessment of potential stimuli for mechano-dependent gating of MscL: effects of pressure, tension, and lipid headgroups. Biochemistry 44, 12239–12244 (2005).
32. Sukharev, S. I., Blount, P., Martinac, B., Blattner, F. R. & Kung, C. A large-conductance mechanosensitive channel in E. coli encoded by mscL alone. Nature 368, 265–268 (1994)
33. Cruickshank, C. C., Minchin, R. F., Le Dain, A. C. & Martinac, B. Estimation of the pore size of the large-conductance mechanosensitive ion channel of Escherichia coli. Biophys J 73, 1925–1931, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78223-7 (1997).
34. Ajouz, B., Berrier, C., Garrigues, A., Besnard, M. & Ghazi, A. Release of thioredoxin via the mechanosensitive channel MscL during osmotic downshock of Escherichia coli cells. J Biol Chem 273, 26670–26674 (1998).
35. Berrier, C., Garrigues, A., Richarme, G. & Ghazi, A. Elongation factor Tu and DnaK are transferred from the cytoplasm to the periplasm of Escherichia coli during osmotic downshock presumably via the mechanosensitive channel mscL. J Bacteriol 182, 248–251 (2000)
36. Lee, W. & Garra, B. How to interpret the ultrasound output display standard for higher acoustic output diagnostic ultrasound devices – Version 2. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 23, 723–726 (2004).
37. Iscla, I. et al. Improving the design of a MscL-based triggered nanovalve. Biosensors 3, 171–184 (2013)
38. Yang, L. M. et al. Engineering a pH-Sensitive Liposomal MRI Agent by Modification of a Bacterial Channel. Small 14, e1704256, https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201704256 (2018).
39. Kocer, A., Walko, M., Meijberg, W. & Feringa, B. L. A light-actuated nanovalve derived from a channel protein. Science 309, 755–758, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114760 (2005).
40. Derebe, M. G. et al. Tuning the ion selectivity of tetrameric cation channels by changing the number of ion binding sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108, 598–602, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013636108 (2011).
41. Lam, Y. L., Zeng, W., Sauer, D. B. & Jiang, Y. The conserved potassium channel filter can have distinct ion binding profiles: structural analysis of rubidium, cesium, and barium binding in NaK2K F92A. J Gen Physiol 144, 181–192, https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.201411191 (2014).
42. Zheng, H., Liu, W., Anderson, L. Y. & Jiang, Q. X. Lipid-dependent gating of a voltage-gated potassium channel. Nat Commun 2, 250, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1254 (2011).
43. Perozo, E., Kloda, A., Cortes, D. M. & Martinac, B. Physical principles underlying the transduction of bilayer deformation forces during mechanosensitive channel gating. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 9, 696–703 (2002).
44. Legon, W., Rowlands, A., Opitz, A., Sato, T. F. & Tyler, W. J. Pulsed ultrasound differentially stimulates somatosensory circuits in humans as indicated by EEG and FMRI. PLoS One 7, e51177, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051177 (2012).
45. Ye, J. et al. Ultrasonic Control of Neural Activity through Activation of the Mechanosensitive Channel MscL. Nano Lett 18, 4148–4155, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b00935 (2018).
46. Gavrilov, L. R., Tsirulnikov, E. M. & Davies, I. A. I. Application of focused ultrasound for the stimulation of neural structures. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 22, 179–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-5629(96)83782-3 (1996).
47. O’Reilly, M. A., Huang, Y. & Hynynen, K. The impact of standing wave effects on transcranial focused ultrasound disruption of the blood–brain barrier in a rat model. Physics in medicine and biology 55, 5251 (2010).
48. Hashizume, H. et al. Openings between Defective Endothelial Cells Explain Tumor Vessel Leakiness. The American Journal of Pathology 156, 1363–1380, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9440(10)65006-7 (2000).
49. Sercombe, L. et al. Advances and Challenges of Liposome Assisted Drug Delivery. Front Pharmacol 6, 286, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2015.00286 (2015)
50. Nehoff, H., Parayath, N. N., Domanovitch, L., Taurin, S. & Greish, K. Nanomedicine for drug targeting: strategies beyond the enhanced permeability and retention effect. Int J Nanomedicine 9, 2539–2555, https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S47129 (2014).
51. Anishkin, A., Chiang, C. S. & Sukharev, S. Gain-of-function mutations reveal expanded intermediate states and a sequential action of two gates in MscL. Journal of General Physiology 125, 155–170, https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.200409118 (2005).
52. Betanzos, M., Chiang, C. S., Guy, H. R. & Sukharev, S. A large iris-like expansion of a mechanosensitive channel protein induced by membrane tension. Nat Struct Biol 9, 704–710, https://doi.org/10.1038/nsb828 (2002).
53. Boucher, P. A., Morris, C. E. & Joos, B. Mechanosensitive closed-closed transitions in large membrane proteins: osmoprotection and tension damping. Biophys J 97, 2761–2770, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2009.08.054 (2009).
54. Sukharev, S., Durell, S. R. & Guy, H. R. Structural models of the MscL gating mechanism. Biophysical journal 81, 917–936 (2001).
55. Shi, N., Ye, S., Alam, A., Chen, L. & Jiang, Y. Atomic structure of a Na+- and K+ -conducting channel. Nature 440, 570–574, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04508 (2006).
56. Jiang, Y. et al. X-ray structure of a voltage-dependent K+ channel. Nature 423, 33–41, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01580 (2003).
57. Jiang, Y., Ruta, V., Chen, J., Lee, A. & MacKinnon, R. The principle of gating charge movement in a voltage-dependent K+ channel. Nature 423, 42–48, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01581 (2003).
58. Yang, L.-M. et al. Three routes to modulate the pore size of the MscL channel/nanovalve. ACS nano 6, 1134–1141 (2012).