Site-specific sonoporation of adherent cells by high-frequency ultrasonic micro-transducer arrays (UMTAs, 30 MHz, no microbubbles) was quantified by Thein et al. (2011) through a wound-and-transport model in which multiple membrane ruptures are lumped into a single circular wound whose porosity reseals exponentially, whose substructure is a cytoskeleton-bounded sieve of 50–70 nm nano-pores, and through which cargo crosses with a cargo-size-dependent mean effective diffusion time. All model parameters were obtained by inverting short-time fluorescence-uptake data; none has been independently measured. The open problem is to determine these wound parameters directly — resealing kinetics, pore-size distribution, the role of cytoskeletal constraints, and the cargo-size dependence of transport — and to demonstrate a refined quantitative model that predicts ultrasound-pressure-dependent wound size and cargo uptake across particle sizes.

Background

Sonoporation is the transient, reversible permeabilization of the plasma membrane by ultrasound, exploited to deliver membrane-impermeable drugs, nucleic acids, and nanoparticles into living cells. In the dominant, bubble-mediated modality, oscillating microbubble contrast agents driven at ~0.5–2 MHz tear micrometer-scale holes in the membrane. A distinct, non-bubble modality uses the acoustic radiation pressure of a focused or miniaturized transducer acting directly on the membrane. Thein et al. (2011) implemented this with a biochip carrying 3×3 arrays of microfabricated 30 MHz ultrasonic micro-transducer arrays (UMTAs): human melanoma cells (LU1205) grown directly on the chip are sonoporated only above the transducer's active area, giving cellular-level site specificity that bubble-mediated sonoporation lacks. Uptake of carboxylated CdSe/ZnS quantum dots (QDs, ~10–20 nm hydrodynamic diameter) was quantified by fluorescence, and a chain of models — transducer pressure field, membrane wound, and transmembrane transport — was fitted to the data, yielding a permeabilization threshold of ~0.12 MPa and initial effective wound radii of 150, 460, and 650 nm at radiation pressures of 0.21, 0.29, and 0.40 MPa, with >100-fold uptake enhancement over endocytosis.

The wound-and-transport model adapts the earlier acoustic-cavitation wound model of Zarnitsyn, Rostad and Prausnitz (2008) and rests on hypotheses that were adopted, not measured. First, when ultrasound creates multiple small ruptures on a cell, they are treated as one combined circular opening whose circumference equals the sum of the individual wound circumferences, because diffusive mass transfer is assumed to be dominated by transport along the wound's edges (the classical diffusion-through-a-circular-aperture picture). Second, the wound substructure is assumed to be sieve-like, with nano-pores of ~50–70 nm radius set by the spacing of the cytoskeleton (e.g., the spectrin network beneath the membrane). Third, the wound porosity and pore size are assumed to decay exponentially during resealing, with a wound lifetime τw>1\tau_w > 1 min, reflecting the ATP- and Ca²⁺-dependent vesicle-based membrane repair response. Fourth, the mean effective diffusion time τw,eff\tau_{w,\mathrm{eff}} of a cargo molecule through the shrinking wound depends on its hydrodynamic diameter deffd_{\mathrm{eff}} (with cytoplasmic diffusion slowed to ~0.3 of the free-solution Stokes–Einstein value). These assumptions let the authors invert short-time intracellular-concentration transients (e.g., 7.8, 22.8, and 29.9 nM QD uptake within 6 min at the three pressures above) to obtain wound sizes — but the inverted parameters were never checked against independent measurements, and their validity across other cell types and cargo sizes is unknown.

Adjacent results bracket the problem without closing it. In bubble-mediated sonoporation, voltage-clamp recording on oocytes gave mean single-pore radii of 110 ± 40 nm (Zhou et al. 2009); patch-clamp and real-time confocal imaging measured pore sizes and resealing at the single-cell level (Fan et al. 2012; Hu et al. 2013, who found perforations below ~30 µm² reseal within about a minute with a time constant under 20 s); and Helffield et al. (2016) imaged pores through both apical and basal membrane layers resealing in under 2 minutes. The actin cytoskeleton is now known to be ruptured at the perforation site and to remodel during resealing in a Ca²⁺-dependent way (Chen et al. 2014; Jia et al. 2022), which casts the cytoskeleton as a dynamic repair participant rather than only a static sieve. Uptake efficiency decreases with cargo molecular weight (Bhutto et al. 2018), consistent with diffusion-dominated transport, and recent uptake-kinetics analyses fit exponentially decaying membrane permeability (Drab et al. 2025, on bacteria). However, all of these concern the microbubble modality, mostly micrometer-scale perforations, and none validates a quantitative pressure-to-uptake transport model of the kind used by Thein et al. for the direct-radiation-force, non-bubble platform, and none directly measures the hypothesized nano-pore size distribution inside a resealing wound.

Problem Statement

The problem, as posed by the limitations of Thein et al. (2011), is to replace the hypothesized wound-and-transport model of site-specific (non-bubble, radiation-pressure-driven) sonoporation with one that is validated against independent evidence and quantitatively predictive. Specifically: (1) establish, by methods independent of the fluorescence-uptake inversion used in the original work, the actual wound characteristics that the model assumes — the resealing kinetics (testing the assumed exponential decay of porosity and pore size with lifetime τw\tau_w), the size distribution of the hypothesized sieve-like nano-pores (~50–70 nm) within the wound, and whether multiple ruptures behave, for transport purposes, as the single combined circular opening the model posits; (2) establish the role of cytoskeletal constraints (e.g., actin and spectrin networks) in shaping the pore distribution and hindering transport, for instance by comparing sonoporation transport in cells with pharmacologically perturbed versus intact cytoskeletons; (3) establish the cargo-size dependence of the mean effective diffusion time τw,eff\tau_{w,\mathrm{eff}} across a controlled series of particle hydrodynamic diameters; and (4) refine the quantitative model accordingly so that it quantitatively predicts the ultrasound-pressure-dependent wound size and intracellular uptake of nanoparticles in the radiation-pressure platform, with the cargo-size dependence entering through the τw,eff(deff)\tau_{w,\mathrm{eff}}(d_{\mathrm{eff}}) relation of component (3). A complete answer addresses components (1)–(4) jointly: it establishes which of the source's modeling assumptions survive and which must be replaced, and gives the refined quantitative model that makes acoustic pressure and cargo size jointly predictive of delivery. Because the wound quantities of components (1)–(3) have not been measured independently, each such component is resolved by evidence already in the literature or, where no such evidence exists, by a discriminating measurement design with its predicted observables; component (4) is the refined predictive model built on those resolutions. Re-analysis of the reported transients may supply consistency bounds, but does not by itself resolve a component.

References

  1. Thein M, Cheng A, Khanna P, Zhang C, Park E-J, Ahmed D, Goodrich CJ, Asphahani F, Wu F, Smith NB, Dong C, Jiang X, Zhang M, Xu J. Site-specific sonoporation of human melanoma cells at the cellular level using high lateral-resolution ultrasonic micro-transducer arrays. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 27(1):25–33, 2011. DOI 10.1016/j.bios.2011.05.026, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2011.05.026
  2. Zarnitsyn V, Rostad C, Prausnitz MR. Modeling transmembrane transport through cell membrane wounds created by acoustic cavitation. Biophysical Journal 95(9):4124–4138, 2008. DOI 10.1529/biophysj.108.131664, https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.108.131664
  3. Zhao YZ, Luo YK, Lu CT, Xu JF, Tang J, Zhang M, Zhang Y, Liang HD. Phospholipids-based microbubbles sonoporation pore size and reseal of cell membrane cultured in vitro. Journal of Drug Targeting 16(1):18–25, 2008. DOI 10.1080/10611860701637792, https://doi.org/10.1080/10611860701637792
  4. Zhou Y, Kumon RE, Cui J, Deng CX. The size of sonoporation pores on the cell membrane. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 35(10):1756–1760, 2009. DOI 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.05.012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2009.05.012
  5. Fan Z, Liu H, Mayer M, Deng CX. Spatiotemporally controlled single cell sonoporation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109(41):16486–16491, 2012. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1208198109, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208198109
  6. Hu Y, Wan JMF, Yu ACH. Membrane perforation and recovery dynamics in microbubble-mediated sonoporation. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 39(12):2393–2405, 2013. DOI 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2013.08.003, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2013.08.003
  7. Chen X, Leow RS, Hu Y, Wan JMF, Yu ACH. Single-site sonoporation disrupts actin cytoskeleton organization. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 11(95):20140071, 2014. DOI 10.1098/rsif.2014.0071, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0071
  8. Helffield B, Chen X, Watkins SC, Villanueva FS. Biophysical insight into mechanisms of sonoporation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113(36):9983–9988, 2016. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1606915113, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606915113
  9. Yoon S, Kim MG, Chiu CT, Hwang JY, Kim HH, Wang Y, Shung KK. Direct and sustained intracellular delivery of exogenous molecules using acoustic-transfection with high frequency ultrasound. Scientific Reports 6:20477, 2016. DOI 10.1038/srep20477, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20477
  10. Yoon S, Wang P, Peng Q, Wang Y, Shung KK. Acoustic-transfection for genomic manipulation of single-cells using high frequency ultrasound. Scientific Reports 7:5275, 2017. DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-05722-1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05722-1
  11. Stewart MP, Langer R, Jensen KF. Intracellular delivery by membrane disruption: mechanisms, strategies, and concepts. Chemical Reviews 118(16):7409–7531, 2018. DOI 10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00678, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00678
  12. Bhutto DF, Murphy EM, Priddy MC, Centner CC, Moore IV JB, Bolli R, Kopechek JA. Effect of molecular weight on sonoporation-mediated uptake in human cells. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 44(12):2662–2672, 2018. DOI 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.08.008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.08.008
  13. Duan X, Zhou Q, Wan JMF, Yu ACH. Sonoporation generates downstream cellular impact after membrane resealing. Scientific Reports 11:5161, 2021. DOI 10.1038/s41598-021-84341-3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84341-3
  14. Rich J, Tian Z, Huang TJ. Sonoporation: past, present, and future. Advanced Materials Technologies 7(1):2100885, 2022. DOI 10.1002/admt.202100885, https://doi.org/10.1002/admt.202100885
  15. He S, Singh D, Helfield B. An overview of cell membrane perforation and resealing mechanisms for localized drug delivery. Pharmaceutics 14(4):886, 2022. DOI 10.3390/pharmaceutics14040886, https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14040886
  16. Jia C, Shi J, Han T, Yu ACH, Qin P. Spatiotemporal dynamics and mechanisms of actin cytoskeletal re-modeling in cells perforated by ultrasound-driven microbubbles. Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 48(5):760–777, 2022. DOI 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.12.014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.12.014
  17. Shi J, Han T, Yu ACH, Qin P. Faster calcium recovery and membrane resealing in repeated sonoporation for delivery improvement. Journal of Controlled Release 352:385–398, 2022. DOI 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.10.027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.10.027
  18. Drab M, Iglič A, Stopar D, Pandur Ž. Spatiotemporal analysis of Escherichia coli membrane permeabilization and uptake kinetics induced by a single microbubble cavitation event. Scientific Reports 15:42593, 2025. DOI 10.1038/s41598-025-26554-4, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-26554-4
  19. Anna SS, Emon S, Asaduzzaman M, Saha S, Rahman MA, Karal MAS, Hossen ML, Saha SK, Takaba H, Akhtaruzzaman M, Alam MK. Simulation of intracellular delivery through permeabilized multivesicular vesicles. European Biophysics Journal 55(1):89–99, 2026. DOI 10.1007/s00249-026-01819-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00249-026-01819-6
  20. Moosavi Nejad S, Hosseini SH, Akiyama H, Tachibana K. Optical observation of cell sonoporation with low intensity ultrasound. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 413(2):218–223, 2011. DOI 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.08.072, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.08.072