Transmission electron microscopy study on the effects of the ultrasound contrast agent Levovist on hepatic cells.

PURPOSE: The Ultrasound Equipment and Safety Committee of The Japan Society of Ultrasonics in Medicine performed experiments to confirm whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography damages liver cells. METHODS: Rats were injected with 0.1 ml of 300 mg/ml ultrasound contrast agent (UCA). Diagnostic ultrasound pulses with a center frequency of 6 MHz and a mechanical index of 1.9 were applied to rat livers with a water bag as a coupler to maintain a distance of 2-6 cm between the ultrasound probe surface and the liver. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was carried out for 10 s to visualize the entire liver. Then, specimens of liver tissue were fixed using two types of fixation: immersion and perfusion fixation. RESULTS: Although some variations were found in electron micrographs of liver tissue fixed using immersion fixation, none of three blinded readers found any significant differences between micrographs of liver tissue from rats receiving UCA with sonication and those from sham-treated control rats. Changes observed were not thought to be group-specific but instead due to differences between individual rats. When the livers were fixed using perfusion fixation and the hepatic vein was cut after injection of physiological saline for perfusion, a large number of vacuoles ≥2 µm in diameter were observed. This finding suggested that hepatic cell damage observed in this study was caused by high perfusion pressure during the liver fixation process rather than by sonication with UCA. CONCLUSION: Blinded readings of electron micrographs showed no clear evidence that the use of Levovist in ADI mode ultrasonography causes significant damage to liver tissue.

An oxygen radical absorbance capacity-like assay that directly quantifies the antioxidant's scavenging capacity against AAPH-derived free radicals.

A new method is proposed for the evaluation of oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC). The current fluorescence-based ORAC assay (ORAC-FL) is an indirect method that monitors the antioxidant's ability to protect the fluorescent probe from free radical-mediated damage, and an azo-radical initiator, AAPH (2,2-azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride), has been used as a thermal free radical source. The new ORAC assay employs a short in situ photolysis of AAPH to generate free radicals. The electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spin trapping method was employed to identify and quantify AAPH radicals. In the presence of antioxidant, the level of AAPH radicals was decreased, and ORAC-EPR values were calculated following a simple kinetic formulation. Alkyl-oxy radical was identified as the sole decomposition product from AAPH; therefore, we concluded that ORAC-FL is the assay equivalent to alkyl-oxy radical scavenging capacity measurement. ORAC-EPR results for several antioxidants and human serum indicated that the overall tendency is in agreement with ORAC-FL, but absolute values showed significant discrepancies. ORAC-EPR is a rapid and simple method that is especially suitable for thermally labile biological specimens because the sample heating is not required for free radical production.

Erratum to: Attempt at standardization of bone quantitative ultrasound in Japan.

In the original version of the article, the third author name was incorrectly published. The correct name is Kosei Yoh.

Attempt at standardization of bone quantitative ultrasound in Japan.

Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is used to diagnose osteoporosis. On the other hand, quantitative ultrasound (QUS) is widely used to assess bone density as part of medical screening as it is relatively inexpensive and easy to perform. Current QUS devices do not share precise ultrasound-related parameters, such as frequency, waveform, beam pattern, transient response, definition of propagation time, definition of degree of attenuation, and precise measurement site, resulting in different measurements across models. The Japan Osteoporosis Society established a QUS Standardization Committee in 2007 to investigate standardization of speed of sound (SOS) and broadband ultrasonic attenuation (BUA) measurements to resolve this issue. The committee came up with a formula to convert SOS and BUA values yielded by each model available in Japan. This has made it possible to convert QUS measurements from different models into standardized values, greatly improving the effectiveness of QUS measurements.

Oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) of cyclodextrin-solubilized flavonoids, resveratrol and astaxanthin as measured with the ORAC-EPR method.

Recently, we proposed an oxygen radical absorbance capacity method that directly quantifies the antioxidant's scavenging capacity against free radicals and evaluated the radical scavenging abilities for water soluble antioxidant compounds. In this study, we determined the radical scavenging abilities of lipophilic antioxidants which were solubilized by cyclodextrin in water. Commonly employed fluorescence-based method measures the antioxidant's protection capability for the fluorescent probe, while we directly quantify free-radical level using electron paramagnetic resonance spin trapping technique. In addition, the spin trapping-based method adopted controlled UV-photolysis of azo-initiator for free radical generation, but in fluorescence-based method, thermal decomposition of azo-initiator was utilized. We determined the radical scavenging abilities of seven well-known lipophilic antioxidants (five flavonoids, resveratrol and astaxanthin), using methylated ß-cyclodextrin as a solubilizer. The results indicated that the agreement between spin trapping-based and fluorescence-based values was only fair partly because of a large variation in the previous fluorescence-based data. Typical radical scavenging abilities in trolox equivalent unit are: catechin 0.96; epicatechin 0.94; epigallocatechin gallate 1.3; kaempferol 0.37; myricetin 3.2; resveratrol 0.64; and astaxanthin 0.28, indicating that myricetin possesses the highest antioxidant capacity among the compounds tested. We sorted out the possible causes of the deviation between the two methods.