Review



microbubble dose  (Thermo Fisher)


Bioz Verified Symbol Thermo Fisher is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Thermo Fisher manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 94
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Thermo Fisher microbubble dose
    Factors and levels of the experimental protocol
    Microbubble Dose, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 3 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/microbubble dose/product/Thermo Fisher
    Average 94 stars, based on 3 article reviews
    microbubble dose - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    94/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells"

    Article Title: The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells

    Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine

    doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.155

    Factors and levels of the experimental protocol
    Figure Legend Snippet: Factors and levels of the experimental protocol

    Techniques Used: Irradiation

    FD4 fluorescent positive cells showed bright green fluorescence in the fluorescence mode, while non-stained cells did not. Fluorescence staining results in the blank control group, ultrasound irradiation groups and ultrasound irradiation combined with microbubble group are shown in A,B,C,D,E,F,G: (A) fluorescence staining result in the blank control group that microbubbles and ultrasound irradiation are not added; (B,C,D,E,F,G): irradiated by ultrasound (370 mW/cm2, 1 minute) and 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1 mL microbubbles are added respectively.
    Figure Legend Snippet: FD4 fluorescent positive cells showed bright green fluorescence in the fluorescence mode, while non-stained cells did not. Fluorescence staining results in the blank control group, ultrasound irradiation groups and ultrasound irradiation combined with microbubble group are shown in A,B,C,D,E,F,G: (A) fluorescence staining result in the blank control group that microbubbles and ultrasound irradiation are not added; (B,C,D,E,F,G): irradiated by ultrasound (370 mW/cm2, 1 minute) and 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1 mL microbubbles are added respectively.

    Techniques Used: Fluorescence, Staining, Control, Irradiation

    Positive rate of cell fluorescence staining at different levels of 3 factors: x-positive rate of fluorescence staining, (A) ultrasound intensity, (B) irradiation time, (C) microbubble dose.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Positive rate of cell fluorescence staining at different levels of 3 factors: x-positive rate of fluorescence staining, (A) ultrasound intensity, (B) irradiation time, (C) microbubble dose.

    Techniques Used: Fluorescence, Staining, Irradiation

    Statistical analysis results (P values) of the 3 factors on the fluorescence staining positive rate respectively. a, ultrasound intensity; b, irradiation time; c, microbubble dose.
    Figure Legend Snippet: Statistical analysis results (P values) of the 3 factors on the fluorescence staining positive rate respectively. a, ultrasound intensity; b, irradiation time; c, microbubble dose.

    Techniques Used: Fluorescence, Staining, Irradiation

    The optimal parameter combination of the 3 factors. (A) The positive rate of fluorescence at different sound intensities when the irradiation time was 2 minutes and 0.6 mL of microbubbles were added; (B) the positive rate of fluorescence at different irradiation times when the ultrasound intensity and microbubbles were 300 mW/cm2 and 0.6 mL respectively; (C) the positive rate of fluorescence at different microbubble concentrations when ultrasound intensity and irradiation time were 300 mW/cm2 and 2 minutes respectively.
    Figure Legend Snippet: The optimal parameter combination of the 3 factors. (A) The positive rate of fluorescence at different sound intensities when the irradiation time was 2 minutes and 0.6 mL of microbubbles were added; (B) the positive rate of fluorescence at different irradiation times when the ultrasound intensity and microbubbles were 300 mW/cm2 and 0.6 mL respectively; (C) the positive rate of fluorescence at different microbubble concentrations when ultrasound intensity and irradiation time were 300 mW/cm2 and 2 minutes respectively.

    Techniques Used: Fluorescence, Irradiation



    Similar Products

    microbubble dose  (Thermo Fisher)
    94
    Thermo Fisher microbubble dose
    Factors and levels of the experimental protocol
    Microbubble Dose, supplied by Thermo Fisher, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/result/microbubble dose/product/Thermo Fisher
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    microbubble dose - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
    94/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Factors and levels of the experimental protocol

    Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine

    Article Title: The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells

    doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.155

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Factors and levels of the experimental protocol

    Article Snippet: Microbubble dose, irradiation time, and acoustic intensity were adjusted to observe differences between the bioeffects demonstrated. table ft1 table-wrap mode="anchored" t5 caption a7 Level Factors Sound intensity (a), mW/cm 2 Irradiation time (b), min Microbubble dose (c), mL 1 230 1 0 2 300 2 0.2 3 370 3 0.4 4 0.6 5 0.8 6 1 Open in a separate window caption a8 Factors and levels of the experimental protocol Fluorescence positive rate and cell survival rate After irradiation, the cells are washed with PBS 3 times, and the entry of fluorescent reagent FD4 at different treatment levels was observed under the EVOSTM M5000 Imaging System (Thermo Fisher Science, USA).

    Techniques: Irradiation

    FD4 fluorescent positive cells showed bright green fluorescence in the fluorescence mode, while non-stained cells did not. Fluorescence staining results in the blank control group, ultrasound irradiation groups and ultrasound irradiation combined with microbubble group are shown in A,B,C,D,E,F,G: (A) fluorescence staining result in the blank control group that microbubbles and ultrasound irradiation are not added; (B,C,D,E,F,G): irradiated by ultrasound (370 mW/cm2, 1 minute) and 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1 mL microbubbles are added respectively.

    Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine

    Article Title: The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells

    doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.155

    Figure Lengend Snippet: FD4 fluorescent positive cells showed bright green fluorescence in the fluorescence mode, while non-stained cells did not. Fluorescence staining results in the blank control group, ultrasound irradiation groups and ultrasound irradiation combined with microbubble group are shown in A,B,C,D,E,F,G: (A) fluorescence staining result in the blank control group that microbubbles and ultrasound irradiation are not added; (B,C,D,E,F,G): irradiated by ultrasound (370 mW/cm2, 1 minute) and 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1 mL microbubbles are added respectively.

    Article Snippet: Microbubble dose, irradiation time, and acoustic intensity were adjusted to observe differences between the bioeffects demonstrated. table ft1 table-wrap mode="anchored" t5 caption a7 Level Factors Sound intensity (a), mW/cm 2 Irradiation time (b), min Microbubble dose (c), mL 1 230 1 0 2 300 2 0.2 3 370 3 0.4 4 0.6 5 0.8 6 1 Open in a separate window caption a8 Factors and levels of the experimental protocol Fluorescence positive rate and cell survival rate After irradiation, the cells are washed with PBS 3 times, and the entry of fluorescent reagent FD4 at different treatment levels was observed under the EVOSTM M5000 Imaging System (Thermo Fisher Science, USA).

    Techniques: Fluorescence, Staining, Control, Irradiation

    Positive rate of cell fluorescence staining at different levels of 3 factors: x-positive rate of fluorescence staining, (A) ultrasound intensity, (B) irradiation time, (C) microbubble dose.

    Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine

    Article Title: The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells

    doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.155

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Positive rate of cell fluorescence staining at different levels of 3 factors: x-positive rate of fluorescence staining, (A) ultrasound intensity, (B) irradiation time, (C) microbubble dose.

    Article Snippet: Microbubble dose, irradiation time, and acoustic intensity were adjusted to observe differences between the bioeffects demonstrated. table ft1 table-wrap mode="anchored" t5 caption a7 Level Factors Sound intensity (a), mW/cm 2 Irradiation time (b), min Microbubble dose (c), mL 1 230 1 0 2 300 2 0.2 3 370 3 0.4 4 0.6 5 0.8 6 1 Open in a separate window caption a8 Factors and levels of the experimental protocol Fluorescence positive rate and cell survival rate After irradiation, the cells are washed with PBS 3 times, and the entry of fluorescent reagent FD4 at different treatment levels was observed under the EVOSTM M5000 Imaging System (Thermo Fisher Science, USA).

    Techniques: Fluorescence, Staining, Irradiation

    Statistical analysis results (P values) of the 3 factors on the fluorescence staining positive rate respectively. a, ultrasound intensity; b, irradiation time; c, microbubble dose.

    Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine

    Article Title: The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells

    doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.155

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Statistical analysis results (P values) of the 3 factors on the fluorescence staining positive rate respectively. a, ultrasound intensity; b, irradiation time; c, microbubble dose.

    Article Snippet: Microbubble dose, irradiation time, and acoustic intensity were adjusted to observe differences between the bioeffects demonstrated. table ft1 table-wrap mode="anchored" t5 caption a7 Level Factors Sound intensity (a), mW/cm 2 Irradiation time (b), min Microbubble dose (c), mL 1 230 1 0 2 300 2 0.2 3 370 3 0.4 4 0.6 5 0.8 6 1 Open in a separate window caption a8 Factors and levels of the experimental protocol Fluorescence positive rate and cell survival rate After irradiation, the cells are washed with PBS 3 times, and the entry of fluorescent reagent FD4 at different treatment levels was observed under the EVOSTM M5000 Imaging System (Thermo Fisher Science, USA).

    Techniques: Fluorescence, Staining, Irradiation

    The optimal parameter combination of the 3 factors. (A) The positive rate of fluorescence at different sound intensities when the irradiation time was 2 minutes and 0.6 mL of microbubbles were added; (B) the positive rate of fluorescence at different irradiation times when the ultrasound intensity and microbubbles were 300 mW/cm2 and 0.6 mL respectively; (C) the positive rate of fluorescence at different microbubble concentrations when ultrasound intensity and irradiation time were 300 mW/cm2 and 2 minutes respectively.

    Journal: Annals of Translational Medicine

    Article Title: The effect of low frequency and low intensity ultrasound combined with microbubbles on the sonoporation efficiency of MDA-MB-231 cells

    doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.02.155

    Figure Lengend Snippet: The optimal parameter combination of the 3 factors. (A) The positive rate of fluorescence at different sound intensities when the irradiation time was 2 minutes and 0.6 mL of microbubbles were added; (B) the positive rate of fluorescence at different irradiation times when the ultrasound intensity and microbubbles were 300 mW/cm2 and 0.6 mL respectively; (C) the positive rate of fluorescence at different microbubble concentrations when ultrasound intensity and irradiation time were 300 mW/cm2 and 2 minutes respectively.

    Article Snippet: Microbubble dose, irradiation time, and acoustic intensity were adjusted to observe differences between the bioeffects demonstrated. table ft1 table-wrap mode="anchored" t5 caption a7 Level Factors Sound intensity (a), mW/cm 2 Irradiation time (b), min Microbubble dose (c), mL 1 230 1 0 2 300 2 0.2 3 370 3 0.4 4 0.6 5 0.8 6 1 Open in a separate window caption a8 Factors and levels of the experimental protocol Fluorescence positive rate and cell survival rate After irradiation, the cells are washed with PBS 3 times, and the entry of fluorescent reagent FD4 at different treatment levels was observed under the EVOSTM M5000 Imaging System (Thermo Fisher Science, USA).

    Techniques: Fluorescence, Irradiation