4.5 Article

Quantitative comparison between poly(L-arginine) and poly(L-lysine) at each step of polyplex-based gene transfection using a microinjection technique

Journal

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1468-6996/13/1/015009

Keywords

poly(L-lysine); poly(L-arginine); microinjection; transcription efficiency; endosomal escape

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21350093, 23500544] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Among the well-studied polypeptide-type gene carriers, transfection efficiency is empirically known to be higher for poly(L-arginine) (PR) than poly(L-lysine) (PK). The big difference between PR and PK should be determined at one of the intracellular trafficking steps based on the different charge densities, structures or PKa values. However, the endosomal escape and the intranuclear transcription efficiency in living cells have not been clarified yet. In this study, a novel method for quantifying the intranuclear transcription efficiency and the nuclear transport of the polyplex is established based on the nuclear and the cytosolic microinjection technique, and the results for PK and PR with different molecular weights (MWs) are compared in living cells. The intranuclear transcription efficiency is the same in PR and PK and it decreases rapidly with increasing MW, in spite of the commonly measured transfection efficiency. The transcription efficiency is strongly suppressed at high MW and strongly correlates with the polyplex forming ability expressed as a critical ratio of the number of polypeptide cationic groups to the number of pDNA anionic groups. When considered with the results of the cellular uptake and in vitro transfection with or without chloroquine, the rate-limiting step for their gene transfer is the buffering effect-independent endosomal escape.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available