4.7 Article

Nanoparticle-mediated rhodopsin cDNA but not intron-containing DNA delivery causes transgene silencing in a rhodopsin knockout model

Journal

FASEB JOURNAL
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 1076-1086

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1096/fj.15-280511

Keywords

genomic DNA; epigenetic; gene therapy; gene expression

Funding

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Eye Institute Grant [R21 EY024059]
  2. Carolina Center of Cancer Nanotechnology Excellence
  3. Research to Prevent Blindness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previously, we compared the efficacy of nanoparticle (NP)-mediated intron-containing rhodopsin (sgRho) vs. intronless cDNA in ameliorating retinal disease phenotypes in a rhodopsin knockout (RKO) mouse model of retinitis pigmentosa. We showed that NP-mediated sgRho delivery achieved long-term expression and phenotypic improvement in RKO mice, but not NP housing cDNA. However, the protein level of the NP-sgRho construct was only 5-10% of wild-type at 8 mo postinjection. To have a better understanding of the reduced levels of long-term expression of the vectors, in the present study, we evaluated the epigenetic changes of subretinal delivering NP-cDNA vs. NP-sgRho in the RKO mouse eyes. Following the administration, DNA methylation and histone status of specific regions (bacteria plasmid backbone, promoter, rhodopsin gene, and scaffold/matrix attachment region) of the vectors were evaluated at various time points. We documented that epigenetic transgene silencing occurred in vector-mediated gene transfer, which were caused by the plasmid backbone and the cDNA of the transgene, but not the intron-containing transgene. No toxicity or inflammation was found in the treated eyes. Our results suggest that cDNA of the rhodopsin transgene and bacteria backbone interfered with the host defense mechanism of DNA methylation-mediated transgene silencing through heterochromatin-associated modifications.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available