4.7 Article

Optimization of Retinal Gene Therapy for X-Linked Retinitis Pigmentosa Due to RPGR Mutations

Journal

MOLECULAR THERAPY
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages 1866-1880

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.05.004

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NEI/NIH [R24EY-022012, R0IEY017549, R01EY06855, R01EY013203, R0IEY024280, P30EY-001583, P30EY-003039]
  2. AGTC (Alachua, FL, USA)
  3. Foundation Fighting Blindness
  4. Macula Vision Research Foundation
  5. Hope for Vision
  6. Van Sloun fund for canine genetic research
  7. Research to Prevent Blindness

Ask authors/readers for more resources

X-linked retinitis pigmentosa (XLRP) caused by mutations in the RPGR gene is an early onset and severe cause of blindness. Successful proof-of-concept studies in a canine model have recently shown that development of a corrective gene therapy for RPGR-XLRP may now be an attainable goal. In preparation for a future clinical trial, we have here optimized the therapeutic AAV vector construct by showing that GRK1 (rather than IRBP) is a more efficient promoter for targeting gene expression to both rods and cones in non-human primates. Two transgenes were used in RPGR mutant (XLPRA2) dogs under the control of the GRK1 promoter. First was the previously developed stabilized human RPGR (hRPGRstb). Second was a new full-length stabilized and codon-optimized human RPGR (hRPGRco). Long-term (>2 years) studies with an AAV2/5 vector carrying hRPGRstb under control of the GRK1 promoter showed rescue of rods and cones from degeneration and retention of vision. Shorter term (3 months) studies demonstrated comparable preservation of photoreceptors in canine eyes treated with an AAV2/5 vector carrying either transgene under the control of the GRK1 promoter. These results provide the critical molecular components (GRK1 promoter, hRPGRco transgene) to now construct a therapeutic viral vector optimized for RPGR-XLRP patients.

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