4.7 Article

Targeted transduction patterns in the mouse brain by lentivirus vectors pseudotyped with VSV, Ebola, Mokola, LCMV, or MuLV envelope proteins

Journal

MOLECULAR THERAPY
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 528-537

Publisher

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1006/mthe.2002.0584

Keywords

lentivirus; gene therapy; Mokola virus; Ebola virus; lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus; murine leukemia virus; vesicular stomatitis virus; central nervous system; pseudotype

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK47757, DK42707] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS11024, NS38690, NS07810] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lentiviral vectors have proven to be promising tools for transduction of central nervous system (CNS) cells in vivo and in vitro. In this study, CNS transduction patterns of lentiviral vectors pseudotyped with envelope glycoproteins from Ebola virus, murine leukemia virus (MuLV), lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), or the rabies-related Mokola virus were compared to a vector pseudotyped with the vesicular stomatitis virus glycoprotein (VSV-G). Mokola-, LCMV-, and VSV-G-pseudotyped vectors transduced similar populations, including striatum, thalamus, and white matter. Mokola-pseudotyped vectors were the most efficient of the three. MuLV-pseudotyped lentivirus efficiently transduced striatum and hippocampal dentate gyrus. In contrast, no transduction resulted from injection of Ebola-pseudotyped virus in the CNS. The same pattern was observed in vitro with primary cultured oligodendrocytes. LCMV, MuLV, and Ebola pseudotypes were the most: stable. These results demonstrate that targeted transduction in the CNS can be achieved using specific envelope glycoproteins to pseudotype lentiviral vectors, and support the use of Mokola-pseudotyped and MuLV-pseudotyped lentiviral vectors as efficient and stable alternatives to VSV-G-pseudotyped vectors for experiments in the mouse CNS.

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