4.5 Article

Safety Evaluation of AAV2-GDNF Gene Transfer into the Dopaminergic Nigrostriatal Pathway in Aged and Parkinsonian Rhesus Monkeys

期刊

HUMAN GENE THERAPY
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 1627-1640

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2009.103

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH-NINDS [U54 NS045309]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated neuropathological findings in two studies of AAV2-GDNF efficacy and safety in naive aged (>20 years) or MPTP (1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine)-lesioned rhesus macaques. In the first study, a total of 17 animals received one of two doses of AAV2-GDNF into either putamen or substantia nigra (SN). To control for surgical variables, all animals received identical putaminal and nigral infusions in which phosphate-buffered saline was substituted for vector as appropriate. All 17 aged monkeys were studied for 6 months before necropsy. In a separate study, 11 MPTP-lesioned rhesus macaques with extensive lesions in the right SN and mild lesions in the left SN received bilateral infusions of AAV2-GDNF (9.9 x 10(11) vector genomes) or PBS into the putamen and were then studied for up to 14 months. In the current analysis, we addressed safety issues regarding AAV2-GDNF administration. An extensive series of assessments of in-life behavioral and clinical parameters was conducted. No overt histopathology or immune responses were detected in any experimental monkey. However, the delivery of AAV2-GDNF to the SN of aged monkeys caused a marked and significant loss of body weight (-19.4%). No weight loss was observed in the MPTP-lesioned monkeys despite bilateral axonal transport of glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) to the SN from the putamen. These findings indicate that putaminal administration of AAV2-GDNF by convection-enhanced delivery shows therapeutic promise without any apparent side effects. Importantly, nigral administration of AAV2-GDNF caused significant weight loss that raises substantial concern for clinical application of this approach.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据