4.6 Article

Robust In Vivo Transduction of a Genetically Stable Epstein-Barr Virus Episome to Hepatocytes in Mice by a Hybrid Viral Vector

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 83, 期 7, 页码 3249-3257

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.01721-08

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [R37-CA025235, T32-GM07104]
  2. Warsaw Family Fellowship
  3. NIH [CA-16042, AI-28697]
  4. JCCC
  5. UCLA AIDS Institute
  6. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To make a safe, long-lasting gene delivery vehicle, we developed a hybrid vector that leverages the relative strengths of adenovirus and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). A fully gene-deleted helper-dependent adenovirus (HDAd) is used as the delivery vehicle for its scalability and high transduction efficiency. Upon delivery, a portion of the HDAd vector is recombined to form a circular plasmid. This episome includes two elements from EBV: an EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) expression cassette and an EBNA1 binding region. Along with a human replication origin, these elements provide considerable genetic stability to the episome in replicating cells while avoiding insertional mutagenesis. Here, we demonstrate that this hybrid approach is highly efficient at delivering EBV episomes to target cells in vivo. We achieved nearly 100% transduction of hepatocytes after a single intravenous injection in mice. This is a substantial improvement over the transduction efficiency of previously available physical and viral methods. Bioluminescent imaging of vector-transduced mice demonstrated that luciferase transgene expression from the hybrid was robust and compared well to a traditional HDAd vector. Quantitative PCR analysis confirmed that the EBV episome was stable at approximately 30 copies per cell for up to 50 weeks and that it remained circular and extrachromosomal. Approaches for adapting the HDAd-EBV hybrid to a variety of disease targets and the potential benefits of this approach are discussed.

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

4.6
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