4.6 Article

Development of a Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-Based Lentiviral Vector That Allows Efficient Transduction of both Human and Rhesus Blood Cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 83, 期 19, 页码 9854-9862

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.00357-09

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [ZICHL002338, Z01HL006010, Z01HL006008, ZIAHL006008, ZIAHL006010] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) vectors transduce rhesus blood cells poorly due to a species-specific block by TRIM5 alpha and APOBEC3G, which target HIV-1 capsid and viral infectivity factor (Vif), respectively. We sought to develop a lentiviral vector capable of transducing both human and rhesus blood cells by combining components of both HIV-1 and simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), including SIV capsid (sCA) and SIV Vif. A chimeric HIV-1 vector including sCA (chi HIV) was superior to the conventional SIV in transducing a human blood cell line and superior to the conventional HIV-1 vector in transducing a rhesus blood cell line. Among human CD34(+) hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), the chi HIV and HIV-1 vectors showed similar transduction efficiencies; in rhesus CD34(+) HSCs, the chi HIV vector yielded superior transduction rates. In in vivo competitive repopulation experiments with two rhesus macaques, the chi HIV vector demonstrated superior marking levels over the conventional HIV-1 vector in all blood lineages (first rhesus, 15 to 30% versus 1 to 5%; second rhesus, 7 to 15% versus 0.5 to 2%, respectively) 3 to 7 months postinfusion. In summary, we have developed an HIV-1-based lentiviral vector system that should allow comprehensive preclinical testing of HIV-1-based therapeutic vectors in the rhesus macaque model with eventual clinical application.

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