4.4 Article

Human recombinant palmitoyl-protein thioesterase-1 (PPT1) for preclinical evaluation of enzyme replacement therapy for infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis

期刊

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND METABOLISM
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 374-378

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2009.12.002

关键词

Enzyme replacement therapy; Lysosomal storage disorder; Batten disease; Infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS036867, R37 NS036867-13, R37 NS036867, R01 NS036867] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Infantile neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis (INCL, also known as Haltia-Santavuori disease) is a lysosomal storage disorder of infants and children characterized by blindness, seizures and a progressive neurodegenerative course. Recent clinical trials have involved neural stem cells and gene therapy directed to the central nervous system: however, enzyme replacement therapy has never been addressed. In the current paper, we describe the production of human recombinant PPT1 (the defective enzyme in INCL) by standard methods in Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells. The enzyme is largely mannose 6-phosphorylated as assessed by mannose 6-phosphate receptor binding (80% bound) and taken tip rapidly by immortalized patient lymphoblasts, where clearance of POT substrates was demonstrated (EC50 of 0.25 nM after overnight incubation). When injected intravenously into PPT1-deficient mice, the clearance of recombinant human PPT1 from plasma was rapid, with a half-life of 10 min. Most of the injected dose was distributed to the kidney and liver and potentially corrective levels were also observed in heart, lung and spleen. Brain uptake was minimal, as expected based on experience with other intravenously administered lysosomal enzymes. The enzyme may be useful as an adjunct to central nervous system-directed therapies and could be used as a starting point for modifications designed to improve brain delivery. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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