4.7 Review

The MDS1-EVI1 gene complex as a retrovirus integration site: Impact on behavior of hematopoietic cells and implications for gene therapy

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 439-449

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.mt.6300372

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [ZIAHL002339, Z01HL002339] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene therapy trials have been performed with virus- based vectors that have the ability to integrate permanently into genomic DNA and thus allow prolonged expression of corrective genes after transduction of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Adverse events observed during the X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency gene therapy trial revealed a significant risk of genotoxicity related to retrovirus vector integration and activation of adjacent proto- oncogenes, with several cases of T-cell leukemia linked to vector activation of the LMO2 gene. In patients with chronic granulomatous disease (CGD), rhesus macaques, and mice receiving hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells transduced with retrovirus vectors, a highly nonrandom pattern of vector integration has been reported. The most striking finding has been overrepresentation of integrations in one specific genomic locus, a complex containing the MDS1 and the EVI1 genes. Most evidence suggests that this overrepresentation is primarily due to a modification of primitive myeloid cell behavior by overexpression of EVI1 or MDS1 - EVI1, as opposed to a specific predilection for integration at this site. Three different proteins can be produced from this complex locus: MDS1, MDS1 - EVI1, and EVI1. This review will summarize current knowledge regarding this locus and its gene products, with specific focus on issues with relevance to gene therapy, leukemogenesis, and hematopoiesis. Insights into the mechanisms that result in altered hematopoiesis and leukemogenesis when this locus is dysregulated could improve the safety of gene therapy in the future.

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

4.7
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