4.8 Article

In vivo screening of modified siRNAs for non-specific antiviral effect in a small fish model: number and localization in the strands are important

期刊

NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 10, 页码 4653-4665

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks033

关键词

-

资金

  1. Danish Technical Research Council [26-03-0059]
  2. EEC [007103]
  3. SIROCCO EU consortium [LSHG-CT-2006-037900]
  4. EU Network of Excellence, EPIZONE [FOOD-CT-2006-016236]
  5. Danish Research Council for Technique and production Sciences [26-03-0059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are promising new active compounds in gene medicine but the induction of non-specific immune responses following their delivery continues to be a serious problem. With the purpose of avoiding such effects chemically modified siRNAs are tested in screening assay but often only examining the expression of specific immunologically relevant genes in selected cell populations typically blood cells from treated animals or humans. Assays using a relevant physiological state in biological models as read-out are not common. Here we use a fish model where the innate antiviral effect of siRNAs is functionally monitored as reduced mortality in challenge studies involving an interferon sensitive virus. Modifications with locked nucleic acid (LNA), altritol nucleic acid (ANA) and hexitol nucleic acid (HNA) reduced the antiviral protection in this model indicative of altered immunogenicity. For LNA modified siRNAs, the number and localization of modifications in the single strands was found to be important and a correlation between antiviral protection and the thermal stability of siRNAs was found. The previously published sisiRNA will in some sequences, but not all, increase the antiviral effect of siRNAs. The applied fish model represents a potent tool for conducting fast but statistically and scientifically relevant evaluations of chemically optimized siRNAs with respect to non-specific antiviral effects in vivo.

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

4.8
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