4.8 Article

Targeted Delivery of PLK1-siRNA by ScFv Suppresses Her2+ Breast Cancer Growth and Metastasis

期刊

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 130, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003601

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 programs) [2010CB912800, 2010CB934000, 2009CB521706]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30921140312, 30525022, 51125012, 30830110, 30772550, 20974105, 81172526]
  3. Guangdong Natural Science Foundation [S2011040000385]
  4. U.S. Department of Defense

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A major obstacle to developing small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) as cancer drugs is their intracellular delivery to disseminated cancer cells. Fusion proteins of single-chain fragmented antibodies (ScFvs) and positively charged peptides deliver siRNAs into specific target cells. However, the therapeutic potential of ScFv-mediated siRNA delivery has not been evaluated in cancer. Here, we tested whether Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) siRNAs complexed with a Her2-ScFv-protamine peptide fusion protein (F5-P) could suppress Her2(+) breast cancer cell lines and primary human cancers in orthotopic breast cancer models. PLK1-siRNAs transferred by F5-P inhibited target gene expression, reduced proliferation, and induced apoptosis of Her2(+) breast cancer cell lines and primary human cancer cells in vitro without triggering an interferon response. Intravenously injected F5-P/PLK1-siRNA complexes concentrated in orthotopic Her2(+) breast cancer xenografts and persisted for at least 72 hours, leading to suppressed PLK1 gene expression and tumor cell apoptosis. The intravenously injected siRNA complexes retarded Her2(+) breast tumor growth, reduced metastasis, and prolonged survival without evident toxicity. F5-P-mediated delivery of a cocktail of PLK1, CCND1, and AKT siRNAs was more effective than an equivalent dose of PLK1-siRNAs alone. These data suggest that F5-P could be used to deliver siRNAs to treat Her2(+) breast cancer.

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