4.4 Article

Pathogenesis of Hepatic Tumors following Gene Therapy in Murine and Canine Models of Glycogen Storage Disease

期刊

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.omtm.2019.10.016

关键词

-

资金

  1. Children's Fund for GSD Research
  2. Children's Miracle Network
  3. Association for Glycogen Storage Disease
  4. Alice and YT Chen Center for Pediatric Genetics and Genomics
  5. French National Agency of Research [ANR-11-BSV1-009]
  6. Association Francophone des Glycogenoses
  7. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01DK105434-03]
  8. National Human Genome Research Program at the NIH
  9. Pfizer NC Biotechnology Gene Therapy fellowship [GTF-A-4026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glycogen storage disease type Ia (GSD Ia) is caused by mutations in the glucose-6-phosphatase (G6Pase) catalytic subunit gene ( G6PC). GSD Ia complications include hepatocellular adenomas (HCA) with a risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) formation. Genome editing with adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors containing a zinc-finger nuclease (ZFN) and a G6PC donor transgene was evaluated in adult mice with GSD Ia. Although mouse livers expressed G6Pase, HCA and HCC occurred following AAV vector administration. Interestingly, vector genomes were almost undetectable in the tumors but remained relatively high in adjacent liver (p < 0.01). G6Pase activity was decreased in tumors, in comparison with adjacent liver (p < 0.01). Furthermore, AAV-G6Pase vector-treated dogs with GSD Ia developed HCC with lower G6Pase activity (p < 0.01) in comparison with adjacent liver. AAV integration and tumor marker analysis in mice revealed that tumors arose from the underlying disorder, not from vector administration. Similarly to human GSD Ia-related HCA and HCC, mouse and dog tumors did not express elevated alpha-fetoprotein. Taken together, these results suggest that AAV-mediated gene therapy not only corrects hepatic G6Pase deficiency, but also has potential to suppress HCA and HCC in the GSD Ia liver.

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