4.7 Article

Dystrophin Gene-Editing Stability Is Dependent on Dystrophin Levels in Skeletal but Not Cardiac Muscles

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 1070-1085

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.11.003

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01AR44533, P50AR065139, RRG 715234]
  2. Muscular Dystrophy Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the persistence of gene-edited dystrophin expression in different types of muscles in DMD patients. The results indicate that stable dystrophin expression in skeletal muscles will require highly efficient gene editing or cotreatments that decrease skeletal muscle degeneration.
Gene editing is often touted as a permanent method for correcting mutations, but its long-term benefits in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) may depend on sufficiently high editing efficiencies to halt muscle degeneration. Here, we explored the persistence of dystrophin expression following recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 6 (rAAV6): CRISPR-Cas9-mediated multi-exon deletion/reframing in systemically injected 2- and 11-week-old dystrophic mice and show that induction of low dystrophin levels persists for several months in cardiomyocytes but not in skeletal muscles, where myofibers remain susceptible to necrosis and regeneration. Whereas gene-correction efficiency in both muscle types was enhanced with increased ratios of guide RNA (gRNA)-tonuclease vectors, obtaining high dystrophin levels in skeletal muscles via multi-exon deletion remained challenging. In contrast, when AAV-microdystrophin was codelivered with editing components, long-term gene-edited dystrophins persisted in both muscle types. These results suggest that the high rate of necrosis and regeneration in skeletal muscles, compared with the relative stability of dystrophic cardiomyocytes, caused the rapid loss of edited genomes. Consequently, stable dystrophin expression in DMD skeletal muscles will require either highly efficient gene editing or the use of cotreatments that decrease skeletal muscle degeneration.

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