4.8 Article

Mammalian retrovirus-like protein PEG10 packages its own mRNA and can be pseudotyped for mRNA delivery

期刊

SCIENCE
卷 373, 期 6557, 页码 882-+

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/science.abg6155

关键词

-

资金

  1. Simons Foundation
  2. National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program
  3. National Institutes of Health [1R01-HG009761, 1DP1-HL141201]
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  5. Open Philanthropy
  6. G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation
  7. Edward Mallinckrodt, Jr. Foundation
  8. Poitras Center for Psychiatric Disorders Research at MIT
  9. Hock E. Tan and K. Lisa Yang Center for Autism Research at MIT
  10. Yang-Tan Center for Molecular Therapeutics at MIT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Eukaryotic genomes contain domesticated genes from integrating viruses and mobile genetic elements, including mammalian Gag homologs and PEG10, which can be used for RNA delivery. The development of selective endogenous encapsidation for cellular delivery (SEND) using PEG10 demonstrates its potential as an efficient therapeutic delivery modality.
Eukaryotic genomes contain domesticated genes from integrating viruses and mobile genetic elements. Among these are homologs of the capsid protein (known as Gag) of long terminal repeat (LTR) retrotransposons and retroviruses. We identified several mammalian Gag homologs that form virus-like particles and one LTR retrotransposon homolog, PEG10, that preferentially binds and facilitates vesicular secretion of its own messenger RNA (mRNA). We showed that the mRNA cargo of PEG10 can be reprogrammed by flanking genes of interest with Peg10's untranslated regions. Taking advantage of this reprogrammability, we developed selective endogenous encapsidation for cellular delivery (SEND) by engineering both mouse and human PEG10 to package, secrete, and deliver specific RNAs. Together, these results demonstrate that SEND is a modular platform suited for development as an efficient therapeutic delivery modality.

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