4.6 Article

Evaluation of Baculoviruses as Gene Therapy Vectors for Brain Cancer

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v15030608

关键词

baculoviruses; glioblastoma; astrocytes; gene therapy; brain

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated the potential of baculoviral vectors (BV) for brain cancer gene therapy. BVs efficiently transduced glioma cells and astrocytes without apparent neurotoxicity. These vectors may be valuable for delivering therapeutic genes into the brain since humans do not have pre-existing immunity against BVs.
We aimed to assess the potential of baculoviral vectors (BV) for brain cancer gene therapy. We compared them with adenoviral vectors (AdV), which are used in neuro-oncology, but for which there is pre-existing immunity. We constructed BVs and AdVs encoding fluorescent reporter proteins and evaluated their transduction efficiency in glioma cells and astrocytes. Naive and glioma-bearing mice were intracranially injected with BVs to assess transduction and neuropathology. Transgene expression was also assessed in the brain of BV-preimmunized mice. While the expression of BVs was weaker than AdVs in murine and human glioma cell lines, BV-mediated transgene expression in patient-derived glioma cells was similar to AdV-mediated transduction and showed strong correlation with clathrin expression, a protein that interacts with the baculovirus glycoprotein GP64, mediating BV endocytosis. BVs efficiently transduced normal and neoplastic astrocytes in vivo, without apparent neurotoxicity. BV-mediated transgene expression was stable for at least 21 days in the brain of naive mice, but it was significantly reduced after 7 days in mice systemically preimmunized with BVs. Our findings indicate that BVs efficiently transduce glioma cells and astrocytes without apparent neurotoxicity. Since humans do not present pre-existing immunity against BVs, these vectors may constitute a valuable tool for the delivery of therapeutic genes into the brain.

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

4.6
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