4.5 Article

AAV9-based gene therapy partially ameliorates the clinical phenotype of a mouse model of Leigh syndrome

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 661-667

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2017.53

关键词

-

资金

  1. Core Grant from the MRC
  2. ERC advanced grant [FP7-322424]
  3. NRJ-Institut de France Grant
  4. Italian Ministry of Health [GR-2010-2306-756]
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_UP_1002/1, MC_UU_00015/5] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [MC_UU_00015/5, MC_UP_1002/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leigh syndrome (LS) is the most common infantile mitochondrial encephalopathy. No treatment is currently available for this condition. Mice lacking Ndufs4, encoding NADH: ubiquinone oxidoreductase iron-sulfur protein 4 (NDUFS4) recapitulates the main findings of complex I (cI)-related LS, including severe multisystemic cI deficiency and progressive neurodegeneration. In order to develop a gene therapy approach for LS, we used here an AAV2/9 vector carrying the human NDUFS4 coding sequence (hNDUFS4). We administered AAV2/9-hNDUFS4 by intravenous (IV) and/or intracerebroventricular (ICV) routes to either newborn or young Ndufs4(-/-)mice. We found that IV administration alone was only able to correct the cI deficiency in peripheral organs, whereas ICV administration partially corrected the deficiency in the brain. However, both treatments failed to improve the clinical phenotype or to prolong the lifespan of Ndufs4(-/-)mice. In contrast, combined IV and ICV treatments resulted, along with increased cI activity, in the amelioration of the rotarod performance and in a significant prolongation of the lifespan. Our results indicate that extraneurological organs have an important role in LS pathogenesis and provide an insight into current limitations of adenoassociated virus (AAV)-mediated gene therapy in multisystem disorders. These findings warrant future investigations to develop new vectors able to efficiently target multiple organs.

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

4.5
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