4.5 Article

Dual-Plasmid Bionic Array-Directed Gene Electrotransfer in HEK293 Cells and Cochlear Mesenchymal Cells Probes Transgene Expression and Cell Fate

期刊

HUMAN GENE THERAPY
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 211-224

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2018.062

关键词

cochlea; plasmid copy number; naked DNA; hearing; electroporation; promoters

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP151014754, LP140101008]
  2. Cochlear Ltd. (Australia)
  3. Cochlear Ltd.
  4. Australian Research Council [LP140101008] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Naked plasmid DNA electrotransfer offers advantages over viral-based gene delivery, including being regulatory permissive, but factors influencing expression efficiency and cell fate impact on translational utility. This study compared co-expression of red and green fluorescence reporter plasmids with differing promoters in HEK293 cells and in vivo in guinea pig cochlear mesenchymal cells using Bionic array-Directed Gene Electrotransfer (BaDGE((R))). A functional plasmid copy number of approximate to 64 was established in HEK293 cells by co-transfecting with separate CMV-actin-globin (CAGp) promoter-driven mCherry and green fluorescent protein (GFP) reporters, where cell division diluted plasmids toward discrete red or green channels from 100% co-expression to 10% over 24 days (approximate to 17 cell cycles). Cross-talk between promoters was identified by interchanging a cytomegalovirus promoter (CMVp)-driven GFP plasmid for the CAGp-GFP plasmid. Here, expression of the CMVp-GFP plasmid dominated, while a dual CAGp-based reporter plasmid cocktail showed persistent co-expression beyond 2 weeks. In contrast, in vivo, cochlear mesenchymal cells co-transduced with CAGp-mCherry and CMVp-GFP plasmids showed stable co-expression at approximate to 50%, while the total transfectant numbers diminished over 2 weeks. This is consistent with a lack of mitosis in the cochlear mesenchymal cells and shows that cell type is a factor in plasmid interaction.

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