3.8 Article

Type I interferon response against viral and non-viral gene transfer in human tumor and primary cell lines

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENE MEDICINE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 122-135

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jgm.997

关键词

type I interferon; non-viral gene transfer; viral vector; MxA; human tumor cell line; gene therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Type I interferon (IFN-alpha/beta) response is one of the major host defence mechanisms against viruses. Some recent reports suggest that IFNs may interfere with the efficacy of both non-viral and virus-vector-mediated therapeutic gene transfer. Methods The type I IFN response upon different gene transfer methods in tumor and primary cell lines was studied by analysing IFN-beta mRNA human. expression, secretion of type I IFNs and accumulation of IFN-alpha/beta-induced MxA protein (myxovirus resistance protein A). Results Infection with avirulent Semliki Forest virus A7[74] induced MxA protein accumulation and increased the IFN-beta mRNA level, whereas none of the studied virus vectors (adenovirus, CRAd, lentivirus or AAV) induced IFN response. However, plasmid DNA induced the accumulation of MxA protein when transfected with several commercial transfection reagents. RNA transfection appeared to be an efficient inducer of type I IFN response: replicating alphaviral RNA, eukaryotic total RNA, or mRNA all induced both MxA protein accumulation and IFN-beta expression. siRNA transfection failed to induce MxA response. Conclusions The non-viral gene transfer methods have gained more interest in recent years due to their better safety profiles when compared to their viral counterparts. However, the efficiency of non-viral gene transfer is well below those reached by viral vector systems. The type I interferon response induced by non-viral methods may in part contribute to this inefficiency, while most currently used viral gene transfer vectors fail to induce or are able to suppress type I IFN response. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

3.8
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