4.8 Article

In vitro and in vivo gene-transferring characteristics of novel cationic lipids, DMKD (O,O′-dimyristyl-N-lysyl aspartate) and DMKE (O,O′-dimyristyl-N-lysyl glutamate)

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 115, 期 2, 页码 234-241

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.08.003

关键词

gene therapy; gene delivery; cationic lipid; liposomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We chemically synthesized two different cationic lipids consisting of a core of lysine, two C-14 hydrocarbon chains, and either aspartatic acid or glutamic acid. The lipids were assigned the acronyms, DMKD and DMKE. Cationic liposomes prepared with the two different lipids were tested for their gene-transferring capabilities in various cell lines compared with that of control DOTAP liposomes. Under the same experimental conditions, the order of in vitro gene transfection efficiency was DMKE > DMKD > DOTAP. To identify the parameters influencing transfection efficiency, the DNA-binding affinities of the liposomes were compared and changes in particle size and surface charge were examined after complex formation. Both the DNA-binding affinity of the liposomes and the cell surface-binding affinity of the liposome-pDNA complexes were crucial for gene transfection. In addition, intravenously administered DMKE and DMKD liposomes exhibited different biodistribution characteristics and intensity of in vivo organ transfection from the DOTAP liposomes. Compared to the DOTAP liposomes, they were more readily transferred to the liver. Interestingly, when they were directly injected into tumor tissues, the DMKE lipoplexes were able to induce more efficient transgene expression in these tissues than the DOTAP and DMKD lipoplexes. This study suggests that a small difference in the cationic lipid backbone structure significantly affects gene-transferring capabilities. DMKE and DMKD liposomes can be utilized as efficient genetransferring vehicles for hepatic or intra-tumoral gene transfection. (c) 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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