4.6 Article

Improved gene delivery to intestinal mucosa by adenoviral vectors bearing subgroup B and D fibers

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 80, 期 6, 页码 2747-2759

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.80.6.2747-2759.2006

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A major obstacle to successful oral vaccination is the lack of antigen delivery systems that are both safe and highly efficient. Conventional replication-incompetent adenoviral vectors, derived from human adenoviruses of subgroup C, are poorly efficient in delivering genetic material to differentiated intestinal epithelia. To date, 51 human adenovirus serotypes have been identified and shown to recognize different cellular receptors with different tissue distributions. This natural diversity was exploited in the present study to identify suitable adenoviral vectors for efficient gene delivery to the human intestinal epithelium. In particular, we compared the capacities of a library of adenovirus type 5-based vectors pseudotyped with fibers of several human serotypes for transduction, binding, and translocation toward the basolateral pole in human and murine tissue culture models of differentiated intestinal epithelia. In addition, antibody-based inhibition was used to gain insight into the molecular interactions needed for efficient attachment. We found that vectors differing merely in their fiber proteins displayed vastly different capacities for gene transfer to differentiated human intestinal epithelium. Notably, vectors bearing fibers derived from subgroup B and subgroup D serotypes transduced the apical pole of human epithelium with considerably greater efficiency than a subgroup C vector. Such efficiency was correlated with the capacity to use CD46 or sialic acid-containing glycoconjugates as opposed to CAR as attachment receptors. These results suggest that substantial gains could be made in gene transfer to digestive epithelium by exploiting the tropism of existing serotypes of human adenoviruses.

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