4.8 Article

Overcoming the blood-brain barrier with high-dose enzyme replacement therapy in murine mucopolysaccharidosis VII

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0506892102

关键词

beta-glucuronidase deficiency; immune tolerance; lysosomal storage disease; mannose-6-phosphate receptor

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK59205, R01 DK040163-17] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM034182-20, GM34182, R01 GM034182] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) effectively reverses storage in several lysosomal storage diseases. However, improvement in brain is limited by the blood-brain barrier except in the newborn period. In this study, we asked whether this barrier could be overcome by higher doses of enzyme than are used in conventional trials. We measured the distribution of recombinant human beta-glucuronidase (hGUS) and reduction in storage by weekly doses of 0.3-40 mg/kg administered i.v. over 1-13 weeks to mucopolysaccharidosis type VII mice immunotolerant to recombinant hGUS. Mice given up to 5 mg/kg enzyme weekly over 3 weeks had moderate reduction in meningeal storage but no change in neocortical neurons. Mice given 20-40 mg/kg three times over 1 week showed no reduction in storage in any area of the CNS except the meninges. In contrast, mice receiving 4 mg/kg per week for 13 weeks showed clearance not only in meninges but also in parietal neocortical and hippocampal neurons and glia. Mice given 20 mg/kg once weekly for 4 weeks also had decreased neuronal, glial, and meningeal storage and averaged 2.5% of wild-type hGUS activity in brain. These results indicate that therapeutic enzyme can be delivered across the blood-brain barrier in the adult mucopolysaccharidosis type VII mouse if administered at higher doses than are used in conventional ERT trials and if the larger dose of enzyme is administered over a sufficient period. These results may have important implications for ERT for lysosomal storage diseases with CNS involvement.

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