4.5 Article

Liver Toxicities typically induced by first-generation adenoviral vectors can be reduced by use of E1, E2b-deleted adenoviral vectors

期刊

HUMAN GENE THERAPY
卷 14, 期 18, 页码 1715-1726

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT INC PUBL
DOI: 10.1089/104303403322611737

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01-DK52925] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenoviral vectors from which the E1 region has been deleted ([E1(-)] Ad) are known to induce strong immune responses after systemic delivery. In this study we have evaluated liver toxicities in mice after intravenous injection with high doses of [E1(-)] or modified [E1(-), E2b(-)] Ad vectors (both expressing the bacterial beta-galactosidase [lacZ] marker gene) in C57BL/6, BALB/c, and SCID mice. Our data demonstrate a marked reduction in maximal liver toxicities and pathologies (typically noted at 21 days postinjection) with the use of the [E1(-), E2b(-)] modified vector in all strains of mice tested. Our data also demonstrated that despite the use of the [E1(-), E2b(-)] Ad vector, significant liver toxicities were still observed. To address this issue and the fact that the lacZ gene was perceived as a foreign antigen in the immune-competent C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice, we similarly injected mice tolerant of LacZ (lacZ-TG). In contrast to our studies in C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice, LacZ-TG mice exhibited virtually no evidence of hepatotoxicity after intravenous injection with the [E1(-), E2b(-)] vector, in contrast to use of the [E1(-)] Ad vector. Our results demonstrate that the [E1-, E2b(-)] Ad vector class can reduce liver toxicities typically ascribed to Ad vector-mediated gene transfer after transfer of a highly immunogenic or foreign gene, whereas transfer of a transgene that is perceived as nonforeign by the host can be delivered with virtually no evidence of toxicity. On the basis of a careful review of the literature, these improvements in vector safety rival those noted with other, more significantly modified Ad vectors described to date.

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