4.6 Article

Chloride accumulation and swelling in endosomes enhances DNA transfer by polyamine-DNA polyplexes

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 278, 期 45, 页码 44826-44831

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M308643200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY13574] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL73856, HL59198] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIBIB NIH HHS [EB00415, EB03008] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK46052, DK35124] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The proton sponge hypothesis postulates enhanced transgene delivery by cationic polymer-DNA complexes (polyplexes) containing H+ buffering polyamines by enhanced endosomal Cl- accumulation and osmotic swelling/lysis. To test this hypothesis, we measured endosomal Cl- concentration, pH, and volume after internalization of polyplexes composed of plasmid DNA and polylysine (POL), a non-buffering polyamine, or the strongly buffering polyamines polyethylenimine (PEI) or polyamidoamine (PAM). [Cl-] and pH were measured by ratio imaging of fluorescently labeled polyplexes containing Cl- or pH indicators. [Cl-] increased from 41 to 80 mM over 60 min in endosomes-contained POL-polyplexes, whereas pH decreased from 6.8 to 5.3. Endosomal Cl- accumulation was enhanced (115 mM at 60 min) and acidification was slowed (pH 5.9 at 60 min) for PEI and PAM-polyplexes. Relative endosome volume increased 20% over 75 min for POL-polyplexes versus 140% for PEI-polyplexes. Endosome lysis was seen at >45 min for PEI but not POL-containing endosomes, and PEI-containing endosomes showed increased osmotic fragility in vitro. The slowed endosomal acidification and enhanced Cl- accumulation and swelling/lysis were accounted for by the greater H+ buffering capacity of endosomes containing PEI or PAM versus POL (>90 mM versus 46 H+/pH unit). Our results provide direct support for the proton sponge hypothesis and thus a rational basis for the design of improved non-viral vectors for gene delivery.

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