4.6 Article

The Moloney murine leukemia virus repressor binding site represses expression in murine and human hematopoietic stem cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 77, 期 17, 页码 9439-9450

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.17.9439-9450.2003

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [1P01 CA59318, P01 CA059318] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Moloney murine leukemia virus (MLV) repressor binding site (RBS) is a major determinant of restricted expression of MLV in undifferentiated mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells and mouse embryonal carcinoma (EC) lines. We show here that the RBS repressed expression when placed outside of its normal MLV genome context in a self-inactivating (SIN) lentiviral vector. In the lentiviral vector genome context, the RBS repressed expression of a modified MLV long terminal repeat (MNDU3) promoter, a simian virus 40 promoter, and three cellular promoters: ubiquitin C, mPGK, and hEF-1a. In addition to repressing expression in undifferentiated ES and EC cell lines, we show that the RBS substantially repressed expression in primary mouse embryonic fibroblasts, primary mouse bone marrow stromal cells, whole mouse bone marrow and its differentiated progeny after bone marrow transplant, and several mouse hematopoietic cell lines. Using an electrophoretic mobility shift assay, we show that binding factor A, the trans-acting factor proposed to convey repression by its interaction with the RBS, is present in the nuclear extracts of all mouse cells we analyzed where expression was repressed by the RBS. In addition, we show that the RBS partially repressed expression in the human hematopoietic cell line DU.528 and primary human CD34(+) CD38(-) hematopoietic cells isolated from umbilical cord blood. These findings suggest that retroviral vectors carrying the RBS are subjected to high rates of repression in murine and human cells and that MLV vectors with primer binding site substitutions that remove the RBS may yield more-effective gene expression.

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