4.7 Article

The therapeutic efficacy of adenoviral vectors for cancer gene therapy is limited by a low level of primary adenovirus receptors on tumour cells

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 38, 期 14, 页码 1917-1926

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00131-4

关键词

adenovirus; CAR; gene therapy; p53; thymidine kinase; vector

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA083591-039003, R01 CA74242, 5T32 CA09467, P50 CA83591] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Replication-defective adenoviral vectors are currently being employed as gene delivery vehicles for cancer gene therapy. To address the hypothesis that the therapeutic efficacy of adenoviral vectors is restricted by their inability to infect tumour cells expressing low levels of the primary cellular receptor for adenoviruses, the coxsackievirus and adenovirus receptor (CAR), we have employed a pair of ovarian cancer cell lines differing only in the expression of a primary receptor for Ad5. This novel system thus allowed the direct evaluation of the relationship between the efficacy of an adenoviral vector and the primary receptor levels of the host cancer cell, without the confounding influence of other variable cellular factors. We demonstrate that a deficiency of the primary cellular receptor on the tumour cells restricts the efficacy of adenoviral vectors in two distinct cancer gene therapy approaches, TP53 gene replacement therapy and herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase/ganciclovir suicide gene therapy. Moreover, we show that a deficiency of the primary receptor on the tumour cells limits the efficiency of adenovirus-mediated gene transfer in vivo. Since a number of studies have reported that primary cancer cells express only low levels of CAR, our results suggest that strategies to redirect adenoviruses to achieve CAR-independent infection will be necessary to realize the full potential of adenoviral vectors in the clinical setting. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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