4.7 Article

Lentiviral vector gene transfer into fetal rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta):: Lung-targeting approaches

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 4, 期 6, 页码 614-621

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1006/mthe.2001.0497

关键词

fetal gene transfer; HIV-1-derived lentivirus; EGFP; rhesus monkey; lung

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00169] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL69748] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We previously reported the efficiency of gene transfer in fetal monkeys using retroviral vectors and an intraperitoneal (IP) approach. Here, we explored intrapulmonary administration to determine whether gene transfer can be limited to the developing lung. The HIV-1-derived lentiviral vector (VSV-G pseudotyped; 1 x 10(7) infectious particles/fetus), using the enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) as a reporter, was directly injected into fetal lung with ultrasound guidance (n = 4; 55 or 70 days gestation; term 165 +/- 10 days). Fetuses were monitored sonographically, fetal/maternal blood samples collected during gestation, and four of four healthy newborns were delivered at term. All lung lobes were positive for the transgene (less than or equal to 1%) when assessed by PCR, and transgene expression was observed by direct fluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry. The results of this study show the following: (1) successful gene transfer in fetal monkeys using an intrapulmonary approach; (2) less transduction of non-pulmonary tissues with gene transfer at 70 days gestation compared with 55 days gestation or use of an IP approach; (3) that the pulmonary epithelium was EGFP-positive by immunohistochemistry; and (4) no evidence of transplacental transport of vector sequences or antibody responses in the dams. The results of these investigations indicate the efficiency of fetal gene transfer by intrapulmonary delivery, and emphasize the importance of the fetal monkey as a preclinical model system for exploring in utero genetic treatment strategies for pulmonary disorders.

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