4.5 Article

Repeat administration of DNA/liposomes to the nasal epithelium of patients with cystic fibrosis

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 7, 期 13, 页码 1156-1165

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.gt.3301212

关键词

cystic fibrosis; gene therapy; clinical trial; cationic liposome; multiple dose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major cause of mortality in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is lung disease. Expression of the cystic fibrosis trans-membrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene product in the airways is a potential treatment. Clinical studies in which the CFTR cDNA was delivered to the respiratory epithelia of OF patients have resulted in modest transient gene expression. it seems likely that repeated administration of the gene transfer vector will be required for long-term gene expression. We have undertaken a double-blinded study in which multiple doses of a DNA/liposome formulation were delivered to the nasal epithelium of CF patients. Ten subjects received plasmid DNA expressing the CFTR cDNA complexed with DC-Chol/DOPE cationic liposomes, whilst two subjects received placebo. Each subject received three doses, administered 4 weeks apart. There was no evidence of inflammation, toxicity or an immune response towards the DNA/liposomes or the expressed CFTR. Nasal epithelial cells were collected 4 days after each dose for a series of efficacy assays including quantitation of vector-specific DNA and mRNA, immunohistochemistry of CFTR protein, bacterial adherence, and detection of halide efflux ex vivo. Airway ion transport was also assessed in vivo by repeated nasal potential difference (PD) measurements. On average, six of the treated subjects were positive for CFTR gene transfer after each dose. All subjects positive for CFTR function were also positive for plasmid DNA, plasmid-derived mRNA and CFTR protein. The efficacy measures suggest that unlike high doses of recombinant adenoviral vectors, DNA/liposomes can be successfully re-administered without apparent loss of efficacy.

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