4.8 Article

Endosomal processing limits gene transfer to polarized airway epithelia by adeno-associated virus

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 105, 期 11, 页码 1573-1587

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI8317

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL58340, R01 HL058340] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [P30 DK054759, DK54759] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The restriction of viral receptors and coreceptors to the basolateral surface of airway epithelial cells has been blamed for the inefficient transfer of viral vectors to the apical surface of this tissue. We now report, however, that differentiated human airway epithelia internalize rAAV type-2 virus efficiently from their apical surfaces, despite the absence of known adeno-associated virus-2 (AAV-2) receptors or coreceptors at these sites. The dramatically lower transduction efficiency of rAAV infection from the apical surface of airway cells appears to result instead from differences in endosomal processing and nuclear trafficking of apically or basolaterally internalized virions. AAV capsid proteins are ubiquitinated after endocytosis, and gene transfer can be significantly enhanced by proteasome or ubiquitin Ligase inhibitors. Tripeptide proteasome inhibitors increased persistent rAAV gene delivery from the apical surface >200-fold, to a level nearly equivalent to that achieved with basolateral infection. In vivo application of proteasome inhibitor in mouse lung augmented rAAV gene transfer from undetectable levels to a mean of 10.4 +/- 1.6% of the epithelial cells in large bronchioles. Proteasome inhibitors also increased rAAV-2-mediated gene transfer to the liver tenfold, but they did not affect transduction of skeletal or cardiac muscle. These findings suggest that tissue-specific ubiquitination of viral capsid proteins interferes with rAAV-2 transduction and provides new approaches to circumvent this barrier for gene therapy of diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

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

4.8
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