4.7 Article

The genome of self-complementary adeno-associated viral vectors increases Toll-like receptor 9-dependent innate immune responses in the liver

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 24, 页码 6459-6468

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-314518

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 AI51390, P01 HL078810, R01 HL087836]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  3. Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
  4. [F32 HL096281]
  5. [K99 HL098692]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors have been successfully used in hepatic gene transfer for treatment of hemophilia and other diseases in animals, adaptive immune responses blocked long-term transgene expression in patients on administration of single-stranded AAV serotype-2 vector. More efficient vectors have been developed using alternate capsids and self-complimentary (sc) genomes. This study investigated their effects on the innate immune profile on hepatic gene transfer to mice. A mild and transient up-regulation of myeloid differentiation primary response gene (88), TLR9, TNF-alpha, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, IFN-gamma inducible protein-10, and IFN-alpha/beta expression in the liver was found after single-stranded AAV vector administration, regardless of the capsid sequence. In contrast, scAAV vectors induced higher increases of these transcripts, upregulated additional proinflammatory genes, and increased circulating IL-6. Neutrophil, macrophage, and natural killer cell liver infiltrates were substantially higher on injection of scAAV. Some but not all of these responses were Kupffer cell dependent. Independent of the capsid or expression cassette, scAAV vectors induced dose-dependent innate responses by signaling through TLR9. Increased innate responses to scAAV correlated with stronger adaptive immune responses against capsid (but not against the transgene product). However, these could be blunted by transient inhibition of TLR9. (Blood. 2011;117(24):6459-6468)

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