4.6 Article

A lentiviral vector-based genetic sensor system for comparative analysis of permeability and activity of vitamin D3 analogues in xenotransplanted human skin

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 178-183

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/exd.12091

关键词

drug sensor; lentiviral vectors; topical drug delivery; vitamin D3 analogues; xenotransplantation model

资金

  1. Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation
  2. Danish Medical Research Council
  3. Lundbeck Foundation
  4. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  5. Kgl. Hofbuntmager Aage Bangs Foundation
  6. Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond
  7. Agnes og Poul Friis Fond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vitamin D3 analogues are widely used topical and oral remedies for various ailments such as psoriasis, osteoporosis and secondary hyperparathyroidism. In topical treatment, high skin permeability and cellular uptake are key criteria for beneficial effects due to the natural barrier properties of skin. In this study, we wish to establish an in vivo model that allows the comparison of permeability and activity of vitamin D3 analogues in human skin. We generate a bipartite, genetic sensor technology that combines efficient lentivirus-directed gene delivery to xenotransplanted human skin with vitamin D3-induced expression of a luciferase reporter gene and live imaging of animals by bioluminescence imaging. Based on the induction of a transcriptional activator consisting of the vitamin D receptor fused to the Gal4 DNA-binding domain, the vitamin D3-responsive sensor facilitates non-invasive and rapid assessment of permeability and functional properties of vitamin D3 analogues. By topical application of a panel of vitamin D3 analogues onto 'sensorized' human skin, the sensor produces a drug-induced readout with a magnitude and persistence that allow a direct comparative analysis of different analogues. This novel genetic tool has great potential as a non-invasive in vivo screening system for further development and refinement of vitamin D3 analogues.

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

4.6
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