4.5 Article

Selective elimination of mutant mitochondrial genomes as therapeutic strategy for the treatment of NARP and MILS syndromes

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 516-523

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2008.11

关键词

mitochondrial disease; mitochondrial DNA mutations; restriction endonuclease; adenovirus; synthetic gene

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [R01 RR031286, R21 RR023961] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL066299] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG019602, AG19602] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES03456, R01 ES003456] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mitochondrial diseases are not uncommon, and may result from mutations in both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). At present, only palliative therapies are available for these disorders, and interest in the development of efficient treatment protocols is high. Here, we demonstrate that in cells heteroplasmic for the T8993G mutation, which is a cause for the NARP and MILS syndromes, infection with an adenovirus, which encodes the mitochondrially targeted R. XmaI restriction endonuclease, leads to selective destruction of mutant mtDNA. This destruction proceeds in a time-and dose-dependent manner and results in cells with significantly increased rates of oxygen consumption and ATP production. The delivery of R. XmaI to mitochondria is accompanied by improvement in the ability to utilize galactose as the sole carbon source, which is a surrogate indicator of the proficiency of oxidative phosphorylation. Concurrently, the rate of lactic acid production by these cells, which is a marker of mitochondrial dysfunction, decreases. We further demonstrate that levels of phosphorylated P53 and gamma H2ax proteins, markers of nuclear DNA damage, do not change in response to infection with recombinant adenovirus indicating the absence of nuclear DNA damage and the relative safety of the technique. Finally, some advantages and limitations of the proposed approach are discussed.

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