4.5 Article

Neural stem cells target intracranial glioma to deliver an oncolytic adenovirus in vivo

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 262-278

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2008.165

关键词

neural stem cells; oncolytic virus; adenovirus; virotherapy; glioma; brain tumor

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01-CA122930]
  2. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NS046430]
  3. Alliance for Cancer Gene Therapy Young Investigator Award
  4. American Cancer Society [RSG-07-276-01MGO]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenoviral oncolytic virotherapy represents an attractive treatment modality for central nervous system (CNS) neoplasms. However, successful application of virotherapy in clinical trials has been hampered by inadequate distribution of oncolytic vectors. Neural stem cells (NSCs) have been shown as suitable vehicles for gene delivery because they track tumor foci. In this study, we evaluated the capability of NSCs to deliver a conditionally replicating adenovirus (CRAd) to glioma. We examined NSC specificity with respect to viral transduction, migration and capacity to deliver a CRAd to tumor cells. Fluorescence-activated cell sorter (FACS) analysis of NSC shows that these cells express a variety of surface receptors that make them amenable to entry by recombinant adenoviruses. Luciferase assays with replication-deficient vectors possessing a variety of transductional modifications targeted to these receptors confirm these results. Real-time PCR analysis of the replication profiles of different CRAds in NSCs and a representative glioma cell line, U87MG, identified the CRAd-Survivin (S)-pk7 virus as optimal vector for further delivery studies. Using in vitro and in vivo migration studies, we show that NSCs infected with CRAd-S-pk7 virus migrate and preferentially deliver CRAd to U87MG glioma. These results suggest that NSCs mediate an enhanced intratumoral distribution of an oncolytic vector in malignant glioma when compared with virus injection alone.

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