4.5 Article

Control by pulse parameters of DNA electrotransfer into solid tumors in mice

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 635-644

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2009.10

关键词

electroporation; electrotransfer; plasmid DNA; murine tumors; melanoma; sarcoma

资金

  1. Association Francaise des Myopathies
  2. Ligue Francaise contre le Cancer
  3. CNRS-CEA
  4. Slovenian Research Agency [P3-0003, J3-7044]
  5. European Commission's 5th Framework Program [QLK3-1999-00484]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electrotransfer (electroporation) is recognized as one of the most promising alternatives to viral vectors for transfection of different tissues in vivo for therapeutic purposes. We evaluated the transfection efficiency of reporter genes (green fluorescent protein and luciferase) in murine subcutaneous tumors using different combinations of high-field (HV) (600-1400 V cm (1), 100 mu s, 8 pulses) and low-field (LV) (80-160 V cm (1), 50-400 ms, 1-8 pulses) pulses and compared it to protocol using eight identical pulses of 600 V cm (1) and 5 ms duration (electro-gene therapy, EGT). Expression of GFP was determined using a fluorescent microscope and flow cytometry and expression of luciferase by measuring its activity using a luminometer. The EGT protocol yielded the highest expression of both reporter genes. However, a careful optimization of combinations of HV and LV pulses may result in similar transfection as EGT pulses. With the combination protocol, relatively high fields of LV pulses were necessary to obtain comparable transfection to the EGT protocol. Expression of reporter genes was higher in B16 melanoma than in SA-1 fibrosarcoma. Our data support the hypothesis that both electropermeabilization and electrophoresis are involved in electrotransfer of plasmid DNA, but demonstrate that these components have to happen at the same time to obtain significant expression of the target gene in tumors. Gene Therapy (2009) 16, 635-644; doi: 10.1038/gt.2009.10; published online 12 February 2009

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