Cargando…
A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer
BACKGROUND: Electroporation of skeletal muscle after injection of naked DNA was shown by others to increase transgene expression. Information regarding tissue damage caused by electroporation is conflicting. It is also not well known how plasmid electroporation compares with transfection by adenovir...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2002
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122059/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12175426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2199-3-12 |
_version_ | 1782120299806851072 |
---|---|
author | Lefesvre, Pierre Attema, Joline van Bekkum, Dirk |
author_facet | Lefesvre, Pierre Attema, Joline van Bekkum, Dirk |
author_sort | Lefesvre, Pierre |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Electroporation of skeletal muscle after injection of naked DNA was shown by others to increase transgene expression. Information regarding tissue damage caused by electroporation is conflicting. It is also not well known how plasmid electroporation compares with transfection by adenoviral vectors. To investigate these questions the most used protocol for muscle electroporation was used, i.e. 8 pulses of 200 V/cm and 20 ms at a frequency of 1 Hz. RESULTS: Intra-muscular DNA transfer of pLuciferase was increased by 2 logs after electroporation, confirming data described by others. However, the blood levels of the encoded protein were still lower than those obtained after injection of first generation adenoviral vectors. Also, the electroporation procedure, on its own, caused severe muscle damage consisting of rhabdomyolysis and infiltration, whereas the adenoviral vectors caused only a slight infiltration. As damage of targeted tissue may be an advantage in the case of tumour transfection, we also compared the two transfection methods in tumour tissue. In case of poorly permissive tumours, adenoviral vectors cannot transfect more than 2% of the tumour tissue without inducing significant liver damage. In contrast, the electroporation seems to offer a wider therapeutic window since it does not cause any systemic toxicity and still induce's significant transfection. CONCLUSIONS: Plasmid electroporation of the muscle induce severe local damage and is of no advantage over adenoviral vectors for obtaining high blood levels of a vector encoded protein. In contrast, electroporation of tumours might be safer than adenoviral gene transfer. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-122059 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2002 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-1220592002-09-09 A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer Lefesvre, Pierre Attema, Joline van Bekkum, Dirk BMC Mol Biol Research Article BACKGROUND: Electroporation of skeletal muscle after injection of naked DNA was shown by others to increase transgene expression. Information regarding tissue damage caused by electroporation is conflicting. It is also not well known how plasmid electroporation compares with transfection by adenoviral vectors. To investigate these questions the most used protocol for muscle electroporation was used, i.e. 8 pulses of 200 V/cm and 20 ms at a frequency of 1 Hz. RESULTS: Intra-muscular DNA transfer of pLuciferase was increased by 2 logs after electroporation, confirming data described by others. However, the blood levels of the encoded protein were still lower than those obtained after injection of first generation adenoviral vectors. Also, the electroporation procedure, on its own, caused severe muscle damage consisting of rhabdomyolysis and infiltration, whereas the adenoviral vectors caused only a slight infiltration. As damage of targeted tissue may be an advantage in the case of tumour transfection, we also compared the two transfection methods in tumour tissue. In case of poorly permissive tumours, adenoviral vectors cannot transfect more than 2% of the tumour tissue without inducing significant liver damage. In contrast, the electroporation seems to offer a wider therapeutic window since it does not cause any systemic toxicity and still induce's significant transfection. CONCLUSIONS: Plasmid electroporation of the muscle induce severe local damage and is of no advantage over adenoviral vectors for obtaining high blood levels of a vector encoded protein. In contrast, electroporation of tumours might be safer than adenoviral gene transfer. BioMed Central 2002-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC122059/ /pubmed/12175426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2199-3-12 Text en Copyright © 2002 Lefesvre et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Lefesvre, Pierre Attema, Joline van Bekkum, Dirk A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
title | A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
title_full | A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
title_fullStr | A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
title_short | A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
title_sort | comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122059/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12175426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2199-3-12 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lefesvrepierre acomparisonofefficacyandtoxicitybetweenelectroporationandadenoviralgenetransfer AT attemajoline acomparisonofefficacyandtoxicitybetweenelectroporationandadenoviralgenetransfer AT vanbekkumdirk acomparisonofefficacyandtoxicitybetweenelectroporationandadenoviralgenetransfer AT lefesvrepierre comparisonofefficacyandtoxicitybetweenelectroporationandadenoviralgenetransfer AT attemajoline comparisonofefficacyandtoxicitybetweenelectroporationandadenoviralgenetransfer AT vanbekkumdirk comparisonofefficacyandtoxicitybetweenelectroporationandadenoviralgenetransfer |