4.7 Article

Single-Dose Lentiviral Mediated Gene Therapy Recovers CFTR Function in Cystic Fibrosis Knockout Rats

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHARMACOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.682299

关键词

cystic fibrosis; lentival vector; nasal potential difference (NPD); Rat; gene therapy

资金

  1. NHMRC [GNT1160011]
  2. CFF [REYNE20HO]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study evaluated the effect of lentiviral-mediated CFTR airway gene delivery on nasal PD in a CFTR knockout rat model, showing that the gene therapy resulted in a mean correction of 46% towards wild-type chloride response in treated CF rats.
Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a genetic disease caused by mutations in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene, resulting in defective ion transport in the airways. Addition of a functioning CFTR gene into affected airway cells has the potential to be an effective treatment for lung disease. The therapeutic efficacy of airway gene transfer can be quantified in animal models by assessing ion transport in the treated nasal epithelium using the nasal potential difference (PD) measurement technique. The nasal PD technique is routinely used in CF mice, however when applied to a recently developed CF rat model those animals did not tolerate the initial nasal PD assessment, therefore the procedure was firstly optimised in rats. This study evaluated the effect of lentiviral (LV)-mediated CFTR airway gene delivery on nasal PD in a CFTR knockout rat model. LV gene vector containing the CFTR gene tagged with a V5 epitope tag (LV-V5-CFTR) was delivered to the nasal epithelium of CF rats, and one week later nasal PD was analysed. This study demonstrated for the first time that LV-V5-CFTR treatment produced a mean correction of 46% towards wild-type chloride response in treated CF rats. Transduced cells were subsequently identifiable using V5 immunohistochemical staining. These findings in the nose validate the use of airway gene therapy for future lung based experiments.

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

4.7
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