4.5 Article

A muscle-targeting peptide displayed on AAV2 improves muscle tropism on systemic delivery

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 953-962

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2009.59

关键词

AAV; capsid modification; muscle targeting; systemic delivery

资金

  1. NIH [AR45967, AR50595]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adeno-associated virus (AAV) has become a leading gene transfer vector for striated muscles. However, the AAV vectors also exhibit broad tropisms after systemic delivery. In an attempt to improve muscle tropism, we inserted a 7-amino-acid (ASSLNIA) muscle-targeting peptide (MTP) in the capsids of AAV2 at residue 587 or 588, generating AAV(587)MTP and AAV(588)MTP. In vitro studies showed that both viruses diminished their infectivity on non-muscle cell lines as well as on un-differentiated myoblasts; however, preserved or enhanced their infectivity on differentiated myotubes. AAV(587)MTP, but not AAV(588)MTP, also abolished its heparin-binding capacity and infected myotubes in a heparin-independent manner. Furthermore, in vivo studies by intravenous vector administration in mice showed that AAV587MTP enhanced its tropism to various muscles and particularly to the heart (24.3-fold of unmodified AAV2), whereas reduced its tropism to the non-muscle tissues such as the liver, lungs, spleen and so on. This alteration of tissue tropism is not simply because of the loss of heparin-binding, as a mutant AAV2 (AAVHBSMut) containing heparin-binding site mutations lost infectivity on both non-muscle and muscle cells. Furthermore, free MTP peptide, but not the scrambled control peptide, competitively inhibited AAV587MTP infection on myotubes. These results suggest that AAV2 could be re-targeted to the striated muscles by a MTP inserted after residue 587 of the capsids. This proof of principle study showed first evidence of peptide-directed muscle targeting on systemic administration of AAV vectors. Gene Therapy (2009) 16, 953-962; doi: 10.1038/gt.2009.59; published online 28 May 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