4.5 Article

Successful target cell transduction of capsid-engineered rAAV vectors requires clathrin-dependent endocytosis

期刊

GENE THERAPY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 210-218

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gt.2011.78

关键词

AAV cell surface targeting; internalization pathway; intracellular fate

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SPP1230]
  2. Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (ZMMK)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell surface targeting of recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) vectors is an attractive strategy to modify AAV's natural tropism. As modification of the capsid surface is likely to affect the mechanism of vector internalization and consequently the vector's intracellular fate, we investigated early steps in cell transduction of rAAV capsid insertion mutants. Mutants displaying peptides with neutral overall charge at position 587 transduced cells independently of AAV2's primary receptor heparan sulfate proteoglycan (HSPG), whereas mutants carrying positively charged insertions were capable of HSPG binding with affinities correlating with their net positive charge. Whereas rAAV2 is internalized via an HSPG- and clathrin-dependent pathway, HSPG-binding mutants used a clathrin- and caveolin-independent mechanism. Surprisingly, although this pathway was as efficient in mediating vector entry as the one used by rAAV2, successful cell transduction was hampered at a post-entry step, presumably caused by inefficient endosomal escape. In contrast, HSPG-independent, clathrin-dependent internalization used by non-HSPG-binding mutants correlated with efficient nuclear delivery of vector genomes and robust transgene expression. These findings indicate that cell surface targeting strategies should direct uptake of rAAV targeting vectors to clathrin-mediated endocytosis, the naturally evolved entry route of AAV, to promote successful intracellular processing and re-targeting of rAAV's tropism. Gene Therapy (2012) 19, 210-218; doi:10.1038/gt.2011.78; published online 9 June 2011

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