PURPOSE: Although gene transfer with retroviral vectors has shown distinct clinical success in defined settings, efficient genetic manipulation of hematopoietic progenitor cells remains a challenge. To address this issue we have evaluated different transduction protocols and retroviral constructs in the non-obese diabetes (NOD)/severe combined immunodeficiency disease (SCID) xenograft model. METHODS: An extended transduction protocol requiring 144 h of in vitro manipulation was compared to a more conventional protocol requiring 96 h only. RESULT: While pretransplantation analysis of cells transduced with a retroviral vector, expressing the enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) marker gene, demonstrated significantly higher overall transduction rates for the extended protocol (33.6 +/- 2.3 vs. 22.1 +/- 3.8%), EGFP expression in CD34+ cells before transplantation (4.0 +/- 0.9 vs. 11.6 +/- 2.5%), engraftment of human cells in NOD/SCID bone marrow 4 weeks after transplantation (4.5 +/- 1.7 vs. 36.5 +/- 9.4%) and EGFP expression in these cells (0 +/- 0 vs. 11.3 +/- 2.8%) were significantly impaired. When the 96 h protocol was used in combination with the spleen focus forming virus (SFFV)/murine embryonic stem cell (MESV) hybrid vector SFbeta11-EGFP, high transduction rates for CD45+ (41.0 +/- 5.3%) and CD34+ (38.5 +/- 3.7%) cells prior to transplantation, as well as efficient human cell engraftment in NOD/SCID mice 4 weeks after transplantation (32.4 +/- 3.5%), was detected. Transgene expression was observed in B-lymphoid (15.9 +/- 2.0%), myeloid (36.5 +/- 3.5%) and CD34+ cells (10.1 +/- 1.5%). CONCLUSION: Our data show that CD34+ cells maintained in cytokines for multiple days may differentiate and loose their capacity to contribute to the haematological reconstitution of NOD/SCID mice. In addition, the SFFV/MESV hybrid vector SFbeta11-EGFP allows efficient transduction of and gene expression in haematopoietic progenitor cells.
PURPOSE: Although gene transfer with retroviral vectors has shown distinct clinical success in defined settings, efficient genetic manipulation of hematopoietic progenitor cells remains a challenge. To address this issue we have evaluated different transduction protocols and retroviral constructs in the non-obese diabetes (NOD)/severe combined immunodeficiency disease (SCID) xenograft model. METHODS: An extended transduction protocol requiring 144 h of in vitro manipulation was compared to a more conventional protocol requiring 96 h only. RESULT: While pretransplantation analysis of cells transduced with a retroviral vector, expressing the enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) marker gene, demonstrated significantly higher overall transduction rates for the extended protocol (33.6 +/- 2.3 vs. 22.1 +/- 3.8%), EGFP expression in CD34+ cells before transplantation (4.0 +/- 0.9 vs. 11.6 +/- 2.5%), engraftment of human cells in NOD/SCID bone marrow 4 weeks after transplantation (4.5 +/- 1.7 vs. 36.5 +/- 9.4%) and EGFP expression in these cells (0 +/- 0 vs. 11.3 +/- 2.8%) were significantly impaired. When the 96 h protocol was used in combination with the spleen focus forming virus (SFFV)/murine embryonic stem cell (MESV) hybrid vector SFbeta11-EGFP, high transduction rates for CD45+ (41.0 +/- 5.3%) and CD34+ (38.5 +/- 3.7%) cells prior to transplantation, as well as efficient human cell engraftment in NOD/SCIDmice 4 weeks after transplantation (32.4 +/- 3.5%), was detected. Transgene expression was observed in B-lymphoid (15.9 +/- 2.0%), myeloid (36.5 +/- 3.5%) and CD34+ cells (10.1 +/- 1.5%). CONCLUSION: Our data show that CD34+ cells maintained in cytokines for multiple days may differentiate and loose their capacity to contribute to the haematological reconstitution of NOD/SCIDmice. In addition, the SFFV/MESV hybrid vector SFbeta11-EGFP allows efficient transduction of and gene expression in haematopoietic progenitor cells.
Authors: T Yokota; K Oritani; H Mitsui; K Aoyama; J Ishikawa; H Sugahara; I Matsumura; S Tsai; Y Tomiyama; Y Kanakura; Y Matsuzawa Journal: Blood Date: 1998-05-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Helmut Hanenberg; Sat Dev Batish; Karen E Pollok; Lydia Vieten; Peter C Verlander; Cordula Leurs; Ryan J Cooper; Kerstin Göttsche; Laura Haneline; D Wade Clapp; Stephan Lobitz; David A Williams; Arleen D Auerbach Journal: Exp Hematol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: K Ballen; P S Becker; D Greiner; H Valinski; D Shearin; V Berrios; G Dooner; C C Hsieh; J Wuu; L Shultz; J Cerny; J Leif; F M Stewart; P Quesenberry Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: A Larochelle; J Vormoor; H Hanenberg; J C Wang; M Bhatia; T Lapidot; T Moritz; B Murdoch; X L Xiao; I Kato; D A Williams; J E Dick Journal: Nat Med Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Peter A Horn; Bobbie M Thomasson; Brent L Wood; Robert G Andrews; Julia C Morris; Hans-Peter Kiem Journal: Blood Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 22.113