Literature DB >> 24411306

Changing electrode orientation, but not pulse polarity, increases the efficacy of gene electrotransfer to tumors in vivo.

Vesna Todorovic1, Urska Kamensek1, Gregor Sersa1, Maja Cemazar2.   

Abstract

Gene electrotransfer is an established method for plasmid delivery into different tissues. Contrary to extensive in vitro studies demonstrating increased gene electrotransfer by changing the electric field direction during the pulse delivery, little is known about the efficiency of both polarities pulses in vivo. Therefore the aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of pulse polarity and orientation on the efficacy of gene electrotransfer in the murine fibrosarcoma tumor model by using the luciferase and GFP reporter gene expression plasmids. Our results demonstrated no significant difference in luciferase activity, GFP transfected area or fluorescence intensity between different sets of electric pulses. Inversion of the pulse polarity did not result in the increase of gene transfer, but non-significant enhancement up to 7-fold was detected by changing the electric field orientation in perpendicular direction. Also, transfection of surrounding skin tissue was observed, meaning that intratumoral gene electrotransfer could also result in a systemic effect. Our data indicate that tested modifications of electric pulses are not significantly affecting the efficiency of gene electrotransfer to LPB tumors. Biological factors, like tissue composition, might be of greater importance and should therefore also be taken into account when selecting the electric pulse parameters for specific tissues.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electroporation; Gene electrotransfer; Murine fibrosarcoma; Pulse polarity; Skin

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24411306     DOI: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2013.12.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioelectrochemistry        ISSN: 1567-5394            Impact factor:   5.373


  7 in total

1.  Improved Specificity of Gene Electrotransfer to Skin Using pDNA Under the Control of Collagen Tissue-Specific Promoter.

Authors:  Spela Kos; Natasa Tesic; Urska Kamensek; Tanja Blagus; Maja Cemazar; Simona Kranjc; Jaka Lavrencak; Gregor Sersa
Journal:  J Membr Biol       Date:  2015-04-04       Impact factor: 1.843

2.  DNA-Based Delivery of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Muscle and Tumor Enables Long-Term Responses with Distinct Exposure.

Authors:  Liesl Jacobs; Elien De Smidt; Nick Geukens; Paul Declerck; Kevin Hollevoet
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 3.  Transdermal delivery for gene therapy.

Authors:  Parbeen Singh; I'jaaz Muhammad; Nicole E Nelson; Khanh T M Tran; Tra Vinikoor; Meysam T Chorsi; Ethan D'Orio; Thanh D Nguyen
Journal:  Drug Deliv Transl Res       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 5.671

Review 4.  Gene Electrotransfer: A Mechanistic Perspective.

Authors:  Christelle Rosazza; Sasa Haberl Meglic; Andreas Zumbusch; Marie-Pierre Rols; Damijan Miklavcic
Journal:  Curr Gene Ther       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 4.391

5.  Electrochemotherapy by pulsed electromagnetic field treatment (PEMF) in mouse melanoma B16F10 in vivo.

Authors:  Simona Kranjc; Matej Kranjc; Janez Scancar; Jure Jelenc; Gregor Sersa; Damijan Miklavcic
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.991

6.  Safe and efficient novel approach for non-invasive gene electrotransfer to skin.

Authors:  Lise Pasquet; Sophie Chabot; Elisabeth Bellard; Bostjan Markelc; Marie-Pierre Rols; Jean-Paul Reynes; Gérard Tiraby; Franck Couillaud; Justin Teissie; Muriel Golzio
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Electroporation outperforms in vivo-jetPEI for intratumoral DNA-based reporter gene transfer.

Authors:  Liesl Jacobs; Elien De Smidt; Nick Geukens; Paul Declerck; Kevin Hollevoet
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.