Why the study?
Does AAV5hBMP6 compared to ADhBMP6 improve osteogenic potential in immunodeficient and immunocompetent rats?
Does AAV5hBMP6 compared to ADhBMP6 improve osteogenic potential in immunodeficient and immunocompetent rats?
AAV5hBMP6 and ADhBMP6 exhibit different osteogenic potentials and immune response interactions in immunodeficient versus immunocompetent rats.
Variable bone formation by AAV5hBMP6 versus ADhBMP6 across rat models cautions against clinical translation; leaves open optimal vector selection for human osteogenic applications.
The osteogenic potential of AAV5hBMP6 was compared with that of ADhBMP6 in immunodeficient and immunocompetent rats. AAV5hBMP6 (2.3 x 10(12) particles) and ADhBMP6 (5 x 10(7) PFU) elicited viral antibody production in immunocompetent rats. Among rats that received AAV5hBMP6, the earliest time points at which the bone was visible under CT scanner were 30 days in 2-month-old Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats and 60 days in 18-month-old SD rats. The mean volumes of ectopic bone 90 days after viral injection were 0.31 +/- 0.14 cm(3) in athymic nude rats, 0.64 +/- 0.12 cm(3) in 2-month-old SD rats, and 0.21 +/- 0.10 cm(3) in 18-month-old SD rats. In contrast, among rats that received ADhBMP6, the earliest time points to observe the bone formation by CT scan were 15 days in 2-month-old rats and no bone formation in 18-month-old SD rats. The mean volumes of ectopic bone were 4.17 +/- 0.05 cm(3) in athymic nude rats and 0.06 +/- 0.03 cm(3) in 2-month-old SD rats. Although both types of viruses induced an immune response in immunocompetent animals, this response played different roles in the process of bone formation induced by the BMP6 vectors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: