Why the study?
The goal was to engineer gene vectors that target a single tissue type, especially striated muscles.
Does a chimeric AAV library improve muscle-specific targeting compared to AAV2 in cultured cells and mice?
Does a chimeric AAV library improve muscle-specific targeting compared to AAV2 in cultured cells and mice?
Directed evolution of AAV vectors can generate chimeric viruses with improved specificity for striated muscle over liver tissue, which may be useful for cardiac gene therapy.
May advance striated muscle gene delivery; leaves open cardiac translation in humans.
The goal of this project is to engineer gene vectors that target a single tissue type, especially striated muscles. A random library of adeno-associated virus (AAV) was constructed by shuffling the capsid genes of AAV serotypes 1 to 9, and the resulting chimeric genes were screened for muscle specificity by direct in vivo panning. Viruses expressed high in muscles were collected, and the process was repeated to construct chimeric AAV library. To further improve specificity, in vitro biopanning was done on three types of cultured cells that represent kidney, liver and muscles. For the desirable features, selection was based on infection rate, preferably high in muscle but low in liver. Using AAV2 as a standard, three reconstructed AAV were found to be expressed at higher frequencies in myotubes with comparable or lower frequencies in hepatocytes. These recombined AAV would be further selected in vivo through tail vein injection in mice to identify the virus that was the most specific to muscles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vivian Xu (2019) studied this question. Chimeric adeno-associated virus (AAV) vs. AAV2 was evaluated on Infection rate and expression frequency in myotubes versus hepatocytes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: