MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982342857 · doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2006.08.601

530. The Effects DNA Molecular Weights and Conformations on Cell Uptake and the Binding Interaction with Cationic Polymers Used for Non-Viral Gene Delivery

2006· article· en· W1982342857 on OpenAlexaff
Charlie Yu Ming Hsu, Cezary Kucharski, Hasan Uludağ

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Therapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNAPlasmidTransfectionMolecular biologyRecombinant DNAPolymerGeneBiophysicsBiologyIn vitro recombinationCircular bacterial chromosomeGene deliveryChemistryBiochemistryGene expressionBase pairMolecular cloning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic polymers are used in non-viral gene therapy as vectors to facilitate the transfer of DNA into the pertinent cells. These polymers compact the DNA into a dense particle, mediate entry across the plasma membrane, and protect the genes from degradation by the host defense mechanism. While it has been established previously that a strong binding of polymer to DNA does not correlate directly with gene expression3, no study thus far has determined whether such correlation also exist for the cell uptake of DNA. Further, as DNA molecules can exist in different conformations and molecular weights, the accessibility of ionic groups for polymers to interact may also vary between structurally distinct DNA molecules. Whether such differences translate in subsequent transfection events remain to be seen. In this study, we compared the binding affinity between PLL (25 kDa), PLL (25 kDa) modified with palmitic acid (PLL-PA), Linear PEI (2.5 kDa and 25 kDa), branched PEI (25 kDa), and Lipofectamine2000 to three DNA molecules: a 4.2 kb circular plasmid DNA extracted and purified from Escherichia coli, a 4.2 kb linear plasmid DNA prepared by single digestion of the circular plasmid DNA and a 2.1 kb linear PCR product amplified using the circular plasmid DNA as template. A known quantity of DNA were mixed with polymer at polymer-to-DNA ratios (w/w) of 0, 0.02, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 1 in 0.1M HEPES buffer (pH7.2) for 30 minutes at room temperature. Polyplex solutions were then loaded onto a 0.6% TBE agarose gel stained with EtBr and applied with 130 volts for 60 minutes. For the uptake studies, DNA was labeled with Cy5.5 probe (Amershaim), complexed with polymer and added to rat bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC) cultured in a basic medium then incubated for 24 hours in 37°C with 5% CO2 after which cells are processed for flow cytometry. Polymer binding to DNA neutralizes anionic charges on the phosphate backbone, rendering the complex immobile under electric field. Binding was generally poor for the linear PEIs as most of the DNA migrated through the agarose matrix. Lipofectamine only showed a preferential binding for linear DNAs. PLL-PA and PLL binds equally well to all three types of DNA. Branched PEI showed a significant selectivity for both linear plasmid DNA and linear PCR product over the circular plasmid. In short, a correlation between binding affinity and DNA physical properties cannot be generalized for all polymers. Almost all of the BMSC transfected with branched PEI as polymer exhibited DNA uptake. PLL, PLL-PA and Lipofectamine2000 all induced an elevated level of DNA uptake, but at a lower level compared to branched PEI. Linear PEI was least effective as delivery vector, consistent with very low binding data. No apparent correlation between DNA uptake and the differences in molecular weight and conformation can be drawn. Polymers also did not show a clear pattern about the relative efficiency towards different DNA molecules. In conclusion, non-viral polymer vectors are capable of transferring different sizes of DNA into the cell with no effect of being either of linear or circular configuration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular TherapySame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207