2002
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2199-3-12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparison of efficacy and toxicity between electroporation and adenoviral gene transfer

Abstract: Background: Electroporation of skeletal muscle after injection of naked DNA was shown by others to increase transgene expression. Information regarding tissue damage caused by electroporation is conflicting. It is also not well known how plasmid electroporation compares with transfection by adenoviral vectors. To investigate these questions the most used protocol for muscle electroporation was used, i.e. 8 pulses of 200 V/cm and 20 ms at a frequency of 1 Hz.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

2
20
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
2
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4,7-9 Nanoinjection requires cell activity, 10,11 centrifugation, 12 AFM operation 13 or electroporation 14 in order to guarantee intracellular interaction. Cell activity is highly dependent on cell type and its environment, and requires prolonged interfacing; 1 electroporation is accompanied by high cytotoxicity and immune response, 15,16 while centrifugation and AFM operation are only applicable to cultures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…4,7-9 Nanoinjection requires cell activity, 10,11 centrifugation, 12 AFM operation 13 or electroporation 14 in order to guarantee intracellular interaction. Cell activity is highly dependent on cell type and its environment, and requires prolonged interfacing; 1 electroporation is accompanied by high cytotoxicity and immune response, 15,16 while centrifugation and AFM operation are only applicable to cultures.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings are consistent with several studies, demonstrating no detrimental effect of rAd injections into skeletal muscle (Kimura et al ., 2001; Lefesvre et al ., 2002). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another promising physical delivery method is electroporation, where exposure of cells in culture to electric pulses leads to the formation of transient aqueous pores in the cell membrane, through which enhanced uptake of pDNA is facilitated [27]. Electroporation was subsequently shown to increase the efficiency of pDNA uptake in a variety of gene transfer models [28,29] and has been widely used in skeletal muscle [30][31][32][33][34], where gene expression has been increased by 10-to 100-fold in comparison to injection of naked pDNA alone. Similar improvements in gene expression have also been observed in other tissues such as the liver [35], solid tumours [36,37] and cartilage [38].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%