2006
DOI: 10.1089/hum.2006.17.ft-181
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mutagenesis and Oncogenesis by Chromosomal Insertion of Gene Transfer Vectors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 97 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This creates the risk of insertional mutagenesis, which can be caused by transactivation of proto-oncogenes through semi-randomly integrated vectorderived enhancer/promoter sequences. 41 The associated risk can be circumvented in iPSC-based therapies because the potential for unlimited proliferation allows in vitro selection of clonal iPSC lines with defined integration sites and without genetic alterations. In an extensive study, including lentiviral reprogramming of patient cells, Cre-mediated vector excision, and secondary lentiviral gene transfer, Papapetrou et al showed that such a selection of iPSC clones with single vector integrations of a lentiviral β-globin expression vector is feasible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This creates the risk of insertional mutagenesis, which can be caused by transactivation of proto-oncogenes through semi-randomly integrated vectorderived enhancer/promoter sequences. 41 The associated risk can be circumvented in iPSC-based therapies because the potential for unlimited proliferation allows in vitro selection of clonal iPSC lines with defined integration sites and without genetic alterations. In an extensive study, including lentiviral reprogramming of patient cells, Cre-mediated vector excision, and secondary lentiviral gene transfer, Papapetrou et al showed that such a selection of iPSC clones with single vector integrations of a lentiviral β-globin expression vector is feasible.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Viruses such as lentiviruses, adenoviruses, and adeno-associated viruses can efficiently deliver vectors encoding miRNA mimics and anti-miRNAs into nuclei (63)(64)(65). However, critical hurdles such as insertional mutagenesis, immunogenicity, and limited packaging capacity arise when using these viral vectors (66,67 Therapeutic manipulation of the ATM-miRNA axis Given recent advances in our knowledge of the crucial roles of ATM-regulated miRNAs and their dysregulation in cancers, modulation of miRNA expression provides a promising therapeutic strategy for cancer (71). In the following sections, we discuss the therapeutic modulation of ATM-regulated miRNAs, including reintroduction of tumor-suppressive miRNA, oncomiR inhibition, and some technical considerations regarding their delivery systems and tissue specificity.…”
Section: In Vivo Mirna Delivery Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…68 Successful gene delivery examples have been extensively achieved based on the viral vectors due to their excellent transfection efficiencies. 911 However, the viral vectors often suffer from severe immunogenicity, insertional mutagenesis and oncogenicity which were associated with serious safety concerns. 10,12,13 Recently, synthetic non-viral vectors, mainly exemplified by cationic polymers (polycations) and cationic lipids, have attracted great attentions as safer and more promising alternatives to conventional viral vectors owing to their low immunogenicity and oncogenicity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…911 However, the viral vectors often suffer from severe immunogenicity, insertional mutagenesis and oncogenicity which were associated with serious safety concerns. 10,12,13 Recently, synthetic non-viral vectors, mainly exemplified by cationic polymers (polycations) and cationic lipids, have attracted great attentions as safer and more promising alternatives to conventional viral vectors owing to their low immunogenicity and oncogenicity. 1418 However, the clinical application of non-viral vectors is often limited by the relatively lower transfection efficiencies compared to viral vectors due to various extra- and intracellular barriers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%