DOCSLIB.ORG

Pros and Cons of Pdna and Mrna Transfection to Study Mrna Translation in Mammalian Cells

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pros and Cons of Pdna and Mrna Transfection to Study Mrna Translation in Mammalian Cells Gene 578 (2016) 1–6 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Gene journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gene Review Pros and cons of pDNA and mRNA transfection to study mRNA translation in mammalian cells Dmitry E. Andreev a,⁎,IlyaM.Terenina,b, Sergey E. Dmitriev a,b, Ivan N. Shatsky a,⁎ a Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia b Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia article info abstract Article history: Protein synthesis in eukaryotes is subject to stringent control. The misregulation of translation of certain mRNAs Received 25 October 2015 is often a hallmark of many diseases, including malignancies and autoimmune disorders. To understand why and Accepted 7 December 2015 how it happens, it is important to investigate the translational control of specificmRNAs.Inthiscase,onecould Available online 8 December 2015 use reporter mRNAs in order to identify cis-acting elements responsible for regulation. Here we overview plasmid DNA (pDNA) and mRNA transfections, their pitfalls and limitations, as well as some emerging applications for Keywords: Plasmid DNA mRNA transfection. Reporter gene © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. mRNA Transfection Translation Gene therapy Contents 1. Introduction............................................................... 1 2. DNAreporters.............................................................. 2 3. mRNAtransfection............................................................ 2 4. Conclusions............................................................... 5 Acknowledgements.............................................................. 5 References.................................................................. 5 1. Introduction how translation is regulated in living cells, but the main limitation of this technique is that it cannot explain how particular mRNA species During the last decade, we rapidly entered the “omics” era. It are regulated under specific conditions. In other words, we now know changed many areas of life sciences and, for instance, studies related (or could know if we wish) what is regulated and when it is regulated, to regulation of gene expression. In particular, a breakthrough in next but we do not understand how this is achieved. generation sequencing technology allowed scientists to develop the In order to investigate mechanisms of translational control of specif- ribosome profiling technique (Ingolia et al., 2009), which for the first ic mRNAs in detail, the initial step is to address the translation behavior time addressed translation at the whole transcriptome scale. Without of a particular mRNA and then to find and dissect cis-acting elements doubt, this powerful approach has already changed our understanding responsible for such behavior. For this, the use of reporter constructs is essential. It is thought that most of the features that affect the efficiency of Abbreviations: pDNA, plasmid DNA; UTR, untranslated region; DRB, 5,6-dichloro-1-β- translation of mammalian mRNAs are located in 5′ and 3′ untranslated D-ribobenzimidazole; TLR, Toll-like receptor; ARCA, anti-reverse cap analogue; MATra, regions. The 5′-UTR or 5′ leader needs to be traversed by the 43S magnet-assisted transfection; MEF, mouse embryonic fibroblasts; ES, embryonic stem preinitiation complex on its way to the translation initiation site, and cells; Ψ, pseudouridine; IRES, internal ribosome entry site. hence different features within the 5′ leader may facilitate or inhibit ⁎ Corresponding authors. ′ E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D.E. Andreev), [email protected] translation initiation. 3 -UTRs are believed to serve as regulatory plat- (I.N. Shatsky). forms for various effectors such as RNA binding proteins and miRNAs, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2015.12.008 0378-1119/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 2 D.E. Andreev et al. / Gene 578 (2016) 1–6 which in turn may affect mRNA stability, localization, and translation Another important issue for pDNA transfection is that multiple aber- efficiency (Sonenberg and Hinnebusch, 2009; Jackson et al., 2010; rant mRNA isoforms may be produced from the expression cassette. Hinnebusch, 2014). To address the relative impact of either 5′-UTR, or This might be either because of alternative promoters located in the 3′-UTR, or both on translation, reporter constructs are usually generated 5′-UTR, alternative or cryptic splicing, or a combination of both (for a re- where UTRs of interest flank a particular reporter gene. A huge selection view, see Shatsky et al., 2010). Importantly, cryptic promoters may be of reporter genes are available, including those expressing fluorescent present not only in the inserted fragment but also in reporter gene itself reporter proteins, which can be directly measured in living cells, secret- (Vopalensky et al., 2008), or in the vector backbone (Lemp et al., 2012). ed reporters for measurement in the culture media, and enzymatic re- A good example of the latter is the presence of a cryptic mammalian porters, which can be measured after cell lysis. Important properties promoter in the pGEM-4Z cloning vector that was not designed for ex- of reporter proteins that should be considered are their half-life and pression in mammalian cells but nevertheless is able to efficiently drive time required for maturation. The question addressed in this review is reporter expression (Chauhan et al., 2009). Importantly, cryptic pro- whether to use a pDNA transfection or mRNA transfection in cultured moters and/or splice sites may result in the production of reporter cells? We will share our experience regarding these techniques and mRNAs with unexpected 5′-UTRs, which either lack regulatory features highlight artifacts and caveats as well as advantages for each of them. of the original 5′-UTR or acquire some from vector backbone. Even low amounts of aberrant transcripts which are hard to detect by convention- al methods, such as Northern-blot, can significantly affect the results of 2. DNA reporters very sensitive reporter assays (Van Eden et al., 2004; Kozak, 2005, 2006; Gendra et al., 2007; Belancio, 2011). Searching for such aberrant tran- DNA reporters are plasmids (pDNA) where the expression of a scripts significantly increases the number of control experiments re- reporter gene, flanked by UTRs of interest, is driven by either a constitu- quired to perform. tively active (such as SV40, CMV etc), cell/tissue specific, or inducible pro- Moreover, various vector backbones can produce multiple cryptic moter. It is generally accepted that pDNA are translocated via endosomal non-coding transcripts that can directly influence reporter activity. uptake, cytosolic release, and nuclear entry. Because of the latter, a major Nejepinska et al. (2012) analyzed transcriptomes derived from various drawback of pDNA transfection is that it is usually ineffective for non- transiently transfected plasmids by means of high-throughput sequenc- dividing cells. ing. They detected unexpectedly complex spurious transcripts derived A combination of pDNAs bearing various reporters may be delivered from many parts of defined vector backbones, for example, a unique into cultured cells, and after a defined period of post-transfection, the population of edited sense and antisense small RNAs derived from the reporter activities may be estimated. Importantly, using single-cell Kan/Neo resistance cassette. Importantly, some vectors, when co- expression measurements from a pDNA expressing EGFP, the onset transfected, can inhibit the expression of luciferase reporters in a of fluorescence is detected 2 hours to 20 hours post-transfection dose-dependent manner. One possible explanation is that spurious (Leonhardt et al., 2014).This dispersion is probably a result of pDNA transcripts generated from the vector backbone may form dsRNAs and entry into the nucleus during cell division in unsynchronized cells then activate PKR, which in turn phosphorylates eIF2, thus leading to (Wilke et al., 1996; Mortimer et al., 1999; James and Giorgio, 2000; translation repression (Garcia et al., 2007; Sadler and Williams, 2007). Akita et al., 2007). Another explanation for such kinetics is stochasticity Finally, it should be considered that pDNA may be immunogenic be- of mRNA synthesis in mammalian cells, also known as intrinsically ran- cause the presence of DNA in the cytoplasm is not normal for eukaryotic dom “transcription bursts” (Raj et al., 2006). cells. Indeed, it was noticed some time ago that bacterial DNA with non- There is a number of disadvantages of pDNA transfection, and methylated CpG motifs induce a strong immune response through Toll- because of that, the results of experiments must be considered with like receptor 9 (TLR9) (Hemmi et al., 2000). However, there are certain some caution. First, since pDNA transfection depends on mitotic activity lines of evidence indicating that the methylation status of CpG is not a of cells, conditions that affect cell cycle progression can also affect primary determinant of an immune response, as self DNA also has the reporter production. Indeed, cells arrested in the G1 phase of the cell ability to induce TLR9 activation if it enters the endosomal compartment cycle by treatment with aphidicolin exhibited 20-fold lower reporter in which the recognition takes place (Brencicova and Diebold, 2013). gene activity than asynchronous control cells upon pDNA transfection This immune response leads to the activation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rnai in Primary Cells and Difficult-To-Transfect Cell Lines
    Automated High Throughput Nucleofection® RNAi in Primary Cells and Difficult-to-Transfect Cell Lines Claudia Merz, Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany; Andreas Schroers, amaxa AG, Cologne, Germany; Eric Willimann, Tecan AG, Männedorf, Switzerland. Introduction Materials & Methods - Workflow Using primary cells for RNAi based applications such as target identification or – validation, requires a highly efficient transfection displaying the essential steps of the automated Nucleofector® Process: technology in combination with a reliable and robust automation system. To accomplish these requirements we integrated the amaxa 1. Transfer of the cells to the Nucleocuvette™ plate, 96-well Shuttle® in a Tecan Freedom EVO® cell transfection workstation which is based on Tecan’s Freedom EVO® liquid handling 2. Addition of the siRNA, (Steps 1 and 2 could be exchanged), platform and include all the necessary components and features for unattended cell transfection. 3. Nucleofection® process, 4. Addition of medium, Count Cells 5. Transfer of transfected cells to cell culture plate for incubation ® Nucleofector Technology prior to analysis. Remove Medium The 96-well Shuttle® combines high-throughput compatibility with the Nucleofector® Technology, which is a non-viral transfection method ideally suited for primary cells and hard-to-transfect cell lines based on a combination of buffers and electrical parameters. Nucleocuvette Plate Add Nucleofector +– The basic principle and benefits of the (empty) Solution Cell of interest Gene of interest Nucleofector®
    [Show full text]
  • Xfect™ RNA Transfection Reagent Protocol-At-A-Glance
    Xfect™ RNA Transfection Reagent Protocol-At-A-Glance I. Introduction A. Summary This Protocol-At-A-Glance is provided for transfection of cells with RNA using the Xfect RNA Transfection Reagent (Cat. No. 631450). It describes transfection of mammalian cells with RNA (mRNA, sgRNA, microRNA, or shRNA) in a 12-well plate format. For formats other than 12-well plates, see Tables I and II for appropriate reaction volumes. Transfections can be carried out entirely in the presence of serum. The protocol is divided into two sections: Section II describes transfection of cells with RNA only, without the cotransfection of DNA. Section III describes cotransfection of cells with both RNA and DNA. NOTE: When transfecting cells with mRNA, expression may be increased by using serum-free medium during transfection, since serum may contain RNases that can reduce the amount of full-length mRNA. B. General Considerations Storage & handling Store the Xfect RNA Transfection Polymer at –20°C. Do not thaw until ready to use. Once thawed, store at 4°C for up to 12 months. NOTE: The Xfect RNA Transfection Polymer is a milky suspension and should be vortexed briefly prior to use to ensure that it is fully resuspended. Thaw Xfect Reaction Buffer at room temperature just prior to use. Vortex after thawing. Once thawed, store Xfect Reaction Buffer at 4°C for up to 12 months. Xfect Polymer The protocol for cotransfection with DNA (Section III) requires the use of the Xfect Polymer (not included; sold as part of the DNA Xfect Transfection Reagent, Cat. Nos. 631317, 631318).
    [Show full text]
  • Mayr, Annu Rev Genet 2017
    GE51CH09-Mayr ARI 12 October 2017 10:21 Annual Review of Genetics Regulation by 3-Untranslated Regions Christine Mayr Department of Cancer Biology and Genetics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Genet. 2017. 51:171–94 Keywords First published as a Review in Advance on August noncoding RNA, regulatory RNA, alternative 3-UTRs, alternative 30, 2017 polyadenylation, cotranslational protein complex formation, cellular The Annual Review of Genetics is online at organization, mRNA localization, RNA-binding proteins, cooperativity, genet.annualreviews.org accessibility of regulatory elements https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-120116- 024704 Abstract Copyright c 2017 by Annual Reviews. 3 -untranslated regions (3 -UTRs) are the noncoding parts of mRNAs. Com- All rights reserved pared to yeast, in humans, median 3-UTR length has expanded approx- imately tenfold alongside an increased generation of alternative 3-UTR isoforms. In contrast, the number of coding genes, as well as coding region length, has remained similar. This suggests an important role for 3-UTRs in the biology of higher organisms. 3-UTRs are best known to regulate ANNUAL REVIEWS Further diverse fates of mRNAs, including degradation, translation, and localiza- Click here to view this article's tion, but they can also function like long noncoding or small RNAs, as has Annu. Rev. Genet. 2017.51:171-194. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org online features: • Download figures as PPT slides been shown for whole 3 -UTRs as well as for cleaved fragments. Further- • Navigate linked references • Download citations more, 3 -UTRs determine the fate of proteins through the regulation of Access provided by Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center on 11/30/17.
    [Show full text]
  • Mrna Vaccine Era—Mechanisms, Drug Platform and Clinical Prospection
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review mRNA Vaccine Era—Mechanisms, Drug Platform and Clinical Prospection 1, 1, 2 1,3, Shuqin Xu y, Kunpeng Yang y, Rose Li and Lu Zhang * 1 State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Institute of Genetics, School of Life Science, Fudan University, Shanghai 200438, China; [email protected] (S.X.); [email protected] (K.Y.) 2 M.B.B.S., School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China; [email protected] 3 Shanghai Engineering Research Center of Industrial Microorganisms, Shanghai 200438, China * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-13524278762 These authors contributed equally to this work. y Received: 30 July 2020; Accepted: 30 August 2020; Published: 9 September 2020 Abstract: Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA)-based drugs, notably mRNA vaccines, have been widely proven as a promising treatment strategy in immune therapeutics. The extraordinary advantages associated with mRNA vaccines, including their high efficacy, a relatively low severity of side effects, and low attainment costs, have enabled them to become prevalent in pre-clinical and clinical trials against various infectious diseases and cancers. Recent technological advancements have alleviated some issues that hinder mRNA vaccine development, such as low efficiency that exist in both gene translation and in vivo deliveries. mRNA immunogenicity can also be greatly adjusted as a result of upgraded technologies. In this review, we have summarized details regarding the optimization of mRNA vaccines, and the underlying biological mechanisms of this form of vaccines. Applications of mRNA vaccines in some infectious diseases and cancers are introduced. It also includes our prospections for mRNA vaccine applications in diseases caused by bacterial pathogens, such as tuberculosis.
    [Show full text]
  • Optimized Protocol for Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells
    › Optimized Protocol DPE-1001 Vs. 05-2005 › for Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells page 1 of 7 Human MSC Nucleofector® Kit for Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells Cell type Origin Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSC), cryopreserved [Clonetics/BioWhittaker; Cat. No. PT-2501]. Morphology Cells with large nuclei and long spindle like protrusions.. Example for nucleofection® of Human MSC % transfection efficiency 60 A B 50 40 30 20 10 0 24 h Transfection efficiencies of Human Human MSC were nucleofected using the Human MSC Nucleofector Kit and a plasmid encoding the fluo- Mesenchymal Stem cells 24 hours rescent protein eGFP. 24 hours post-nucleofection cells were analyzed by light (A) and fluorescence micro- post nucleofection. Cells were nucleo- scopy (B). Transfection efficiencies of around 80% can be reached with eGFP. fected using program U-23 and 5 µg of a plasmid encoding the mouse MHC class I heavy chain molecule H-2Kk. Chapter Contents 1 Procedure outline & important advice 2 Product description 3 Protocol 3.1 › Required reagents 3.2 › DNA preparation and quality 3.3 › Cell culture 3.4 › Important controls 3.5 › Nucleofection protocol 4 Recommended literature 5 amaxa GmbH amaxa Inc. Europe/World USA Scientific Support Scientific Support +49 (0)221-99199-400 (240) 632-9110 [email protected] › www.amaxa.com [email protected] › Optimized Protocol DPE-1001 Vs. 05-2005 › for Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells page 2 of 7 1 Procedure outline & important advice Procedure outline Important advice 1. Preparation of cells. › Use MSCGM BulletKit (stored < 2 d at 4°C) (For details see 3.3.) › Passage interval: after reaching 70% confluency.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation of Translation by the 3' Untranslated Region of Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus-PAV RNA Shanping Wang Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1996 Regulation of translation by the 3' untranslated region of barley yellow dwarf virus-PAV RNA Shanping Wang Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Molecular Biology Commons, and the Plant Pathology Commons Recommended Citation Wang, Shanping, "Regulation of translation by the 3' untranslated region of barley yellow dwarf virus-PAV RNA " (1996). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 11426. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/11426 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afTect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Malaria Parasites Both Repress Host CXCL10 and Use It As a Cue for Growth Acceleration
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24997-7 OPEN Malaria parasites both repress host CXCL10 and use it as a cue for growth acceleration Yifat Ofir-Birin 1, Hila Ben Ami Pilo1, Abel Cruz Camacho1, Ariel Rudik1, Anna Rivkin1, Or-Yam Revach1, Netta Nir1, Tal Block Tamin1, Paula Abou Karam1, Edo Kiper1, Yoav Peleg2, Reinat Nevo1, Aryeh Solomon3, Tal Havkin-Solomon1, Alicia Rojas1, Ron Rotkopf 4, Ziv Porat 5, Dror Avni6,7, Eli Schwartz6,7, Thomas Zillinger 8, Gunther Hartmann 8, Antonella Di Pizio 9, Neils Ben Quashie 10,11, Rivka Dikstein1, Motti Gerlic12, Ana Claudia Torrecilhas 13, Carmit Levy14, Esther N. M. Nolte-‘t Hoen15, ✉ Andrew G. Bowie 16 & Neta Regev-Rudzki 1 1234567890():,; Pathogens are thought to use host molecular cues to control when to initiate life-cycle transitions, but these signals are mostly unknown, particularly for the parasitic disease malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum. The chemokine CXCL10 is present at high levels in fatal cases of cerebral malaria patients, but is reduced in patients who survive and do not have complications. Here we show a Pf ‘decision-sensing-system’ controlled by CXCL10 concentration. High CXCL10 expression prompts P. falciparum to initiate a survival strategy via growth acceleration. Remarkably, P. falciparum inhibits CXCL10 synthesis in monocytes by disrupting the association of host ribosomes with CXCL10 transcripts. The underlying inhi- bition cascade involves RNA cargo delivery into monocytes that triggers RIG-I, which leads to HUR1 binding to an AU-rich domain of the CXCL10 3’UTR. These data indicate that when the parasite can no longer keep CXCL10 at low levels, it can exploit the chemokine as a cue to shift tactics and escape.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods of Transfection with Messenger RNA Gene Vectors
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Spiral - Imperial College Digital Repository Chapter 2 Methods of Transfection with Messenger RNA Gene Vectors Oleg E. Tolmachov and Tanya Tolmachova Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61688 Abstract Non-viral gene delivery vectors with messenger RNA (mRNA) as a carrier of genetic information are among the staple gene transfer vectors for research in gene therapy, gene vaccination and cell fate reprogramming. As no passage of genetic cargo in and out of the nucleus is required, mRNA-based vectors typically offer the following five advantages: 1) fast start of transgene expression; 2) ability to express genes in non- dividing cells with an intact nuclear envelope; 3) insensitivity to the major gene silencing mechanisms, which operate in the nucleus; 4) absence of potentially mutagenic genomic insertions; 5) high cell survival rate after transfection procedures, which do not need to disturb nuclear envelope. In addition, mRNA-based vectors offer a simple combination of various transgenes through mixing of several mRNAs in a single multi-gene cocktail or expression of a number of proteins from a single mRNA molecule using internal ribosome entry sites (IRESes), ribosome skipping sequences and proteolytic signals. However, on the downside, uncontrolled extrac‐ ellular and intracellular decay of mRNA can be a substantial hurdle for mRNA- mediated gene transfer. Procedures for mRNA delivery are analogous to DNA transfer methods, which are well-established. In general, there are three actors in the gene delivery play, namely, the vector, the cell and the transfer environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Nucleofection Protocol
    NUCLEOFECTION PROTOCOL Nucleofection (electroporation) of Cas9/ synthetic RNA ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing (Lonza Nucleofection™ System) BACKGROUND This protocol describes how to transfect cultured cells with ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes that consist of purified Cas9 nuclease duplexed with synthetic guide RNA (gRNA; synthetic sgRNA or annealed crRNA and tracrRNA) using the Lonza 4D Nucleofector™ unit with 16-well Nucleocuvette™ Strips. Delivery of RNPs means that CRISPR components exist only transiently inside the cell, limiting Cas9 and guide RNA expression – this allows for the highest levels of editing efficiency and greatly reduces the chances of possible off-target and toxic effects. Furthermore, the use of synthetic guide RNAs eliminates the risk of incorporating foreign DNA into the host genome, which can occur when using plasmid-based guides. Synthego synthetic guide RNAs are of the highest quality and offer a superior alternative to in vitro transcribed (IVT) guide RNAs that are of variable quality and produce inconsistent editing results. MATERIALS REQUIRED Reagent/Material Vendor Synthego CRISPRevolution synthetic guide RNA Synthego (sgRNA or crRNA/tracrRNA) Synthego 2NLS-Cas9 nuclease Synthego Lonza Nucleofector 4D Electroporation System Lonza (#AAF-1002B and variants) Lonza SF Cell Line 4D - Nucleofector™ X Kit S Lonza (#V4XC-2032) with 16-well Nucleocuvette™ Strip DMEM, high glucose, with GlutaMAX™ Thermo Fisher (#10566 and variants) Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) Thermo Fisher (#10437010 and variants) TrypLE™ Express Enzyme Thermo Fisher (#12605010 and variants) 1X PBS (without Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺) Common lab supplier, or make in house Sterile tissue culture plates (24-well) Common lab supplier Microcentrifuge tubes Common lab supplier 1 synthego.com | [email protected] 20161208 NUCLEOFECTION PROTOCOL IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS • Wearing gloves and using nuclease-free tubes and reagents is recommended in order to avoid RNase contamination.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Non-Viral Gene Delivery Methods for Tissue Engineering
    HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript Author Ann Biomed Manuscript Author Eng. Author Manuscript Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 November 09. Published in final edited form as: Ann Biomed Eng. 2013 March ; 41(3): 446–468. doi:10.1007/s10439-012-0678-1. Physical non-viral gene delivery methods for tissue engineering Adam J. Mellott, B.S.1, M. Laird Forrest, Ph.D.2, and Michael S. Detamore, Ph.D.1,3 1Bioengineering Program, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 2Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66047 3Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045 Abstract The integration of gene therapy into tissue engineering to control differentiation and direct tissue formation is not a new concept; however, successful delivery of nucleic acids into primary cells, progenitor cells, and stem cells has proven exceptionally challenging. Viral vectors are generally highly effective at delivering nucleic acids to a variety of cell populations, both dividing and non- dividing, yet these viral vectors are marred by significant safety concerns. Non-viral vectors are preferred for gene therapy, despite lower transfection efficiencies, and possess many customizable attributes that are desirable for tissue engineering applications. However, there is no single non- viral gene delivery strategy that “fits-all” cell types and tissues. Thus, there is a compelling opportunity to examine different non-viral vectors, especially physical vectors, and compare their relative degrees of success. This review examines the advantages and disadvantages of physical non-viral methods (i.e., microinjection, ballistic gene delivery, electroporation, sonoporation, laser irradiation, magnetofection, and electric field-induced molecular vibration), with particular attention given to electroporation because of its versatility, with further special emphasis on Nucleofection™.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing an Rnai Experiment Using Nucleofection™ Technical Reference Guide
    BioResearch Designing an RNAi Experiment Using Nucleofection™ Technical Reference Guide The Nucleofector™ Technology is well suited for the transfection of siRNA duplexes or shRNA vectors into both primary cells and difficult-to-transfect cell lines. Choose siRNA Choose Cell Type and Transfection Protocol – Select gene target(s) – Select cell type(s) to maximize physiological relevance – Select control siRNA of results – Negative control siRNA – – Find Optimized Nucleofection™ Protocols at e.g., Thermo Scientific siGENOME Non-Targeting Control www.lonza.com/cell-database – Positive control siRNA – – Select transfection controls e.g., siGENOME® GAPDH siRNA – Untreated sample (no siRNA and transfection) – Mock-transfection (no siRNA, only transfection) ➔ ➔ Confirm siRNA Delivery Choose Detection Assay – Confirm siRNA delivery efficiency using: – Select detection assay(s) – Fluorescently-labeled siRNA – mRNA – branched-DNA, RT-PCR or – Protein – ELISA, Western, FACS analysis – Fluorescent expression plasmid (e.g., pmaxGFP™ Vector) – Phenotype – viability, apoptosis or – pmaxGFP™ Vector and maxGFP™ Reporter Protein siRNA or siRNA targeting housekeeping gene ➔ ➔ Optimize Target Knockdown Adapt Assay Conditions – Determine optimal siRNA concentration – Optimize detection assay(s) conditions for – Nucleofector™ Device ➞ 0.2 – 200 pmol (2 nM – 2 µM) specific system ➞ – 96-well Shuttle™ Device 0.04 – 40 pmol (2 nM – 2 µM) – Determine optimal cell densities for linear detection range – Correlate results from multiple assays ➔ ➔ Optimize Assay Conditions
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanisms of Mrna Polyadenylation
    Turkish Journal of Biology Turk J Biol (2016) 40: 529-538 http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/biology/ © TÜBİTAK Review Article doi:10.3906/biy-1505-94 Mechanisms of mRNA polyadenylation Hızlan Hıncal AĞUŞ, Ayşe Elif ERSON BENSAN* Department of Biology, Arts and Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey Received: 26.05.2015 Accepted/Published Online: 21.08.2015 Final Version: 18.05.2016 Abstract: mRNA 3’-end processing involves the addition of a poly(A) tail based on the recognition of the poly(A) signal and subsequent cleavage of the mRNA at the poly(A) site. Alternative polyadenylation (APA) is emerging as a novel mechanism of gene expression regulation in normal and in disease states. APA results from the recognition of less canonical proximal or distal poly(A) signals leading to changes in the 3’ untranslated region (UTR) lengths and even in some cases changes in the coding sequence of the distal part of the transcript. Consequently, RNA-binding proteins and/or microRNAs may differentially bind to shorter or longer isoforms. These changes may eventually alter the stability, localization, and/or translational efficiency of the mRNAs. Overall, the 3’ UTRs are gaining more attention as they possess a significant posttranscriptional regulation potential guided by APA, microRNAs, and RNA-binding proteins. Here we provide an overview of the recent developments in the APA field in connection with cancer as a potential oncogene activator and/or tumor suppressor silencing mechanism. A better understanding of the extent and significance of APA deregulation will pave the way to possible new developments to utilize the APA machinery and its downstream effects in cancer cells for diagnostic and therapeutic applications.
    [Show full text]