OhioMod2013:Introduction

From OpenWetWare

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 17: Line 17:
[[DNA origami]] is a relatively recent technique first described in 2003 as a method of folding DNA into complex structures <cite>Rothemund</cite>. Since then there has been an effort to find practical applications for DNA origami, many of which involve targeted in vivo delivery of drug payloads <cite>Douglas</cite>, antigens <cite>Liu</cite>, and siRNA <cite> Lee</cite>. We believe however, that the strongest potential is for delivery of the DNA itself by incorporating the gene vector into the origami for cellular uptake.  
[[DNA origami]] is a relatively recent technique first described in 2003 as a method of folding DNA into complex structures <cite>Rothemund</cite>. Since then there has been an effort to find practical applications for DNA origami, many of which involve targeted in vivo delivery of drug payloads <cite>Douglas</cite>, antigens <cite>Liu</cite>, and siRNA <cite> Lee</cite>. We believe however, that the strongest potential is for delivery of the DNA itself by incorporating the gene vector into the origami for cellular uptake.  
-
The viral method is the currently the most efficient at transfecting mammalian cells due to the intrinsic ability of the viral vector. However because of the immunogenic properties of the viral vehicle and its high production costs, artificial non-viral methods are being investigated. Inorganic nanoparticles are especially tantalizing due to their synthetic production, durable storage, and resistance to premature degradation or digestion. The most common types of nanoparticles include cationic polymers, liposomes, gold clusters, and silicate particles. Among them, two successful commercial agents are Polyfect® (dendritic polymer) and Lipofectamine® (liposome).  
+
The viral method is the currently the most efficient at transfecting mammalian cells due to the intrinsic ability of the viral vector. However because of the immunogenic properties of the viral vehicle and its high production costs, artificial non-viral methods are being investigated. Inorganic nanoparticles are especially tantalizing due to their synthetic production, durable storage, and resistance to premature degradation or digestion. The most common types of nanoparticles include cationic polymers, liposomes, gold clusters, and silicate particles. Among them, two successful commercial agents are Polyfect® (dendritic polymer) and Lipofectamine® (liposome). To have transfection efficiencies comparable to these two products would be considered our standard of success.
-
One promising material that has yet to be fully realized is that of the calcium phosphate nanoparticle (CPNP). First described 35 years ago<cite>Graham</cite>, Calcium phosphate is non-toxic, easily biodegradable, and is simply precipitated in aqueous solutions. The greatest technical challenge in their production is ensuring stable uniform sizes. Many labs have gone on to show that CPNP improves the uptake of their active agents into the cell, whether they be flourophores <cite>Altinoglu</cite>, antigens and immunoactive oligonucleotide <cite>Skolova</cite>, or therapeutic genes <cite>Zhang</cite>. This improved uptake by CPNPs can be due to a number of reasons, including the size of the nanoparticle, the conglomeration the agent, improved binding of the CPNP to the membrane with resulting endocytosis, and the enhanced endosomal escape of the agent intracellularly. Whatever the mechanism may be, CPNPs are are an especially non-toxic easily synthesized delivery vehicle for gene vectors.
+
One promising material that has yet to be fully realized is that of the calcium phosphate nanoparticle (CPNP). First described 35 years ago<cite>Graham</cite>, Calcium phosphate is non-toxic, easily biodegradable, and is simply precipitated in aqueous solutions. The greatest technical challenge in their production is ensuring stable uniform sizes. Many labs have gone on to show that CPNP improves the uptake of their active agents into the cell, whether they be flourophores <cite>Altinoglu</cite>, antigens and immunoactive oligonucleotide <cite>Skolova</cite>, or therapeutic genes <cite>Zhang</cite>. This improved uptake by CPNPs can be due to a number of reasons, including the size of the nanoparticle, the conglomeration the agent, improved binding of the CPNP to the membrane with resulting endocytosis, and the enhanced endosomal escape of the agent intracellularly. Whatever the mechanism may be, CPNPs are an especially non-toxic easily synthesized delivery vehicle for gene vectors.
-
Initial attempts had the DNA coated on the outside of the nanoparticle, more recently  
+
Initial attempts at gene therapy had the DNA coated on the outside of the nanoparticle <cite>Liu, Zhang</cite>, more recently  
Line 52: Line 52:
#Skolova pmid=20417963
#Skolova pmid=20417963
#Zhang pmid=19118047
#Zhang pmid=19118047
 +
#Liu pmid=15869447
 +

Revision as of 12:01, 28 April 2013

Home        Introduction        Design        Methods        Results        Team        Internal       



Background

DNA origami is a relatively recent technique first described in 2003 as a method of folding DNA into complex structures [1]. Since then there has been an effort to find practical applications for DNA origami, many of which involve targeted in vivo delivery of drug payloads [2], antigens [3], and siRNA [4]. We believe however, that the strongest potential is for delivery of the DNA itself by incorporating the gene vector into the origami for cellular uptake.

The viral method is the currently the most efficient at transfecting mammalian cells due to the intrinsic ability of the viral vector. However because of the immunogenic properties of the viral vehicle and its high production costs, artificial non-viral methods are being investigated. Inorganic nanoparticles are especially tantalizing due to their synthetic production, durable storage, and resistance to premature degradation or digestion. The most common types of nanoparticles include cationic polymers, liposomes, gold clusters, and silicate particles. Among them, two successful commercial agents are Polyfect® (dendritic polymer) and Lipofectamine® (liposome). To have transfection efficiencies comparable to these two products would be considered our standard of success.

One promising material that has yet to be fully realized is that of the calcium phosphate nanoparticle (CPNP). First described 35 years ago[5], Calcium phosphate is non-toxic, easily biodegradable, and is simply precipitated in aqueous solutions. The greatest technical challenge in their production is ensuring stable uniform sizes. Many labs have gone on to show that CPNP improves the uptake of their active agents into the cell, whether they be flourophores [6], antigens and immunoactive oligonucleotide [7], or therapeutic genes [8]. This improved uptake by CPNPs can be due to a number of reasons, including the size of the nanoparticle, the conglomeration the agent, improved binding of the CPNP to the membrane with resulting endocytosis, and the enhanced endosomal escape of the agent intracellularly. Whatever the mechanism may be, CPNPs are an especially non-toxic easily synthesized delivery vehicle for gene vectors.

Initial attempts at gene therapy had the DNA coated on the outside of the nanoparticle [3, 8], more recently


We first set out to develop a method of transfecting cells by a novel approach of encapsulating DNA origami with calcium phosphate to form biocompatible nanoparticles. This was a combinatorial process,

Another potential advantage is the effect the DNA origami may have on the shape of the nanoparticle. DNA origami is most easily folded into cylindrical rods, and so the precipitation of the calcium phosphate onto the origami may induce a cylindrical shape to the nanoparticle as well. It was shown in 2008[9] that cylindrical nanoparticles with a high aspect ratio showed a higher rate of internalization than their more symmetrical counterparts.


Fig. 1 This is a placeholder
Fig. 1 This is a placeholder

Our Focus

To do this and that. See our Methods for more.

Our Goals

  1. Goal
  2. Goal
  3. Goal
  4. Gooooaal!
  1. Rothemund PW. . pmid:16541064. PubMed HubMed [Rothemund]
  2. Douglas SM, Bachelet I, and Church GM. . pmid:22344439. PubMed HubMed [Douglas]
  3. Liu T, Tang A, Zhang G, Chen Y, Zhang J, Peng S, and Cai Z. . pmid:15869447. PubMed HubMed [Liu]
  4. Schüller VJ, Heidegger S, Sandholzer N, Nickels PC, Suhartha NA, Endres S, Bourquin C, and Liedl T. . pmid:22092186. PubMed HubMed [Liu]
  5. Lee H, Lytton-Jean AK, Chen Y, Love KT, Park AI, Karagiannis ED, Sehgal A, Querbes W, Zurenko CS, Jayaraman M, Peng CG, Charisse K, Borodovsky A, Manoharan M, Donahoe JS, Truelove J, Nahrendorf M, Langer R, and Anderson DG. . pmid:22659608. PubMed HubMed [Lee]
  6. Graham FL and van der Eb AJ. . pmid:4705382. PubMed HubMed [Graham]
  7. Altinoğlu EI, Russin TJ, Kaiser JM, Barth BM, Eklund PC, Kester M, and Adair JH. . pmid:19206454. PubMed HubMed [Altinoglu]
  8. Sokolova V, Knuschke T, Kovtun A, Buer J, Epple M, and Westendorf AM. . pmid:20417963. PubMed HubMed [Skolova]
  9. Zhang G, Liu T, Chen YH, Chen Y, Xu M, Peng J, Yu S, Yuan J, and Zhang X. . pmid:19118047. PubMed HubMed [Zhang]
  10. Gratton SE, Ropp PA, Pohlhaus PD, Luft JC, Madden VJ, Napier ME, and DeSimone JM. . pmid:18697944. PubMed HubMed [Gratton]
All Medline abstracts: PubMed HubMed


Personal tools