5/30/2023 0 Comments Rutgers endnote 7On the other hand, although DNA is much more stable upon injection, obviating the need for such protection, its delivery to target cells faces, however, a higher barrier. For RNA delivery in vivo, the chemical approach is dominant where nucleic acids are conjugated/encapsulated with polymer or lipid nanoparticles, which both facilitate host cell transfection and protect against degradation by ribonucleases that are prevalent in the cellular environment ( 6, 7). Viral transfection promises efficiency but often faces challenges due to immunogenicity and biosafety concerns. Nucleic acid transfection in vivo uses both viral and nonviral platforms. This method enables an easy-to-use, cost-effective, and highly scalable platform for both laboratorial transfection needs and clinical applications for nucleic acid–based therapeutics and vaccines. Specific utility was demonstrated with a synthetic SARS-CoV-2 DNA vaccine, which generated host humoral immune response in rats with notable antibody production. The absence of visible and/or histological tissue injury contrasts with current in vivo transfection systems such as electroporation. Modeling indicates a strong correlation between focal strain/stress and expression patterns. Strong GFP expression was demonstrated with pEGFP-N1 plasmids where fluorescence was observed as early as 1 hour after dosing. Following intradermal Mantoux injection of plasmid DNA in a rat model, a moderate negative pressure is applied to the injection site, a technique similar to Chinese báguàn and Middle Eastern hijama cupping therapies. This work reports a suction-based cutaneous delivery method for in vivo DNA transfection.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |