JVI Figure table search 04
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Trobridge, G.
Right arrow Articles by Russell, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Trobridge, G.
Right arrow Articles by Russell, D. W.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Journal of Virology, March 2004, p. 2327-2335, Vol. 78, No. 5
0022-538X/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JVI.78.5.2327-2335.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Cell Cycle Requirements for Transduction by Foamy Virus Vectors Compared to Those of Oncovirus and Lentivirus Vectors

Grant Trobridge and David W. Russell*

Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195

Received 26 June 2003/ Accepted 14 November 2003

Retroviral vectors based on foamy viruses (FV) are efficient gene delivery vehicles for therapeutic and research applications. While previous studies have shown that FV vectors transduce quiescent cell cultures more efficiently than oncoviral vectors, their specific cell cycle requirements have not been determined. Here we compare the transduction frequencies of FV vectors with those of onco- and lentiviral vectors in nondividing and dividing normal human fibroblasts by several methods. FV vectors transduced serum-deprived fibroblast cultures more efficiently than oncoretroviral vectors and at rates comparable to those of lentiviral vectors. However, in these cultures FV vectors only transduced a subpopulation of proliferating cells, as determined by bromodeoxyuridine staining for DNA synthesis. In contrast to lentiviral vectors, FV vectors were unable to transduce human fibroblasts arrested by aphidicolin (G1/S phase) or {gamma}-irradiation (G2 phase), and a partial cell cycle that included mitosis but not DNA synthesis was required. We could not determine if mitosis facilitated nuclear entry of FV vectors, since cell-free vector preparations contained long terminal repeat circles, precluding their use as nuclear markers. In contrast to oncoviral vectors, both FV and lentiviral vectors efficiently transduced G0 fibroblasts that were later stimulated to divide. In the case of FV vectors, this was due to the persistence of a stable transduction intermediate in quiescent cells. Our findings support the use of FV vectors as a safe and effective alternative to lentiviral vectors for ex vivo transduction of stem cells that are quiescent during culture but divide following transplantation.

* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. Phone: (206) 616-4562. Fax: (206) 616-8298. E-mail: drussell{at}u.washington.edu.

Journal of Virology, March 2004, p. 2327-2335, Vol. 78, No. 5
0022-538X/04/$08.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/JVI.78.5.2327-2335.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Mol. Cell. Biol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.
Clin. Vaccine Immunol. ALL ASM JOURNALS

Copyright © 2004 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.