Chien Wade W, McDougald Devin S, Roy Soumen, Fitzgerald Tracy S, Cunningham Lisa L
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (w.w.c., d.s.m., s.r., t.s.f., l.l.c), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, U.S.A.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Laryngoscope. 2015 Nov;125(11):2557-64. doi: 10.1002/lary.25317. Epub 2015 Apr 17.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Gene therapy offers the possibility of delivering corrective genetic materials to the cochlea, potentially improving hearing. In animals, the most commonly used surgical methods for viral gene therapy delivery to the cochlea are the round window and the cochleostomy approaches. However, the patterns of viral infection and the effects on hearing have not been directly compared between these two approaches. In this study, we compare the patterns of cochlear infection and effects on hearing between these two surgical approaches using adeno-associated virus serotype 2/8 (AAV8) as the gene delivery vehicle.
Animal study and basic science research.
One- to two-month-old CBA/J mice were used in this study. AAV8-green fluorescent protein (GFP) was delivered to the cochlea by either the round window or the cochleostomy approach (described below). Auditory brainstem response was used to examine hearing thresholds before and after surgery. Animals were examined at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks after surgery for the patterns of cochlear infection and hearing loss.
Cochlear gene transfer was successful through both surgical approaches. In both approaches, AAV8-GFP mostly infected the inner hair cells. There was occasional low-level infection of the outer hair cells and supporting cells. The two surgical approaches resulted in comparable viral infection efficiencies. The round window approach resulted in less surgical trauma, as indicated by hearing loss, than the cochleostomy approach.
Adeno-associated virus-mediated gene transfer to the cochlea can be accomplished using either the round window or the cochleostomy surgical approach. The round window approach resulted in less hearing loss compared to the cochleostomy approach.
NA.
目的/假设:基因治疗为向耳蜗递送矫正性遗传物质提供了可能性,有可能改善听力。在动物中,用于向耳蜗进行病毒基因治疗递送的最常用手术方法是圆窗法和蜗窗造口术。然而,尚未直接比较这两种方法之间的病毒感染模式及其对听力的影响。在本研究中,我们使用2/8型腺相关病毒(AAV8)作为基因递送载体,比较这两种手术方法的耳蜗感染模式及其对听力的影响。
动物研究和基础科学研究。
本研究使用1至2月龄的CBA/J小鼠。通过圆窗法或蜗窗造口术(如下所述)将AAV8-绿色荧光蛋白(GFP)递送至耳蜗。使用听觉脑干反应检查手术前后的听力阈值。在术后1、2、3和4周检查动物的耳蜗感染模式和听力损失情况。
两种手术方法均成功实现了耳蜗基因转移。在两种方法中,AAV8-GFP主要感染内毛细胞。外毛细胞和支持细胞偶尔有低水平感染。两种手术方法导致的病毒感染效率相当。与蜗窗造口术相比,圆窗法导致的手术创伤更小,这通过听力损失情况得以体现。
使用圆窗法或蜗窗造口术手术方法均可实现腺相关病毒介导的基因向耳蜗的转移。与蜗窗造口术相比,圆窗法导致的听力损失更小。
无。