Stem Cells http://www.stemcellsportal.com/
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 arrow Reprints/Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jen, K.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Gewirtz, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Jen, K.-Y.
Right arrow Articles by Gewirtz, A. M.
Stem Cells, Vol. 18, No. 5, 307-319, September 2000
© 2000 AlphaMed Press

Concise Review

Suppression of Gene Expression by Targeted Disruption of Messenger RNA: Available Options and Current Strategies

Kuang-Yu Jena, Alan M. Gewirtzb

a Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, the
b Department of Medicine and the Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Key Words. RNA • DNA oligonucleotide • Hammerhead ribozymes • Hairpin ribozymes • Gene targeting • Targeted gene disruption • Antisense

Alan M. Gewirtz, M.D., Rm 713 BRBII/III, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 421 Curie Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA. Telephone: 215-898-4499; Fax: 512-573-2078; e-mail: gewirtz{at}mail.med.upenn.edu


   ABSTRACT
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 
At least three different approaches may be used for gene targeting including: A) gene knockout by homologous recombination; B) employment of synthetic oligonucleotides capable of hybridizing with DNA or RNA, and C) use of polyamides and other natural DNA-bonding molecules called lexitropsins.

Targeting mRNA is attractive because mRNA is more accessible than the corresponding gene. Three basic strategies have emerged for this purpose, the most familiar being to introduce antisense nucleic acids into a cell in the hopes that they will form Watson-Crick base pairs with the targeted gene's mRNA. Duplexed mRNA cannot be translated, and almost certainly initiates processes which lead to its destruction. The antisense nucleic acid can take the form of RNA expressed from a vector which has been transfected into the cell, or take the form of a DNA or RNA oligonucleotide which can be introduced into cells through a variety of means. DNA and RNA oligonucleotides can be modified for stability as well as engineered to contain inherent cleaving activity.

It has also been proven that because RNA and DNA are very similar chemical compounds, DNA molecules with enzymatic activity could also be developed. This assumption proved correct and led to the development of a "general-purpose" RNA-cleaving DNA enzyme. The attraction of DNAzymes over ribozymes is that they are very inexpensive to make and that because they are composed of DNA and not RNA, they are inherently more stable than ribozymes.

Although mRNA targeting is impeccable in theory, many additional considerations must be taken into account in applying these strategies in living cells including mRNA site selection, drug delivery and intracellular localization of the antisense agent. Nevertheless, the ongoing revolution in cell and molecular biology, combined with advances in the emerging disciplines of genomics and informatics, has made the concept of nontoxic, cancer-specific therapies more viable then ever and continues to drive interest in this field.


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 
The notion that gene expression could be modified through use of exogenous nucleic acids derives from studies by Paterson et al. who first used single-stranded DNA to inhibit translation of a complementary RNA in a cell-free system in 1977 [1]. One year later, Zamecnik and Stephenson noted that a short (13nt) DNA oligonucleotide reverse complementary in sequence (antisense) to the Rous sarcoma virus could inhibit viral replication in culture [2]. This observation is credited as being among the first to suggest the therapeutic utility of antisense nucleic acids, a concept which ultimately led to the awarding of a Lasker Prize in Medicine to Dr. Zamecnik. In the mid 1980s, the existence of naturally occurring antisense RNAs and their role in regulating gene expression was demonstrated [3-5]. These observations were particularly important because the fact that naturally occurring antisense nucleic acids played a role in regulating gene expression lent support to the belief that exogenously introduced reverse complementary nucleic acids might be utilized to manipulate gene expression in living cells. These seminal papers, and the literally thousands which have followed, have stimulated the development of technologies employing nucleic acids to manipulate gene expression. Virtually all available methods rely on some type of nucleotide sequence recognition for targeting specificity, but differ where and how they perturb the flow of genetic information [6]. Simply stated, strategies for modulating gene expression may be thought of as being targeted to the gene itself, or to the gene's messenger RNA (mRNA). Since this review will be focused on strategies aimed at disrupting the use of mRNA, antigene strategies will be addressed only briefly and mainly for the sake of completeness.


   ANTIGENE STRATEGIES
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 
At least three different approaches may be utilized for direct gene targeting. The "gold standard" is the gene "knock-out" achieved by homologous recombination [7, 8]. This approach results in the actual physical disruption of the targeted gene as a result of crossover events which occur during cell division between the targeting vector and the gene selected for destruction (Fig. 1AGo). Homologous recombination is extremely powerful, but the technique is hampered by the fact that it remains inherently inefficient, time-consuming, and expensive. While improvement in the efficiency of this process has been achieved [9, 10], this is a method which remains restricted to use in cell lines and animal models, if for no other reason than selection is required to find the cells in which the desired events have taken place. In clinical situations where high efficiency gene disruptions are required, it seems unlikely that this approach will serve as a useful therapeutic modality anytime in the foreseeable future.




View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. A) Targeting vector; B) Triplex strand. Adapted from [6].

 
A second option for gene targeting employs synthetic oligodeoxynucleotides (ODN) capable of hybridizing with double-stranded DNA [11-13]. Such hybrids are typically formed within the major groove of the helix, though hybridization within the minor groove has also been reported [14]. In either case, a triple-stranded molecule is produced, hence the origin of the term triple helix-forming oligodeoxynucleotide (TFO) (Fig. 1BGo). TFOs do not destroy a gene but prevent its transcription either by preventing unwinding of the duplex or preventing binding of transcription factors to the gene's promoter. TFO sequence requirements are based on the need for each base comprising the TFO to form two hydrogen bonds (Hoogsteen bonds) with its complementary base in the duplex. This constrains TFOs to hybridization with the purine bases composing polypurine-polypyrimidine tracks within the DNA. The targeting efficiency of TFOs is further constrained by a number of factors, including need for divalent cations, and perhaps most importantly, by access to DNA compacted within the chromosome structure. Recent experiments from Wang et al. and Kochetkova et al. have provided evidence that triple helix formation can occur in living cells, suggesting that these difficulties may ultimately be overcome [15-17]. If shown practical, it has also been postulated that TFOs may prove useful in the treatment of certain genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia, and hemophilia B, where their ability to trigger repair mechanisms might be used to correct single base pair mutations responsible for the disease [15, 18-20].

Final approaches worth mentioning are the use of specific nucleic acid sequences to act as "decoys" for transcription factors [21, 22], and the use of polyamides and other natural DNA-binding molecules called lexitropsins, that bind to specific bases in the minor groove of DNA [23, 24]. The use of decoy molecules evolves from the knowledge that transcription factor proteins recognize and bind specific DNA sequences. In theory then, it is possible to synthesize nucleic acids which will effectively compete with the native DNA sequences for available transcription factor proteins in vivo. If effective, the rate of transcription of the genes dependent on the particular factor involved will diminish. Unless single gene transcription factors can be identified, it is difficult to conceive how this approach, though potentially effective for controlling cell growth, can be made gene-specific. The polyamide approach may prove feasible since sequence-specific molecules can likely be designed and it appears that molecules of this type can easily access DNA within the chromosomes [23-25].


   ANTI-MRNA STRATEGIES
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 
A gene may be effectively "silenced" by destabilizing its mRNA, thereby preventing synthesis of the protein it encodes. Targeting mRNA, while less favorable than antigene strategies from a stoichiometric point of view, is nonetheless attractive because mRNA is in theory more accessible. Three basic strategies have emerged for this purpose. One employs an oligonucleotide that acts as an alternate binding site, or "decoy," for protein-stabilizing elements that normally interact with a given mRNA [26, 27]. By attracting away mRNA-stabilizing protein, the decoy induces instability, and ultimately destruction, of the mRNA. A newly developing approach is to affect RNA interference (RNAi) or post-transcriptional gene silencing [28, 29]. RNAi employs a gene-specific double-stranded RNA which, when introduced into a cell, leads to diminution of the targeted mRNA. The actual mechanism whereby this is accomplished is presently unknown but is under intense investigation with several clues being deciphered already [30, 31] including size and necessity for processing of the targeting dsRNA. In C. elegans and Drosophila this is a highly reproducible method for disrupting gene expression. Some reports suggest that this technique can be adapted for use in mammalian cells [32], but this remains uncertain at the moment. Finally, there is the more familiar, and more widely applied "antisense" strategy. We will focus on the latter.

Antisense (reverse complementary) nucleic acids are introduced into a cell in hopes that they will form Watson-Crick base pairs with the targeted gene's mRNA. As stated above, duplexed mRNA cannot be translated, and almost certainly initiates processes which lead to its destruction. The antisense nucleic acid can take the form of RNA expressed from a vector which has been transfected into the cell [33], or take the form of a DNA or RNA oligonucleotide which can be introduced into cells through a variety of means. DNA and RNA oligonucleotides can be modified for stability as well as engineered to contain inherent cleaving activity [34, 35]. A number of these issues will be discussed in more detail in the sections below.

Antisense Oligonucleotides (AS-ONs)
AS-ONs are short stretches of nucleotides that are complementary to a region of targeted mRNA and can specifically suppress expression of that particular transcript. The following discussion will focus on the fundamental concepts concerning AS-ONs and their mechanisms of action. Examples of AS-ON use in experimental and clinical settings have been recently reviewed [36-38].

The exact mechanism of AS-ON action remains unclear, but it is known to be different for various types of AS-ONs. Generally, these molecules block gene expression by hybridizing to the target mRNA, resulting in subsequent double-helix formation. This process can occur at any point between the conclusion of transcription and initiation of translation, or even possibly during translation. Disruption of splicing, transport, or translation of the transcripts are all possible mechanisms, as is stability of transcript. Therefore, a major question is whether AS-ONs are most effective in the cytoplasm or nucleus. In the case of antisense oligodeoxyribonucleotides (AS-ODNs), cellular RNase H is able to bind to the DNA-RNA duplex and hydrolyze the RNA, resulting in increased transcript turnover. Any modification to the deoxy moiety at the 2'-sugar position prohibits RNase H action.

Modified AS-ONs or AS-ON analogs are often employed for in vivo antisense applications due to their increased stability and nuclease resistance. A longer serum half-life ensures that the AS-ON has ample time to reach and interact with its target mRNA. Phosphorothioate AS-ODNs are most widely used due to their long serum half-life and the fact that they are a suitable RNase H substrate. However, phosphorothioates display high affinity for various cellular proteins, which can result in sequence-nonspecific effects [39, 40]. Furthermore, high concentrations of phosphorothioates inhibit DNA polymerases and RNase H, which may render them ineffective as antisense agents [41]. Interestingly, many AS-ONs with 2'-modifications with groups such as O-methyl, fluoro, O-propyl, O-allyl, or many others exhibit greater duplex stability with their target mRNA along with antisense effects independent of RNase H (Fig. 1Go). These modifications create bulk at the 2' position, causing steric hindrance to play a significant role in increasing nuclease resistance. Nucleotide analogs generally are also nuclease-resistant and often demonstrate superior hybridization properties due to modified backbone charge, although they usually are not acceptable substrates for RNase H. One example is peptide nucleic acid (PNA) where the sugar-phosphate moiety has been replaced by 2-aminoethyl glycine carbonyl units [42]. To these units are attached nucleotide bases spaced equally apart to DNA nucleotide bases. Instead of phosphodiester linkages between nucleotides, peptide bonds join the monomers to create a backbone neutral in charge. Not only do PNA oligomers hybridize to complementary DNA and RNA by Watson-Crick base pairing, they do so more quickly [43] and with greater affinity [42-44] because of the neutral backbone. In addition, PNAs are better at discriminating between base pair mismatches [44] and form less nonsequence-specific associations with proteins than phosphorothioate oligonucleotides [45]. Positive charges can also be introduced to backbone structure as in the case of (2-aminoethyl)phosphonates. Increased stability of duplex formation with both RNA and DNA has been reported with hybrid stability being more pH-dependent and less salt-dependent than natural RNA or DNA duplexes [46].

Some insight into the mechanism of AS-ON action has emerged recently through the work of Baker and colleagues (unpublished). Differences in ability to inhibit gene expression occur when either 2'-modified AS-ONs or 2'-unmodified AS-ONs are targeted to the exon 9 region of interleukin 5 (IL-5). Two forms of IL-5 exist: a soluble IL-5 lacking the exon 9 region, and a membrane-bound form, which contains exon 9. When unmodified AS-ONs are targeted to exon 9 of the IL-5 transcript, the expression of both membrane-bound and soluble IL-5 is inhibited. However, 2'-modified AS-ONs only suppress membrane-bound IL-5 expression. These observations seem to suggest that RNase H-dependent antisense effects are a nuclear event prior to splicing, whereas RNase H-independent oligonucleotides may affect splicing in transcript processing or may suppress gene expression after splicing has taken place. Additional evidence demonstrates that in the absence of RNase H activity, antisense effects may be a result of interference with translational initiation complex formation for certain types of 2'-modified AS-ON such as 2'-O-(2-methoxy) ethyl AS-ONs [47].

Ribozymes
Naturally occurring ribozymes are catalytic RNA molecules that have the ability to cleave phosphodiester linkages without the aid of protein-based enzymes. This property has been exploited to specifically inhibit gene expression by targeting mRNA for catalytic cleavage especially in viral, cancer, and genetic disease therapeutics [48]. Similar to AS-ONs, ribozymes bind to substrate RNA through Watson-Crick base pairing, which offers sequence-specific cleavage of transcripts. Ideally, these agents should trigger enhanced transcript turnover as compared to RNase H-mediated AS-ON degradation of transcripts, considering ribozymes act through bimolecular kinetics (association of ribozyme and target transcript) whereas RNase H-dependent AS-ONs rely on trimolecular kinetics (association of AS-ON, target transcript, and RNase H). Since ribozymes are RNase H-independent, 2'-modifications to increase stability do not diminish antisense effects and experiments have shown some modifications do not attenuate catalytic ability [49]. Unlike AS-ONs, ribozymes can be expressed from a vector, which offers the advantage of continued production of these molecules intracellularly [50, 51]. However, stable transformation of cells in vivo has its own complications and will not be discussed in this review.

If ribozymes are to perform effectively as "enzymes," they must not only bind substrate RNA but also dissociate from the cleavage product in order to act on additional substrates. Studies suggest that in some cases, dissociation of cleavage product may be the rate-limiting step [52, 53]. Furthermore, some ribozymes require high divalent metal ion concentrations for efficient substrate cleavage, which may limit their use in intracellular environments [54]. All of these concerns need to be addressed and overcome in order for ribozymes to have a future in medical therapy. Two ribozymes, the hammerhead ribozyme and the hairpin ribozyme, have been extensively studied due to their small size and rapid kinetics. Their application has been recently reviewed in several publications [55-59].

Hammerhead Ribozymes
The hammerhead ribozyme consists of a highly conserved catalytic core, which will cleave substrate RNA at NUH triplets 3' to the H, where N is any nucleotide, U is uracile, and H is any nucleotide but guanidine (Fig. 2Go) [34]. In fact RNA cleavage may be less restricted since recent studies demonstrate exceptions to the "NUH" rule. Investigators have established that cleavage can actually occur 3' to any NHH triplet [59]. Furthermore, in vitro selection protocols have made it possible to screen for ribozymes with various cleavage specificities including one that cleaves at AUG sites [60]. Thus, the limitations for sequence specificity of triplet-cleavage sites on the target RNA are less than previously thought. In addition to the catalytic core, a particular cleavage site in a target RNA can be specifically recognized by the hammerhead ribozyme arms. By creating complementary sequences in the arms to sequences flanking the cleavage site, the ribozyme will hybridize specifically to the RNA of interest. Subsequent cleavage will then be directed towards that particular position.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. Hammerhead ribozyme (top strand) hybridized to target RNA. Arrow indicates postition of cleavage. N = A, G, T, or C; N ' = nucleotide complementary to N; H = any nucleotide but G; Y = pyrimidine nucleotide; R = purine nucleotide complementary to Y. Adapted from [56].

 
The catalytic ability of hammerhead ribozymes is dependent on the presence of divalent metal ions, of which magnesium is most often used in vitro. It is postulated that the ions not only participate in RNA folding but also in the cleavage step itself [54]. As mentioned previously, studies indicate that catalytic activity requires relatively high Mg2+ concentrations compared to the intracellular environment. This characteristic could be problematic in applying the hammerhead ribozyme to an in vivo setting where intracellular Mg2+ concentrations are 5- to 10-fold lower than optimal in vitro conditions.

Much evidence supports diminished mRNA levels and gene products directly due to hammerhead ribozyme delivery. There is also indication from reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and reverse ligation (RL)-PCR protocols of messenger RNA cleavage at the targeted position in cellular RNA extracts [61, 62]. Recently, more potent ribozyme-mediated effect on viral and cancer cell growth compared to noncatalytic RNAs was reported [63, 64]. However, in some instances, hammerhead ribozymes have not proven to be more effective than AS-ON and instead give equal degrees of gene suppression. Likewise, inactive control ribozymes where antisense binding can occur, but catalytic ability has been abolished, give similar levels of gene inhibition when compared to fully catalytic hammerhead ribozymes, suggesting that the catalytic core, in some instances, plays little role in enhancing antisense effects [65]. Only further detailed studies will reveal the true utility of hammerhead ribozymes.

Hairpin Ribozymes
The natural hairpin ribozyme is derived from a negative strand of the tobacco ringspot virus satellite RNA. Work on engineered hairpin ribozymes has resulted in a broader range of cleavage-sequence specificity. In general, a phosphodiester cleavage takes place 5' to the G in the sequence NGUC where N is any nucleotide [66], although recent studies have shown even less restriction on sequence requirements for cleavage [67].

The overall structure of the hairpin ribozyme consists of two domains connected by a hinge section (Fig. 3Go). One domain binds the substrate RNA to form two helical regions separated by a pair of single-stranded loops. Cleavage occurs within the single-stranded area of the substrate RNA. The other domain is similar in structure except the helixes are formed from the ribozyme folding back onto itself. The most important sequences for cleavage activity are those within the single-stranded regions where almost every nucleotide is conserved, while the helical portions can be almost any sequence as long as there is double-helix formation [58]. The hinge allows the two domains to be flexible relative to one another in space so that the two can dock together in an antiparallel orientation required for cleavage catalysis [68, 69].



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3. Hairpin ribozyme in the docked position. The two loop regions associate with each other in order to cleave the substrate RNA. Arrow indicates position of cleavage. Adapted from [58].

 
Both the hairpin and hammerhead ribozymes require metal ions for cleavage catalysis. In the hammerhead ribozyme, metal ions are believed to be involved directly in the cleavage step [54, 70], whereas metal ions have not been implicated to be directly involved with cleavage for the hairpin ribozyme [71]. The metal ions in hairpin ribozymes may instead play an important role in ribozyme structure [72]. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) studies on docking of the two domains show that docking is metal-dependent, but almost any metal will suffice even though they may not support cleavage [73]. In addition, docking is not the rate-limiting step, and since metal ions are not thought to be involved in the chemical cleavage step, it can only be assumed that there is a slower step in between docking and chemical cleavage.

One of the advantages offered by hairpin ribozymes is their unique ion-dependence for catalytic action. One group has shown that aminoglycoside antibiotics with at least four amino groups are able to both support and to inhibit hairpin ribozyme cleavage depending on metal ion conditions [74]. In the presence of magnesium, aminoglycoside antibiotics inhibit ribozyme cleavage with the degree of inhibition depending on the binding affinity of the antibiotic to the ribozyme. However, in the absence of metal ions, aminoglycoside antibiotics prove to assist cleavage with an optimum reaction condition at pH 5.5 and poorer kinetics as the pH is increased, exactly opposite to trends observed for magnesium. In this case, the metal ions are most likely being replaced by the amino groups of these antibiotics.

Polyamines such as spermidine and spermine have also been reported to support hairpin ribozyme cleavage ability. In the absence of magnesium, spermidine allows the cleavage reaction to persist at very slow kinetics compared to magnesium alone [72]. However, spermine alone gives very efficient cleavage of RNA comparable to that of magnesium, and when in the presence of low magnesium concentrations similar to intracellular conditions, spermine displays considerable increase in cleavage rates [74]. The fact that spermine is the major polyamine in eukaryotic cells may explain why the hairpin ribozyme has shown remarkable intracellular cleavage activity in mammalian cells and may make future therapeutic endeavors with the hairpin ribozyme much easier [75].

DNAzymes
While investigating ways to improve the function of ribozymes, Breaker and Joyce made the assumption that because RNA and DNA are very similar chemical compounds, DNA molecules with enzymatic activity could also be developed [76]. This assumption proved correct and led to the development of a "general-purpose" RNA-cleaving DNA enzyme [77]. The molecule was identified from a library of >1,000 different DNA molecules by successive rounds of in vitro selective amplification based on the ability of individual molecules to promote Mg2+-dependent, multiturnover, cleavage of an RNA target.

The selected molecule was named the "10-23 DNA enzyme," because it was derived from the 23rd clone obtained after the 10th round of selective amplification [77]. The "10-23 DNA enzyme" is composed of a catalytic domain of 15 deoxynucleotides, flanked by 2 substrate-recognition domains of ~8 nucleotides each (Fig. 4Go). The recognition domains provide the sequence information required for specific binding to an RNA substrate. They also supply the binding energy required to hold the RNA substrate within the active site of the enzyme. It is straightforward that by appropriately designing the flanking sequences, the DNAzyme can be made to cleave virtually any RNA that contains a purine-pyrimidine junction.



View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4. Complex formed by an mRNA (top strand) and a "10-23" DNAzyme (bottom strand). Vertical arrow indicates the mRNA cleavage site. Replacement of G by A within the catalytic core of the DNAzyme (diagonal arrow) will eliminate its catalytic activity. Adapted from [77].

 
The attraction of DNAzymes over ribozymes is that they are very inexpensive to make and that because they are composed of DNA and not RNA, they are inherently more stable than ribozymes. Nevertheless, DNAzymes must ultimately overcome the same problems faced by ribozymes and oligonucleotides if they are to be effective in cellular systems (see below). These are stability, ability to be targeted to the cell of interest, ability to achieve sufficient intracellular concentration to cleave to the targeted mRNA, ability to hybridize with their mRNA target, and lack of toxicity. In this regard, many of the chemical modifications employed to stabilize ODNs can be incorporated into the 10-23 DNA enzyme without loss of activity. There is a suggestion from recent reports that issues of intracellular concentration and target hybridization may also be solvable [78, 79].


   APPLICATION OF THE "ANTISENSE" STRATEGY
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 
Although antisense interference methods appear impeccable in theory, many additional considerations must be taken into account in applying the strategy in living cells. Since both AS-ONs and ribozymes are considered oligonucleotides, quite often similar solutions can be offered to address the problems encountered. As mentioned earlier, increasing stability of antisense agents can be easily achieved through nucleotide modifications or analogs. However, additional considerations crucial to reliable experimental outcome include mRNA site selection, drug delivery, and intracellular localization of the antisense agent.

mRNA Site Selection
Within living cells, transcripts exist in low energy conformations in which secondary structures dominate in folding the linear polymer. In addition, interactions with cytoplasmic proteins produce further structural properties. The end result is that much of the mRNA sequence is hidden and only partial sequences within the total mRNA length are accessible for hybridization. RNA folding programs that generate three-dimentional folding patterns based on free energy calculations often give an unreliable depiction for in vivo relevance. Therefore, a good empirical method to probe for suitable sites is necessary.

A system to probe for suitable sites in mRNA for AS-ON or ribozyme-targeting has recently been established using RNase H cleavage as an indicator for accessibility of sequences within transcripts [80]. A mixture of ODNs that are complementary to certain regions of a transcript is added to cell extracts and exposed to RNase H. RT-PCR of the transcript can then be used to show which ODNs actually had access to the transcript and hybridized in order to create an RNase H-vulnerable site. Combining this methodology with computer-assisted sequence selection may enhance this approach as well [81].

Another technique currently being tested is the use of molecular beacons for site selection (Gewirtz et al., unpublished). These molecules are ODNs with the ability to form stem-loops where the loops are targeted to regions of the transcript [82]. The stems have a fluorophore linked to either the 5' or 3' end and a quencher molecule is attached to the other so that in the stem-loop configuration, fluorescence is not observed due to the proximity of the quencher molecule to the fluorophore. However, when hybridization proceeds, the act of forming a double helix between the loop and the transcript causes unfolding of the stem-loop and brings the quencher and fluorophore apart in space. Thus, fluorescence should increase as a result of hybridization. Currently, these molecules are being applied to probe for accessible sites within mRNA with very encouraging results (Jen and Gewirtz, unpublished).

Delivery
One of the major limitations for the therapeutic use of AS-ONs and ribozymes is the problem of delivery. Import of these compounds into cells can be accomplished by exogenous delivery in which presynthesized oligonucleotides come in direct contact with the plasma membrane, resulting in subsequent cellular uptake [83]. Naked oligonucleotides are poorly incorporated into cells in this fashion and often require a vehicle for efficient delivery. In tissue culture, many classes of compounds have been used as delivery vehicles including cationic liposomes, cationic porphyrins, fusogenic peptides, and artificial virosomes. These compounds share the characteristic of forming complexes with oligonucleotides through electrostatic interactions between the negatively charged oligonucleotide phosphate groups and positive charges contained by the vehicles themselves. In addition, some degree of protection from nuclease degradation is conferred to the oligonucleotide when associated with such delivery vehicles. Other strategies including cell permeabilization with streptolysin-O and electroporation have been used [84] but are restricted in utility for clinical settings. Presently, some success has been achieved in tissue culture, but efficient delivery for in vivo animal studies remains questionable.

Cationic lipids form stable complexes with oligonucleotides, which exhibit improved cellular uptake [85-87]. The result is enhanced antisense activity. Further studies indicate that phosphorothioated ODNs dissociate from cationic lipids before entering the nucleus where it is free to hinder target transcript function [88]. These compounds have proven to be quite effective in cell culture and have been commercialized, but their relatively high cytotoxic properties may restrict their use.

Alternatives to cationic lipids are being explored. Recently, cationic porphyrins have proven to be effective vehicles for AS-ONs in tissue culture [89, 90]. Two cationic porphyrins used by Benimetskaya and colleagues, tetra(4-methylpyridyl) porphyrin (TMP) and tetraanilinium porphyrin (TAP), demonstrate properties important for AS-ON delivery. 5'-fluorescein-labeled phosphorothioates show that both TMP and TAP more efficiently deliver AS-ONs into cells than naked AS-ONs. Nuclear fluorescence is observed after porphyrin/AS-ON complex exposure to cells while fluorescein labeled AS-ONs alone are taken up into vesicular structures. Thus, cationic porphyrins not only help AS-ON delivery into the cell, but they are also able to localize the AS-ON in the nucleus where mRNA and RNase H are present. FRET studies on the ability of cationic porphyrins to quench 5'-fluorescein-labeled phosphorothioates suggest intracellular dissociation of the oligonucleotide from the porphyrin.

Fusogenic peptides form peptide cages around oligonucleotides in order to boost oligonucleotide uptake. Many of these peptides contain polylysine residues, which cause membrane destabilization [91]. Others are derived from viral proteins such as the fusion sequence of HIV gp41 [92] and hemagglutinin envelop protein [93, 94]. Generally, these agents are less cytotoxic than lipids but are still able to achieve similar delivery efficacy. Artificial virosomes are another class of delivery vehicles which take advantage of the natural ability of a virus to gain entry into cells. Reconstituted influenza virus envelopes known as virosomes can fuse with endosomal membranes after internalization through receptor-mediated endocytosis [95]. Recently, cationic lipids have been incorporated into virosome membranes to further aid delivery [96, 97].

Finally, Dheur and colleagues have noted that while oligonucleotides delivered with lipofectins usually do not elicit antisense activity (likely because cationic lipid formulations do not protect unmodified oligonucleotides from nuclease degradation), a cationic polymer, polyethylenimine (PEI) [98], improves the uptake and antisense activity of antisense phosphodiester oligodeoxynucleotides (PO-ODN) [99]. Interestingly, PEI-phosphorothioate (PS) ODN particles were efficiently taken up by cells but PS-ODN did not dissociate from the carrier. These investigators suggested that the low cost of PEI compared with cytofectins, the increased affinity for target mRNA and decreased affinity for proteins of PO-ODN compared with PS-ODN might make the use of PEI-PO-ODN very attractive.

Localization
In order for AS-ONs or ribozymes to suppress gene expression, they must be colocalized to the same intracellular compartment as their target mRNA. Intracellular trafficking seems to play an important role in the fate of these molecules since their spatial distribution does not correspond to simple diffusion. Many factors determine localization patterns of AS-ON and ribozymes including the antisense agent itself, delivery vehicle, and targeted cell type. In addition, evidence for cell cycle-dependent localization patterns has been reported with nuclear localization predominantly in the G2/M phase [100].

mRNAs can exist in several cellular compartments including the cytoplasm, nucleus, and nucleolus. It remains unclear as to where oligonucleotides should be directed for most efficient antisense activity to occur, although endosomal localization usually predicts ineffective antisense response. The optimal site for mRNA degradation may be dependent on the type of antisense agent used [47]. Recently, ribozymes attached to small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) called snoribozymes exhibited nearly 100% efficiency in cleaving a target RNA also localized to the nucleolus by snoRNA attachment [101]. Even though this particular experiment is based on cleavage of an artificial substrate, the expanding roles associated with the nucleolus may prove the nucleolus to be an important site to target mRNA degradation [102]. In another study, antisense RNA inserted within a variable region of ribosomal RNA (rRNA) proved to heighten ribozyme efficiency and may be due to colocalization of rRNA with mRNA [103].


   ANTISENSE DRUG DESIGN
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
Conclusions
 References
 
Certain issues to be aware of concerning antisense experimental design are quite important to the consistent and efficacious outcome of inhibiting gene expression. Even when the above considerations regarding the potential problems of antisense experiments are addressed, other factors may come into play especially involving antisense drug design. Only two will be mentioned here: formation of G quartets and chirality of modified oligonucleotides. Purine-rich oligonucleotides, especially ones containing four consecutive guinine residues, have a tendency to form stable tetrameric structures under physiologic conditions [104]. The guinosines of single-stranded oligonucleotides are not restrained in space by rigid double-helix structure and can therefore form various hydrogen bonds not observed in Watson-Crick base pairing. Tetraplexes known as G quartets arise as a result. Dissociation rates of these structures may be quite slow and may prevent hybridization of AS-ONs or ribozymes to their target transcript, rendering them ineffective as antisense agents. However, the absence of G quartet structures at 37°C under cellular salt conditions could mean that G quartet formation is irrelevant at physiologic temperatures [105]. Interestingly, nonsequence-specific gene inhibition by phosphorothioate oligonucleotides containing tetraguinosine tracts prove aptameric properties can play an important role in gene inhibition for some sequences of ONs [106].

Another important aspect to consider is the issue of chirality for certain oligonucleotides. Unmodified phosphodiester oligonucleotides do not have a chiral center at the phosphorous position. However, when a terminal oxygen of the phosphate is replaced by a sulfur, as in PS-ONs, the phosphorous gains chirality. The digestion kinetics of PS-ONs by 3'-exonucleases display bi-exponential decay with a fast and slow phase of digestion. These phases are due to stereoselectivity of the 3'-exonucleases on the chiral phosphorothioate center [107]. A 25-mer containing a 3'-terminal internucleotide linkage in the S-configuration degrades 300-fold slower than the same 25-mer with an R-configuration phosphorothioate linkage.


   CONCLUSIONS
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
References
 
The ongoing revolution in cell and molecular biology, combined with advances in the emerging disciplines of genomics and informatics, has made the concept of nontoxic, cancer-specific therapies more viable then ever. The recent development of a relatively specific biochemical inhibitor of the bcr/abl protein tyrosine kinase in patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia is a stunning example of this principle [108]. For therapies focused on direct replacement, repair, or disabling of disease-causing genes, progress has been much slower and a successful equivalent to the biochemical bcr/abl inhibitor has yet to be achieved. In the case of anti-mRNA strategies, it is hoped that the above discussion will have made the reasons for this clearer. Given the state of the art, it is perhaps not surprising that effective and efficient clinical translation of the antisense strategy has proven elusive. While a number of phase I/II trials employing ONs have been reported [109-116], virtually all have been characterized by a lack of toxicity but only modest clinical effects. A recent paper by Waters et al. describing the use of a bcl-2-targeted ON in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is typical in this regard [117, 118].

The key challenges to this field have been outlined above. It is clear that they will have to be solved if this approach to specific antitumor therapy is to become a useful treatment approach. A large number of diverse and talented groups are working on this problem, and we can all hope that their efforts will help lead to establishment of this promising form of therapy.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 
This work was supported by grants from the NIH. Dr. A.G. is a distinguished Clinical Scientist of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Antigene Strategies
 Anti-mRNA Strategies
 Application of the "Antisense"...
 Antisense Drug Design
 Conclusions
 References
 

  1. Paterson BM, Roberts BE, Kuff EL. Structural gene identification and mapping by DNA-mRNA hybrid-arrested cell-free translation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1977;74:4370-4374.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  2. Stephenson ML, Zamecnik PC. Inhibition of Rous sarcoma viral RNA translation by a specific oligodeoxyribonucleotide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1978;75:285-288.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  3. Simons RW, Kleckner N. Translational control of IS10 transposition. Cell 1983;34:683-691.[CrossRef][Medline]

  4. Mizuno T, Chou MY, Inouye M. A unique mechanism regulating gene expression: translational inhibition by a complementary RNA transcript (micRNA). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1984;81:1966-1970.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  5. Izant JG, Weintraub H. Inhibition of thymidine kinase gene expression by anti-sense RNA: a molecular approach to genetic analysis. Cell 1984;36:1007-1015.[CrossRef][Medline]

  6. Gewirtz AM, Sokol DL, Ratajczak MZ. Nucleic acid therapeutics: state of the art and future prospects. Blood 1998;92:712-736.[Free Full Text]

  7. Bronson SK, Smithies O. Altering mice by homologous recombination using embryonic stem cells. J Biol Chem 1994;269:27155-27158.[Free Full Text]

  8. Camerini-Otero RD, Hsieh P. Parallel DNA triplexes, homologous recombination, and other homology-dependent DNA interactions. Cell 1993;73:217-223.[CrossRef][Medline]

  9. Marth JD. Recent advances in gene mutagenesis by site-directed recombination. J Clin Invest 1996;97:1999-2002.[Medline]

  10. Haber JE. DNA recombination: the replication connection. Trends Biochem Sci 1999;24:271-275.[CrossRef][Medline]

  11. Gunther EJ, Havre PA, Gasparro FP et al. Triplex-mediated, in vitro targeting of psoralen photoadducts within the genome of a transgenic mouse. Photochem Photobiol 1996;63:207-212.[Medline]

  12. Maher Jr L. Prospects for the therapeutic use of antigene oligonucleotides. Cancer Invest 1996;14:66-82.[Medline]

  13. Raha M, Wang G, Seidman MM et al. Mutagenesis by third-strand-directed psoralen adducts in repair-deficient human cells: high frequency and altered spectrum in a xeroderma pigmentosum variant. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:2941-2946.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  14. Afonina I, Kutyavin I, Lukhtanov E et al. Sequence-specific arrest of primer extension on single-stranded DNA by an oligonucleotide-minor groove binder conjugate. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:3199-3204.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  15. Wang G, Seidman MM, Glazer PM. Mutagenesis in mammalian cells induced by triple helix formation and transcription-coupled repair. Science 1996;271:802-805.[Abstract]

  16. Kochetkova M, Shannon MF. DNA triplex formation selectively inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor gene expression in human T cells. J Biol Chem 1996;271:14438-14444.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  17. Kochetkova M, Iversen PO, Lopez AF et al. Deoxyribonucleic acid triplex formation inhibits granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor gene expression and suppresses growth in juvenile myelomonocytic leukemic cells. J Clin Invest 1997;99:3000-3008.[Medline]

  18. Kmiec EB. Genomic targeting and genetic conversion in cancer therapy. Semin Oncol 1996;23:188-193.[Medline]

  19. Wang G, Levy DD, Seidman MM et al. Targeted mutagenesis in mammalian cells mediated by intracellular triple helix formation. Mol Cell Biol 1995;15:1759-1768.[Abstract]

  20. Kren BT, Bandyopadhyay P, Steer CJ. In vivo site-directed mutagenesis of the factor IX gene by chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotides [see comments]. Nat Med 1998;4:285-290.[CrossRef][Medline]

  21. Morishita R, Gibbons GH, Horiuchi M et al. A gene therapy strategy using a transcription factor decoy of the E2F binding site inhibits smooth muscle proliferation in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995;92:5855-5859.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  22. Sharma HW, Perez JR, Higgins-Sochaski K et al. Transcription factor decoy approach to decipher the role of NF-kappa B in oncogenesis. Anticancer Res 1996;16:61-69.[Medline]

  23. Kielkopf CL, Baird EE, Dervan PB et al. Structural basis for G.C recognition in the DNA minor groove. Nat Struct Biol 1998;5:104-109.[CrossRef][Medline]

  24. Goodsell DS. The molecular perspective: DNA. STEM CELLS 2000;18:148-149.[Free Full Text]

  25. Walker WL, Kopka ML, Goodsell DS. Progress in the design of DNA sequence-specific lexitropsins. Biopolymers 1997;44:323-334.[CrossRef][Medline]

  26. Beelman CA, Parker R. Degradation of mRNA in eukaryotes. Cell 1995;81:179-183.[CrossRef][Medline]

  27. Liebhaber SA. mRNA stability and the control of gene expression. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 1997;36:29-32.

  28. Sharp PA. RNAi and double-strand RNA. Genes Dev 1999;13:139-141.[Free Full Text]

  29. Gura T. A silence that speaks volumes [news]. Nature 2000;404:804-808.[CrossRef][Medline]

  30. Zamore PD, Tuschl T, Sharp PA et al. RNAi: double-stranded RNA directs the ATP-dependent cleavage of mRNA at 21 to 23 nucleotide intervals. Cell 2000;101:25-33.[CrossRef][Medline]

  31. Grishok A, Tabara H, Mello CC. Genetic requirements for inheritance of RNAi in C. elegans [see comments]. Science 2000;287:2494-2497.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  32. Wianny F, Zernicka-Goetz M. Specific interference with gene function by double-stranded RNA in early mouse development. Nat Cell Biol 2000;2:70-75.[CrossRef][Medline]

  33. Zhao RC, McIvor RS, Griffin JD et al. Gene therapy for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML): a retroviral vector that renders hematopoietic progenitors methotrexate-resistant and CML progenitors functionally normal and nontumorigenic in vivo. Blood 1997;90:4687-4698.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  34. Eckstein F. The hammerhead ribozyme. Biochem Soc Trans 1996;24:601-604.[Medline]

  35. Joyce GF. Nucleic acid enzymes: playing with a fuller deck. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998;95:5845-5847.[Free Full Text]

  36. Agrawal S, Zhao Q. Antisense therapeutics. Curr Opin Chem Biol 1998;2:519-528.[CrossRef][Medline]

  37. Galderisi U, Cascino A, Giordano A. Antisense oligonucleotides as therapeutic agents. J Cell Physiol 1999;181:251-257.[CrossRef][Medline]

  38. Gewirtz AM. Antisense oligonucleotide therapeutics for human leukemia. Curr Opin Hematol 1998;5:59-71.[Medline]

  39. Shoeman RL, Hartig R, Huang Y et al. Fluorescence microscopic comparison of the binding of phosphodiester and phosphorothioate (antisense) oligodeoxyribonucleotides to subcellular structures, including intermediate filaments, the endoplasmic reticulum, and the nuclear interior. Antisense Nucleic Acid Drug Dev 1997;7:291-308.[Medline]

  40. Guvakova MA, Yakubov LA, Vlodavsky I et al. Phosphorothioate oligodeoxynucleotides bind to basic fibroblast growth factor, inhibit its binding to cell surface receptors, and remove it from low affinity binding sites on extracellular matrix. J Biol Chem 1995;270:2620-2627.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  41. Gao WY, Han FS, Storm C et al. Phosphorothioate oligonucleotides are inhibitors of human DNA polymerases and RNase H: implications for antisense technology. Mol Pharmacol 1992;41:223-229.[Abstract]

  42. Nielsen PE, Egholm M, Berg RH et al. Peptide nucleic acids (PNAs): potential antisense and anti-gene agents. Anticancer Drug Res 1993;8:53-63.[Medline]

  43. Smulevitch SV, Simmons CG, Norton JC et al. Enhancement of strand invasion by oligonucleotides through manipulation of backbone charge [see comments]. Nat Biotechnol 1996;14:1700-1704.[CrossRef][Medline]

  44. Egholm M, Buchardt O, Christensen L et al. PNA hybridizes to complementary oligonucleotides obeying the Watson-Crick hydrogen-bonding rules [see comments]. Nature 1993;365:566-568.[CrossRef][Medline]

  45. Hamilton SE, Corey DR. Telomerase: anti-cancer target or just a fascinating enzyme? Chem Biol 1996;3:863-867.[CrossRef][Medline]

  46. Fathi R, Huang Q, Coppola G et al. Oligonucleotides with novel, cationic backbone substituents: aminoethylphosphonates. Nucleic Acids Res 1994;22:5416-5424.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  47. Baker BF, Lot SS, Condon TP et al. 2'-O-(2-Methoxy)ethyl-modified anti-intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) oligonucleotides selectively increase the ICAM-1 mRNA level and inhibit formation of the ICAM-1 translation initiation complex in human umbilical vein endothelial cells. J Biol Chem 1997;272:11994-20000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  48. Rossi JJ. Ribozymes, genomics and therapeutics. Chem Biol 1999;6:R33-R37.[CrossRef][Medline]

  49. Pieken WA, Olsen DB, Benseler F et al. Kinetic characterization of ribonuclease-resistant 2'-modified hammerhead ribozymes. Science 1991;253:314-317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  50. Irie A, Anderegg B, Kashani-Sabet M et al. Therapeutic efficacy of an adenovirus-mediated anti-H-ras ribozyme in experimental bladder cancer. Antisense Nucleic Acid Drug Dev 1999;9:341-349.[Medline]

  51. Smith SM, Maldarelli F, Jeang KT. Efficient expression by an alphavirus replicon of a functional ribozyme targeted to human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol 1997;71:9713-9721.[Abstract]

  52. Hertel KJ, Herschlag D, Uhlenbeck OC. A kinetic and thermodynamic framework for the hammerhead ribozyme reaction. Biochemistry 1994;33:3374-3385.[CrossRef][Medline]

  53. Hegg LA, Fedor MJ. Kinetics and thermodynamics of intermolecular catalysis by hairpin ribozymes. Biochemistry 1995;34:15813-15828.[CrossRef][Medline]

  54. Dahm SC, Uhlenbeck OC. Role of divalent metal ions in the hammerhead RNA cleavage reaction. Biochemistry 1991;30:9464-9469.[CrossRef][Medline]

  55. Hampel A. The hairpin ribozyme: discovery, two-dimensional model, and development for gene therapy. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 1998;58:1-39.[Medline]

  56. Vaish NK, Kore AR, Eckstein F. Recent developments in the hammerhead ribozyme field. Nucleic Acids Res 1998;26:5237-5242.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  57. Birikh KR, Heaton PA, Eckstein F. The structure, function and application of the hammerhead ribozyme. Eur J Biochem 1997;245:1-16.[Medline]

  58. Earnshaw DJ, Gait MJ. Progress toward the structure and therapeutic use of the hairpin ribozyme. Antisense Nucleic Acid Drug Dev 1997;7:403-411.[Medline]

  59. Kore AR, Eckstein F. Hammerhead ribozyme mechanism: a ribonucleotide 5' to the substrate cleavage site is not essential. Biochemistry 1999;38:10915-10918.[CrossRef][Medline]

  60. Vaish NK, Heaton PA, Fedorova O et al. In vitro selection of a purine nucleotide-specific hammerheadlike ribozyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998;95:2158-2162.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  61. Ferbeyre G, Bratty J, Chen H et al. A hammerhead ribozyme inhibits ADE1 gene expression in yeast. Gene 1995;155:45-50.[CrossRef][Medline]

  62. Perriman R, de Feyter R. tRNA delivery systems for ribozymes. Methods Mol Biol 1997;74:393-402.[Medline]

  63. Albuquerque-Silva J, Milican F, Bollen A et al. Ribozyme-mediated decrease in mumps virus nucleocapsid mRNA level and progeny in infected vero cells. Antisense Nucleic Acid Drug Dev 1999;9:279-288.[Medline]

  64. Giannini CD, Roth WK, Piiper A et al. Enzymatic and antisense effects of a specific anti-Ki-ras ribozyme in vitro and in cell culture. Nucleic Acids Res 1999;27:2737-2744.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  65. Bramlage B, Alefelder S, Marschall P et al. Inhibition of luciferase expression by synthetic hammerhead ribozymes and their cellular uptake. Nucleic Acids Res 1999;27:3159-3167.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  66. Anderson P, Monforte J, Tritz R et al. Mutagenesis of the hairpin ribozyme. Nucleic Acids Res 1994;22:1096-1100.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  67. Perez-Ruiz M, Barroso-DelJesus A, Berzal-Herranz A. Specificity of the hairpin ribozyme. Sequence requirements surrounding the cleavage site. J Biol Chem 1999;274:29376-29380.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  68. Feldstein PA, Bruening G. Catalytically active geometry in the reversible circularization of ‘mini-monomer’ RNAs derived from the complementary strand of tobacco ringspot virus satellite RNA. Nucleic Acids Res 1993;21:1991-1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  69. Komatsu Y, Koizumi M, Sekiguchi A et al. Cross-ligation and exchange reactions catalyzed by hairpin ribozymes. Nucleic Acids Res 1993;21:185-190.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  70. Dahm SC, Derrick WB, Uhlenbeck OC. Evidence for the role of solvated metal hydroxide in the hammerhead cleavage mechanism. Biochemistry 1993;32:13040-13045.[CrossRef][Medline]

  71. Young KJ, Gill F, Grasby JA. Metal ions play a passive role in the hairpin ribozyme catalysed reaction. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;25:3760-3766.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  72. Chowrira BM, Berzal-Herranz A, Burke JM. Ionic requirements for RNA binding, cleavage, and ligation by the hairpin ribozyme. Biochemistry 1993;32:1088-1095.[CrossRef][Medline]

  73. Walter NG, Hampel KJ, Brown KM et al. Tertiary structure formation in the hairpin ribozyme monitored by fluorescence resonance energy transfer. EMBO J 1998;17:2378-2391.[CrossRef][Medline]

  74. Earnshaw DJ, Gait MJ. Hairpin ribozyme cleavage catalyzed by aminoglycoside antibiotics and the polyamine spermine in the absence of metal ions. Nucleic Acids Res 1998;26:5551-5561.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  75. Seyhan AA, Amaral J, Burke JM. Intracellular RNA cleavage by the hairpin ribozyme. Nucleic Acids Res 1998;26:3494-3504.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  76. Breaker RR, Joyce GF. A DNA enzyme that cleaves RNA. Chem Biol 1994;1:223-229.[CrossRef][Medline]

  77. Santoro SW, Joyce GF. A general purpose RNA-cleaving DNA enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997;94:4262-4266.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  78. Wu Y, Yu L, McMahon R et al. Inhibition of bcr-abl oncogene expression by novel deoxyribozymes (DNAzymes). Hum Gene Ther 1999;10:2847-2857.[CrossRef][Medline]

  79. Zhang X, Xu Y, Ling H et al. Inhibition of infection of incoming HIV-1 virus by RNA-cleaving DNA enzyme. FEBS Lett 1999;458:151-156.[CrossRef][Medline]

  80. Scherr M, Rossi JJ. Rapid determination and quantitation of the accessibility to native RNAs by antisense oligodeoxynucleotides in murine cell extracts. Nucleic Acids Res 1998;26:5079-5085.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  81. Scherr M, Rossi JJ, Sczakiel G et al. RNA accessibility prediction: a theoretical approach is consistent with experimental studies in cell extracts. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28:2455-2461.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  82. Sokol DL, Zhang X, Lu P et al. Real time detection of DNA.RNA hybridization in living cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998;95:11538-11543.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  83. Beltinger C, Saragovi HU, Smith RM et al. Binding, uptake, and intracellular trafficking of phosphorothioate-modified oligodeoxynucleotides. J Clin Invest 1995;95:1814-1823.

  84. Spiller DG, Giles RV, Grzybowski J et al. Improving the intracellular delivery and molecular efficacy of antisense oligonucleotides in chronic myeloid leukemia cells: a comparison of streptolysin-O permeabilization, electroporation, and lipophilic conjugation. Blood 1998;91:4738-4746.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  85. Bennett CF, Chiang MY, Chan H et al. Cationic lipids enhance cellular uptake and activity of phosphorothioate antisense oligonucleotides. Mol Pharmacol 1992;41:1023-1033.[Abstract]

  86. Lappalainen K, Urtti A, Soderling E et al. Cationic liposomes improve stability and intracellular delivery of antisense oligonucleotides into CaSki cells. Biochim Biophys Acta 1994;1196:201-208.[Medline]

  87. Capaccioli S, Di Pasquale G, Mini E et al. Cationic lipids improve antisense oligonucleotide uptake and prevent degradation in cultured cells and in human serum [published erratum appears in Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1994;200:1769]. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1993;197:818-825.[CrossRef][Medline]

  88. Marcusson EG, Bhat B, Manoharan M et al. Phosphorothioate oligodeoxyribonucleotides dissociate from cationic lipids before entering the nucleus. Nucleic Acids Res 1998;26:2016-2023.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  89. Flynn SM, George ST, White L et al. Water-soluble, meso-substituted cationic porphyrins—a family of compounds for cellular delivery of oligonucleotides. Biotechniques 1999;26:736-742, 744, 746.[Medline]

  90. Benimetskaya L, Takle GB, Vilenchik M et al. Cationic porphyrins: novel delivery vehicles for antisense oligodeoxynucleotides. Nucleic Acids Res 1998;26:5310-5317.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  91. Citro G, Perrotti D, Cucco C et al. Inhibition of leukemia cell proliferation by receptor-mediated uptake of c-myb antisense oligodeoxynucleotides. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:7031-7035.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  92. Morris MC, Vidal P, Chaloin L et al. A new peptide vector for efficient delivery of oligonucleotides into mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;25:2730-2736.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  93. Wagner E, Plank C, Zatloukal K et al. Influenza virus hemagglutinin HA-2 N-terminal fusogenic peptides augment gene transfer by transferrin-polylysine-DNA complexes: toward a synthetic virus-like gene-transfer vehicle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1992;89:7934-7938.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  94. Bongartz JP, Aubertin AM, Milhaud PG et al. Improved biological activity of antisense oligonucleotides conjugated to a fusogenic peptide. Nucleic Acids Res 1994;22:4681-4688.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  95. Bron R, Ortiz A, Wilschut J. Cellular cytoplasmic delivery of a polypeptide toxin by reconstituted influenza virus envelopes (virosomes). Biochemistry 1994;33:9110-9117.[CrossRef][Medline]

  96. Schoen P, Chonn A, Cullis PR et al. Gene transfer mediated by fusion protein hemagglutinin reconstituted in cationic lipid vesicles. Gene Ther 1999;6:823-832.[CrossRef][Medline]

  97. Waelti ER, Gluck R. Delivery to cancer cells of antisense L-myc oligonucleotides incorporated in fusogenic, cationic-lipid-reconstituted influenza-virus envelopes (cationic virosomes). Int J Cancer 1998;77:728-733.[CrossRef][Medline]

  98. Coll JL, Chollet P, Brambilla E et al. In vivo delivery to tumors of DNA complexed with linear polyethylenimine. Hum Gene Ther 1999;10:1659-1666.[CrossRef][Medline]

  99. Dheur S, Dias N, van Aerschot A et al. Polyethylenimine but not cationic lipid improves antisense activity of 3'-capped phosphodiester oligonucleotides. Antisense Nucleic Acid Drug Dev 1999;9:515-525.[Medline]

  100. Helin V, Gottikh M, Mishal Z et al. Cell cycle-dependent distribution and specific inhibitory effect of vectorized antisense oligonucleotides in cell culture. Biochem Pharmacol 1999;58:95-107.[CrossRef][Medline]

  101. Samarsky DA, Ferbeyre G, Bertrand E et al. A small nucleolar RNA:ribozyme hybrid cleaves a nucleolar RNA target in vivo with near-perfect efficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999;96:6609-6614.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  102. Rossi JJ. Ribozymes in the nucleolus. Science 1999;285:1685.[Free Full Text]

  103. Sweeney R, Fan Q, Yao MC. Antisense in abundance: the ribosome as a vehicle for antisense RNA. Genet Eng (NY) 1998;20:143-151.

  104. Wyatt JR, Vickers TA, Roberson JL et al. Combinatorially selected guanosine-quartet structure is a potent inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus envelope-mediated cell fusion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994;91:1356-1360.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  105. Basu S, Wickstrom E. Temperature and salt dependence of higher order structure formation by antisense c-myc and c-myb phosphorothioate oligodeoxyribonucleotides containing tetraguanylate tracts. Nucleic Acids Res 1997;25:1327-1332.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  106. Yaswen P, Stampfer M, Ghosh K et al. Effects of sequence of thioated oligonucleotides