English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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 (G(1)/S phase) or gamma-irradiation (G(2) 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 G(0) 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.

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