Optimisation of intradermal DNA electrotransfer for immunisation
Introduction
The skin is an attractive target for antigen delivery and immunisation [1]. It is accessible, easy to assay and to remove if problems occur. After gene transfer, the encoded protein may exert local or systemic effect. As the half-life of skin cells is short, other organs and particularly the muscle are more appropriate for long term expression of proteins [2]. Nevertheless in the context of vaccination, long term expression is not required. The skin acts as an immunological barrier, containing a high density of immunocompetent cells. Although Langerhans cells represent only 1 to 4% of the total cells in the epidermis, it is believed that they cover over 25% of the skin area [3]. These antigen-presenting cells greatly contribute to develop immune responses after DNA delivery.
For gene therapy, the use of non-viral DNA offers several advantages: (i) lack of immunogenicity of the vector, (ii) absence of size limit for the therapeutic cassette, (iii) simpler GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) production and (iv) improved safety and toxicity profiles. However, topical application or intradermal injection of naked DNA has so far resulted in low transgene expression [4], [5]. This is why different chemical, mechanical and physical methods have been developed to enhance non-viral DNA delivery to skin cells (for review [6], [7]).
Electrotransfer is one of the most efficient and promising methods of non-viral gene transfer. It involves plasmid injection into the tissue and application of electric pulses. It is hypothesised that the electric field plays a double role in DNA transfection. First, it transitorily disturbs membranes, and thus increases cells permeability. Second, it promotes electrophoresis of negatively charged DNA [8], [9]. However, the relation between these different effects of the electric field and transfection efficiency is controversial and still to be elucidated [10]. Volts, duration of pulses and the more appropriate type of electrodes must be evaluated for each tissue. A previous study has demonstrated that a combination of a short high-voltage pulse (HV) and a long duration low-voltage pulse (LV) was efficient for DNA electrotransfer in the skin [11]. For muscle transfection, we used a classical and validated procedure consisting in delivery of a series of identical electric pulses [12]. Widera et al. demonstrated that electroporation increased DNA vaccine delivery and immunogenicity in the muscle [13].
The aim of this research was to optimise intra-dermal DNA immunisation by electrotransfer. The effect of parameters such as the injection method or the dose of DNA was investigated. The effect of different pre-treatments to promote plasmid distribution before the electrotransfer was also studied. The first pre-treatment consisted in the application of an iontophoretic current to enhance DNA diffusion. Iontophoresis consists in using a low electric field to promote the movement of ions into tissues. This technique has been used for many years to deliver drugs or oligonucleotides into the eye or into the skin [14], [15], [16]. The second pre-treatment consisted in hyaluronidase injection to break down extra-cellular matrix components and facilitate plasmid distribution. Hyaluronic acid is an ubiquitous glycosaminoglycan of the extra-cellular matrix present around muscular fibres and in the skin, which contains approximately one-half of the hyaluronic acid of the body [17]. As a pre-treatment, bovine hyaluronidase has been shown efficient to enhance electrotransfer into the muscle [18], but its efficacy into the skin had not yet been investigated.
The immune response was evaluated using luciferase as a model antigen. Luciferase gene is widely used as reporter gene. Usually this protein, which is expressed intra-cellularly, induces no immune response. However, immune response occurs when high luciferase expression is reached in the muscle [19]. Luciferase was chosen because we considered that a protein with limited immunogenicity was a better model of the tumor antigens, which are often poorly immunogenic. Because the route and gene administration parameters influence the immune response [20], [21], [22], [23], electrotransfers into skin, muscle and ear pinna were performed.
Section snippets
Plasmid DNA
Electrotransfer was performed using the pGL3 Luciferase Reporter Vector (Promega Benelux, Leiden, Netherlands) containing the cytomegalovirus (CMV) promoter or the CMV-actin-globin (CAG) promoter for the optimisation or the immunisation studies respectively. Plasmids were prepared using Endo-Free Qiagen Gigaprep kit, according to the manufacturer's protocol. The quality of resulting plasmid was assessed by the ratio of light absorption (260 nm/280 nm) and by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis.
Optimisation of the intradermal electrotransfer injection method
To define the best method of DNA injection for DNA electrotransfer into the skin, different injection protocols were compared, injection of two volumes of 15 μl of the plasmid solution, injection of a volume of 30 μl or injection of a larger volume of 100 μl (Fig. 1). Injection of 15, 30 μl and 100 μl resulted in formation of a bubble with a diameter of 2.78 ± 0.32 mm, 3.52 ± 0.12 mm and 5.45 ± 0.37 mm respectively (n = 3).
We observed significant differences between these treatments. Luciferase
Discussion
Increasing knowledge in the field of molecular biology has led DNA vaccine to become an accessible and attractive approach, very promising in particular in the field of cancer therapy (for review [27]). However, the development of this type of vaccine requires appropriate DNA delivery technologies.
The aim of our study was to optimise intradermal DNA electrotransfer for immunisation based on the immunological properties of the skin [1] and the high efficacy of DNA electrotransfer to enhance
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the European Commission under the 6th framework under the grant Moleda and by the FRSM (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique Médicale, Belgium). Gaëlle Vandermeulen is FNRS Research Fellow (Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique, Belgium). The authors thank Prof. Benoît Van den Eynde for helpful discussions.
References (33)
- et al.
Cutaneous vaccination: the skin as an immunologically active tissue and the challenge of antigen delivery
J. Control. Release
(2000) - et al.
Physical methods for gene transfer: improving the kinetics of gene delivery into cells
Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.
(2005) - et al.
DNA electrotransfer into the skin using a combination of one high-and one low-voltage pulse
J. Control. Release
(2005) - et al.
Influence of routes and administration parameters on antibody response of pigs following DNA vaccination
Vaccine
(2004) - et al.
DNA immunization via intramuscular and intradermal routes using a gene gun provides different magnitudes and durations on immune response
Mol. Immunol.
(2003) - et al.
Evaluation of different plasmid DNA delivery systems for immunization against HER2/neu in a transgenic murine model of mammary carcinoma
Vaccine
(2006) - et al.
New anti angiogenesis developments through electro-immunization: optimization by in vivo optical imaging of intradermal electro gene transfer
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
(2007) - et al.
Iontophoresis and electroporation: comparisons and contrasts
Int. J. Pharm.
(1999) - et al.
DNA vaccines against cancer
Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am.
(2006) - et al.
DNA immunisation: altering the cellular localisation of expressed protein and the immunisation route allows manipulation of the immune response
Vaccine
(2004)
A single DNA immunization in combination with electroporation prolongs the primary immune response and maintains immune memory for six months
Vaccine
Electroporation for gene transfer to skeletal muscles: current status
BioDrugs
Non-invasive immunization on the skin using DNA vaccine
Curr. Drug Deliv.
DNA delivery for vaccination and therapeutics through the skin
Curr. Drug Deliv.
The mechanism of naked DNA uptake and expression
Adv. Genet.
Microneedles and other physical methods for overcoming the stratum corneum barrier for cutaneous gene therapy
Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carr. Syst.
Cited by (74)
Contactless delivery of plasmid encoding EGFP in vivo by high-intensity pulsed electromagnetic field
2021, BioelectrochemistryMigration of dendritic cells to the lymph nodes and its enhancement to drive anti-tumor responses
2016, Critical Reviews in Oncology/HematologyEndocytosis and Endosomal Trafficking of DNA After Gene Electrotransfer In Vitro
2016, Molecular Therapy Nucleic AcidsElectrotransfer parameters as a tool for controlled and targeted gene expression in skin
2016, Molecular Therapy Nucleic Acids