Search

Variations in the human Crumbs homolog-1 (CRB1) gene lead to an array of retinal dystrophies including early onset of retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) in children. To investigate the physiological roles of CRB1 and CRB2 in retinal Müller glial cells (MGCs), we analysed mouse retinas lacking both proteins in MGC. The peripheral retina showed a faster progression of dystrophy than the central retina. The central retina showed retinal folds, disruptions at the outer limiting membrane, protrusion of photoreceptor nuclei into the inner and outer segment layers and ingression of photoreceptor nuclei into the photoreceptor synaptic layer. The peripheral retina showed a complete loss of the photoreceptor synapse layer, intermingling of photoreceptor nuclei within the inner nuclear layer and ectopic photoreceptor cells in the ganglion cell layer. Electroretinography showed severe attenuation of the scotopic a-wave at 1 month of age with responses below detection levels at 3 months of age. The double knockout mouse retinas mimicked a phenotype equivalent to a clinical LCA phenotype due to loss of CRB1. Localization of CRB1 and CRB2 in non-human primate (NHP) retinas was analyzed at the ultrastructural level. We found that NHP CRB1 and CRB2 proteins localized to the subapical region adjacent to adherens junctions at the outer limiting membrane in MGC and photoreceptors. Our data suggest that loss of CRB2 in MGC aggravates the CRB1-associated RP-like phenotype towards an LCA-like phenotype.

Adeno-associated viral vectors have become widely used in the clinic for retinal gene therapy. Thanks to AAVs impeccable safety profile and positive functional outcomes in its clinical application, interest in retinal gene therapy has increased exponentially over the past decade. Although early clinical trials have shown there is little influence of neutralizing antibodies on the performance of AAV when vector is administered into the subretinal space, recent findings suggest neutralizing antibodies may play a role when AAV is delivered via the intravitreal route. These findings highlight the importance of microenvironment on gene delivery and stress the need for a versatile assay to screen subjects for the presence of AAV-neutralizing antibodies. Measuring NAb titers against AAV prior and after gene therapy will help us better understand the impact of preexisting immunity on gene transfer, especially when the vector is administered intravitreally.

Recently, we described a modified AAV2 vector-AAV2-7m8-having a capsid-displayed peptide insertion of 10 amino acids with enhanced retinal transduction properties. The insertion of the peptide referred to as 7m8 is responsible for high-level gene delivery into deep layers of the retina when virus is delivered into the eye's vitreous. Here, we further characterize AAV2-7m8 mediated gene delivery to neural tissue and investigate the mechanisms by which the inserted peptide provides better transduction away from the injection site. First, in order to understand if the peptide exerts its effect on its own or in conjunction with the neighboring amino acids, we inserted the 7m8 peptide at equivalent positions on three other AAV capsids, AAV5, AAV8, and AAV9, and evaluated its effect on their infectivity. Intravitreal delivery of these peptide insertion vectors revealed that only AAV9 benefited from 7m8 insertion in the context of the retina. We then investigated AAV2-7m8 and AAV9-7m8 properties in the brain, to better evaluate the spread and efficacy of viral transduction in view of the peptide insertion. While 7m8 insertion led to higher intensity gene expression, the spread of gene expression remained unchanged compared to the parental serotypes. Our results indicate that the 7m8 peptide insertion acts by increasing efficacy of cellular entry, with little effect on the spread of viral particles in neural tissue. The effects of peptide insertion are capsid and tissue dependent, highlighting the importance of the microenvironment in gene delivery using AAV. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2016;113: 2712-2724. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)