Cited by 45Virus-based gene therapy researchRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryCRISPR and Genetic Engineering

Duration of Expression and Activity of Sleeping Beauty Transposase in mouse liver following hydrodynamic DNA delivery

Open access
Bell, Jason B, Aronovich, Elena L, Schreifels, Jeffrey M, Beadnell, Thomas C, Hackett, Perry B·2010·Molecular Therapy

Abstract

The Sleeping Beauty (SB) transposon system can direct integration of DNA sequences into mammalian genomes. The SB system comprises a transposon and transposase that "cuts" the transposon from a plasmid and "pastes" it into a recipient genome. The transposase gene may integrate very rarely and randomly into genomes, which has led to concerns that continued expression might support continued remobilization of transposons and genomic instability. Consequently, we measured the duration of SB11 transposase expression needed for remobilization to determine whether continued expression might be a problem. The SB11 gene was expressed from the plasmid pT2/mCAGGS-Luc//UbC-SB11 that contained a luciferase expression cassette in a hyperactive SB transposon. Mice were imaged and killed at periodic intervals out to 24 weeks. Over the first 2 weeks, the number of plasmids with SB11 genes and SB11 mRNA dropped about 90 and 99.9%, respectively. Expression of the luciferase reporter gene in the transposon declined about 99% and stabilized for 5 months at nearly 1,000-fold above background. In stark contrast, transposition-supporting levels of SB11 mRNA lasted only about 4 days postinfusion. Thus, within the limits of current technology, we show that SB transposons appear to be as stably integrated as their viral counterparts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/mt.2010.152

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • TAM delivery was delayed by 3 weeks post-hydrodynamic injection until loss of episomal plasmids occurred.

    “In order to ensure that sgRNA-mediated knockout only occurred in hepatocytes carrying an integrated plasmid cassette, TAM delivery was delayed by 3 weeks post-hydrodynamic injection until loss of episomal plasmids occurred25.”

    From HBO1 functions as an epigenetic barrier to hepatocyte plasticity and reprogramming during liver injury (2025) · cites this paper as [25]

    The section on SB transposase gene loss reports that plasmid copy number fell by 90% over the first two weeks after hydrodynamic delivery, supporting a substantial decline by three weeks. It also says the remaining 10% stabilized, so the paper does not establish complete loss of episomal plasmids or that waiting three weeks ensures activity only in hepatocytes with an integrated cassette. The paper does not study TAM delivery. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wolfe JH, Sands MS (1996). Murine mucopolysaccharidosis type VII: a model system for somatic gene therapy for the central nervous system. In: Protocols for Gene Transfer in Neurosciences: Towards Gene Therapy of Neurological Disorders. John Wiley and Sons: Essex, England, pp. 263-274.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bell, J. B., Aronovich, E. L., Schreifels, J. M., Beadnell, T. C., & Hackett, P. B.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Aronovich, Elena L
Venue
Molecular Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-10
Volume
18
Issue
10
Pages
1796-1802
ISSN
1525-0016 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082932349
Cited by
45
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Therapy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Minnesota
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK082516)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01-HD-32652, P01HD032652)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Virus-based gene therapy research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Keywords
Sleeping Beauty transposon, transposon insertion, mouse liver, luciferase reporter, genomic instability, transposon transposition
MeSH terms
Animals, DNA, DNA Transposable Elements, Female, Humans, Liver, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Plasmids, Blotting, Western, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Transposases, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review