Advertisement

Somatic Cell and Molecular Genetics

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 203–209 | Cite as

High-efficiency retroviral infection of primary myoblasts

  • Matthew L. Springer
  • Helen M. Blau
Article

Abstract

In the past, it has been hard to introduce genes into primary myoblasts without selection, as they have been very difficult to transfect or infect. We describe conditions under which mouse primary skeletal muscle myoblasts can be infected with retroviral vectors at high efficiency. Infection can be greatly incrased by minimizing the time during which cells are exposed to virus, adding a minimal centrifugation step, and supplementing the infection cocktail to mimic more closely primary myoblast growth medium. Under these conditions, one round of exposure to virus results in an infection efficiency of up to 80%, whereas 4–5 rounds of infection over a two day period reproducibly yield an infection efficiency of >99%. These methods greatly enhance the potential for studying genetically engineered primary myoblasts from any mouse strain, transgenic or knockout, and may have useful application to other primary cell types that are refractory to transfection or infection.

Keywords

Single Round Infection Efficiency Viral Supernatant Average Total Number Primary Myoblast 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Dhawan, J., Pan, L.C., Pavlath, G.K., Travis, M.A., Lanctot, A.M. and Blau, H.M. (1991).Science 254:1509–1512.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rando, T., and Blau, H.M. (1994).J. Cell Biol. 125:1275–1287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Springer, M.L., Rando, T.A., and Blau, H.M. (1997). InGene Delivery to Muscle (Ed) Boyle A. L. (John Wiley and Sons, New York), pp. 13.4.1–13.4.19.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pear, W.S., Nolan, G.P., Scott, M.L., and Baltimore, D. (1993).Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90:8392–8396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tassin, A.-M., Paintrand, M., Berger, E.G., and Bornens, M. (1985),J. Cell Biol. 101:630–638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller, S.C., Pavlath, G.K., Blakely B.T., and Blau, H.M. (1988).Genes Dev. 2:330–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kotani H., Newton, P.B., Zhang, S., Chiang, Y.L., Otto, E., Weaver, L., Blaese, R.M., Anderson, W.F., and McGarrity, G.J. (1994).Hum. Gene Ther. 5:19–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morling, F.J., and Russell, S.J. (1995).Gene Ther. 2:504–508.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hajihosseini, M., Iavachev, L., and Price, J., (1993).EMBO J. 12:4969–4974.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew L. Springer
    • 1
  • Helen M. Blau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Pharmacology, Stanford University School of MedicineStanford University Medical CenterStanford

Personalised recommendations