Regarding the infectivity of naked DNA

[Don Haut]

In article <AF4F63E68F4 at microb.umd.edu>, SGDOVIN at MICROB.UMD.EDU ("Susan L.
Gdovin") wrote:

> >On 15 May 1995, Chuckles wrote:
> 
> > >As regard DNA and RNA not being able to infect, DNA is being used to 
> > >inoculate animals and cause disease.  DNA not being infectious used to be 
> > >the dogma but, this is no longer true.  Viral DNA is used to infect. 
> > I haven't heard this before.  Could you please post the references for this.
> 
> Here's a reference:
> 
> Ulmer, JB, et.al., (1993)  Heterologous Protection Against Influenza by 
> Injection of DNA Encoding a Viral Protein.  Science, 259: 1745-1749.

I have spoke to one of the guiys involved in this study and there is a BIG
difference in what they are doing and what I understand as the meaning of
the "chuckles" post.  In this study, they injected DNA into muscle cells
and got production of protein.  They did not inject a viral genome and, if
I remember correctly, they did not suggest that their data implied
injecting a viral genome could lead to production of live virus.  Not to
mention the obvious difference between "Infectious DNA" lurking in the
environment and a very clean very high concentration DNA prep being
injected into a particular cell type which was chosen because it should
tolerate episomal DNA (how is that for a run-on sentence?).

Anyway, it is a good paper and I would suggest that people read it.

Don

Don Haut 
Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
University of Missouri-Columbia
C601591 at showme.missouri.edu