Comparison of different antisense strategies in mammalian cells using locked nucleic acids, 2'-O-methyl RNA, phosphorothioates and small interfering RNA

Locked nucleic acids (LNAs) and double-stranded small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) are rather new promising antisense molecules for cell culture and in vivo applications. Here, we compare LNA-DNA-LNA gapmer oligonucleotides and siRNAs with a phosphorothioate and a chimeric 2'-O-methyl RNA-DNA gapmer with respect to their capacities to knock down the expression of the vanilloid receptor subtype 1 (VR1). LNA-DNA-LNA gapmers with four or five LNAs on either side and a central stretch of 10 or 8 DNA monomers in the center were found to be active gapmers that inhibit gene expression. A comparative co-transfection study showed that siRNA is the most potent inhibitor of VR1-green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression. A specific inhibition was observed with an estimated IC50 of 0.06 nM. An LNA gapmer was found to be the most efficient single-stranded antisense oligonucleotide, with an IC50 of 0.4 nM being 175-fold lower than that of commonly used phosphorothioates (IC50 approximately 70 nM). In contrast, the efficiency of a 2'-O-methyl-modified oligonucleotide (IC50 approximately 220 nM) was 3-fold lower compared with the phosphorothioate. The high potency of siRNAs and chimeric LNA-DNA oligonucleotides make them valuable candidates for cell culture and in vivo applications targeting the VR1 mRNA.

Comparative study of DNA enzymes and ribozymes against the same full-length messenger RNA of the vanilloid receptor subtype I

The efficiencies of 32 antisense oligodeoxynucleotides, 35 DNA enzymes and 6 ribozymes to bind and cleave the full-length messenger RNA of the vanilloid receptor subtype I were analyzed. Systematic screening of the mRNA revealed that good accessibility of a putative cleavage site for antisense oligodeoxynucleotides is a necessary but not a sufficient prerequisite for efficient DNA enzymes. Comparison of DNA enzymes and ribozymes against the same target sites revealed: 1) DNA enzymes were more active with longer recognition arms (9 nucleotides on either side), whereas ribozymes revealed higher activities with shorter recognition arms (7 nucleotides on either side). 2) It does not only depend on the target site but also on the enzyme sequence, whether a DNA enzyme or a ribozyme is more active. 3) The most efficient DNA enzyme found in this study had an approximately 15-fold higher reaction rate, k(react), and a 100-fold higher k(react)/K(m) under single turnover conditions compared with the fastest ribozyme. DNA enzymes as well as ribozymes showed significant activity under multiple turnover conditions, the DNA enzymes again being more active. We therefore conclude that DNA enzymes are an inexpensive, very stable and active alternative to ribozymes for the specific cleavage of long RNA molecules.