- Julian Downward, principal scientist (downward@cancer.org.uk)1
- 1 Cancer Research UK London Research Institute, 44 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX
Introduction
Over the past decade “RNA interference” has emerged as a natural mechanism for silencing gene expression. This ancient cellular antiviral response can be harnessed to allow specific inhibition of the function of any chosen target genes, including those involved in causing diseases such as cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis. RNA interference is already proving to be an invaluable research tool, allowing much more rapid characterisation of the function of known genes. More importantly, the technology considerably bolsters functional genomics to aid in the identification of novel genes involved in disease processes. But can RNA interference be used as an effective therapeutic strategy? Many people in the biotechnology industry are betting that it can, but first considerable problems relating to delivery to target cells will have to be solved. This problem has proved the undoing of previous wonder technologies such as gene therapy and antisense. This review discusses the promises and pitfalls of RNA interference in research and treatment.
This article is based on a review of the literature on RNA interference and post-transcriptional gene silencing appearing in the PubMed database, along with personal experience of working in this field for the past four years. It also draws on consensus views expressed at several international conferences on RNA interference in 2003.
Current understanding of RNA interference
The first hints of the existence of the gene silencing mechanism that is now called RNA interference emerged from work on the genetic modification of plants in the late 1980s. Attempts to deepen the violet hue of petunias by expressing higher levels of an enzyme involved in the synthesis of the pigment unexpectedly resulted in the appearance of many white flowers. The introduction of extra copies of the gene had somehow caused a decrease in its expression rather than the anticipated increase.1 2
For some time this remained an unexplained …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012