Why the study?
Existing detection techniques for AAV-neutralizing antibodies show inconsistencies across laboratories and cellular dependencies, challenging their universal applicability in AAV-based gene therapy.
The AAV-HDR assay offers a highly sensitive and consistent CRISPR-Cas9-based method for detecting AAV-neutralizing antibodies, which could refine dosing strategies in gene therapy.
The effectiveness of adeno-associated virus (AAV)-based gene therapy is frequently constrained by the presence of AAV-neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Existing detection techniques have shown inconsistencies across laboratories and cellular dependencies, challenging their universal applicability. Here, we redefine the NAb titer concept to represent the capability to neutralize a specific number of AAV virions per milliliter of serum. We present the AAV-homology-directed repair (HDR) assay, which harnesses the CRISPR-Cas9 system, offering a precise and sensitive means of detecting AAV NAbs. This assay employs a promoterless AAV HDR vector for integration into electroporated cells, facilitating the stable expression of a quantifiable fluorescent reporter and subsequent NAb titer assessment. Comparative evaluations indicated that the AAV-HDR method outperforms the traditional AAV overexpression (AAV-OE) assay regarding sensitivity and consistency. Crucially, it produced consistent outcomes across various cell lines, suggesting its potential as a universal standard for NAb titer measurement. We further confirmed the validity of the AAV-HDR titration approach by juxtaposing it with the established NT50 assay. Notably, the AAV-HDR method correlated robustly with both the AAV-OE assay and NT50 NAb titer values, and it exhibited heightened efficacy in identifying low-titer antibodies compared with the NT50 method. Given its ability to address AAV NAb detection challenges, the AAV-HDR assay holds promise for refining therapeutic strategies in gene therapy, particularly in tailoring AAV doses to neutralize preexisting NAbs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: