4.8 Article

A long-term study of AAV gene therapy in dogs with hemophilia A identifies clonal expansions of transduced liver cells

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 39, 期 1, 页码 47-55

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41587-020-0741-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1HL083017, R24HL63098, N0175N92019D00041, RO1HL126850, RO1AI082020, RO1CA241762, RO1HL142791, U19AI149680]
  2. Penn Center for AIDS Research [P30AI045008]
  3. PennCHOP Microbiome Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nine dogs with hemophilia A were treated with AAV gene therapy expressing canine factor VIII and followed for up to 10 years. The therapy corrected the FVIII deficiency in most dogs, with some showing gradual increase in FVIII activity possibly due to clonal expansion of cells. Long-term monitoring for potential genotoxicity is essential for the clinical development of liver-directed AAV gene therapy for hemophilia A.
Nine dogs with hemophilia A were treated with adeno-associated viral (AAV) gene therapy and followed for up to 10 years. Administration of AAV8 or AAV9 vectors expressing canine factor VIII (AAV-cFVIII) corrected the FVIII deficiency to 1.9-11.3% of normal FVIII levels. In two of nine dogs, levels of FVIII activity increased gradually starting about 4 years after treatment. None of the dogs showed evidence of tumors or altered liver function. Analysis of integration sites in liver samples from six treated dogs identified 1,741 unique AAV integration events in genomic DNA and expanded cell clones in five dogs, with 44% of the integrations near genes involved in cell growth. All recovered integrated vectors were partially deleted and/or rearranged. Our data suggest that the increase in FVIII protein expression in two dogs may have been due to clonal expansion of cells harboring integrated vectors. These results support the clinical development of liver-directed AAV gene therapy for hemophilia A, while emphasizing the importance of long-term monitoring for potential genotoxicity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据