4.4 Article

Efficient clinical-grade ?-retroviral vector purification by high-speed centrifugation for CAR T cell manufacturing

期刊

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.omtm.2022.12.006

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple one-step purification method using high-speed centrifugation was developed to purify transiently produced ?-RV for clinical application. The method achieved concentration of viral titers in the range of 10(7)-10(8) TU/mL with >80% overall recovery. Purification of ?-RV using this method resulted in significantly lower impurities compared to stable producer cell line vectors approved for clinical application.
?-Retroviral vectors (?-RV) are powerful tools for gene therapy applications. Current clinical vectors are produced from stable producer cell lines which require minimal further downstream processing, while purification schemes for ?-RV produced by transient transfection have not been thoroughly investigated. We aimed to develop a method to purify transiently produced ?-RV for early clinical studies. Here, we report a simple one-step purification method by high-speed centrifugation for ?-RV produced by transient transfection for clinical application. High-speed centrifugation enabled the concentration of viral titers in the range of 10(7)-10(8) TU/ mL with >80% overall recovery. Analysis of research-grade concentrated vector revealed sufficient reduction in productand process-related impurities. Furthermore, product characterization of clinical-grade ?-RV by BioReliance demonstrated two-logs lower impurities per transducing unit compared with regulatory authority-approved stable producer cell line vector for clinical application. In terms of CAR T cell manufacturing, clinical-grade ?-RV produced by transient transfection and purified by high-speed centrifugation was similar to ?-RV produced from a clinical-grade stable producer cell line. This method will be of value for studies using ?-RV to bridge vector supply between early- and late-stage clinical trials.

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

4.4
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