4.7 Article

Long-term clinical and molecular follow-up of large animals receiving retrovirally transduced stem and progenitor cells: No progression to clonal hematopoiesis or leukemia

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 389-395

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2003.12.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00166] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL74162, HL54881, HL36444, HL53750] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK56465] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been significant progress toward clinically relevant levels of retroviral gene transfer into hematopoietic stem cells (HSC), and the therapeutic potential of HSC-based gene transfer has been convincingly demonstrated in children with severe combined immunodeficiency syndrome (SCID). However, the subsequent development of leukemia in two children with X-linked SCID who were apparently cured after transplantation of retrovirally corrected CD34(+) cells has raised concerns regarding the safety of gene therapy approaches utilizing integrating vectors. Nonhuman primates and dogs represent the best available models for gene transfer safety and efficacy and are particularly valuable for evaluation of long-term effects. We have followed 42 rhesus macaques, 23 baboons, and 17 dogs with significant levels of gene transfer for a median of 3.5 years (range 1-7) after infusion of CD34(+) cells transduced with retroviral vectors expressing marker or drug-resistance genes. None developed abnormal hematopoiesis or leukemia. Integration site analysis confirmed stable, polyclonal retrovirally marked hematopoiesis, without progression toward mono- or oligoclonality over time. These results suggest that retroviral integrations using replication-incompetent vectors, at copy numbers achieved using standard protocols, are unlikely to result in leukemogenesis and that patient- or transgene-specific factors most likely contributed to the occurrence of leukemia in the X-SCID gene therapy trial.

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

4.7
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