Meierrieks Frederik, Kour Ahmad, Pätz Marvin, Pflanz Karl, Wolff Michael W, Pickl Andreas
Lab Essentials Applications Development, Sartorius Lab Instruments GmbH & Co. KG, Otto-Brenner-Straße 20, 37079 Göttingen, Germany.
Lab Essentials Applications Development, Sartorius Stedim Biotech GmbH, August-Spindler-Straße 11, 37079 Göttingen, Germany.
Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2023 Sep 20;31:101118. doi: 10.1016/j.omtm.2023.101118. eCollection 2023 Dec 14.
Adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors are among the most prominent viral vectors for gene therapy, and their investigation and development using high-throughput techniques have gained increasing interest. However, sample throughput remains a bottleneck in most analytical assays. In this study, we compared commonly used analytical methods for AAV genome titer, capsid titer, and transducing titer determination with advanced methods using AAV2, AAV5, and AAV8 as representative examples. For the determination of genomic titers, we evaluated the suitability of qPCR and four different digital PCR methods and assessed the respective advantages and limitations of each method. We found that both ELISA and bio-layer interferometry provide comparable capsid titers, with bio-layer interferometry reducing the workload and having a 2.8-fold higher linear measurement range. Determination of the transducing titer demonstrated that live-cell analysis required less manual effort compared with flow cytometry. Both techniques had a similar linear range of detection, and no statistically significant differences in transducing titers were observed. This study demonstrated that the use of advanced analytical methods provides faster and more robust results while simultaneously increasing sample throughput and reducing active bench work time.
腺相关病毒(AAV)载体是基因治疗中最突出的病毒载体之一,利用高通量技术对其进行研究和开发越来越受到关注。然而,在大多数分析检测中,样品通量仍然是一个瓶颈。在本研究中,我们以AAV2、AAV5和AAV8为代表实例,将常用的AAV基因组滴度、衣壳滴度和转导滴度测定分析方法与先进方法进行了比较。对于基因组滴度的测定,我们评估了qPCR和四种不同数字PCR方法的适用性,并评估了每种方法的各自优缺点。我们发现,ELISA和生物层干涉术提供的衣壳滴度相当,生物层干涉术减少了工作量,线性测量范围高2.8倍。转导滴度的测定表明,与流式细胞术相比,活细胞分析所需的人工操作更少。两种技术的检测线性范围相似,未观察到转导滴度有统计学上的显著差异。本研究表明,使用先进的分析方法可提供更快、更可靠的结果,同时提高样品通量并减少实际操作时间。