PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Cytotherapy. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 August 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Cytotherapy. 2012 August; 14(7): 775–790.
doi:  10.3109/14653249.2012.694420
PMCID: PMC3655758
NIHMSID: NIHMS467513

Current translational and clinical practices in hematopoietic cell and gene therapy

Abstract

Clinical trials over the last 15 years have demonstrated that cell and gene therapy for cancer, monogenic and infectious disease is feasible and can lead to long-term benefit for patients (1). These trials however have been limited to proof of principle and were conducted on modest numbers of patients or over long periods of time. In order for these studies to move towards standard practice and commercialization, scalable technologies for the isolation, ex vivo manipulation and delivery of these cells to patients must be developed. Additionally, regulatory strategies and clinical protocols for the collection, creation and delivery of cell products must be generated. In this article we will review recent progress in hematopoietic cell and gene therapy, describe some of the current issues facing the field and discuss clinical, technical and regulatory approaches used to navigate the road to product development.

Keywords: Cell therapy, gene therapy, adoptive immunotherapy, stem cells, clinical trials

Introduction

The transition from the laboratory to the clinic (bench to bedside) is well charted for small molecules but less so for cellular therapeutics. Moving a cell product from the basic research laboratory, through process development and onto manufacturing and clinical trials is known as translational research (2) and has become the focus of both federal and private investment. Passage through this proverbial “valley of death” is typically where most candidate therapeutics are stalled, many to never see the clinic. The funding of over 49 Clinical and Translational Science Award centers across the country reflects the NIH view that translational sciences are a high priority in the NIH roadmap for medical research (3). The stages of developing (translating) new therapeutics have been broken down into distinct phases (often termed T1 - T3 activities) to describe the translation from basic science to clinical trials (T1), clinical trials to clinical practice (T2) and broad dissemination to the population (T3)(4). We often only think of the T1 component of this process but all of the steps are necessary to justify the investment in research made by the Federal Government and private industry.

Like any new medical treatment, the initial years of clinical investigation defined both the utility and limitations of cellular therapy but also led to significant innovation and development of infrastructure in support of subsequent, more advanced studies. For example, bone marrow transplantation was one of the first and still most widely used forms of cell therapy and has helped define both the therapeutic potential of and significant hurdles in developing stem cell products. An important (enabling) developments in cellular therapy was the discovery of a subpopulation of white blood cells expressing the CD34 antigen that contains virtually all of the long-term hematopoietic reconstituting (stem cell) activity in a bone marrow graft (5). The correlation between the number of CD34+ cells transplanted and successful engraftment has helped establish the first stem cell therapy dosing specification to be used in standard clinical practice; a minimum of 2 ×106 CD34+ cells/kg for complete hematopoietic recovery (6). Moreover, CD34+ cells have become the substrate of choice for genetic modification to treat a number of disease indications with an autologous product (7). In a similar fashion, allogeneic transplantation of bone marrow has led to an understanding of the benefits transfer of T-cells with anti-tumor as well as the potentially devastating consequences of T-cell mediated graft versus host disease (GVHD)(8). These latter observations have played a major role in the development of adoptive immunotherapy (AI) strategies for cancer and infectious disease and will be used as examples of how subsequent cell therapies may be developed.

Proof of Concept - Adoptive Immunotherapy

A prominent example of the power of adoptive immunotherapy is the provision of anti-viral immunity following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation where cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and adenoviral infections are the primary cause of morbidity and mortality (9-11). Since the demonstration of transfer of anti-viral immunity with isolated clones of T-cells (12-14), numerous approaches have emerged to enrich, isolate or otherwise engineer immunity to viruses (14-22). An example is the use of EBV-transformed lymphoid cells lines (LCL) as antigen presenting cells which can be infected with adenoviral vectors expressing both adenoviral and CMV peptides. The LCL then act as antigen-specific feeders during T-cell expansion and result in a population of T-cells with enriched specificity for all three (EBV, Adeno, CMV) viral antigens (23, 24). These approaches have met with reasonable clinical success in controlling CMV and adenoviral infections as well as EBV-associated lymphoproliferative disease (18, 25, 26), although for CMV immunity, the number and identity of CMV epitopes required to confer broad protective immunity is still of significant debate (24, 27). A recent safety report on over 180 recipients receiving over 380 infusions of a range of antigen-specific and/or engineered T-cells indicate that the treatments are safe, without evidence of severe adverse events related to infusion and that close monitoring can be limited to a short period following infusion (28). These studies demonstrate the safety and efficacy of adoptive immunotherapy for a variety of viral pathogens and have resulted in the development of methodologies to prepare and release T-cells for clinical use that have driven the field forward towards GMP compliant production platforms (24, 29). Additionally, regulatory policy and practice at the FDA has been shaped (in part) by the progression of these trials from the laboratory to the clinic and back in an iterative process that helps fine tune the translational infrastructure.

Another compelling and well-tested application of adoptive immunotherapy is the use of tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes (TIL) to treat melanoma (30-33). A recent report by Rosenberg et al summarizes the results from three separate clinical trials in which ninety-three patients with recurrent, refractory stage IV melanoma were treated with ex-vivo expanded TIL (34). Patients were infused with the TIL following a lymphodepleting preparative regimen (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine) ± total body irradiation (0, 2, 12 Gy TBI). (Note: when TBI was administered, patients also received an autologous stem cell transplant). All patients received high-dose IL-2 (720,000 IU/kg) following infusion of TIL to support their proliferation and in vivo activity. Overall (RECIST) response rates were as high as 72% with (durable) complete responses in up to 40% of patients who received the CyFlu + 12 Gy TBI. Interestingly, the highest rate of survival at 5 years was among those patients who had undergone prior immunotherapy with anti-CTLA-4 antibody (Ipilumimab). Ipilumimab blocks CTLA-4-mediated down regulation of T-cell activity and presumably allows for a more sustained anti-tumor response by the infused cells. This series of trials confirms the utility of TIL in treating metastatic tumors but also supports previous evidence that multiple factors work to limit the activity of tumor-associated T-cells in vivo (35, 36). Ex-vivo expansion of tumor-infiltrating T-cells can overcome some of the in vivo anergy induced by the tumor microenvironment but the conditioning of the patient with CyFlu and irradiation creates an in vivo environment favoring homeostatic proliferation and (un-suppressed) expansion of adoptively transferred T-cells and results in more durable complete responses. While this is currently the most promising therapy for melanoma, concerns still exist about the quality of T-cells from patients with large tumor burdens or ‘high antigen loads”(37). Recent evidence demonstrates that T-cells isolated from tumor-infiltrating lymph nodes express higher levels of markers associated with cellular “exhaustion” (apoptosis genes, CTLA-4) which may partly explain the limited ability to generate TIL from some patients and efficacy in less than half the patients treated (38). Nonetheless, similar attempts to isolate TIL from other solid tumors are currently under investigation (39-44).

In a similar fashion, T-cells from peripheral blood of allogeneic donors have been expanded ex-vivo in an attempt to generate allogeneic anti-tumor T-cells for a number of hematological malignancies (45). These studies have demonstrated the therapeutic potential of the approach but graft versus host disease was observed in some patients and remains a significant concern. In a more recent study, investigators looked at the role of vaccination as a way to boost post transplant immunity to tumor through the use of primed autologous T-cells at the time of ASCT (46). Multiple myeloma patients undergoing ASCT were given ex-vivo expanded autologous T-cells collected following immunization with tumor peptides (hTERT, surviving) and pneumococcal peptides (HLA-A2+ patients) while others (HLA-A2- patients) received T-cells following pneumococcal vaccine only or no vaccine. Accelerated cellular and humoral immunological recovery was observed in patients receiving peptide primed T-cells and vaccination again after transplant (relative to control patients who received unprimed ex-vivo expanded T-cells) with evidence of enhanced immune reactivity to pneumococcal peptides in all patients and additionally to hTERT and survivin in 36% of the multi-peptide immunized patients. However, hTERT and survivin response was not correlated with increased event free survival nor was overall survival different between these groups. Thus, in vivo priming of T-cells followed by ex-vivo expansion and transplant provides enhanced protective immunity to viral infections, but does not always result in improved outcomes with respect to tumor progression. The apparent difference in anti-viral and anti-tumor responses remains a significant hurdle to progress in cancer immunotherapy. In this study, event free survival was correlated with a low level of CD4+/FoxP3+ regulatory T-cells in the infusion product and in vivo following transfer. This is consistent with the idea that conditions favoring un-suppressed T-cell activity are correlated with improved clinical outcome.

Where anti-tumor immunity cannot be isolated from the existing T-cell repertoire, investigators have engineer specificity into T-cells by transfer of an antigen specific receptor. Primary human T-cells have been successfully modified to express cloned α/β T-cell receptor genes with known specificity and MHC-restriction (47-50) or chimeric antigen receptors (CAR) that confer antigen specificity in the absence of MHC restriction (51, 52). Antigen specific T-cell receptors can transfer the specificity of a T-cell clone to tumor antigen but the recognition of antigen is restricted the HLA-type of the donor. CAR, on the other hand, are comprised of single chain antibody domains coupled to T-cell signaling domains and recognize native antigen. While some success has been described in the clinical translation of these and other adoptive immunotherapy approaches (53-57) immune responses to transgene-encoded proteins and cellular senescence can limit the persistence of cells following adoptive transfer (37, 58, 59). Improved intracellular signaling in CAR constructs that include a variety of T-cell co-stimulatory signal domains (CD28, 4-1BB or OX40) helps prevent apoptosis and results in more robust proliferation. Several investigations have concluded that provision of a co-stimulatory signal prolongs the survival of T-cells through the increased expression of anti-apoptotic genes and results in enhanced in vivo persistence and anti-tumor efficacy (60-64).

One of the more extensively studied CARs is that for CD19 in B-cell neoplasia (62, 65-70). The potential of two different co-stimulatory domains in CAR modified T-cells for eradicating tumor was recently reported by two independent groups and has established the clinical utility of the approach (71, 72). Bretjens et al evaluated the use of autologous CD19-CAR28ζ T-cells (expressing both CD28 and CD3ζ signaling domains) to treat CD19+ chronic lymphocytic or acute lymphoblastic Leukemia (CLL or ALL) patients. The CD19-CAR28ζ T-cells homed to bulky tumor in vivo, persisted and retain cytolytic activity for 8 days. Importantly, this effect was only observed in patients with prior lymphodepleting chemotherapy. Three of five evaluable patients (those who received lymphodepleting chemotherapy) showed reduced or stable disease lasting from 2-6 months. In a similar study, a patient with CLL who's disease was progressing following Rituximab was treatment received 3×108 CD19-CAR(ζ/4-1BB) modified T-cells following lymphodepleting chemotherapy. While the patient experienced immune response-related events within the first week following infusion (fever, chills, rigors etc.) and tumor lysis syndrome at 22 days, by day 28 the tumor adenopathy was no longer palpable and there was no evidence of CLL in the bone marrow. Sustained remission was reported at up to six months following treatment. The highest level of CD19CAR+ T-cell in the patient was at the time of tumor lysis syndrome and represented over a three log expansion of the infused cells. Importantly, while the CD19CAR+ T-cells were detected for up to six months after infusion, the total number of cells contracted over ten fold, demonstrating a controlled immune response to antigen. These studies demonstrate that the provision of a co-stimulatory signal leads to sustained objective responses in patients treated with CAR-modified T-cell products and reinforces the requirement for prior conditioning of the patient.

Taken together, the recently reported results from adoptive immunotherapy trials have demonstrated the potent anti-viral and anti-tumor response of T-cells following in vivo priming, ex vivo genetic modification and expansion. It is now clear that lymphodepleting preparative regimens are important to success and that the persistence of the cells can be mediated by sufficient signaling to prevent apoptosis (in vivo IL-2 or co-stimulatory molecules). While the endogenous repertoire of T-cells found in tumor sites has been shown to be sufficient for isolating anti-tumor T-cells, there is little control over the composition of the product and the reasons for failure to provide clinical benefit in most patients are still unknown. Thus, the potential of gene-modified T-cells into which the specificity can be “engineered” is extremely important and has yet to be fully tested. The development of an engineered T-cell is entirely dependent on identifying an optimal T-cell substrate for genetic modification and to ensure sufficient persistence to provide therapeutic activity in vivo. Several groups have now identified naïve (73-75), central memory (60, 69, 73, 76, 77) and central memory stem cells (75, 78) as interesting cell substrate candidates for more in depth investigation in this area. Clinical trials are now underway to test the clinical utility of gene modified central memory T-cell populations (S Forman personal communication) and more are in the planning stages.

Proof of Concept - Stem Cell Gene Therapy

The last ten years have also seen a dramatic increase in the number (and success) of stem cell based gene therapy trials. Allogeneic stem cell transplantation has been used in proof of principle studies in patients with inborn immunodeficiencies (79, 80), or metabolic disease (81) demonstrating disease correction via a cellular carrier of a wild type copy of the relevant missing or mutated gene. More recently, allogeneic bone marrow transplantation of an HIV positive patient with HIV-resistant (Δ32 CCR5-/-) donor stem cells resulted in long term cure of HIV, demonstrating the genetic transfer of infectious disease resistance through a stem cell product (82). These studies have provided proof of concept support for gene replacement to correct monogenic or immunological disease but have also outlined important limitations of the allogeneic transplant approach. The combined morbidity and mortality of allogeneic transplantation (specifically graft versus host disease) and the low frequency of matched related or fully allogeneic donors available for such a procedure precludes the widespread application of this approach. It follows that cellular engineering of autologous products to provide metabolic function, disease resistance or anti-tumor activity would be a more feasible approach for most patients.

With the knowledge and technology developed around bone marrow transplantation, numerous groups initiated clinical investigations using autologous gene-modified HSPC to correct monogenic disease. Clinical gene therapy studies have been performed in children with X-Linked or ADA-deficient severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), Wiscott-Aldrich Syndrome, β-thalassemia and Fanconi anemia (see below). Early clinical studies in ADA-SCID were conducted using gamma-retroviral vectors expressing the human ADA gene to genetically modify autologous bone marrow or cord blood-derived HSPC (83-85). The outcomes have been promising, resulting in restored immunity and independence from PEG-ADA enzyme replacement therapy with long term follow-up and independent validation of the approach recently reported (86, 87). Attempts to replace the genetic deficiency in X-Linked SCID (IL-2 receptor common gamma chain) via retroviral gene therapy also showed clinical benefit, but resulted in a high rate of leukemia as the result of insertional mutagenesis by the vector (88, 89). In a more recent report by Gaspar et al (90), 10 pediatric patients undergoing HSPC gene therapy for X-linked SCID demonstrated variable but sustained immunological function with only 1 patient developing a T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia as a result of the process. Comparable clinical efficacy has not been observed in adults undergoing similar therapy (91). Similar results where clinical efficacy was offset by troubling transgene insertion patterns and clonogenic dominance have been observed in patients transplanted with retroviral vector-modified HSPC for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome (92) and chronic granulomatous disease (93, 94).

Thus, despite promising clinical results, gamma retroviral vectors are no longer considered for most indications (ADA-SCID notwithstanding) due to the high risk of transformation or progression to myelodysplasia in these patients.

Following this initial series of trials and in consideration of the transformational activity of the gammaretroviral vectors, a series of gene therapy trials have demonstrated safe efficacious genetic modification of HSPC using lentiviral vectors. The lentiviral vectors used in these trial are derived from HIV but have had many essential genes removed (gag, Pol, Env) to prevent viral replication in vivo. The viral coat glycoprotein has been replaced with the vesicular stomatitis virus G-protein (VSV-G) to broaden host range (including cells of the hematopoietic lineage) and the viral long terminal repeat regions have been engineered to be self-inactivating, that is they are deleted upon viral integration in the genome, rendering the virus replication incompetent. Two pediatric patients with X-Linked adrenoleukodystrophy were treated with HSPC that had been transduced with a lentiviral vector encoding the ABCD1 transporter protein (the protein that is defective in adrenoleukodystrophy) (95). The treatments resulted in objective clinical responses an arrest of progressive cerebral demylenation and stabilized or improved neurological function following treatment. Subsequent analysis of lentiviral insertion sites revealed that the transgenic viral integration patterns were localized to specific genomic regions but were not transforming (96).

A similar study in β-thalassemia has demonstrated transfusion independence in a single adult subject 3 years following transplantation with HSPC modified by a lentiviral vector expressing adult β-globin under the control of the endogenous β-locus control region cloned into the vector (97). Interestingly, the integration of the transgene within the third intron of the high mobility group AT-hook 2 (HMGA2) gene led to increased expression of the transgenic β-globin sequences and accounted for most of the therapeutic β-globin expression even though cells with this integration pattern represented 2-8% of the blood cells at 28 months. It was noted that HMGA2 expression was elevated >10,000 fold in cells with HMGA2 intron 3 integrated vector. So, despite the general safety of the procedure, significant concern about integration sites of lentiviral vectors remain. Nonetheless, successful gene therapy trials in adults treated for hemophilia B (98) and Leber congenital amaurosis (99) have also been reported and the number of trials demonstrating general proof of principle continues to expand.

However, applications of gene therapy have proven to be more complicated when providing systemic treatments for non-life threatening diseases. Our own studies in HIV gene therapy at City of Hope were conducted in HIV patients undergoing autologous stem cell transplantation for progressive lymphoma (100, 101). The purpose of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of RNA-based HIV inhibitors following transplant of gene-modified CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPC). Our results demonstrate gene marking and anti-HIV gene expression (siRNA and ribozyme) in the peripheral blood and bone marrow of treated patients for up to 36 months without evidence of clonal dominance or leukemia. The frequency of gene modified cells was low in these patients due to the ethical requirement for infusion of an (unmanipulated) backup HSPC product until the gene modified HSPC were demonstrated to result in robust hematopoietic engraftment. Subsequent studies are underway to evaluate the level of gene marking when only the gene-modified cells are infused. Interestingly, a transient increase in gene marking was seen following transient viremia in 2 of our patients and mirrors the putative selection of gene-modified cells by virus seen in both animal models of HIV gene therapy and prior clinical investigation (102, 103). One patient is scheduled for a temporary structured treatment interruption of his HAART therapy during which viral load and the levels of gene-marked cells will be followed. In order for this approach to be transferred to the non-malignant HIV population (the ultimate target market) non-ablative conditioning regimens will have to be developed and bone marrow may have to be considered as a source of CD34+ cells as the cost and risks of harvesting mobilized peripheral blood may outweigh the benefit of the procedure.

The Path Forward

With the described clinical trials having demonstrated proof of concept for cell and gene therapy, we are now facing the bigger task of moving candidate therapeutics into larger phase II trials to ask about the overall benefit in a more formal, controlled fashion. During early phase clinical trials, it is common for investigators to manufacture cell products using (qualified) research grade tissue culture devices and reagents as long as they are sterile, endotoxin free and do not pose a significant risk to the patient receiving the product. Additionally, many processes are conducted with open steps such as feeding of cells in culture, repeated centrifugations, transfer between vessels etc. Product characterization may be limited to the expression of one or two cell surface markers (i.e. CD3, CD8, CD11b, CD34) and in many cases, potency assays are limited to viability and cell count but do not address the biological activity of the product as it relates to anticipated mode of therapeutic action (cytokine secretion, cytotoxicity, proliferative potential, transgene expression etc.). As products move from pilot or phase I trials to larger phase II/III trials, investigators must do more to meet current federal good manufacturing practice (cGMP) requirements include auditing and qualifying reagent manufacturers, developing closed cell processing procedures, developing and qualifying potency assays, performing product stability and distribution (shipping) studies and extensive safety testing for master and working cell banks and viral seed stocks. Additionally, laboratory information management systems (LIMS) will be required to track data on raw material, products and patients and are currently being developed using available tools (104). The FDA provides guidance documents that describe expectations for biologics manufacturing as products move through the clinical trial process. Links to important government guidance documents are provided in Table 1. Additionally, extensive information is available for those interested in resources for and advancements in cell therapy through the ISCT website (www.celltherapysociety.org) and a user-based blog known as the Cell Therapy Blog (http://celltherapyblog.blogspot.com/).

Table 1
Links to important Cell and Gene Therapy Guidance Documents

Typical phase II trials involve larger patient cohorts (up to several hundred) and are designed to establish dosing and efficacy of the candidate therapeutic as well as extend data on safety. When cells (or gene-modified versions) are the therapeutic candidates, the biggest problem may be scaling “out” the process from one that easily produces cells for 5-10 patients to one where many more (50-100), simultaneous, patient-specific products may be manufactured at one time. Few academic centers or small biotechnology companies have the capability to manufacture cell products but numerous contract manufacturing organizations are available to support those without the internal infrastructure (Table 2). For academic investigators, the NHLBI supports the Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) program which is an excellent manufacturing resource for most academic centers working from federally funded grants. PACT also provides regulatory guidance and statistical data collection on products. More information on the process can be found at the PACT website (www.pactgroup.net). Other NHLBI resources include vector manufacturing and toxicology testing through the Gene Therapy Resource Program – GTRP (www.gtrp.org) and the Science Moving towArds Research Translation and Therapy – SMARTT program (www.nhlbi.nih.gov/new/SMARTT.htm) which identifies translational resources for investigators seeking assistance.

Table 2
Contract manufacturing organizations for biologics production.

Cell Processing and Culture

Perhaps the most important step in cell therapy is isolation of the cell substrate. Cells may be isolated from a patient (autologous) or a healthy volunteer (allogeneic) or be derived from a single source and divided into multiple individual doses (master cell bank). Primary cells harvested from patients (tumor, blood, marrow) may need to be washed free of undesired cells (fat, platelets red blood cells) and enriched for a target cell population (T-cells, dendritic cells, stem cells). Many procedures will also require multiple steps involving genetic modification and expansion (see below). Procedures employed during pilot and phase I clinical investigations are typically performed manually, using methods, reagents and devices that are not amendable to scale-up or do not fully meet clinical quality requirements. Examples include the use of T-flasks to grow cells, ruminant animal derived materials such as serum, trypsin and gelatin, and centrifugation to wash, concentrate and formulate samples. To address many of these issues, new technologies are emerging that support process scale-up, automation and reduction of technical time and error.

Several groups have described automated closed systems for cell washing and formulation that have been used successfully for clinical cell processing including closed system density separations and elutriation (105-110). These large batch and continuous flow technologies are automated, include sterile disposable plastic tubing sets, and support scaling to clinical levels of cells (>10e10). Where these technologies have been adapted from blood banking or other regulated industries, the devices often meet regulatory requirements for instrumentation used in the manufacturing of clinical materials. There is however opportunity to develop newer devices to address tissue specific processing issues such as harvesting cells grown on matrixes or artificial scaffolds.

Selective enrichment and manipulation of cells with magnetic beads has been an enabling technology for the development of clinical cell therapy applications. There are two clinical scale magnetic cell selection systems currently used in clinical cell therapy applications; the CliniMACS® system (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) and Dynabeads® CD3/CD28 CTS™ (Life Technologies, Carlsbad California). The CliniMACS® device employs small paramagnetic particles coupled to antibodies to selectively enrich cells based on cell surface antigen expression or IFNγ secretion in response to specific antigens. Current clinical applications include (but are not limited to) the isolation of CD34+ cells for allogeneic transplantation (111, 112) and gene therapy (86, 95, 100), T-cells for adoptive immunotherapy (27, 113, 114) and monocyte/dendritic cells for vaccine trials (115). The larger magnetic beads (Dynabeads®) have also been used extensively in cell selection and expansion. The co-localization of antibodies to the T-cell receptor CD3ε domain and an antibody to the co-stimulatory CD28 molecule on the bead presents a powerful proliferative signal to T-cells and has a long standing record of use in clinical T-cell expansion studies (45, 46, 116-120). Both companies provide limited clinical reagent sets but beads ready for antibody conjugation are also available for customized application. Both companies offer access to their systems to qualified investigators via a letter of cross reference to a master file on record with the FDA. An advantage of bead selection is the rapid processing of a large number of cells in a short amount of time. However, continual refinement of the definition of a hematopoietic stem cells (121), the identification of and debate over what T-cell population is the best substrate for durable engraftment and antitumor activity (74, 77, 122, 123) have driven the field towards multiparameter isolation of cells for therapeutic applications. Additionally, cells expressing low densities of antigen will bind many fewer beads and are thus difficult to isolate by magnetic separation. All of these issue can (and have been) addressed using multiparameter, fluorescence-activated cell sorting.

Currently, there are a limited number of fluorescence-activated cell sorters being used for clinical applications and most are adaptations of research machines. The Influx® cell sorter (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) will isolate cells at 25,000-75,000 cells per second based on up to 16 parameters. It is equipped with a disposable fluidics kit to allow for easy changeover between patient samples and a HEPA filtered cabinet to contain aerosol generation during sorting. Its small footprint allows for installation in minimal spaces compared to conventional cell sorters. However, sorters like the Influx are expensive, required highly trained operators and are significantly complex with realistic potential for “process deviation” during long sort runs. Additionally, since they generate aerosols and cells are sorted into open tubes or plates, the ultimate clinical application of this technology awaits smaller, closed-system sorting devices. Newer generation cell sorters based on microelectromechanical (MEMS) technology are currently in development (www.owlbiomedical.com) and address some of these aforementioned limitations of the research devices.

Cell culture also suffers from the limitation of technologies designed for research with limited potential to scale up for clinical production. As mentioned above, multi-well plates and T-flasks are often used to propagate cells in early stage clinical trials but these devices are not scalable, are subject to the introduction of contaminants during manual manipulations and are static in nature, requiring batch feeding and resulting in limited cell densities. In order to address these and other (regulatory) issues and move towards larger scale clinical studies, numerous labs have successfully transferred cell culture processes from flasks and plates to gas permeable culture bags or closed system bioreactors (29, 55, 124-126). Culture bags can be customized to include any number or configuration of sterile weld, luer or quick connect ports to facilitate sterile closed transfer of products between vessels. Culture bags from 5 mL to 100 liters are manufactured by several companies (American Fluoroseal Corporation, Charter Medical and Origen Biomedical) according to the requisite standards for use in cell product manufacturing. Additionally, sterile tubing sets, media bags and centrifuge tubes can be used to connect culture bags and other processing devices using tubing welders and sealer designed for the blood banking industry. These techniques facilitate addition or removal of media, growth factors or cells in a closed system and thus reduce the potential for adulteration of products during handling. With the ability to have all media, components, buffers and solutions manipulated in closed systems the incidence of contamination of cell therapy products has been significantly reduced. Thus, closed system cell culture bags have had a significant impact on meeting regulatory requirements related to product safety. Newer disposable devices such as the G-Rex flask (Wilson-Wolf Manufacturing, St. Paul, MN), provide enhanced gas exchange over standard tissue culture flasks have also been shown to dramatically improve the densities of cells in static culture. While not yet a completely closed system, this technology may find a specific niche such as growing solid tissue fragments (to generate TIL) or other 3 dimension culture applications (127).

At a larger scale, perfusion bioreactors like the WAVE (GE Healthcare, Fairfield, CT) have been widely applied for cell therapy. The Wave is a disposable culture bag system has been used mostly for growing suspension cells and contains programmable controllers for media and nutrient perfusion. Using this system, cell densities 10 fold higher than static cultures can be achieved (70, 126, 128, 129). Alternatively, a hollow fiber bioreactor that can support the growth of either suspension or adherent cells has been developed (Quantum® Cell Expansion System, Caridian BCT, Lakewood, CO) and is currently undergoing clinical evaluation for mesenchymal stem cell production. The automated system includes a closed culture disposable set for media addition, gas exchange and harvesting product. The provision of these types of bioreactors allow for scaling cell culture to clinical levels, controlling the process in an automated fashion and complying easily with regulations related to ensuring the safety of products.

For some cells (especially HSPC), ex-vivo expansion is not a straight forward process. During extended cell culture, HSPC can differentiate into cells with reduced ability to engraft the bone marrow. Over the past few years, numerous strategies have emerged to expand stem cells using a wide variety of approaches including Notch Delta interactions (130, 131), homeobox genes (132, 133) and an aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonist (134). Most expansion strategies use expansion of CD34+ cells as a metric but some also employ engraftment of immunodeficient mice as a measure of the stem cell content of an ex-vivo expanded product. What has become clear is that even the immunodeficient mouse models of hematopoiesis may not predict clinical outcome due to the complexity of homing and engraftment of human cells. Comparisons of engraftment between immunodeficient mice and non-human primates have shown disparities in the long term repopulation of the animals with stem cells as determined by common gene integration sites in cells of the lymphoid and myeloid lineages (135, 136). Development of these strategies will require additional investigations before ready for the clinic.

Genetic Modification

Among the lessons learned in the studies described above, perhaps the most prominent has been that stable integration and expression of vector-encoded transgenes into primary cells is a rare event and can lead to disrupted gene expression and leukemia. While pseudotyped lentiviral vectors have demonstrated excellent efficacy in transducing a large number of primary cell types and possess a better safety record (to date) than retroviral vectors (137), they are not without limitations (138). Lentiviral vectors are typically produced in a transient fashion by transfection of a human embryonic kidney cell line (HEK 293) with 3-4 helper plasmids encoding essential viral elements (gag, pol and env) and the plasmid carrying the vector backbone and therapeutic insert (139). The productions are transient because the proteins required to produce and package virus are toxic to the producer cells (p24, VSV-G) (138). This means that a new batch of plasmid and 293 cells must be used for every lot of vector manufactured. Variability in the relative transduction of each plasmid can result in significant differences in viral titer and quality and are not amenable to large-scale, repeated clinical production. Once produced, the vectors must be concentrated and formulated for both cryopreservation and transduction of target cells. Ongoing efforts to improve productivity of lentiviral vectors for clinical use include the creation of stable packaging cell lines (140-143), electroporation of suspension cultures of 293 cells (144), regulated expression of the toxic accessory proteins (145-147) or combinations of the above(146). Other strategies to improve vector quality have been aimed at concentration and purification of vectors by ultrafiltration and chromatography (148). We continue to be hopeful that these advances viral vector production will be incorporated into the manufacturing of clinical lots over the next 5 years. It is also very important that these tools are made widely available and not restricted by cost or proprietary considerations.

Genetic modification of cells has also advanced since the early gene therapy studies. In addition to gene replacement, methods to silence gene expression by deletion of genomic sequences or repair mutant genes by directed homologous recombination have been reported (149-154). Zinc fingers are DNA binding proteins that can be engineered to bind to DNA in a sequence specific fashion. Fusion of Zinc Fingers with the catalytic domain of a type II restriction enzyme (Fok1) creates a zinc finger nuclease that is capable of making sequence specific cuts in the genome of a target cells (155). The DNA repair mechanism of the target cell attempts to repair the genomic damage using an error-prone mechanism (non-homologous end-joining) which leads to deletions that result in elimination of the open reading frame and thus expression of mature protein. Repair can also result in corrected point mutations when a wild type donor template is included (149). The technology has also shown excellent potential in for clinical implementation by targeting the elimination of CCR5 gene expression for HIV gene therapy (156, 157), correcting point mutations in sickle cell anemia (158), hemophilia (159) and α-1 anti-trypsin deficiency (160). Despite the demonstrable efficacy and progress in the clinic, ZFN strategies have come under great scrutiny regarding toxicity and the potential for off-target cutting (161-164).

Two similar but distinct genomic editing (meganuclease) technologies have been described and are meant to address some of the limitations of the ZFN technologies. Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENS) have been reported to be as catalytically active as some but not all ZFN and have other limitations (size and ease of delivery) that currently limit their use in clinical applications (151, 165, 166). Another emerging family of gene modifying nucleases are the homing endonucleases derived from a large family of short intronic elements or “inteins” that can be engineered to mediate highly specific genomic cutting in a wide variety of target genes (167). These relatively small proteins can be made highly specific and have been shown to disrupt or repair a variety of gene sequences including RAG-1 and dystrophin (168) and may fill biotechnological niches that are not effectively addressed by ZFN or TALENS.

Selective degradation of mRNA using small interfering RNA (siRNA) or micro-RNA sequences has also been reported as a way to control endogenous gene expression (169-174). RNA expression has the advantage of being non-immunogenic and thus is an advantage over protein-based inhibitors. The expression of siRNA inside of target cells can lead to the destabilization of disease promoting gene expression (175), elimination of viral receptors (176, 177) or induction of cell death by targeting essential cell survival genes in regulated manner(175, 178). Placement of micro-RNA sequences in the 3′ region of an expressed transgene can limit expression in antigen presenting cells and thus avoid immune recognition of therapeutic (transgenic) proteins (179). These new tools have the potential to eliminate the need for randomly (or dangerously) integrating viral vectors.

It is often the case that viral vectors are deemed too risky, too expensive, too toxic or are not effective for the particular application of molecular delivery. Several reports (and clinical trials) include the use of suicide genes or inducible apoptosis systems to act as safeguards when, despite the best safety efforts) cells go awry and threaten to result in malignant disease or other life threatening clinical complications (180-182). Otherwise, closed non-viral systems for introduction of DNA and peptides to dendritic cells and NK T-cell by electroporation have been described (183, 184) and obviate the need for viral vectors in some applications. Other systems such as nanoparticles and lipid-based complexes have also been described and are currently being developed for clinical implementation (185-188). Another promising technology being developed for genetic modification of cells is the use of transposable genetic elements or Transposons. Transposons are ancient genetic elements that utilize homologous recombination as a method for introducing genes into target cells at homology-defined sites. One noteworthy example is the use of the Sleeping Beauty transposon system to modify CD34+ blood stem cells and T-cells, the latter of which is rapidly progressing through pre-clinical development and into clinical trials(185).

One of the major advantages of these novel genetic editing technologies is the potential to avoid integration-mediated oncogenesis by prospectively inserting transgenic sequences into “safe harbors” where transforming sequences are not present (189-192). A limitation of this approach is the low efficiency with which modifications are made, generally requiring a selection step or selective growth advantage of the modified cells to enrich for cells with therapeutic potential. Significant advances in efficiency are thus required before these techniques are applicable to most gene therapy applications.

The Next Chapter

As cell therapy product move from proof of concept towards more advanced (Phase III) clinical trials, the need for specialized production, clinical and regulatory professionals increases dramatically. These include process development scientists, quality systems and regulatory affairs coordinators, protocol nurses, blood bank or surgical teams, primary care (referring) physicians, clinical research associates, program managers, product development staff and others. These individuals will need specialized training in the use of cells as therapeutic products in order to support successful implementation. For example, at City of Hope we have developed a job description for a Cell Pharmacist in recognition of the fact that administration of cell products has all of the requirements of pharmaceuticals (patient eligibility, dose verification, review of contraindications etc.) as well as specialized requirements like final product formulation and filling of specialized delivery devices. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has supported extensive development of cell therapy infrastructure in California and proffered the idea of an alpha cell therapy clinic to provide centralized facilities with the requisite infrastructure to support the translation of promising new cell based therapies to the clinic (193, 194). Together, these resources and progressive planning are having a significant impact on current cell and gene therapy trials.

As cell products move even further towards commercialization, a clean separation of the clinical research aspects of cell therapy will give way to product development concerns and regulatory compliance. It is expected that process changes will occur in order to control cost of goods, ensure product quality and develop product marketing and distribution systems. Validation of manufacturing procedures and product qualification assays may require significant technology development. Also, the ability to receive a cell product from a patient, ship to and process at a central facility and return the product to the patient in a timely, qualified and efficacious fashion will determine the feasibility of widespread application of any personalized cell product. The regulatory requirements in this area are just beginning to take shape as the first cell therapy products are brought to market.

Conclusion

Recent advances in cell and gene therapy have demonstrated the proof of concept that cells are potent agents for treating monogenic, infectious and neoplastic disease. Moreover, cell therapy potentially may provide a single dose, long term solution to disease intervention that may rapidly outpace the current more transient treatments such as chemotherapy, radiation therapy, protein replacement (ADA) or long term anti-virals (HAART) as the primary treatment for disease. The recent development of infrastructure and advances in the understanding of the physical and biochemical processes that govern cell isolation, expansion and genetic modification promise to launch cell and gene therapy onto the forefront of medical care. Significant investment in cell therapy by State and Federal government agencies and the biopharmaceutical industry will be required to implement the widespread dissemination of what are now considered “boutique” therapies if we are to advance from proof of concept to acceptance in the medical community. Only when physicians have a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for reimbursement of cell therapy procedures offered can we claim “mission accomplished”.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement:

DD is a Scientific Advisory Board member for Genesis BioPharma and an External Advisor to Owl Biomedical Inc. HPK has no conflicts of interest to disclose

References

1. Naldini L. Ex vivo gene transfer and correction for cell-based therapies. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;12(5):301–15. Epub 2011/03/30. [PubMed]
2. Drolet BC, Lorenzi NM. Translational research: understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational research : the journal of laboratory and clinical medicine. 2011;157(1):1–5. Epub 2010/12/15. [PubMed]
3. Zerhouni EA. Clinical research at a crossroads: the NIH roadmap. Journal of investigative medicine: the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research. 2006;54(4):171–3. Epub 2006/12/13. [PubMed]
4. Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L. Practice-based research--“Blue Highways” on the NIH roadmap. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. 2007;297(4):403–6. Epub 2007/01/25. [PubMed]
5. Silvestri F, Banavali S, Baccarani M, Preisler HD. The CD34 hemopoietic progenitor cell associated antigen: biology and clinical applications. Haematologica. 1992;77(3):265–73. Epub 1992/05/01. [PubMed]
6. Bensinger W, Appelbaum F, Rowley S, Storb R, Sanders J, Lilleby K, et al. Factors that influence collection and engraftment of autologous peripheral-blood stem cells. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(10):2547–55. Epub 1995/10/01. [PubMed]
7. Riviere I, Dunbar CE, Sadelain M. Hematopoietic stem cell engineering at a crossroads. Blood. 2011 Epub 2011/11/19. [PubMed]
8. Butturini A, Bortin MM, Gale RP. Graft-versus-leukemia following bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1987;2(3):233–42. Epub 1987/10/01. [PubMed]
9. Zaia JA. Prevention and management of CMV-related problems after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;29(8):633–8. Epub 2002/08/16. [PubMed]
10. Aguilar LK, Rooney CM, Heslop HE. Lymphoproliferative disorders involving Epstein-Barr virus after hemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Curr Opin Oncol. 1999;11(2):96–101. Epub 1999/04/03. [PubMed]
11. Howard DS, Phillips IG, Reece DE, Munn RK, Henslee-Downey J, Pittard M, et al. Adenovirus infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;29(6):1494–501. Epub 1999/12/10. [PubMed]
12. Greenberg P, Goodrich J, Riddell S. Adoptive immunotherapy of human cytomegalovirus infection: potential role in protection from disease progression. Transplant Proc. 1991;23(3 Suppl 3):97–101. Epub 1991/06/01. [PubMed]
13. Riddell SR, Watanabe KS, Goodrich JM, Li CR, Agha ME, Greenberg PD. Restoration of viral immunity in immunodeficient humans by the adoptive transfer of T cell clones. Science. 1992;257(5067):238–41. [PubMed]
14. Walter EA, Greenberg PD, Gilbert MJ, Finch RJ, Watanabe KS, Thomas ED, et al. Reconstitution of cellular immunity against cytomegalovirus in recipients of allogeneic bone marrow by transfer of T-cell clones from the donor. N Engl J Med. 1995;333(16):1038–44. Epub 1995/10/19. [PubMed]
15. Heslop HE, Ng CY, Li C, Smith CA, Loftin SK, Krance RA, et al. Long-term restoration of immunity against Epstein-Barr virus infection by adoptive transfer of gene-modified virus-specific T lymphocytes. Nat Med. 1996;2(5):551–5. [PubMed]
16. Gottschalk S, Edwards OL, Sili U, Huls MH, Goltsova T, Davis AR, et al. Generating CTLs against the subdominant Epstein-Barr virus LMP1 antigen for the adoptive immunotherapy of EBV-associated malignancies. Blood. 2003;101(5):1905–12. [PubMed]
17. Leen AM, Sili U, Savoldo B, Jewell AM, Piedra PA, Brenner MK, et al. Fiber-modified adenoviruses generate subgroup cross-reactive, adenovirus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes for therapeutic applications. Blood. 2004;103(3):1011–9. Epub 2003/10/04. [PubMed]
18. O'Reilly RJ, Doubrovina E, Trivedi D, Hasan A, Kollen W, Koehne G. Adoptive transfer of antigen-specific T-cells of donor type for immunotherapy of viral infections following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants. Immunol Res. 2007;38(1-3):237–50. Epub 2007/10/06. [PubMed]
19. Becker C, Pohla H, Frankenberger B, Schuler T, Assenmacher M, Schendel DJ, et al. Adoptive tumor therapy with T lymphocytes enriched through an IFN-gamma capture assay. Nat Med. 2001;7(10):1159–62. Epub 2001/10/09. [PubMed]
20. Chatziandreou I, Gilmour KC, McNicol AM, Costabile M, Sinclair J, Cubitt D, et al. Capture and generation of adenovirus specific T cells for adoptive immunotherapy. Br J Haematol. 2007;136(1):117–26. Epub 2006/11/10. [PubMed]
21. Kerns HM, Ryu BY, Stirling BV, Sather BD, Astrakhan A, Humblet-Baron S, et al. B cell-specific lentiviral gene therapy leads to sustained B-cell functional recovery in a murine model of X-linked agammaglobulinemia. Blood. 2010;115(11):2146–55. Epub 2010/01/23. [PubMed]
22. Leen AM, Myers GD, Sili U, Huls MH, Weiss H, Leung KS, et al. Monoculture-derived T lymphocytes specific for multiple viruses expand and produce clinically relevant effects in immunocompromised individuals. Nat Med. 2006;12(10):1160–6. Epub 2006/09/26. [PubMed]
23. Leen AM, Christin A, Myers GD, Liu H, Cruz CR, Hanley PJ, et al. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte therapy with donor T cells prevents and treats adenovirus and Epstein-Barr virus infections after haploidentical and matched unrelated stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2009;114(19):4283–92. Epub 2009/08/25. [PubMed]
24. Hanley PJ, Shaffer DR, Cruz CR, Ku S, Tzou B, Liu H, et al. Expansion of T cells targeting multiple antigens of cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus and adenovirus to provide broad antiviral specificity after stem cell transplantation. Cytotherapy. 2011;13(8):976–86. Epub 2011/05/05. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Heslop HE, Slobod KS, Pule MA, Hale GA, Rousseau A, Smith CA, et al. Long-term outcome of EBV-specific T-cell infusions to prevent or treat EBV-related lymphoproliferative disease in transplant recipients. Blood. 2010;115(5):925–35. Epub 2009/11/03. [PubMed]
26. Peggs KS, Verfuerth S, Pizzey A, Khan N, Guiver M, Moss PA, et al. Adoptive cellular therapy for early cytomegalovirus infection after allogeneic stem-cell transplantation with virus-specific T-cell lines. Lancet. 2003;362(9393):1375–7. Epub 2003/10/31. [PubMed]
27. Zandvliet ML, van Liempt E, Jedema I, Veltrop-Duits LA, Willemze R, Guchelaar HJ, et al. Coordinated isolation of CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cells recognizing a broad repertoire of cytomegalovirus pp65 and IE1 epitopes for highly specific adoptive immunotherapy. Cytotherapy. 2010;12(7):933–44. Epub 2010/01/19. [PubMed]
28. Cruz CR, Hanley PJ, Liu H, Torrano V, Lin YF, Arce JA, et al. Adverse events following infusion of T cells for adoptive immunotherapy: a 10-year experience. Cytotherapy. 2010;12(6):743–9. Epub 2010/05/01. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Sili U, Leen AM, Vera JF, Gee AP, Huls H, Heslop HE, et al. Production of good manufacturing practice-grade cytotoxic T lymphocytes specific for Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus and adenovirus to prevent or treat viral infections post-allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Cytotherapy. 2012;14(1):7–11. Epub 2011/12/17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Rosenberg SA, Aebersold P, Cornetta K, Kasid A, Morgan RA, Moen R, et al. Gene transfer into humans--immunotherapy of patients with advanced melanoma, using tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes modified by retroviral gene transduction. N Engl J Med. 1990;323(9):570–8. Epub 1990/08/30. [PubMed]
31. Dudley ME, Wunderlich JR, Shelton TE, Even J, Rosenberg SA. Generation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cultures for use in adoptive transfer therapy for melanoma patients. J Immunother. 2003;26(4):332–42. Epub 2003/07/05. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
32. Dudley ME, Yang JC, Sherry R, Hughes MS, Royal R, Kammula U, et al. Adoptive cell therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: evaluation of intensive myeloablative chemoradiation preparative regimens. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5233–9. Epub 2008/09/24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
33. Rosenberg SA, Dudley ME. Adoptive cell therapy for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma. Curr Opin Immunol. 2009;21(2):233–40. Epub 2009/03/24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
34. Rosenberg SA, Yang JC, Sherry RM, Kammula US, Hughes MS, Phan GQ, et al. Durable complete responses in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma using T-cell transfer immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(13):4550–7. Epub 2011/04/19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
35. Gajewski TF, Meng Y, Blank C, Brown I, Kacha A, Kline J, et al. Immune resistance orchestrated by the tumor microenvironment. Immunological reviews. 2006;213:131–45. Epub 2006/09/16. [PubMed]
36. Gattinoni L, Finkelstein SE, Klebanoff CA, Antony PA, Palmer DC, Spiess PJ, et al. Removal of homeostatic cytokine sinks by lymphodepletion enhances the efficacy of adoptively transferred tumor-specific CD8+ T cells. J Exp Med. 2005;202(7):907–12. Epub 2005/10/06. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
37. Kim PS, Ahmed R. Features of responding T cells in cancer and chronic infection. Curr Opin Immunol. 2010;22(2):223–30. Epub 2010/03/09. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Baitsch L, Baumgaertner P, Devevre E, Raghav SK, Legat A, Barba L, et al. Exhaustion of tumor-specific CD8 T cells in metastases from melanoma patients. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(6):2350–60. Epub 2011/05/11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Ohta T, Kikuchi H, Ogata H, Iwata K, Yoshida K, Katayama K, et al. Effect of anti-CD3 antibody on the generation of interleukin-2-activated lymphocytes from tumor tissues of gastrointestinal cancer. Cancer. 1992;70(4):741–8. Epub 1992/08/15. [PubMed]
40. Baxevanis CN, Dedoussis GV, Papadopoulos NG, Missitzis I, Stathopoulos GP, Papamichail M. Tumor specific cytolysis by tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer. Cancer. 1994;74(4):1275–82. Epub 1994/08/15. [PubMed]
41. Kass R, Bellone S, Palmieri M, Cane S, Bignotti E, Henry-Tillman R, et al. Restoration of tumor-specific HLA class I restricted cytotoxicity in tumor infiltrating lymphocytes of advanced breast cancer patients by in vitro stimulation with tumor antigen-pulsed autologous dendritic cells. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;80(3):275–85. Epub 2003/09/25. [PubMed]
42. Santin AD, Bellone S, Palmieri M, Bossini B, Cane S, Bignotti E, et al. Restoration of tumor specific human leukocyte antigens class I-restricted cytotoxicity by dendritic cell stimulation of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14(1):64–75. Epub 2004/02/07. [PubMed]
43. Turcotte S, Rosenberg SA. Immunotherapy for metastatic solid cancers. Adv Surg. 2011;45:341–60. Epub 2011/10/01. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44. Semino C, Martini L, Queirolo P, Cangemi G, Costa R, Alloisio A, et al. Adoptive immunotherapy of advanced solid tumors: an eight year clinical experience. Anticancer Res. 1999;19(6C):5645–9. Epub 2000/03/04. [PubMed]
45. Porter DL, Levine BL, Bunin N, Stadtmauer EA, Luger SM, Goldstein S, et al. A phase 1 trial of donor lymphocyte infusions expanded and activated ex vivo via CD3/CD28 costimulation. Blood. 2006;107(4):1325–31. Epub 2005/11/05. [PubMed]
46. Rapoport AP, Aqui NA, Stadtmauer EA, Vogl DT, Fang HB, Cai L, et al. Combination immunotherapy using adoptive T-cell transfer and tumor antigen vaccination on the basis of hTERT and survivin after ASCT for myeloma. Blood. 2011;117(3):788–97. Epub 2010/10/30. [PubMed]
47. Clay TM, Custer MC, Sachs J, Hwu P, Rosenberg SA, Nishimura MI. Efficient transfer of a tumor antigen-reactive TCR to human peripheral blood lymphocytes confers anti-tumor reactivity. J Immunol. 1999;163(1):507–13. Epub 1999/06/29. [PubMed]
48. Fujio K, Misaki Y, Setoguchi K, Morita S, Kawahata K, Kato I, et al. Functional reconstitution of class II MHC-restricted T cell immunity mediated by retroviral transfer of the alpha beta TCR complex. J Immunol. 2000;165(1):528–32. Epub 2000/06/22. [PubMed]
49. Cooper LJ, Kalos M, Lewinsohn DA, Riddell SR, Greenberg PD. Transfer of specificity for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 into primary human T lymphocytes by introduction of T-cell receptor genes. J Virol. 2000;74(17):8207–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
50. Morgan RA, Dudley ME, Rosenberg SA. Adoptive cell therapy: genetic modification to redirect effector cell specificity. Cancer J. 2010;16(4):336–41. Epub 2010/08/10. [PubMed]
51. Eshhar Z, Waks T, Gross G, Schindler DG. Specific activation and targeting of cytotoxic lymphocytes through chimeric single chains consisting of antibody-binding domains and the gamma or zeta subunits of the immunoglobulin and T-cell receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90(2):720–4. Epub 1993/01/15. [PubMed]
52. McKeever U, Khandekar S, Newcomb J, Naylor J, Gregory P, Brauer P, et al. Immunization with soluble BDC 2.5 T cell receptor-immunoglobulin chimeric protein:antibody specificity and protection of nonobese diabetic mice against adoptive transfer of diabetes by maternal immunization. J Exp Med. 1996;184(5):1755–68. Epub 1996/11/01. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53. Brentjens R, Yeh R, Bernal Y, Riviere I, Sadelain M. Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia with genetically targeted autologous T cells: case report of an unforeseen adverse event in a phase I clinical trial. Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy. 2010;18(4):666–8. Epub 2010/04/02. [PubMed]
54. Peinert S, Kershaw MH, Prince HM. Chimeric T cells for adoptive immunotherapy of cancer: using what have we learned to plan for the future. Immunotherapy. 2009;1(6):905–12. Epub 2010/07/20. [PubMed]
55. Levine BL. T lymphocyte engineering ex vivo for cancer and infectious disease. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2008;8(4):475–89. Epub 2008/03/21. [PubMed]
56. Park JR, Digiusto DL, Slovak M, Wright C, Naranjo A, Wagner J, et al. Adoptive transfer of chimeric antigen receptor re-directed cytolytic T lymphocyte clones in patients with neuroblastoma. Mol Ther. 2007;15(4):825–33. Epub 2007/02/15. [PubMed]
57. Kohn DB, Dotti G, Brentjens R, Savoldo B, Jensen M, Cooper LJ, et al. CARs on track in the clinic. Mol Ther. 2011;19(3):432–8. Epub 2011/03/02. [PubMed]
58. Berger C, Flowers ME, Warren EH, Riddell SR. Analysis of transgene-specific immune responses that limit the in vivo persistence of adoptively transferred HSV-TK-modified donor T cells after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2006;107(6):2294–302. Epub 2005/11/12. [PubMed]
59. Jensen MC, Popplewell L, Cooper LJ, DiGiusto D, Kalos M, Ostberg JR, et al. Antitransgene rejection responses contribute to attenuated persistence of adoptively transferred CD20/CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor redirected T cells in humans. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2010;16(9):1245–56. Epub 2010/03/23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
60. Hernandez-Chacon JA, Li Y, Wu RC, Bernatchez C, Wang Y, Weber JS, et al. Costimulation through the CD137/4-1BB pathway protects human melanoma tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes from activation-induced cell death and enhances antitumor effector function. J Immunother. 2011;34(3):236–50. Epub 2011/03/11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
61. Hombach AA, Abken H. Costimulation by chimeric antigen receptors revisited the T cell antitumor response benefits from combined CD28-OX40 signalling. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(12):2935–44. Epub 2011/10/28. [PubMed]
62. Kowolik CM, Topp MS, Gonzalez S, Pfeiffer T, Olivares S, Gonzalez N, et al. CD28 costimulation provided through a CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor enhances in vivo persistence and antitumor efficacy of adoptively transferred T cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66(22):10995–1004. Epub 2006/11/17. [PubMed]
63. Milone MC, Fish JD, Carpenito C, Carroll RG, Binder GK, Teachey D, et al. Chimeric receptors containing CD137 signal transduction domains mediate enhanced survival of T cells and increased antileukemic efficacy in vivo. Mol Ther. 2009;17(8):1453–64. Epub 2009/04/23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
64. Song DG, Ye Q, Carpenito C, Poussin M, Wang LP, Ji C, et al. In vivo persistence, tumor localization, and antitumor activity of CAR-engineered T cells is enhanced by costimulatory signaling through CD137 (4-1BB). Cancer Res. 2011;71(13):4617–27. Epub 2011/05/07. [PubMed]
65. Cooper LJ, Al-Kadhimi Z, DiGiusto D, Kalos M, Colcher D, Raubitschek A, et al. Development and application of CD19-specific T cells for adoptive immunotherapy of B cell malignancies. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2004;33(1):83–9. [PubMed]
66. Kochenderfer JN, Feldman SA, Zhao Y, Xu H, Black MA, Morgan RA, et al. Construction and preclinical evaluation of an anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor. J Immunother. 2009;32(7):689–702. Epub 2009/06/30. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
67. Kochenderfer JN, Yu Z, Frasheri D, Restifo NP, Rosenberg SA. Adoptive transfer of syngeneic T cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor that recognizes murine CD19 can eradicate lymphoma and normal B cells. Blood. 2010;116(19):3875–86. Epub 2010/07/16. [PubMed]
68. Singh H, Figliola MJ, Dawson MJ, Huls H, Olivares S, Switzer K, et al. Reprogramming CD19-specific T cells with IL-21 signaling can improve adoptive immunotherapy of B-lineage malignancies. Cancer Res. 2011;71(10):3516–27. Epub 2011/05/12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
69. Terakura S, Yamamoto TN, Gardner RA, Turtle CJ, Jensen MC, Riddell SR. Generation of CD19-chimeric antigen receptor modified CD8+ T cells derived from virus-specific central memory T cells. Blood. 2012;119(1):72–82. Epub 2011/10/28. [PubMed]
70. Hollyman D, Stefanski J, Przybylowski M, Bartido S, Borquez-Ojeda O, Taylor C, et al. Manufacturing validation of biologically functional T cells targeted to CD19 antigen for autologous adoptive cell therapy. J Immunother. 2009;32(2):169–80. Epub 2009/02/25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
71. Brentjens RJ, Riviere I, Park JH, Davila ML, Wang X, Stefanski J, et al. Safety and persistence of adoptively transferred autologous CD19-targeted T cells in patients with relapsed or chemotherapy refractory B-cell leukemias. Blood. 2011;118(18):4817–28. Epub 2011/08/19. [PubMed]
72. Porter DL, Levine BL, Kalos M, Bagg A, June CH. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in chronic lymphoid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(8):725–33. Epub 2011/08/13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Gattinoni L, Klebanoff CA, Palmer DC, Wrzesinski C, Kerstann K, Yu Z, et al. Acquisition of full effector function in vitro paradoxically impairs the in vivo antitumor efficacy of adoptively transferred CD8+ T cells. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(6):1616–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
74. Hinrichs CS, Borman ZA, Cassard L, Gattinoni L, Spolski R, Yu Z, et al. Adoptively transferred effector cells derived from naive rather than central memory CD8+ T cells mediate superior antitumor immunity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(41):17469–74. Epub 2009/10/07. [PubMed]
75. Hinrichs CS, Borman ZA, Gattinoni L, Yu Z, Burns WR, Huang J, et al. Human effector CD8+ T cells derived from naive rather than memory subsets possess superior traits for adoptive immunotherapy. Blood. 2011;117(3):808–14. Epub 2010/10/26. [PubMed]
76. Lan KL, Ou-Yang F, Yen SH, Shih HL, Lan KH. Cationic liposome coupled endostatin gene for treatment of peritoneal colon cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2010;27(5):307–18. Epub 2010/04/08. [PubMed]
77. Berger C, Jensen MC, Lansdorp PM, Gough M, Elliott C, Riddell SR. Adoptive transfer of effector CD8+ T cells derived from central memory cells establishes persistent T cell memory in primates. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(1):294–305. Epub 2007/12/07. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
78. Turtle CJ, Swanson HM, Fujii N, Estey EH, Riddell SR. A distinct subset of self-renewing human memory CD8+ T cells survives cytotoxic chemotherapy. Immunity. 2009;31(5):834–44. Epub 2009/11/03. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
79. Gennery AR, Slatter MA, Grandin L, Taupin P, Cant AJ, Veys P, et al. Transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells and long-term survival for primary immunodeficiencies in Europe: entering a new century, do we do better? J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;126(3):602–10. e1–11. Epub 2010/08/03. [PubMed]
80. Szabolcs P, Cavazzana-Calvo M, Fischer A, Veys P. Bone marrow transplantation for primary immunodeficiency diseases. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2010;57(1):207–37. Epub 2010/03/24. [PubMed]
81. Prasad VK, Kurtzberg J. Cord blood and bone marrow transplantation in inherited metabolic diseases: scientific basis, current status and future directions. Br J Haematol. 2010;148(3):356–72. Epub 2009/11/19. [PubMed]
82. Hutter G, Zaia JA. Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in patients with human immunodeficiency virus: the experiences of more than 25 years. Clin Exp Immunol. 2011;163(3):284–95. Epub 2011/02/10. [PubMed]
83. Bordignon C, Notarangelo LD, Nobili N, Ferrari G, Casorati G, Panina P, et al. Gene therapy in peripheral blood lymphocytes and bone marrow for ADA- immunodeficient patients. Science. 1995;270(5235):470–5. Epub 1995/10/20. [PubMed]
84. Aiuti A, Slavin S, Aker M, Ficara F, Deola S, Mortellaro A, et al. Correction of ADA-SCID by stem cell gene therapy combined with nonmyeloablative conditioning. Science. 2002;296(5577):2410–3. Epub 2002/06/29. [PubMed]
85. Kohn DB, Hershfield MS, Carbonaro D, Shigeoka A, Brooks J, Smogorzewska EM, et al. T lymphocytes with a normal ADA gene accumulate after transplantation of transduced autologous umbilical cord blood CD34+ cells in ADA-deficient SCID neonates. Nat Med. 1998;4(7):775–80. Epub 1998/07/14. [PubMed]
86. Aiuti A, Cattaneo F, Galimberti S, Benninghoff U, Cassani B, Callegaro L, et al. Gene therapy for immunodeficiency due to adenosine deaminase deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(5):447–58. Epub 2009/01/31. [PubMed]
87. Ljungman P, Bregni M, Brune M, Cornelissen J, de Witte T, Dini G, et al. Allogeneic and autologous transplantation for haematological diseases, solid tumours and immune disorders: current practice in Europe 2009. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(2):219–34. Epub 2009/07/09. [PubMed]
88. Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Garrigue A, Wang GP, Soulier J, Lim A, Morillon E, et al. Insertional oncogenesis in 4 patients after retrovirus-mediated gene therapy of SCID-X1. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(9):3132–42. Epub 2008/08/09. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. Howe SJ, Mansour MR, Schwarzwaelder K, Bartholomae C, Hubank M, Kempski H, et al. Insertional mutagenesis combined with acquired somatic mutations causes leukemogenesis following gene therapy of SCID-X1 patients. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(9):3143–50. Epub 2008/08/09. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
90. Gaspar HB, Cooray S, Gilmour KC, Parsley KL, Adams S, Howe SJ, et al. Long-term persistence of a polyclonal T cell repertoire after gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(97):97ra79. Epub 2011/08/26. [PubMed]
91. Thrasher AJ, Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Gaspar HB, Blanche S, Davies EG, Parsley K, et al. Failure of SCID-X1 gene therapy in older patients. Blood. 2005;105(11):4255–7. Epub 2005/02/03. [PubMed]
92. Boztug K, Schmidt M, Schwarzer A, Banerjee PP, Diez IA, Dewey RA, et al. Stem-cell gene therapy for the Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(20):1918–27. Epub 2010/11/12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
93. Stein S, Ott MG, Schultze-Strasser S, Jauch A, Burwinkel B, Kinner A, et al. Genomic instability and myelodysplasia with monosomy 7 consequent to EVI1 activation after gene therapy for chronic granulomatous disease. Nat Med. 2010;16(2):198–204. Epub 2010/01/26. [PubMed]
94. Ott MG, Schmidt M, Schwarzwaelder K, Stein S, Siler U, Koehl U, et al. Correction of X-linked chronic granulomatous disease by gene therapy, augmented by insertional activation of MDS1-EVI1, PRDM16 or SETBP1. Nat Med. 2006;12(4):401–9. Epub 2006/04/04. [PubMed]
95. Cartier N, Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Bartholomae CC, Veres G, Schmidt M, Kutschera I, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy with a lentiviral vector in X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy. Science. 2009;326(5954):818–23. Epub 2009/11/07. [PubMed]
96. Biffi A, Bartolomae CC, Cesana D, Cartier N, Aubourg P, Ranzani M, et al. Lentiviral vector common integration sites in preclinical models and a clinical trial reflect a benign integration bias and not oncogenic selection. Blood. 2011;117(20):5332–9. Epub 2011/03/16. [PubMed]
97. Cavazzana-Calvo M, Payen E, Negre O, Wang G, Hehir K, Fusil F, et al. Transfusion independence and HMGA2 activation after gene therapy of human beta-thalassaemia. Nature. 2010;467(7313):318–22. Epub 2010/09/17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Nathwani AC, Tuddenham EG, Rangarajan S, Rosales C, McIntosh J, Linch DC, et al. Adenovirus-associated virus vector-mediated gene transfer in hemophilia B. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(25):2357–65. Epub 2011/12/14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
99. Roy K, Stein L, Kaushal S. Ocular gene therapy: an evaluation of recombinant adeno-associated virus-mediated gene therapy interventions for the treatment of ocular disease. Hum Gene Ther. 2010;21(8):915–27. Epub 2010/04/14. [PubMed]
100. DiGiusto DL, Krishnan A, Li L, Li H, Li S, Rao A, et al. RNA-based gene therapy for HIV with lentiviral vector-modified CD34(+) cells in patients undergoing transplantation for AIDS-related lymphoma. Sci Transl Med. 2010;2(36):36ra43. Epub 2010/06/18. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
101. Krishnan A, Molina A, Zaia J, Smith D, Vasquez D, Kogut N, et al. Durable remissions with autologous stem cell transplantation for high-risk HIV-associated lymphomas. Blood. 2005;105(2):874–8. Epub 2004/09/25. [PubMed]
102. Holt N, Wang J, Kim K, Friedman G, Wang X, Taupin V, et al. Human hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells modified by zinc-finger nucleases targeted to CCR5 control HIV-1 in vivo. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(8):839–47. Epub 2010/07/06. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
103. Podsakoff GM, Engel BC, Carbonaro DA, Choi C, Smogorzewska EM, Bauer G, et al. Selective survival of peripheral blood lymphocytes in children with HIV-1 following delivery of an anti-HIV gene to bone marrow CD34(+) cells. Mol Ther. 2005;12(1):77–86. [PubMed]
104. Russom D, Ahmed A, Gonzalez N, Alvarnas J, DiGiusto D. Implementation of a configurable laboratory information management system for use in cellular process development and manufacturing. Cytotherapy. 2012;14(1):114–21. Epub 2011/10/07. [PubMed]
105. Zinno F, Landi F, Scerpa MC, Aureli V, Lanti A, Ceccarelli S, et al. Processing of hematopoietic stem cells from peripheral blood before cryopreservation: use of a closed automated system. Transfusion. 2011;51(12):2656–63. Epub 2011/05/24. [PubMed]
106. Janssen WE, Ribickas A, Meyer LV, Smilee RC. Large-scale Ficoll gradient separations using a commercially available, effectively closed, system. Cytotherapy. 2010;12(3):418–24. Epub 2010/02/27. [PubMed]
107. Aktas M, Radke TF, Strauer BE, Wernet P, Kogler G. Separation of adult bone marrow mononuclear cells using the automated closed separation system Sepax. Cytotherapy. 2008;10(2):203–11. Epub 2008/03/28. [PubMed]
108. Powell DJ, Jr., Brennan AL, Zheng Z, Huynh H, Cotte J, Levine BL. Efficient clinical-scale enrichment of lymphocytes for use in adoptive immunotherapy using a modified counterflow centrifugal elutriation program. Cytotherapy. 2009;11(7):923–35. Epub 2009/11/12. [PubMed]
109. Perseghin P, D'Amico G, Dander E, Gaipa G, Dassi M, Biagi E, et al. Isolation of monocytes from leukapheretic products for large-scale GMP-grade generation of cytomegalovirus-specific T-cell lines by means of an automated elutriation device. Transfusion. 2008;48(8):1644–9. Epub 2008/06/03. [PubMed]
110. Kim S, Kim HO, Baek EJ, Choi Y, Kim HS, Lee MG. Monocyte enrichment from leukapheresis products by using the Elutra cell separator. Transfusion. 2007;47(12):2290–6. Epub 2007/09/04. [PubMed]
111. Gonzalez-Vicent M, Perez A, Abad L, Sevilla J, Ramirez M, Diaz MA. Graft manipulation and reduced-intensity conditioning for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from mismatched unrelated and mismatched/haploidentical related donors in pediatric leukemia patients. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2010;32(3):e85–90. Epub 2010/03/11. [PubMed]
112. Devine SM, Carter S, Soiffer RJ, Pasquini MC, Hari PN, Stein A, et al. Low risk of chronic graft-versus-host disease and relapse associated with T cell-depleted peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for acute myelogenous leukemia in first remission: results of the blood and marrow transplant clinical trials network protocol 0303. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17(9):1343–51. Epub 2011/02/16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
113. Prieto PA, Durflinger KH, Wunderlich JR, Rosenberg SA, Dudley ME. Enrichment of CD8+ cells from melanoma tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cultures reveals tumor reactivity for use in adoptive cell therapy. J Immunother. 2010;33(5):547–56. Epub 2010/05/14. [PubMed]
114. Feuchtinger T, Opherk K, Bethge WA, Topp MS, Schuster FR, Weissinger EM, et al. Adoptive transfer of pp65-specific T cells for the treatment of chemorefractory cytomegalovirus disease or reactivation after haploidentical and matched unrelated stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2010;116(20):4360–7. Epub 2010/07/14. [PubMed]
115. Di Nicola M, Zappasodi R, Carlo-Stella C, Mortarini R, Pupa SM, Magni M, et al. Vaccination with autologous tumor-loaded dendritic cells induces clinical and immunologic responses in indolent B-cell lymphoma patients with relapsed and measurable disease: a pilot study. Blood. 2009;113(1):18–27. Epub 2008/09/24. [PubMed]
116. Hardy NM, Fellowes V, Rose JJ, Odom J, Pittaluga S, Steinberg SM, et al. Costimulated tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are a feasible and safe alternative donor cell therapy for relapse after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2012 Epub 2012/02/01. [PubMed]
117. Brunstein CG, Miller JS, Cao Q, McKenna DH, Hippen KL, Curtsinger J, et al. Infusion of ex vivo expanded T regulatory cells in adults transplanted with umbilical cord blood: safety profile and detection kinetics. Blood. 2011;117(3):1061–70. Epub 2010/10/19. [PubMed]
118. Rapoport AP, Stadtmauer EA, Aqui N, Vogl D, Chew A, Fang HB, et al. Rapid immune recovery and graft-versus-host disease-like engraftment syndrome following adoptive transfer of Costimulated autologous T cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15(13):4499–507. Epub 2009/06/11. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
119. Bernstein WB, Cox JH, Aronson NE, Tracy L, Schlienger K, Ratto-Kim S, et al. Immune reconstitution following autologous transfers of CD3/CD28 stimulated CD4(+) T cells to HIV-infected persons. Clin Immunol. 2004;111(3):262–74. Epub 2004/06/09. [PubMed]
120. Orchard PJ, Blazar BR, Burger S, Levine B, Basso L, Nelson DM, et al. Clinical-scale selection of anti-CD3/CD28-activated T cells after transduction with a retroviral vector expressing herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase and truncated nerve growth factor receptor. Hum Gene Ther. 2002;13(8):979–88. Epub 2002/05/29. [PubMed]
121. Notta F, Doulatov S, Laurenti E, Poeppl A, Jurisica I, Dick JE. Isolation of single human hematopoietic stem cells capable of long-term multilineage engraftment. Science. 2011;333(6039):218–21. Epub 2011/07/09. [PubMed]
122. Klebanoff CA, Gattinoni L, Torabi-Parizi P, Kerstann K, Cardones AR, Finkelstein SE, et al. Central memory self/tumor-reactive CD8+ T cells confer superior antitumor immunity compared with effector memory T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(27):9571–6. [PubMed]
123. Gattinoni L, Lugli E, Ji Y, Pos Z, Paulos CM, Quigley MF, et al. A human memory T cell subset with stem cell-like properties. Nat Med. 2011;17(10):1290–7. Epub 2011/09/20. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
124. Spanholtz J, Preijers F, Tordoir M, Trilsbeek C, Paardekooper J, de Witte T, et al. Clinical-grade generation of active NK cells from cord blood hematopoietic progenitor cells for immunotherapy using a closed-system culture process. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20740. Epub 2011/06/24. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
125. Sensebe L. Clinical grade production of mesenchymal stem cells. Biomed Mater Eng. 2008;18(1 Suppl):S3–10. Epub 2008/05/06. [PubMed]
126. Tran CA, Burton L, Russom D, Wagner JR, Jensen MC, Forman SJ, et al. Manufacturing of large numbers of patient-specific T cells for adoptive immunotherapy: an approach to improving product safety, composition, and production capacity. J Immunother. 2007;30(6):644–54. Epub 2007/08/02. [PubMed]
127. Vera JF, Brenner LJ, Gerdemann U, Ngo MC, Sili U, Liu H, et al. Accelerated production of antigen-specific T cells for preclinical and clinical applications using gas-permeable rapid expansion cultureware (G-Rex). J Immunother. 2010;33(3):305–15. Epub 2010/05/07. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
128. Sadeghi A, Pauler L, Anneren C, Friberg A, Brandhorst D, Korsgren O, et al. Large-scale bioreactor expansion of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. J Immunol Methods. 2011;364(1-2):94–100. Epub 2010/11/30. [PubMed]
129. Hami LS, Green C, Leshinsky N, Markham E, Miller K, Craig S. GMP production and testing of Xcellerated T Cells for the treatment of patients with CLL. Cytotherapy. 2004;6(6):554–62. Epub 2005/03/15. [PubMed]
130. Delaney C, Heimfeld S, Brashem-Stein C, Voorhies H, Manger RL, Bernstein ID. Notch-mediated expansion of human cord blood progenitor cells capable of rapid myeloid reconstitution. Nat Med. 2010;16(2):232–6. Epub 2010/01/19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
131. Choi B, Chun E, Kim SY, Kim M, Lee KY, Kim SJ. Notch-induced hIL-6 production facilitates the maintenance of self-renewal of hCD34+ cord blood cells through the activation of Jak-PI3K-STAT3 pathway. Am J Pathol. 2012;180(1):351–64. Epub 2011/11/09. [PubMed]
132. Auvray C, Delahaye A, Pflumio F, Haddad R, Amsellem S, Miri-Nezhad A, et al. HOXC4 homeoprotein efficiently expands human hematopoietic stem cells and triggers similar molecular alterations as HOXB4. Haematologica. 2012;97(2):168–78. Epub 2012/02/03. [PubMed]
133. Watts KL, Nelson V, Wood BL, Trobridge GD, Beard BC, Humphries RK, et al. Hematopoietic stem cell expansion facilitates multilineage engraftment in a nonhuman primate cord blood transplantation model. Exp Hematol. 2011 Epub 2011/12/14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
134. Boitano AE, Wang J, Romeo R, Bouchez LC, Parker AE, Sutton SE, et al. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor antagonists promote the expansion of human hematopoietic stem cells. Science. 2010;329(5997):1345–8. Epub 2010/08/07. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
135. Horn PA, Thomasson BM, Wood BL, Andrews RG, Morris JC, Kiem HP. Distinct hematopoietic stem/progenitor cell populations are responsible for repopulating NOD/SCID mice compared with nonhuman primates. Blood. 2003;102(13):4329–35. Epub 2003/06/21. [PubMed]
136. Mezquita P, Beard BC, Kiem HP. NOD/SCID repopulating cells contribute only to short-term repopulation in the baboon. Gene Ther. 2008;15(21):1460–2. Epub 2008/06/20. [PubMed]
137. Kohn DB. Lentiviral vectors ready for prime-time. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(1):65–6. Epub 2007/01/11. [PubMed]
138. Papanikolaou E, Anagnou NP. Major challenges for gene therapy of thalassemia and sickle cell disease. Curr Gene Ther. 2010;10(5):404–12. Epub 2010/08/18. [PubMed]
139. Dropulic B. Lentiviral vectors: their molecular design, safety, and use in laboratory and preclinical research. Hum Gene Ther. 2011;22(6):649–57. Epub 2011/04/14. [PubMed]
140. Klages N, Zufferey R, Trono D. A stable system for the high-titer production of multiply attenuated lentiviral vectors. Mol Ther. 2000;2(2):170–6. Epub 2000/08/19. [PubMed]
141. Farson D, Witt R, McGuinness R, Dull T, Kelly M, Song J, et al. A new-generation stable inducible packaging cell line for lentiviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12(8):981–97. Epub 2001/06/02. [PubMed]
142. Xu K, Ma H, McCown TJ, Verma IM, Kafri T. Generation of a stable cell line producing high-titer self-inactivating lentiviral vectors. Mol Ther. 2001;3(1):97–104. Epub 2001/02/13. [PubMed]
143. Ni Y, Sun S, Oparaocha I, Humeau L, Davis B, Cohen R, et al. Generation of a packaging cell line for prolonged large-scale production of high-titer HIV-1-based lentiviral vector. J Gene Med. 2005;7(6):818–34. Epub 2005/02/05. [PubMed]
144. Witting SR, Li LH, Jasti A, Allen C, Cornetta K, Brady J, et al. Efficient Large Volume Lentiviral Vector Production Using Flow Electroporation. Hum Gene Ther. 2011 Epub 2011/09/22. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
145. Pacchia AL, Adelson ME, Kaul M, Ron Y, Dougherty JP. An inducible packaging cell system for safe, efficient lentiviral vector production in the absence of HIV-1 accessory proteins. Virology. 2001;282(1):77–86. Epub 2001/03/22. [PubMed]
146. Broussau S, Jabbour N, Lachapelle G, Durocher Y, Tom R, Transfiguracion J, et al. Inducible packaging cells for large-scale production of lentiviral vectors in serum-free suspension culture. Mol Ther. 2008;16(3):500–7. Epub 2008/01/09. [PubMed]
147. Stewart HJ, Leroux-Carlucci MA, Sion CJ, Mitrophanous KA, Radcliffe PA. Development of inducible EIAV-based lentiviral vector packaging and producer cell lines. Gene Ther. 2009;16(6):805–14. Epub 2009/03/06. [PubMed]
148. Merten OW, Charrier S, Laroudie N, Fauchille S, Dugue C, Jenny C, et al. Large-scale manufacture and characterization of a lentiviral vector produced for clinical ex vivo gene therapy application. Hum Gene Ther. 2011;22(3):343–56. Epub 2010/11/04. [PubMed]
149. Lombardo A, Genovese P, Beausejour CM, Colleoni S, Lee YL, Kim KA, et al. Gene editing in human stem cells using zinc finger nucleases and integrase-defective lentiviral vector delivery. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(11):1298–306. Epub 2007/10/30. [PubMed]
150. Doyon Y, Vo TD, Mendel MC, Greenberg SG, Wang J, Xia DF, et al. Enhancing zinc-finger-nuclease activity with improved obligate heterodimeric architectures. Nat Methods. 2011;8(1):74–9. Epub 2010/12/07. [PubMed]
151. Miller JC, Holmes MC, Wang J, Guschin DY, Lee YL, Rupniewski I, et al. An improved zinc-finger nuclease architecture for highly specific genome editing. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(7):778–85. Epub 2007/07/03. [PubMed]
152. Urnov FD, Miller JC, Lee YL, Beausejour CM, Rock JM, Augustus S, et al. Highly efficient endogenous human gene correction using designed zinc-finger nucleases. Nature. 2005;435(7042):646–51. Epub 2005/04/05. [PubMed]
153. Carroll D, Morton JJ, Beumer KJ, Segal DJ. Design, construction and in vitro testing of zinc finger nucleases. Nat Protoc. 2006;1(3):1329–41. Epub 2007/04/05. [PubMed]
154. Porteus MH. Mammalian gene targeting with designed zinc finger nucleases. Mol Ther. 2006;13(2):438–46. Epub 2005/09/20. [PubMed]
155. Kim YG, Cha J, Chandrasegaran S. Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(3):1156–60. Epub 1996/02/06. [PubMed]
156. Cannon P, June C. Chemokine receptor 5 knockout strategies. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2011;6(1):74–9. Epub 2011/01/19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
157. Wilen CB, Wang J, Tilton JC, Miller JC, Kim KA, Rebar EJ, et al. Engineering HIV-resistant human CD4+ T cells with CXCR4-specific zinc-finger nucleases. PLoS Pathog. 2011;7(4):e1002020. Epub 2011/05/03. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
158. Sebastiano V, Maeder ML, Angstman JF, Haddad B, Khayter C, Yeo DT, et al. In situ genetic correction of the sickle cell anemia mutation in human induced pluripotent stem cells using engineered zinc finger nucleases. Stem Cells. 2011;29(11):1717–26. Epub 2011/09/08. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
159. Li H, Haurigot V, Doyon Y, Li T, Wong SY, Bhagwat AS, et al. In vivo genome editing restores haemostasis in a mouse model of haemophilia. Nature. 2011;475(7355):217–21. Epub 2011/06/28. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
160. Yusa K, Rashid ST, Strick-Marchand H, Varela I, Liu PQ, Paschon DE, et al. Targeted gene correction of alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency in induced pluripotent stem cells. Nature. 2011;478(7369):391–4. Epub 2011/10/14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
161. Ramalingam S, Kandavelou K, Rajenderan R, Chandrasegaran S. Creating designed zinc-finger nucleases with minimal cytotoxicity. J Mol Biol. 2011;405(3):630–41. Epub 2010/11/26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
162. Cornu TI, Cathomen T. Quantification of zinc finger nuclease-associated toxicity. Methods Mol Biol. 2010;649:237–45. Epub 2010/08/04. [PubMed]
163. Pruett-Miller SM, Reading DW, Porter SN, Porteus MH. Attenuation of zinc finger nuclease toxicity by small-molecule regulation of protein levels. PLoS Genet. 2009;5(2):e1000376. Epub 2009/02/14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
164. Pattanayak V, Ramirez CL, Joung JK, Liu DR. Revealing off-target cleavage specificities of zinc-finger nucleases by in vitro selection. Nat Methods. 2011;8(9):765–70. Epub 2011/08/09. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
165. Li L, Piatek MJ, Atef A, Piatek A, Wibowo A, Fang X, et al. Rapid and highly efficient construction of TALE-based transcriptional regulators and nucleases for genome modification. Plant Mol Biol. 2012 Epub 2012/01/25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
166. Mussolino C, Morbitzer R, Lutge F, Dannemann N, Lahaye T, Cathomen T. A novel TALE nuclease scaffold enables high genome editing activity in combination with low toxicity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(21):9283–93. Epub 2011/08/05. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
167. Arnould S, Chames P, Perez C, Lacroix E, Duclert A, Epinat JC, et al. Engineering of large numbers of highly specific homing endonucleases that induce recombination on novel DNA targets. J Mol Biol. 2006;355(3):443–58. Epub 2005/11/29. [PubMed]
168. Stoddard BL. Homing endonucleases: from microbial genetic invaders to reagents for targeted DNA modification. Structure. 2011;19(1):7–15. Epub 2011/01/12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
169. Burnett JC, Rossi JJ, Tiemann K. Current progress of siRNA/shRNA therapeutics in clinical trials. Biotechnol J. 2011;6(9):1130–46. Epub 2011/07/12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
170. Ehsani A, Saetrom P, Zhang J, Alluin J, Li H, Snove O, Jr., et al. Rational design of micro-RNA-like bifunctional siRNAs targeting HIV and the HIV coreceptor CCR5. Mol Ther. 2010;18(4):796–802. Epub 2010/01/28. [PubMed]
171. Chattopadhyay S, Ely A, Bloom K, Weinberg MS, Arbuthnot P. Inhibition of hepatitis B virus replication with linear DNA sequences expressing antiviral micro-RNA shuttles. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2009;389(3):484–9. Epub 2009/09/08. [PubMed]
172. Shrivastava N, Srivastava A. RNA interference: an emerging generation of biologicals. Biotechnol J. 2008;3(3):339–53. Epub 2008/03/06. [PubMed]
173. Izquierdo M. Short interfering RNAs as a tool for cancer gene therapy. Cancer Gene Ther. 2005;12(3):217–27. Epub 2004/11/20. [PubMed]
174. Brown BD, Naldini L. Exploiting and antagonizing microRNA regulation for therapeutic and experimental applications. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10(8):578–85. Epub 2009/07/18. [PubMed]
175. Zhong YQ, Xia ZS, Fu YR, Zhu ZH. Knockdown of hTERT by SiRNA suppresses growth of Capan-2 human pancreatic cancer cell via the inhibition of expressions of Bcl-2 and COX-2. J Dig Dis. 2010;11(3):176–84. Epub 2010/06/29. [PubMed]
176. Li MJ, Bauer G, Michienzi A, Yee JK, Lee NS, Kim J, et al. Inhibition of HIV-1 infection by lentiviral vectors expressing Pol III-promoted anti-HIV RNAs. Mol Ther. 2003;8(2):196–206. Epub 2003/08/09. [PubMed]
177. Anderson J, Akkina R. Complete knockdown of CCR5 by lentiviral vector-expressed siRNAs and protection of transgenic macrophages against HIV-1 infection. Gene Ther. 2007;14(17):1287–97. Epub 2007/06/29. [PubMed]
178. Kunze D, Wuttig D, Fuessel S, Kraemer K, Kotzsch M, Meye A, et al. Multitarget siRNA inhibition of antiapoptotic genes (XIAP, BCL2, BCL-X(L)) in bladder cancer cells. Anticancer Res. 2008;28(4B):2259–63. Epub 2008/08/30. [PubMed]
179. Brown BD, Gentner B, Cantore A, Colleoni S, Amendola M, Zingale A, et al. Endogenous microRNA can be broadly exploited to regulate transgene expression according to tissue, lineage and differentiation state. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(12):1457–67. Epub 2007/11/21. [PubMed]
180. Ciceri F, Bonini C, Stanghellini MT, Bondanza A, Traversari C, Salomoni M, et al. Infusion of suicide-gene-engineered donor lymphocytes after family haploidentical haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for leukaemia (the TK007 trial): a non-randomised phase I-II study. The lancet oncology. 2009;10(5):489–500. Epub 2009/04/07. [PubMed]
181. Di Stasi A, Tey SK, Dotti G, Fujita Y, Kennedy-Nasser A, Martinez C, et al. Inducible apoptosis as a safety switch for adoptive cell therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(18):1673–83. Epub 2011/11/04. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
182. Kaneko S, Mastaglio S, Bondanza A, Ponzoni M, Sanvito F, Aldrighetti L, et al. IL-7 and IL-15 allow the generation of suicide gene-modified alloreactive self-renewing central memory human T lymphocytes. Blood. 2009;113(5):1006–15. Epub 2008/11/04. [PubMed]
183. Li L, Liu LN, Feller S, Allen C, Shivakumar R, Fratantoni J, et al. Expression of chimeric antigen receptors in natural killer cells with a regulatory-compliant non-viral method. Cancer Gene Ther. 2010;17(3):147–54. Epub 2009/09/12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
184. Liu LN, Shivakumar R, Allen C, Fratantoni JC. Delivery of whole tumor lysate into dendritic cells for cancer vaccination. Methods Mol Biol. 2008;423:139–53. Epub 2008/03/29. [PubMed]
185. Hackett PB, Largaespada DA, Cooper LJ. A transposon and transposase system for human application. Mol Ther. 2010;18(4):674–83. Epub 2010/01/28. [PubMed]
186. McLachlan G, Davidson H, Holder E, Davies LA, Pringle IA, Sumner-Jones SG, et al. Pre-clinical evaluation of three non-viral gene transfer agents for cystic fibrosis after aerosol delivery to the ovine lung. Gene Ther. 2011;18(10):996–1005. Epub 2011/04/23. [PubMed]
187. Fenske DB, Chonn A, Cullis PR. Liposomal nanomedicines: an emerging field. Toxicol Pathol. 2008;36(1):21–9. Epub 2008/03/14. [PubMed]
188. Hosseinkhani H, Tabata Y. Self assembly of DNA nanoparticles with polycations for the delivery of genetic materials into cells. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2006;6(8):2320–8. Epub 2006/10/14. [PubMed]
189. Orlando SJ, Santiago Y, DeKelver RC, Freyvert Y, Boydston EA, Moehle EA, et al. Zinc-finger nuclease-driven targeted integration into mammalian genomes using donors with limited chromosomal homology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(15):e152. Epub 2010/06/10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
190. Benabdallah BF, Allard E, Yao S, Friedman G, Gregory PD, Eliopoulos N, et al. Targeted gene addition to human mesenchymal stromal cells as a cell-based plasma-soluble protein delivery platform. Cytotherapy. 2010;12(3):394–9. Epub 2010/03/25. [PubMed]
191. Papapetrou EP, Lee G, Malani N, Setty M, Riviere I, Tirunagari LM, et al. Genomic safe harbors permit high beta-globin transgene expression in thalassemia induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(1):73–8. Epub 2010/12/15. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
192. Gersbach CA, Gaj T, Gordley RM, Mercer AC, Barbas CF., 3rd. Targeted plasmid integration into the human genome by an engineered zinc-finger recombinase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(17):7868–78. Epub 2011/06/10. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
193. Trounson A, Dewitt ND. Stem cell biology: Towards the reality of cell therapeutics. Nature cell biology. 2012;14(4):331. Epub 2012/04/04. [PubMed]
194. Trounson A, DeWitt ND, Feigal EG. The Alpha Stem Cell Clinic: A Model for Evaluating and Delivering Stem Cell-Based Therapies. Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2012;1(1):9–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed]