Replication-competent lentivirus analysis of clinical grade vector products.

Lentiviral vectors are now in clinical trials for a variety of inherited and acquired disorders. A challenge for moving any viral vector into the clinic is the ability to screen the vector product for the presence of replication-competent virus. Assay development for replication-competent lentivirus (RCL) is particularly challenging because recombination of vector packaging plasmids and cellular DNA leading to RCL has not been reported with the current viral vector systems. Therefore, the genomic structure of a RCL remains theoretical. In this report, we describe a highly sensitive RCL assay suitable for screening vector product and have screened large-scale vector supernatant, cells used in vector production, and cells transduced with clinical grade vector. We discuss the limitations and challenges of the current assay, and suggest modifications that may improve the suitability of this assay for screening US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA)-licensed products.

Replication-Competent Lentivirus Analysis of Vector-Transduced T Cell Products Used in Cancer Immunotherapy Clinical Trials.

Lentiviral vectors are being used in a growing number of clinical applications, including T cell immunotherapy for cancer. As this new technology moves forward, a safety concern is the inadvertent recombination and subsequent development of a replication-competent lentivirus (RCL) during the manufacture of the vector material. To assess this risk, regulators have required screening of T cell products infused into patients for RCL. Since vector particles have many of the proteins and nucleotide sequences found in RCL, a biologic assay has proven the most sensitive method for RCL detection. As regulators have required screening of up to 108 cells per T cell product, this method described a procedure for assessing RCL contamination of large-volume T cell products.

Product-enhanced reverse transcriptase assay for replication-competent retrovirus and lentivirus detection.

The product-enhanced reverse transcriptase (PERT) assay has been used to detect reverse transcriptase (RT) activity associated with retroviruses. Although the PERT assay has been proposed as a method for detection of replication-competent retrovirus (RCR) and lentivirus (RCL), it has not been rigorously compared with existing methods for RCR and RCL detection. We have assessed the PERT assay for detection of RCL and RCR that may contaminate lentiviral and retroviral vectors and compared it with published methods for RCL (p24gag ELISA/gag PCR) and RCR (S+/L-) detection. Our results suggest that the PERT assay is as sensitive as p24gag ELISA and gag PCR for detection of replication-competent HIV-1 in an RCL detection assay. Comparison of detection of replication-competent retroviruses, GALV and RD114, by extended S+/L- and PERT assays indicates that both assays can detect 1 IU of each virus. Our findings suggest that the PERT assay can be used for RCL and RCR testing of a variety of retroviral vectors regardless of the structure, sequence, and envelope of the vectors.

Detection of ecotropic replication-competent retroviruses: comparison of s(+)/l(-) and marker rescue assays.

Guidelines for testing gene therapy products for ecotropic replication-competent retrovirus (Eco-RCR) have not been delineated as they have for amphotropic viruses. To evaluate biologic assays that can detect these viruses, we compared an S(+)/L(-) assay and a marker rescue assay designed specifically for Eco-RCR detection. Moloney murine leukemia virus (Mo-MuLV) obtained from the American Type Culture Collection was used as the positive control. For marker rescue, NIH 3T3 cells were transduced with a retroviral vector expressing the neomycin phosphotransferase gene (3T3/Neo). Inoculation and passage of test material in 3T3/Neo cells for 3 weeks (amplification) and subsequent testing in the S(+)/L(-) assay or the marker rescue assay increased the level of sensitivity for virus detection greater than 10-fold compared with direct inoculation of D56 S(+)/L(-) cells. When serial dilutions of Mo-MuLV stock were evaluated, six of six cultures had detectable virus by the S(+)/L(-) and marker rescue assays at dilutions of 10(-5) and 10(-6). At the 10(-7) dilution, five of six assays had detectable virus in both assays. The ability to detect virus-infected cells was also evaluated in a modification that substituted cells for supernatant. Fifteen 3T3/Neo cultures inoculated with 10(6) 293 cells containing 100 or 10 Mo-MuLV/3T3 cells were all positive by marker rescue. For dilution with 1 virus-infected cell per 10(6) 293 cells, 10 of 15 cultures were positive. At the 0.1-cell dilution only 2 of 15 cultures were positive. If we hope to detect one infected cell in a test article, the probability of detecting virus if the assay is performed in triplicate is 96.3%. In summary, after 3 weeks of amplification the S(+)/L(-) and marker rescue assays can detect virus with similar sensitivities. We prefer the marker rescue assay because of the more reliable growth features of NIH 3T3 cells compared with the D56 cell line. For laboratories analyzing clinical materials, this report may prove useful in establishing detection assays for Eco-RCR.