Non-clinical safety assessment of novel drug modalities: Genome safety perspectives on viral-, nuclease- and nucleotide-based gene therapies.

Gene therapies have emerged as promising treatments for various conditions including inherited diseases as well as cancer. Ensuring their safe clinical application requires the development of appropriate safety testing strategies. Several guidelines have been provided by health authorities to address these concerns. These guidelines state that non-clinical testing should be carried out on a case-by-case basis depending on the modality. This review focuses on the genome safety assessment of frequently used gene therapy modalities, namely Adeno Associated Viruses (AAVs), Lentiviruses, designer nucleases and mRNAs. Important safety considerations for these modalities, amongst others, are vector integrations into the patient genome (insertional mutagenesis) and off-target editing. Taking into account the constraints of in vivo studies, health authorities endorse the development of novel approach methodologies (NAMs), which are innovative in vitro strategies for genotoxicity testing. This review provides an overview of NAMs applied to viral and CRISPR/Cas9 safety, including next generation sequencing-based methods for integration site analysis and off-target editing. Additionally, NAMs to evaluate the oncogenicity risk arising from unwanted genomic modifications are discussed. Thus, a range of promising techniques are available to support the safe development of gene therapies. Thorough validation, comparisons and correlations with clinical outcomes are essential to identify the most reliable safety testing strategies. By providing a comprehensive overview of these NAMs, this review aims to contribute to a better understanding of the genome safety perspectives of gene therapies.

Identification of marker genes to monitor residual iPSCs in iPSC-derived products.

BACKGROUND: Engineered tissues and cell therapies based on human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) represent a promising approach for novel medicines. However, iPSC-derived cells and tissues may contain residual undifferentiated iPSCs that could lead to teratoma formation after implantation into patients. As a consequence, highly sensitive and specific methods for detecting residual undifferentiated iPSCs are indispensable for safety evaluations of iPSC-based therapies. The present study provides an approach for identifying potential marker genes for iPSC impurities in iPSC-derived cells using RNA sequencing data from iPSCs and various differentiated cell types. METHODS: Identifying iPSC marker genes for each cell type individually provided a larger and more specific set of potential marker genes than considering all cell types in the analysis. Thus, the authors focused on identifying markers for iPSC impurities in iPSC-derived cardiomyocytes (iCMs) and validated the selected genes by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The sensitivity of the candidate genes was determined by spiking different amounts of iPSCs into iCMs and their performance was compared with the previously suggested marker lin-28 homolog A (LIN28A). RESULTS: Embryonic stem cell-related gene (ESRG), long intergenic non-protein coding RNA 678 (LINC00678), CaM kinase-like vesicle-associated (CAMKV), indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), chondromodulin (CNMD), LINE1-type transposase domain containing 1 (L1DT1), LIN28A, lymphocyte-specific protein tyrosine kinase (LCK), vertebrae development-associated (VRTN) and zinc finger and SCAN domain containing 10 (ZSCAN10) detected contaminant iPSCs among iCMs with a limit of detection that ranged from 0.001% to 0.1% depending on the gene and iCM batch used. CONCLUSIONS: Using the example of iCMs, the authors provide a strategy for identifying a set of highly specific and sensitive markers that can be used for quality assessment of iPSC-derived products.

Evaluation of two in vitro assays for tumorigenicity assessment of CRISPR-Cas9 genome-edited cells.

Off-target editing is one of the main safety concerns for the use of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in gene therapy. These unwanted modifications could lead to malignant transformation, which renders tumorigenicity assessment of gene therapy products indispensable. In this study, we established two in vitro transformation assays, the soft agar colony-forming assay (SACF) and the growth in low attachment assay (GILA) as alternative methods for tumorigenicity evaluation of genome-edited cells. Using a CRISPR-Cas9-based approach to transform immortalized MCF10A cells, we identified PTPN12, a known tumor suppressor, as a valid positive control in GILA and SACF. Next, we measured the limit of detection for both assays and proved that SACF is more sensitive than GILA (0.8% versus 3.1% transformed cells). We further validated SACF and GILA by identifying a set of positive and negative controls and by testing the suitability of another cell line (THLE-2). Moreover, in contrast to SACF and GILA, an in vivo tumorigenicity study failed to detect the known tumorigenic potential of PTPN12 deletion, demonstrating the relevance of GILA and SACF in tumorigenicity testing. In conclusion, SACF and GILA are both attractive and valuable additions to preclinical safety assessment of gene therapy products.