|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepublished online as a Blood First Edition Paper on January 2, 2003; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-07-2314.
REVIEW IN TRANSLATIONAL HEMATOLOGY
From the Department of Hematology and Oncology,
Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany; the Division
of Experimental Hematology, Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation,
Cincinnati, OH; the Departments of Neuroanatomy and Bone Marrow
Transplantation, University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg,
Germany; and the Department of Cell and Virus Genetics,
Heinrich Pette Institute, Hamburg, Germany.
Recent conceptual and technical improvements have resulted in
clinically meaningful levels of gene transfer into repopulating hematopoietic stem cells. At the same time, evidence is accumulating that gene therapy may induce several kinds of unexpected side effects,
based on preclinical and clinical data. To assess the therapeutic
potential of genetic interventions in hematopoietic cells, it will be
important to derive a classification of side effects, to obtain
insights into their underlying mechanisms, and to use rigorous
statistical approaches in comparing data. We here review side effects
related to target cell manipulation; vector production; transgene
insertion and expression; selection procedures for transgenic cells;
and immune surveillance. We also address some inherent differences
between hematopoiesis in the most commonly used animal model, the
laboratory mouse, and in humans. It is our intention to emphasize the
need for a critical and hypothesis-driven analysis of "transgene
toxicology," in order to improve safety, efficiency, and
prognosis for the yet small but expanding group of patients that could
benefit from gene therapy.
(Blood. 2003;101:2099-2113) "This is a strange drop in my blood" (Goethe).
"It is the dose that makes the poison" (Paracelsus).
"What can go wrong, will go wrong" (Murphy).
Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are important targets for somatic gene
therapy, considering their availability for in vitro manipulation and
their enormous biologic capacity.1,2 In selected entities,
gene therapy involving manipulation of HSCs has now clearly shown
clinical efficiency, opening up new perspectives for the entire
field.3,4 However, it is a principle in pharmacology that
no true effect is possible without inducing side effects. Prognosticating the type and incidence of side effects is an important step toward predicting the overall therapeutic benefit for a new modality.
The genetic modification of HSCs generates special concerns:
1. These cells are long-lived and might represent a reservoir for the
accumulation of proto-oncogenic lesions.5
2. Current technology requires that HSCs have to be enriched and
cultured in vitro to become accessible to genetic manipulation.
3. This also implies that the engineered graft represents only a small
fraction (probably about 1%-10%) of the hematopoietic cell pool of a
healthy individual. Infused cells may therefore be altered not only in
terms of quality, but will also be heavily diluted by unmodified
counterparts residing in the body. This may result in the establishment
of a "strange drop in the blood," which could correct diseases only
if it were strongly enriched in vivo.
4. Therefore, achieving targeted amplification or preferential survival
of engineered cells is one important key to success in hematopoietic
gene therapy.2-4 However, clonal expansion, while limited
by cellular senescence and exhaustion,6 has also been
suggested as a risk factor contributing to cellular transformation, at
least when occurring under nonphysiologic conditions of
growth.7
5. HSCs, or at least the cell preparations enriched for HSCs,
may not only reconstitute the entire myeloerythroid and lymphoid spectrum, but they may also differentiate into or fuse with other cell
types, including endothelial; skeletal and heart muscle cells; hepatocytes; neurons; and epithelial of gut and lungs. However, the
frequency of such events is controversial.8-12 The
developmental potential of HSCs generates a huge repertoire of
conceivable biologic conditions and anatomic sites where side effects
may manifest. However, the likelihood of manifestations outside the
hematopoietic system appears to be relatively low unless special
triggers exist that drive fate-switching.11,12
6. Because of the high proliferative potential of HSCs, stable,
heritable gene transfer is required for successful genetic modification. In the current "state-of-the-art" only viral
vectors on the basis of retroviruses (including lentiviruses) mediate a
predictable efficiency of stable transgene insertion with a predefined
copy number.13 Chromosomal insertion guarantees transgene maintenance during clonal amplification. Episomally persisting viral
vector systems such as those based on Epstein-Barr virus are still
suboptimal14 because efficient gene transfer into HSCs is
either not yet available or maintenance and expression of transgene
copies are insufficiently investigated. Physicochemical methods result
in a low probability for stable transgene insertion (< 10 7. The use of retroviral (including lentiviral) vectors implies that
engineered cells of the same graft will vary with respect to transgene
insertion sites (which are unpredictable and can affect both transgene
and cellular gene expression), copy number per cell (which can be
controlled more easily, but not entirely), and sequence (which can be
modified in the error-prone process of reverse transcription). This
produces a mixed chimerism of genetic modification in different stem
cell clones, each with a theoretically distinct potential for eliciting
side effects.
To facilitate the evaluation and discussion of side effects, we
introduce a classification system at this point (Table
1).
As the whole process of genetic manipulation of transplantable HSCs is
complex (Figure
1), problems may be encountered at different levels: (1) enrichment and
culture of target cells (toxicity of cell manipulation); (2) vector
production (vector toxicity); (3) insertion of foreign sequences or
other alterations of the cellular genome (genotoxicity); (4) expression
of transgenes (for which we would like to introduce the term
"phenotoxicity"); (5) conditioning or selective drugs for
enrichment of gene-manipulated cells (selection toxicity); (6) immune
responses evoked by vector components or the transgene product
(immunogenicity); and (7) aggravating interactions of some of these
events.
Depending on the type, severity, and kinetics of side effects, patients
may be asymptomatic or present with unclear symptoms, such as fever of
unknown origin, signs of hemolysis, cytopenia of any lineage,
immunodeficiency, autoimmune disorders, myelodysplasia, or, at worst,
lymphoma, leukemia, or other types of malignancy. Some of these
disorders, most of which are of only theoretical signficance at
present, will occur only after prolonged periods of
time18,19 and may be missed in preclinical studies with limited follow-up after genetic manipulation of HSCs. However, increasing the potency of the methods and the numbers of treatments may
confront us with a growing number of reports.
Indeed, this review was prompted by our observation of a leukemia in a
mouse study with prolonged follow-up after retroviral gene transfer
into hematopoietic cells.20 Unfortunately, the first case
of a malignant disorder following clinical retroviral vector-mediated
gene transfer into human hematopoietic cells was observed shortly
thereafter, manifesting 3 years after the infusion of retrovirally
modified cells21,22 so that a once theoretical risk has become a real one. The uncertainty observed in the scientific and regulatory community following these reports23,24
reflects a considerable need for systematic toxicology of genetic cell modifications.
Paracelsus, a founder of toxicology, has provided 3 golden rules for
the assessment of side effects. The first is that poison is a question
of dose.25 Dose issues are encountered at several levels
in hematopoietic gene therapy (Figure
2): the number of gene transfer particles to which the cells are exposed,
the transgene copy number per cell, transcription rates, efficiency of
RNA processing, protein features such as activity or stability of
enzymes, the size of the target cell pool (generating a clonal
repertoire due to the variations in transgene processing and
integration), the life span of transplanted cells, and the number of
patients treated.
Paracelsus' second rule is that a compound has a specific site (within
the body) where it exerts the greatest effect.25 Applied
to gene therapy, this indicates that cell type and its developmental
plasticity really matter. The third rule is to use animal models for
preclinical dose finding.25 Therefore, the limitations of
animal models also have to be considered. Cell specificity and animal
testing have been central items in gene therapy from the beginning.
However, most studies focused on efficiency and were not designed to
measure unexpected effects.
The present review summarizes recent insights into molecular mechanisms
underlying side effects of genetic interventions in HSCs, following the
classification of issues listed above (Table 1), and discusses
consequences for the most commonly used animal model, the laboratory mouse.
Under steady-state conditions (normal hematopoietic turnover and
an intact bone marrow niche), the majority of HSCs cycles slowly, yet
continuously.26-28 For genetic modification, HSCs are either harvested from peripheral blood or bone marrow.29
The yield and biologic features of cells from these sources differ depending on the use of mechanical harvest versus cytokines (typically granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF]) and/or
chemotherapy, which may have direct implications for the efficiency of
retroviral transduction and engraftment.29-31 Exposure to
cytotoxic agents may compromise the engraftment potential of
HSCs.32 Umbilical cord blood is a promising resource of
stem cells, but the limited numbers of HSCs contained in cord blood may
restrict a wider use in adults.33,34
Target cells of genetic manipulation usually have to be enriched to
facilitate physical interaction with vector particles (Figure 1).
Enrichment of HSCs for clinical use is most frequently achieved by
immunoaffinity selection for the CD34 antigen. Developed for
"mainstream" clinical applications, these processes for cell harvesting and enrichment have an excellent safety profile, and the
engraftment potential of CD34-enriched cells is very
good.35 However, according to our current understanding,
long-term repopulating HSCs probably represent less than 1%
of the CD34+ cell pool. Thus, the target pool size
currently used for gene transfer is probably about 100-fold greater
than actually required.
In theory, manipulating 10 000 HSCs (or maybe even much smaller
numbers) should be sufficient to achieve a polyclonal transgenic hematopoiesis.27,36,37 This would reduce significantly the numbers of vector particles required for cell manipulation, the risk of
random mutagenic events that are related to the number of transgene
insertions (below), and probably also the costs of the
procedure. However, methods required for further enrichment of HSCs,
such as isolation of the CD34+CD38 Although short-term reconstitution may be promoted following cell
expansion in vitro,41 current culture conditions may
induce a selective loss of long-term HSCs.29 Several
underlying mechanisms have been identified: commitment to
differentiation (loss of pluripotency) or even apoptosis, a
cell-cycle-associated loss of engraftment/homing properties, and
differential susceptibility to natural killer cell-mediated
rejection.29,42-44 Although engraftment with cultured cells alone has been rapid and sustained in clinical gene therapy studies,45,46 extended manipulations, such as prolonged
culture or enrichment of cells expressing the transgene prior to
infusion, may promote deficits in long-term
reconstitution.29,41,47 Similar considerations apply for
lymphocyte cultures.48 Long-term follow-up, which in
humans encompasses many years, will be required to draw firm
conclusions that HSC exhaustion is not triggered by the procedures used
during HSC manipulation in vitro.29 Therefore, all efforts invested to maintain stem cell properties during in vitro
culture are important. Improvements of HSC culture can be achieved by
(1) the use of serum-free culture conditions,49 (2) the
definition of appropriate cytokine combinations,50 (3) the
manipulation of transcription factor levels such as
HOXB4,51 (4) the introduction of other (such as
extracellular matrix) molecules52-54 or appropriate stroma
components,55,56 and (5) protocols allowing a return to
cell-cycle quiescence prior to infusion.57,58 Moreover, new vector systems are being developed to reduce the need for stem
cell proliferation prior to gene transfer.13,59-61
It may also be interesting to expand engineered cells in vitro
following gene transfer. However, in at least one case, this attempt
has been associated with an increased risk of malignant transformation
of transduced murine hematopoietic cells.62 Although it is
possible that the expansion culture promoted a specific side effect of
the vector or packaging cells used in this study, further work is
required to address the extent to which culture conditions support a
preferential growth of mutants with proto-oncogenic lesions.
In summary, new procedures for HSC harvest, enrichment, gene transfer,
and expansion culture need to be studied intensively before clinical
application. Besides "conventional" mouse models,32 immunodeficient mice38,63 or fetal sheep47
supporting engraftment of primitive human hematopoietic cells and
supporting studies in nonhuman primates64 serve as
valuable models for this purpose.
Conventional retroviral vectors based on mouse leukemia virus
(MLV) and the more recently developed lentiviral vectors (such as those
based on HIV-1) differ in many respects, particularly in their nuclear
import strategies.13,60,61 While MLV vectors require cell
division for chromosomal insertion, lentiviral vectors may also
transduce nonproliferating cells. However, lentiviral transduction
efficiency also declines according to cell-cycle stages in the order
M > G1 > G0. Another feature of
HIV-based lentiviral vectors is that complex transgene cassettes
containing cryptic splice sites are more reliably
transferred,65-68 which may be related to regulatory
functions of the viral REV protein expressed during the packaging
process. Because of the significant differences in the biologic
properties of the viral proteins involved in the generation of
replication-defective vectors, MLV and HIV vectors have distinct
requirements for the design and culture of their respective
producer cells.
Stable producer clones are more easily established with long
terminal repeat (LTR)-driven vectors
Replication-competent retrovirus Contamination of vector stocks with RCR can be detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), or cell biologic assays. While the sensitivity of these methods can be very high, residual contamination of a clinical vector preparation as a matter of principle cannot be fully excluded. Important improvements in the design of vectors and packaging cells have greatly reduced the risk of generating RCR.69The risk of developing a disease following accidental exposure to an MLV-related RCR depends heavily on the genetic background of the recipient and the integrity of the immune system. Replication-competent MLV with an amphotropic envelope protein was not found to represent a significant pathogen for immunocompetent or transiently immunosuppressed nonhuman primates.19 However, when CD34+-enriched cells were exposed to high titers of RCR-contaminated vector preparations in vitro and infused under conditions of strong immunosuppression, rhesus monkeys developed lymphomas within one year.72 This required the absence of an immune response against retroviral particles or infected cells, and was likely driven by insertional mutagenesis (below) due to massive virus replication within susceptible lymphoid cells.19,72 When inoculated into newborn mice, amphotropic MLV may also induce a spongiform encephalopathy, whose kinetics and anatomic distribution depend on the type of the envelope protein.73 Potential RCR originating from lentiviral packaging cells has not been described to date. Accordingly, the potential pathogenicity of such recombinants is unknown, yet expected to be unlike that of wild-type HIV as a result of the anticipated differences in Env proteins, regulatory elements for gene expression, and the absence of many HIV accessory genes. An established limitation of currently used stable lentivirus packaging lines is genetic instability, because they may undergo multiple superinfection events when cultured (due to the lack of subgroup interference with the VSV-G pseudotype used).74-76 Although no side effects have been reported in more than a decade of clinical experience even with early generations of retroviral producer cells,77 stringent safety testing and further technological improvements are still desirable for both retro- and lentivirus production systems. In the unlikely event of accidental exposure to RCR and their escape from immune control, it may be possible to suppress viral replication in patients using clinically approved inhibitors, unless resistance develops.78 Mobilization In the absence of an RCR originating from the packaging cells, spread of a retroviral vector could be possible when naturally occurring viruses exist that can package the vector RNA and are transmitted in the human population. This concern appears to be irrelevant for MLV vectors,79 but needs to be considered for vectors developed on the basis of HIV or other lentiviruses.80 To prevent this problem, lentiviral vectors are typically designed with a so-called self-inactivating (SIN) LTR. This is achieved by placing the enhancer-promoter into an internal position between defective LTRs, eliminating transcription of the packaging signal required for incorporation of the vector RNA in virus particles.60,61Transient transfection for vector production So far, both lentiviral and previously investigated retroviral SIN vectors cannot be produced at sufficient titers from cloned packaging cell lines.74 Efficient production of SIN vectors has been achieved only following transient transfection of plasmid vector constructs into packaging cells.61,74,81 Although significant amounts of vector particles can be produced using this procedure,81 concerns remain unresolved regarding the type and incidence of plasmid recombinations, accidental transfer of plasmid DNA with vector particles,70 and the identity of the product obtained in independent production batches.The infidelity of reverse transcription A limitation common to all types of retroviral vectors is the possibility for transgene recombination or mutation occurring during the obligate step of reverse transcription. The retroviral enzyme reverse transcriptase converts RNA to double-stranded DNA with an infidelity of about 10 4, suggesting that mutations are
introduced once per 10 kb of a retroviral RNA template.82
This may reflect an evolutionary pressure to produce about one mutation
per replication cycle, given a genome size of natural retroviruses in
the range of 8 to 11 kb. The misincorporation rate is similar for
vectors based on MLV and HIV.83 If we consider as a worst
case scenario a proto-oncogene such as N-RAS with a size of
570 bp, one mutation could occur per 18 retrovirally transduced copies.
For N-RAS, at least 3 activating mutations are known from a
total of 1710 (3 × 570) possibilities for single-point mutations
(http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/niceprot.pl?p01111). Thus, about one
oncogenic N-RAS mutant would be formed per 104
reverse transcriptions. In a clinical setting, about
108 to 109 infectious particles are
required per CD34+ cell preparation. Therefore, it may
be important to define the oncogenic mutation frequency for a given
cDNA, especially when dealing with transgenes encoding
"signaling" molecules.
Much more frequent errors in transgene replication may result from sequence deletions or recombinations before or during reverse transcription.82,83 Regulatory genome sequences that can be required to achieve cell-type-specific gene expression84 and some clinically relevant cDNAs such as MDR1 or HSV-TK may contain cryptic splice sites that give rise to pregenomic splicing of the vector RNA in packaging cells.85,86 Interestingly, the frequency of these cryptic splicing events also depends on the packaging cell line.87 Also, intrastrand or interstrand recombinations are not uncommon during reverse transcription (retroviruses typically package 2 copies of a pregenomic RNA). These can be triggered by direct sequence repeats within the transgene,83,88 and again occur with similar frequency in vectors based on MLV or HIV.83 The vast majority of such events will simply reduce the efficiency of the gene transfer. However, it may be worthwhile to address potential hazards induced by aberrations of a given transgene prior to clinical testing. Attempts to reduce sequence repetitions, to eliminate unwanted splice sites, and to choose appropriate packaging cell clones greatly improve the fidelity of transferring intact transgene sequences.84,87,89,90 Another concern related to vector production is the accidental incorporation of cellular RNA in the retroviral particle. Acutely transforming retroviruses encoding cellular oncogenes have evolved through such events, again requiring recombination during reverse transcription.82,91 However, to create such an unwanted oncogene vector, further mutations triggered by multiple rounds of replication in virus/vector spread are typically required. Therefore, this risk appears extremely low with a replication-defective vector.
Complications resulting from transgene insertion (insertional
mutagenesis) are a concern for all stable gene transfer methods. Retroviral insertion has some unique properties. The first resides in
the fact that insertion is a default event in the retroviral life
cycle,82,91 implying that the frequency of transgene
insertion per cell can be predetermined by adjusting the multiplicity
of infection.92 The second is that insertion tends to take
place in euchromatin, possibly because of its improved
accessibility.93 Consequently, the risk for insertion in
transcriptionally active regions of chromosomal DNA is increased, as
recently also demonstrated for HIV and derived vectors.94
This implies a possibility for a cell-type-specific distribution, also
assisted by host factors that participate in the preintegration
complex.94 Retroviral integrases are not sequence-specific
with respect to transgene insertion, yet prefer specific structural
features (bended DNA).95 Thus, some yet unknown genetic
loci may be at increased risk for retroviral insertion.94
The third important feature of retroviral insertion is that it
typically does not create subsequent recombinations within or outside
the affected locus, although exceptions to this rule have been
reported. Postintegration deletions may occur within repeats
present in a single retroviral transgene, but these events appear to be
rare.96 Mutations within and surrounding a retroviral genome during expansion or malignant transformation of a transduced cell have also been described.97,98 Finally,
recombinations may occur between sequence-related, yet independently
inserted, retroviral alleles.99 However, the incidence of
such events in nontransformed cells is assumed to be low (although
probably not as low as the error rate of the cellular replication
machinery, which is in the range of 10 Incidence of recessive and dominant oncogenic insertions With improving sequence information available from the murine and human genome projects, retroviral insertion events become increasingly mappable with regard to their exact to-the-base chromosomal location, relation to neighboring sequences, and potential interference with coding and regulatory regions.20-22,94Previous assessments of the risk of untoward side effects from
retrovirus insertion have been estimated to be rather low (between 10 Based on the hypothesis of semirandom choice of target sequence,
proto-oncogenic activation by a transgene insertion event would be
expected to be more frequent. Considering that the entire human genome
consists of approximately 3 × 109 base pairs (bp), a
transforming insertion event frequency of 10 Restricting the area of retrovirus insertion interference to a diameter
of about 10 kbp around a given gene, the chance of a single insertion
interfering with a defined allele is roughly 10 At least 3 layers of safety, however, prevent such insertion events from being directly cancerogenic: first, retrovirus vector insertion is almost uniformly monoallelic,107 reducing the relevance of most recessive mutational events. This restricts the influence of insertional disturbance to the much more rare setting of dominant effects that are biologically active even if just one locus has been changed. Second, some signal alterations may trigger differentiation or apoptosis, impede engraftment, or otherwise reduce the survival probability of the affected cell clone. Third, and foremost, a single insertional mutation is, to our current knowledge, not sufficient to develop a malignant phenotype by itself.108 In the vector-associated incidents of murine and human leukemia that have recently been described,21,22 the insertional oncogene activation has at best contributed to a premalignant expansion of cells later developing the malignant clone because of additional genetic events. This underlines the need to screen for potential cooperation of insertional mutagenesis with side effects of the transgene or other circumstances contributing to clonal expansion of gene-modified cells (below). An issue of unknown significance is whether multiple insertions in single cells will lead to a disproportionate increase in the risk for insertional mutagenesis, although the few available data suggest a linear relationship between insertion frequency and mutagenesis.97,102 It cannot be excluded that a high copy number of largely identical retrovirus transgenes distributed all over the genome may trigger chromosomal instability. In general, side effects observed under conditions of a high multiplicity of infection62,109 may not be relevant for a more carefully controlled transduction procedure.110 Considering these uncertainties, it appears reasonable to opt for the transfer of not more than 1 or 2 transgenes per cell. This represents the efficiency of currently available methods,36,111 but may in the future be more of an issue in vector systems with a higher efficiency of integration or high multiplicity of infection.112 In conclusion, the likelihood of oncogenic lesions induced by insertional mutagenesis alone would be expected to be relatively small when compared with some other established medical treatments, such as irradiation or chemotherapy with DNA-damaging agents.103 Transformation of non-stem cells initiated by insertional mutagenesis does not seem to occur frequently: before 2002, no severe side effects related to insertional mutagenesis had been reported in more than a decade of clinical experience with retrovirus gene transfer into more committed hematopoietic cells and mature lymphocytes,1,2 probably involving the manipulation of more than 1012 cells. The number of cases in which these observations were made long-term is substantial, although the number of repopulating stem cells engrafted altogether probably did not exceed 10 to 100 per patient, putting the overall number of transgene insertion events in HSCs under long-term observation at approximately 104 to 105 worldwide. Impact of vector design The LTR configuration of conventional retroviral vectors comes with an increased risk to activate neighboring cellular sequences. The LTR establishes the enhancer-promoter regulating initiation of transcription and the polyadenylation signal giving rise to its termination on both ends of the transgene (Figure 3). Although MLV enhancer-promoters are strongly active in most hematopoietic cells (albeit with pronounced differentiation dependence),71,113 the polyadenylation signal is relatively weak.114 Moreover, the major retroviral splice donor or related motifs in the transgene may interact with downstream splice acceptors of cellular genes. Combined with insufficient termination, these features generate a number of possibilities for activation of cellular sequences located downstream of the transgene insertion site (Figure 3).
Some of the mechanisms giving rise to activation of a cellular gene also apply to lentiviral or MLV vectors with a SIN architecture.115 However, the most frequent mechanism involved in retroviral insertional oncogene activation appears to be enhancer related, possibly working orientation independent and over large distances. Such a risk applies to almost any type of transgene configuration. Considering the molecular mechanisms underlying activation of cellular genes, one could design vectors of improved safety. Such a vector should have a strong RNA termination/polyadenylation signal (serving as an "RNA insulator")114,115; an internal position of the enhancer and promoter sequences that are excluded from functional interactions with neighboring sequences through the inclusion of dominant DNA insulators116; and a strong internal splice acceptor that largely prevents interaction of the retroviral splice donor with downstream sequences. If functioning as predicted, such a (hypothetical) construct depicted in Figure 3B would reduce the risk of insertional mutagenesis to the residual risk of disrupting genes. The latter may often be irrelevant unless haploinsufficiency becomes phenotypically relevant or loss of heterozygosity occurs through independent hits. Another strategy to avoid insertional mutagenesis would be to achieve targeted insertion of transgenes into predefined "benign" cellular loci. Although conceptual progress has been achieved in the manipulation of retroviral integrase, experimental evidence for a stringent, sequence-specific targeting strategy is limited.117 A recent report indicates that physicochemical transfection procedures may be developed for targeted transgene insertion into defined genome loci in vivo (murine hepatocytes).16 It remains to be seen whether such technologies are free from genotoxic side effects and how they can be adapted to HSCs. Similar considerations apply to targeted transgene insertion technologies developed on the basis of AAV.118 Besides these primary prevention strategies, vectors could also be equipped with selectable marker genes to generate options for secondary prevention strategies. A drug-resistance marker could be used to reduce the clonal repertoire in vivo (Figure 3C) by ablating cells with low expression levels.119 However, if insertional oncogene activation enhances the fitness of cells during selection, this strategy may be counterproductive. Experiments addressing this issue have not been reported to our knowledge. Another option would be to include a negative selection marker in the transgene cassette. A conditional suicide gene (such as HSV-TK)90 may help to eliminate a malignant clone (Figure 3D), especially when combined with other antineoplastic treatments. However, this would also result in the loss of nontransformed transgenic cells. Before such an approach can be recommended, the potential immunogenicity of many suicide gene products and the limited preclinical experience with introducing suicide genes into HSCs has to be overcome.
The ultimate goal of genetic therapy is to replace in situ a defective gene sequence, ideally by homologous recombination repair of the original locus. However, using available vectors and HSCs as targets, somatic gene transfer typically results in ectopic and nonregulated expression of the transgene, both with respect to the cell type affected and the level of expression achieved. Depending on the type and assembly of cis elements used, expression levels generated by different vectors may differ by up to 3 orders of magnitude. Different variants of MLV enhancer-promoters and some cellular promoters have shown a great potential for multilineage and persistent transgene expression in hematopoietic cells in vivo, typically accounting for less than 1% of the total cellular protein content.71,113,119-123 Cellular control elements have been modified to provide lineage-specific expression with promising potency,65-67,124 and inducible expression has been achieved with designer promoters.68 The insertion site modulates all aspects of transgene expression, including duration, level, and differentiation dependence. With LTR-driven retroviral vectors, the majority of unselected clones shows fairly similar transgene expression levels. However, interclonal variability of transgene expression may be as high as 50-fold, and complete silencing can be observed in some HSCs and their progeny.113,120,122 Unless targeted insertion into the correct cellular allele or specific regulation is achieved, transgene expression will hardly ever be physiologic in every transduced cell. According to Paracelsus' first rule (poison is a question of dose), it can be predicted that any transgene product has a defined therapeutic window compatible with the desired function and without the predominance of unwanted effects. Toxicity related to transgene expression may most frequently manifest in a competitive disadvantage, leading to the extinction of the affected cell (clone) and thus to a loss of efficiency. However, transgene interference with cellular decisions related to homing, proliferation, or differentiation may eventually result in the manifestation of new types of diseases. Currently, few observations are available that support these concerns. However, we have to be aware that up to now far less than 1% of the human cDNA pool and a necessarily minute fraction of all artificial sequences possible have been introduced into gene therapy research. Moreover, gene delivery systems have and will continue to become increasingly potent, also allowing the simultaneous transfer of 2 or more cDNAs with a single vector. To support these considerations, 4 examples may be sufficient. Of the 4, 3 deal with the use of selectable marker genes, a key technology in hematopoietic gene therapy. These examples provide evidence for dose-dependent toxicity (HOXB4), an as yet uncertain contribution to a severe side effect (MDR1), and evidence for context-dependent side effects (dLNGFR). These and a final example (CD40L) highlight the importance of developing vectors for spatially or temporally controlled expression of transgenes. Ectopic expression of HOXB4: dose-dependent side effects? Retroviral vector-mediated expression of HOXB4, encoding a homeodomain transcription factor involved in the regulation of hematopoietic pool size, has been shown to promote polyclonal and regulated expansion of engineered HSCs.51,125 In contrast to many other homeobox genes, ectopic expression of HOXB4 in hematopoietic cells did not lead to overt alterations of differentiation or uncontrolled expansion of gene-modified cells in mice.126 The interest in HOXB4 gene transfer for cell therapy has been reinforced by the finding that murine embryonic stem (ES) cell-derived hematopoiesis can be partially converted to repopulation competence in adult hosts upon transient or stable activation of HOXB4 expression.127In human HSCs transplanted into immunodeficient mice, ectopic expression of HOXB4 promoted the expansion of primitive hematopoietic cells.128,129 However, high levels of HOXB4 expressed from "stronger" vectors impeded myeloid and lymphoid differentiation of human hematopoietic cells.129 In line with these data, impaired repopulation of lymphatic tissues was observed in a study using HOXB4-engineered hematopoietic cells derived from a somatic cloning procedure.130 These studies taken together argue that the effects of HOXB4 are highly dependent on the dose and the kinetics of its ectopic expression. Importantly, activation of HOXB4-interacting partners such as PBX1 (possibly by insertional mutagenesis) may be sufficient to promote transformation of HSCs with constitutive ectopic expression of HOXB4.131 Thus, a potential therapeutic use of HOXB4 may require an exact definition of a therapeutic window and may depend on the ability of regulated expression. Murine leukemia following MDR1 gene transfer: phenotoxicity, genotoxicity, or both? Adenosine triphosphate binding cassette (ABC) transporter pumps encoded by multidrug resistance 1 (MDR1) or ABCG2 are naturally expressed in primitive hematopoietic cells, explaining their inherent competence for extruding some fluorescent dyes and other amphiphilic compounds.132,133 Increasing expression levels of such pumps may promote a survival advantage in the presence of high doses of some chemotherapeutic agents,134,135 and independently antagonize some proapoptic signals, as shown for MDR1.132,136,137Interestingly, ectopic expression of ABCG2 was associated with impaired differentiation of myeloid cells in mice.138 It is yet unclear to what extent this effect is dose related. The results with MDR1 have been controversial. Numerous studies, including a transgenic mouse model, have shown the ability to overexpress MDR1 in hematopoietic cells without overt alterations of cell functions (other than the acquired drug-resistance phenotype).85,134,135,139,140 Applications in dogs,141 nonhuman primates,110 and clinical trials45,46,142 have been safe, with occasional evidence for increased pump activity, although gene transfer efficiency was likely very low. However, myeloproliferative disorders have also been observed in different strains of mice using retroviral vector-mediated transfer of MDR1 into hematopoietic cells,62,109 and disease induction was promoted by prolonged expansion of cells in vitro prior to transplantation.62 Interestingly, this disease was associated not only with ectopic expression of MDR1, but also with an unusually high transgene copy number (in many cases exceeding 10 copies per clone, which is quite unusual even in mouse studies). Therefore, the most straightforward explanation is that excess MDR1 expression in this study may have been pathogenic. Besides, sequences other than MDR1 could have been expressed from insertion of intact or rearranged vectors. This aspect needs to be clarified, as the genetic integrity of the inserted transgenes has not been investigated, and the disease was so far observed only with a specific vector backbone (based on a first generation vector derived from Harvey murine sarcoma virus containing, in addition to an engineered "splice corrected" cDNA, considerable amounts of viral gene remnants that are not required for proper vector function).62,109 Moreover, it has not been reported whether the otherwise well-designed control vectors used had a similar high copy number in the producer and target cells.62,109 Thus, it remains formally unclear whether the disease was dependent on side effects of very high MDR1 expression (driven from multiple transgenic alleles in the mouse model);137 the expression of vector sequences other than MDR1 (potentially driven from rearranged vectors); or an increased risk for insertional mutagenesis or genomic instability under conditions of high copy numbers per genome. It is also quite possible that some or all of these factors acted together to produce the myeloproliferation. Another open question is whether MDR1 overexpression may
promote engraftment of gene-modified HSCs,45 although
MDR1 expression alone would not be sufficient to overcome a
culture-dependent loss of engraftment capacity.143 Taken
collectively, these data indicate that defining a therapeutic window
for ectopic expression of MDR1 or other efflux pumps in
hematopoietic cells may be difficult. If future research will not
facilitate the definition of safe conditions of transgenic
MDR1 expression, alternative metabolic selection markers may
be more promising (Table 2 and references therein).
Context-dependent toxicity of a cell-surface marker: dLNGFR The cytoplasmically deleted low-affinity nerve growth factor receptor (dLNGFR, also abbreviated LNGFR,
LNGFR, tNGFR, or NGFR) was derived
from p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75NTR) to develop a
clinically applicable cell-surface marker for hematopoietic cells.144 Although dLNGFR has been used by
several laboratories to tag gene-modified cells,145 few
data have been published regarding the ability for long-term marking
(> 1 year) of HSCs and their progeny.146 A nonhuman
primate study reported a failure to mark long-term repopulating HSCs
with dLNGFR, however without investigating potential
mechanisms.147 On the other hand, use of dLNGFR
in clinical trials with gene-modified T cells has been shown feasible and safe.148,149 However, a recent mouse
experiment20 in conjunction with an earlier study in
fibroblasts156 offered the hypothesis that
dLNGFR expression in myeloid cells may promote their
transformation in an unusual, highly context-dependent manner. It is
this proposed context dependence that renders the discussion of this
issue interesting.
p75NTR is a member of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily that can bind all known neurotrophins (NTs) including nerve growth factor (NGF).157 p75NTR is usually not expressed in hematopoietic cells, with the exception of some B-cell subsets.158 The cytoplasmic domain of p75NTR contains a proapoptotic juxtamembrane region and a death domain.157 These sequences were deleted in dLNGFR before their precise function was known in an attempt to create an inert surface marker.144 The deletion may weaken the anchoring in the cell membrane, and therefore the shedding of dLNGFR,145 which is still able to bind NTs in vivo,159 may affect the local extracellular cytokine milieu. Moreover, deletion of the intracellular domain renders dLNGFR structurally similar to naturally occurring antiapoptotic decoy receptors of the TNF-receptor family, which can act as dominant-negative inhibitors of proapoptotic intracellular pathways.160 In cells expressing TrkA, TrkB, or
TrkC, which encode tyrosine kinase receptors for different
NTs, association of p75NTR creates a heterodimeric receptor complex
with increased ligand affinity that is not dependent on the presence of
the cytoplasmic residues.157 It is noteworthy that
coexpression of either one of the Trk receptors with a
p75NTR mutant that lacked most of the intracellular domain, a construct basically identical with dLNGFR, resulted in
transformation of fibroblasts when NTs were added to the
culture.156 This growth-promoting role dLNGFR is
clearly dependent on the coexpression of a Trk gene and the
presence of NTs (Figure
4). The same configuration occurred in the murine monocytic leukemia
originating in association with retroviral insertional up-regulation of
Evi1 in hematopoietic cells, which provides circumstantial
evidence but no formal proof of a contributing role of
dLNGFR.20
Evi1 encodes a Zinc-finger transcription factor that has been implicated in the pathogenesis of human myelodysplastic syndromes and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ectopic expression of Evi1 impairs granulocytic differentiation, but leads to only mild alterations of hematopoiesis in transgenic mouse models.161 We proposed a specific interaction of dLNGFR and Evi1 in the induction of the leukemic clone, possibly reflecting a bias for a lineage (ie, monocytic) in which TrkA expression and NGF signaling were also present and functionally relevant.20,158 If this hypothesis can be confirmed, it would represent an example for cooperation of random insertional mutagenesis (genotoxicity) and transgene-related side effects (phenotoxicity) in the induction of leukemia. Alternatively or in addition, Evi1 may have induced expression of TrkA,162 and the interaction with dLNGFR may have promoted the transformation of a monocytic precursor. Also, a protein related to Evi1 has been shown to play a role in Trk-signaling of C elegans,163 opening further possibilities for transforming loops. The potential risk associated with the use of dLNGFR in HSCs is underlined by observations that signals generated through oncogenic versions of Trk receptors may contribute to the pathogenesis of human AML.164-166 Therefore, dLNGFR does not appear to be a perfect choice for the manipulation of cells with a broad plasticity such as HSCs. However, as side effects of dLNGFR are proposed to be context dependent, its use in restricted cell lineages lacking cooperating signal transducers can be justified (considering Paracelsus' second rule). Interestingly, variants of dLNGFR have been developed that are deficient in ligand binding167 in order to reduce the probability of side effects. Similar concerns of context-dependent side effects and potential for cooperation with randomly activated oncogenes apply to many other therapeutic or marker genes. Problems resulting from unregulated expression: CD40L Finally, the mode of transgene expression is an important determinant of potential toxicity. This has been exemplified in an attempt to develop gene therapy for inherited deficiency of the CD40 ligand (X-linked hyper-IgM syndrome). Ectopic constitutive, but not naturally regulated, expression of CD40L, although at low level, produced abnormal proliferative responses in developing murine T lymphocytes, apparently through dysregulated intercellular interactions during thymic maturation and selection.168 For many applications of hematopoietic gene therapy it is worth repeating the conclusion of this study: "Current methods of gene therapy may prove inappropriate for disorders involving highly regulated genes in essential positions in proliferative cascades."168These 4 examples should be sufficient to underline the importance of a
systematic risk assessment of the transgenes under consideration.
Special attention should be paid to molecules that are involved in
cellular signaling networks, such as those required for correction of
some inherited disorders3,168,169 or those generated as
surface tags120,123,144 or artificially inducible proteins
that promote cellular proliferation or differentiation decisions.153-155 We would propose that such transgenes
should be tested under conditions of high, intermediate, and low
constitutive expression,129 preferentially achieved with
vector design and not with variation of transgene dosage. Preclinical
assay systems available for such work range from cell-culture-based
model systems to animal studies and functional genomics or proteomics
(Figure 5).
Following genetic modification of HSCs in vitro, their engraftment and contribution to hematopoiesis in vivo are dependent upon the methods used for conditioning or selective amplification. Conditioning eliminates host cells prior to infusion of gene-modified cells. Irradiation or cytotoxic agents induce a moderate to severe (myeloablative) lymphohematotoxicity. However, these regimens can be complicated by severe long-term toxicity. Nonmyeloablative regimens with sublethal toxicity have become increasingly well investigated170 and begin to show great promise for HSC-mediated gene therapy.4,171 In animal models, high doses of donor cells32 and application of G-CSF to the recipient before nonmyeloablative conditioning172 have been shown to promote engraftment. However, it is unclear whether chimerism will be maintained in a stable manner in the long term when nonmyeloablative protocols are performed in an autologous clinical setting. Here, donor-dependent immune functions have no facilitating role to promote engraftment of the transplant; tolerance may be incomplete and engineered cells usually do not have a spontaneous selective advantage. An alternative, potentially more specific and thus less toxic approach to conditioning is the use of monoclonal antibodies directed against stem cell antigens or more common leukocyte antigens.173 Although it is likely that side effects associated with conditioning regimens will be reduced significantly in the near future, this issue will continue to be an important aspect of the risk-benefit evaluation for stem cell-based gene therapy. Importantly, several diseases could be successfully treated with a moderate rate of chimerism (5%-30%). A selective survival advantage of engineered HSCs can be promoted upon transfer and expression of appropriate selectable marker genes. Table 2 summarizes 3 different categories of such genes that have a well-documented efficiency in animal models. Potential side effects resulting from the expression of selectable marker genes have been reviewed above ("Risks related to transgene expression"). For most of these selectable marker genes, drugs are required to trigger their function. Therefore, side effects associated with these drugs represent another important aspect of the preclinical and clinical evaluation. Some of these agents have a well-documented toxicity profile in humans; others represent experimental agents with limited clinical experience. In this context, it is interesting to note that the most powerful selection system currently available for gene-modified hematopoietic cells requires the use of DNA-damaging agents.137,150-152 Although potentially less toxic alternatives for selective amplification of gene-modified cells have been proposed,153-155 expansion of hematopoietic cells promoted by these gene functions may be incomplete, lineage restricted, and unstable, suggesting preferential action at the level of progenitor cells as opposed to HSCs. This implies a need for repetitive use of the corresponding drugs over prolonged periods of time, or induction of a distorted hematopoiesis with unclear long-term consequences. Clonal amplification of transgenic cells is another important variable.7 The risk for accumulating mutations that are not related to gene transfer increases with the life span and the number of generations of the engineered cell. In most conditions of human bone marrow transplantation, the size of the graft's stem cell dose implies a modest pressure for expansion and a high likelihood for polyclonal reconstitution. This is underlined by results from nonhuman primate studies of gene-marking.36,111 With the advent of genetic selection strategies, a risk related to forced expansion of individual clones may become more relevant. On the other hand, single clones of transduced HSCs may provide a perfectly normal hematopoiesis with persistence of transgene expression in all hematopoietic lineages, at least in mice.120,123 This supports the idea that clones with favorable insertion sites and "neutral" transgenes are not necessarily at increased risk for transformation, even when undergoing massive expansion. The minimal number of HSCs that stably support primate hematopoiesis remains to be defined.
A further category of side effects is related to innate or acquired immunity against vector components or immune surveillance of engineered cells. A recent review proposed that certain gene transfer procedures may set "danger" signals that result in an increased likelihood of an immune reaction.174 However, severe inflammatory reactions elicited by viral proteins in the vector preparation, as observed with early generations of adenoviral vectors administered in vivo,175 are unlikely following a single administration of ex vivo-manipulated hematopoietic cells. In principle, a transient exposure to antigens may be caused by remnants of vector particles or culture media components on infused cells even if the transgene does not encode viral antigens.176 This risk appears small with conventional retroviral transduction protocols in which cells are cultured for at least a day following the final exposure to vector particles. However, with the use of adenovirus177 or lentivirus vectors178 the time in culture after the final round of vector exposure may be shortened, which could increase the probability of contamination with viral antigens. Repetitive infusion of engineered cells may be complicated by sensitization to antigens originating from components of culture media, vector particles, or transgene expression, potentially resulting in clearance of transgenic cells179 or even severe acute adverse reactions. This potential problem could be solved by appropriate preparation of cells and recipient prior to infusion or simply by single use of engineered cells (given that the vector system does not generate antigens to which pre-existing immunity exists). Also, sensitization could be diagnosed prior to repeated infusion of cells. Moreover, it will be interesting to determine whether some clinical settings, such as those resulting from repeated infections, may trigger cellular or humoral innate immune functions to clear incoming gene-modified cells or create an unfavorable cytokine milieu. If so, a transient blockade of these mechanisms, as proposed in the context of preclinical adenoviral gene therapy,180 may improve the "take" of gene-modified cells. Immune responses mounted against transgene antigens may develop with some latency. This concern is of particular relevance when introducing artificial or xenogenic sequences (as in the use of some selectable marker genes) and when correcting inherited genetic disorders in so-called CRIM (cross-reactive immunologic material)-negative patients. Although bone marrow transplantation may promote tolerance to multiple or individual antigens,181-183 this does not necessarily occur following nonmyeloablative conditioning regimens. Immune-mediated rejection of transgenic cells expressing the xenogenic marker enhanced green fluorescent protein occurred in a study with nonhuman primates.184 Disturbingly, one affected animal developed hemolytic anemia after rejecting the transgenic cells.184 Further investigations are needed to determine whether autoimmunity can be induced as a side effect of sensitization against transgenic cells. For more advanced applications of gene therapy as well as for allogeneic transplantation, tolerance induction is a key issue of future research.
After listing this collection of potential problems, it is important to mention that combinatorial side effects of transgene insertion (genotoxicity), transgene expression (phenotoxicity), and cell expansion (selection toxicity) may be required to produce malignant transformation. Monocytic leukemia observed after dLNGFR marking in mice and serial bone marrow transplantation may serve as a paradigm.20 It is possible that at least some clones observed in the CD40L-induced lymphoproliferation168 or in the MDR1-associated myeloproliferative disease62,109 had a similar history involving insertional mutagenesis in addition to transgene side effects and/or forced cell expansion. Insertional activation (in cis) of an oncogene or an otherwise "innocent" transcription factor may change the cellular program (in trans), which in turn may cooperate with the transgene product to induce an undesired phenotype (Figure 5). Such program alterations may also influence expression levels of the transgene, jointly acting to promote the initial survival of a premalignant clone. Similar considerations apply for the serious adverse event recently
observed in a clinical gene therapy trial.21,22 Ten children with X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID) were
successfully treated by retroviral transfer of the interleukin 2 receptor common Given that an unfavorable concert of oncogenic factors is required for
tumor manifestation (as in the model presented in Figure 6),
such a serious adverse event is not expected to be found in any
clinical scenario for retroviral gene therapy, nor can we predict its
frequency in gene therapy for X-SCID patients. Besides the specific
clinical setting and features of the transgene (cDNA and regulatory
regions), target cell features represent an important variable. These
determine the overall susceptibility to gene transfer, which loci are
open for transgene insertion, and how many of these may contribute to
malignant transformation.103 Further points to consider
include the number of cell generations following gene transfer,103 the expansion conditions that may sometimes
suppress balancing proapoptotic signals, the exposure to mutagenic
hazards that are independent of the genetic manipulation, and the
endogenous capacity for DNA repair and proliferation control. Finally,
systemic responses to transformed cell clones add another level of
complexity (Table
3).
Bearing this in mind, we need to consider appropriate preclinical models, including animal experiments, in order to derive clear statistics indicating the importance of individual risk factors and the probability of their combinations. For scientific, economical, and ethical reasons, studies will often rely on work with cell lines and laboratory mice. In this respect, it is important to discuss features of the mouse model that distinguish it from human hematopoiesis.
The outstanding role of the laboratory mouse for modeling human development and disease has received further support by the recent findings of the mouse genome project.186 Nevertheless, the differences between the hematopoietic systems of mice and humans must be carefully evaluated to diagnose with certainty reactive and neoplastic blood cell disorders and to improve the predictive value of the animal model. Even in humans, the classification of preleukemic states such as the myelodysplastic syndromes is still controversial.187 Very recently, preleukemia and its progression to leukemia have been classified in mice,188,189 in analogy to the French-American-British (FAB) scheme developed for human leukemia.190 Murine leukemias may be experimentally induced with specific genetic alterations.191 Examples for preleukemic alterations are ectopic expression of BCR-ABL,192 N-RAS,193 BCL2,194 or Evi1,161 and the ICSBP-knock-out mouse.195 The latency period between leukemia induction by application of x-rays and/or inoculation of MLVs and leukemia manifestation could be regarded as a preleukemic condition. The susceptibility of mice to develop leukemia varies according to strain and its contamination with MLVs. Unless a genetic predisposition is involved (such as endogenous RCRs), spontaneous leukemia occurs only sporadically in older animals. It can be induced with high incidence by irradiation and inoculation of newborn or immunodeficient animals with MLVs. RCRs transform cells by insertional mutagenesis, which has been useful in the identification of tumor-associated genes.82,91,104-106,196,197 In some cases acute leukemia can be induced following a rapid polyclonal expansion of progenitor cells when a mouse is infected with a retrovirus complex that cotransfers a replication-defective retrovirus encoding an oncogene.82,91 The mouse has a significantly higher daily hematopoietic cell turnover (especially of red blood cells and platelets) compared with humans. Accordingly, the complete bone cavities are used for hematopoiesis, and there are very few or no fat cells interspersed.198,199 Reactive or malignant increases of hematopoietic tissue rapidly lead to extramedullary hematopoiesis, typically starting in the spleen.200-202 Thus, splenomegaly with expansion of red pulp caused by leukemic infiltrations (> 20% blasts) and regression of the white pulp (periarteriolar lymphatic sheath and lymph follicles) are characteristic and early findings in murine leukemia.188,199 In advanced disease, normal architecture of spleen is totally abolished and widely replaced by masses of blasts. Liver involvement in AML is characterized by leukemic infiltrates in periportal areas. Therefore, unlike human leukemia, bone marrow is only variably, and spleen is constantly, involved in murine leukemia.200 The mouse model may not be fully predictive for human leukemia development when considering differences in HSC turnover. Leukemia development often involves genetic alterations of true HSCs.5 However, it is unclear whether this also applies to oncogenesis related to retroviral manipulations. The pool size of murine HSCs is tightly regulated, although with considerable genetic and age-dependent variability.203 Abkowitz et al postulate a similar size of the HSC pool in mice and cats (approximately 12 000 per animal), and possibly also in humans.27 The study also suggests a conservation of the replicative activity per lifetime between murine and human HSCs.27 Thus, mice would present with a higher density and shortened cycling times of HSCs within the bone marrow. However, if the burden of insertional mutagenesis also involves less primitive progenitor and precursor cells, typical mouse experiments performed with a relatively small total number of hematopoietic cells would underestimate the risk (about 106 transplanted per mouse, compared with at least 108 cells in a clinical trial). Moreover, the life span of this animal is short (2 years), and for practical reasons, observation periods rarely exceed 6 to 12 months, further reducing the chance to detect slowly developing dysplasias. Bone marrow transplantation and inappropriate cell culture strongly reduce the pool size of HSCs.51 Serial bone marrow transplantations generate monoclonal or oligoclonal hematopoiesis in mice, suggesting an enormous pressure for massive amplification of individual HSCs.51,120,123,204,205 Such a forced expansion may promote the manifestation of dysplastic or overt leukemic clones.7,206,207 Thus, although the mouse model suffers from a poor sensitivity to detect rare mutagenic events related to integrating, nonreplicating vectors, in case such events do occur, experimental conditions can be adjusted to promote their manifestation. It has been demonstrated that rodent cells can be more easily transformed than human cells, and several functional differences of signaling pathways involved in human and rodent models of transformation have been identified.108 One has been linked to a stronger activity of the telomerase function in mature rodent cells. Thus, only 2 to 3 hits are typically required for transformation of a rodent cell: 1 that dysregulates apoptosis and 1 or 2 further hits that alter cell-cycle control and provide proliferative stimuli. In humans, yet another event promoting telomerase activity is required for malignant transformation of mature epithelial and fibroblastic cells, but it is still unclear whether this would be needed to transform a human HSC.5,108 If so, human cells would be more resistant to transformation by random vector insertions and transgene side effects. Summarizing these considerations, it appears justifiable to develop mouse models in which the sensitivity for detecting side effects related to genetic manipulations is increased by the choice of the experimental conditions, such as in vitro expansion62; hemolysis202 or bleeding206; serial bone marrow transplantation20,207; or introduction of a proto-oncogenic genetic lesion.161,191-195 Also, "humanization" of the mouse genome may be helpful to obtain models of increased predictive value.108,186 Currently available "large"-animal models would be even more relevant for human gene therapy, but obviously do not allow broader genotoxicity screening.64 Moreover, tumor manifestations usually take many years in nonhuman primates. It may be better to design oversensitive mouse models as a "worst case" scenario, thereby generating clear statistics that reflect the impact of defined risk factors.
Successfully exploiting the enormous potential of gene therapy targeting hematopoietic cells requires an open eye for side effects. Proof of principle in animal models may be spectacular, but is not all that is relevant for developing safe clinical applications. As with the use of drugs or irradiation, dose finding is a required next step. One realistic option to improve safety without loss of efficiency is to translate better procedures for stem cell purification into clinical use. The resulting reduction in the target cell pool likely represents a straightforward way to reduce the risk of insertional mutagenesis. The associated long-term goal is to reconstitute hematopoiesis with just a few clones of genetically characterized transgenic stem cells. Beyond the issue of target cells, dose finding takes into account the interaction of multiple features in vectors, transgenes, and clinical scenarios, which can be reflected in the design of preclinical models. Improved vector design may result in greater target site specificity of insertion and a transgene composition that has a reduced risk of activating cellular genes. Another important goal is to derive a risk classification of transgenes and clinical scenarios, considering all conditions potentially contributing to side effects. This may help to avoid premature generalization of side effects that occurred under specific circumstances. A database of vector insertion sites and statistical analyses on the clonality of reconstitution will be key to understanding the dynamics of these processes. Results obtained in long-term follow-up, especially, will allow us to interpret the impact of the combined action of the transgene and the vector insertion site on cell biology, a factor that until now, because of lack of accessibility, has not been studied in detail. Individual institutions may provide significant contributions, but a combined international effort will probably be needed to accumulate the amount of data required. Revisions of the existing regulatory guidelines may be helpful only if they promote reasonable standards of comparison and agreements on basic experimental approaches in preclinical research. We propose to consider the collaborative development of preclinical proto-oncogenic worst case models as one basis for dose finding. Thus, developing tools for the best feasible genetic treatment will profit from a dialectic approach that anticipates adverse events by active, hypothesis-driven investigation. While doing so, we need to continue with many of the current clinical trials on the basis of the risk evaluation at hand. It should not be forgotten that for a number of patients, after carefully weighing risks and benefits, the worst case scenario of gene therapy may be to not receive it.
We thank the reviewers and the editors for important suggestions.
Submitted July 31, 2002; accepted December 26, 2002.
Prepublished online as Blood First Edition Paper, January 2, 2003; DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-07-2314.
Supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KFO 110; WI1955/1-1); the European Union (QLK3-2001-01265, QLRT-2001-00427); the VolkswagenStiftung; and the National Institutes of Health (D.A.W.; grant no. HL 53586).
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: Christopher Baum, Experimental Cell Therapy, Department of Hematology and Oncology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, D-30625 Hannover, Germany; e-mail: baum.christopher{at}mh-hannover.de.
1.
Anderson WF.
Gene therapy: the best of times, the worst of times.
Science
2000;288:627-629 2. Williams DA, Nienhuis AW, Hawley RG, Smith FO. Gene Therapy 2000. In: Hematology. American Society of Hematology Education Program Book. American Society of Hematology: Washington, DC; 2000:376-393.
3.
Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Le Deist F, Carlier F, et al.
Sustained correction of X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency by ex vivo gene therapy.
N Engl J Med.
2002;346:1185-1193
4.
Aiuti A, Slavin S, Aker M, et al.
Correction of ADA-SCID by stem cell gene therapy combined with nonmyeloablative conditioning.
Science.
2002;296:2410-2413 5. Reya T, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF, Weissman IL. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature. 2001;414:105-111[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 6. Allsopp RC, Weissman IL. Replicative senescence of hematopoietic stem cells during serial transplantation: does telomere shortening play a role? Oncogene. 2002;21:3270-3273[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
7.
Chow M, Rubin H.
Clonal selection versus genetic instability as the driving force in neoplastic transformation.
Cancer Res.
2000;60:6510-6518 8. Blau HM, Brazelton TR, Weimann JM. The evolving concept of a stem cell: entity or function? Cell. 2001;105:829-841[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 9. Orkin SH, Zou LI. Hematopoiesis and stem cells: plasticity versus developmental heterogeneity. Nat Immunol. 2002;3:323-328[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 10. Ying QL, Nichols J, Evans EP, Smith AG. Changing potency by spontaneous fusion. Nature. 2002;416:545-548[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
11.
Wagers AJ, Sherwood RI, Christensen JL, Weissman IL.
Little evidence for developmental plasticity of adult hematopoietic stem cells.
Science.
2002;297:2256-2259 12. Morshead CM, Benveniste P, Iscove NN, van der Kooy D. Hematopoietic competence is a rare property of neural stem cells that may depend on genetic and epigenetic alterations. Nat Med. 2002;8:268-273[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 13. Kay MA, Glorioso JC, Naldini L. Viral vectors for gene therapy: the art of turning infectious agents into vehicles of therapeutics. Nat Med. 2001;7:33-40[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
14.
Delecluse H-J, Pich D, Hilsendegen T, Baum C, Hammerschmidt W.
A first generation packaging cell line for Epstein-Barr virus derived vectors.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1999;96:5188-5193 15. Baum C. Transfection. In: Creighton TE, ed. Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons; 1999:2596-2600. 16. Olivares EC, Hollis RP, Chalberg TW, Meuse L, Kay MA, Calos MP. Site-specific genomic integration produces therapeutic Factor IX levels in mice. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:1124-1128[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 17. Mitani K, Kubo S. Adenovirus as an integrating vector. Curr Gene Ther. 2002;2:135-144[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Guidance for Industry. Supplemental guidance on testing for replication competent retrovirus in retroviral vector based gene therapy products and during follow-up of patients in clinical trials using retroviral vectors. http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/retrogt1000.pdf. 19. Cornetta K, Morgan RA, Anderson WF. Safety issues related to retroviral-mediated gene transfer in humans. Hum Gene Ther. 1991;2:5-14[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
20.
Li Z, Düllmann J, Schiedlmeier B, et al.
Murine leukemia induced by retroviral gene marking.
Science.
2002;296:497
21.
Hacein-Bey-Abina S, von Kalle C, Schmidt M, et al.
A serious adverse event after successful gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency.
N Engl J Med.
2003;348:255-256 22. Check E. A tragic setback. Nature. 2002;420:116-118[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 23. Check E. Regulators split on gene therapy as patient shows signs of cancer. Nature. 2002;419:545-546[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 24. European Society of Gene Therapy. Annual meeting of the ESGT: French gene therapy group reports on the adverse event in a clinical trial of gene therapy for X-linked severe combined immune deficiency (X-SCID). Position of the ESGT. European Society of Gene Therapy: Munich, Germany. 2002. Available at: http://213.80.3.170/esgt/downloads/ESGTXSCID2.pdf.
25.
Borzelleca JF.
Paracelsus: herald of modern toxicology.
Toxicol Sci.
2000;53:2-4
26.
Cheshier SH, Morrison SJ, Liao X, Weissman IL.
In vivo proliferation and cell cycle kinetics of long-term self-renewing hematopoietic stem cells.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A .
1999;96:3120-3125
27.
Abkowitz JL, Catlin SN, McCallie MT, Guttorp P.
Evidence that the number of hematopoietic stem cells per animal is conserved in mammals.
Blood.
2002;100:2665-2667 28. Bradford GB, Williams B, Rossi R, Bertoncello I. Quiescence, cycling, and turnover in the primitive hematopoietic stem cell compartment. Exp Hematol. 1997;25:445-453[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 29. Verfaillie CM. Hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation. Nature Immunol. 2002;3:314-317[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 30. Hematti P, Sellers SE, Agricola BA, et al. Retroviral transduction efficiency of G-CSF+SCF mobilized peripheral blood CD34+ cells is superior to G-CSF or G-CSF+Flt3-L mobilized cells in nonhuman primates. Blood. Prepublished online November 7, 2002, as DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-08-2663. 31. Lapidot T, Petit I. Current understanding of stem cell mobilization: the roles of chemokines, proteolytic enzymes, adhesion molecules, cytokines, and stromal cells. Exp Hematol. 2002;30:973-981[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
32.
Stewart FM, Crittenden RB, Lowry PA, Pearson-White S, Quesenberry PJ.
Long-term engraftment of normal and post-5-fluorouracil murine marrow into normal nonmyeloablated mice.
Blood.
1993;81:2566-2571
33.
Moritz T, Keller DC, Williams DA.
Human cord blood cells as targets for gene transfer: potential use in genetic therapies of severe combined immunodeficiency disease.
J Exp Med.
1993;178:529-536 34. Kohn DB, Parkman R. Gene therapy for newborns. FASEB J. 1997;11:635-639[Abstract].
35.
Vogel W, Scheding S, Kanz L, Brugger W.
Clinical applications of CD34(+) peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC).
Stem Cells.
2000;18:87-92
36.
Schmidt M, Zickler P, Hoffmann G, et al.
Polyclonal long-term repopulating stem cell clones in a primate model.
Blood.
2002;100:2737-2743
37.
Kim HJ, Tisdale JF, Wu T, et al.
Many multipotential gene-marked progenitor or stem cell clones contribute to hematopoiesis in nonhuman primates.
Blood
2000;96:1-8 38. Larochelle A, Vormoor J, Hanenberg H, et al. Identification of primitive human hematopoietic cells capable of repopulating NOD/SCID mouse bone marrow: implications for gene therapy. Nat Med. 1996;2:1329-1337[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 39. Michallet M, Philip T, Philip I, et al. Transplantation with selected autologous peripheral blood CD34+Thy1+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in multiple myeloma: impact of HSC dose on engraftment, safety, and immune reconstitution. Exp Hematol. 2000;28:858-870[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 40. Bhatia M, Bonnet D, Murdoch B, Gan OI, Dick JE. A newly discovered class of human hematopoietic cells with SCID-repopulating activity. Nat Med. 1998;4:1038-1045[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 41. McNiece I, Bridell R. Ex vivo expansion of hematopoietic progenitor cells and mature cells. Exp Hematol. 2001;29:3-11[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 42. Glimm H, Eisterer W, Lee K, et al. Previously undetected human hematopoietic cell populations with short-term repopulating activity selectively engraft NOD/SCID-beta2 microglobulin-null mice. J Clin Invest. 2001;107:199-206[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 43. Berrios VM, Dooner GJ, Nowakowski G, et al. The molecular basis for the cytokine-induced defect in homing and engraftment of hematopoietic stem cells. Exp Hematol. 2001;29:1326-1335[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
44.
Jetmore A, Plett PA, Tong X, et al.
Homing efficiency, cell cycle kinetics, and survival of quiescent and cycling human CD34(+) cells transplanted into conditioned NOD/SCID recipients.
Blood.
2002;99:1585-1593
45.
Moscow JA, Huang H, Carter C, et al.
Engraftment of MDR1 and NeoR gene-transduced hematopoietic cells after breast cancer chemotherapy.
Blood.
1999;94:52-61 46. Abonour R, Williams DA, Einhorn L, et al. Efficient retrovirus-mediated transfer of the multidrug resistance 1 gene into autologous human long-term repopulating hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Med. 2000;6:652-658[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 47. McNiece IK, Almeida-Porada G, Shpall EJ, Zanjani E. Ex vivo expanded cord blood cells provide rapid engraftment in fetal sheep but lack long-term engrafting potential. Exp Hematol. 2002;30:612-616[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
48.
Sauce D, Bodinier M, Garin M, et al.
Retrovirus-mediated gene transfer in primary T lymphocytes impairs their anti-Epstein-Barr virus potential through both culture-dependent and selection process-dependent mechanisms.
Blood.
2002;99:1165-1173 49. Glimm H, Flugge K, Mobest D, et al. Efficient serum-free retroviral gene transfer into primitive human hematopoietic progenitor cells by a defined, high-titer, nonconcentrated vector-containing medium. Hum Gene Ther. 1998;9:771-778[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
50.
Zandstra PW, Lauffenburger DA, Eaves CJ.
A ligand-receptor signaling threshold model of stem cell differentiation control: a biologically conserved mechanism applicable to hematopoiesis.
Blood.
2000;96:1215-1222 51. Antonchuk J, Sauvageau G, Humphries RK. HOXB4-induced expansion of adult hematopoietic stem cells ex vivo. Cell. 2002;109:39-45[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 52. Moritz T, Patel VP, Williams DA. Bone marrow extracellular matrix molecules improve gene transfer into human hematopoietic cells via retroviral vectors. J Clin Invest. 1994;93:1451-1457[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 53. Hanenberg H, Xiao XL, Dilloo D, Hashino K, Kato I, Williams DA. Colocalization of retrovirus and target cells on specific fibronectin fragments increases genetic transduction of mammalian cells. Nat Med. 1996;2:876-882[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 54. Donahue RE, Sorrentino BP, Hawley RG, et al. Fibronectin fragment CH-296 inhibits apoptosis and enhances ex vivo gene transfer by murine retrovirus and human lentivirus vectors independent of viral tropism in nonhuman primate CD34+ cells. Mol Ther. 2001;3:359-367[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 55. Schiedlmeier B, Buss EC, Veldwijk MR, Zeller WJ, Fruehauf S. Soluble bone marrow stroma factors improve the efficiency of retroviral transfer of the human multidrug resistance 1 gene to human mobilized peripheral blood progenitor cells. Hum Gene Ther. 1999;10:1443-1452[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 56. Nolta JA, Thiemann FT, Arakawa-Hoyt J, et al. The AFT024 stromal cell line supports long-term ex vivo maintenance of engrafting multipotent human hematopoietic progenitors. Leukemia. 2002;16:352-361[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 57. Takatoku M, Sellers S, Agricola BA, et al. Avoidance of stimulation improves engraftment of cultured and retrovirally transduced hematopoietic cells in primates. J Clin Invest. 2001;108:447-455[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
58.
Dao MA, Hwa J, Nolta JA.
Molecular mechanism of transforming growth factor beta-mediated cell-cycle modulation in primary human CD34(+) progenitors.
Blood.
2002;99:499-506 59. Williams DA, Smith FO. Progress in the use of gene transfer methods to treat genetic blood diseases. Hum Gene Ther. 2000;11:2059-2066[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
60.
Buchschacher GL Jr, Wong-Staal F.
Development of lentiviral vectors for gene therapy for human diseases.
Blood.
2000;95:2499-2504 61. Ailles LE, Naldini L. HIV-1-derived lentiviral vectors. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2002;261:31-52[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
62.
Bunting KD, Galipeau J, Topham D, Benaim E, Sorrentino BP.
Transduction of murine bone marrow cells with an MDR1 vector enables ex vivo stem cell expansion, but these expanded grafts cause a myeloproliferative syndrome in transplanted mice.
Blood.
1998;92:2269-2279 63. Dao MA, Tsark E, Nolta JA. Animal xenograft models for evaluation of gene transfer into human hematopoietic stem cells. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 1999;1:553-557[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 64. Donahue RE, Dunbar CE. Update on the use of nonhuman primate models for preclinical testing of gene therapy approaches targeting hematopoietic cells. Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12:607-617[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 65. May C, Rivella S, Callegari J, et al. Therapeutic haemoglobin synthesis in beta-thalassaemic mice expressing lentivirus-encoded human beta-globin. Nature. 2000;406:82-86[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
66.
May C, Rivella S, Chadburn A, Sadelain M.
Successful treatment of murine beta-thalassemia intermedia by transfer of the human beta-globin gene.
Blood.
2002;99:1902-1908
67.
Pawliuk R, Westerman KA, Fabry ME, et al.
Correction of sickle cell disease in transgenic mouse models by gene therapy.
Science.
2001;294:2368-2371 68. Vigna E, Cavalieri S, Ailles L, et al. Robust and efficient regulation of transgene expression in vivo by improved tetracycline-dependent lentiviral vectors. Mol Ther. 2002;5:252-261[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 69. Wilson CA, Ng TH, Miller AE. Evaluation of recommendations for replication-competent retrovirus testing associated with use of retroviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther. 1997;8:869-874[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 70. Chen J, Reeves L, Sanburn N, et al. Packaging cell line DNA contamination of vector supernatants: implication for laboratory and clinical research. Virology. 2001;282:186-197[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 71. Baum C, Richters A, Ostertag W. Retroviral vector-mediated gene expression in hematopoietic cells. Curr Opin Mol Ther. 1999;1:605-612[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
72.
Donahue RE, Kessler SW, Bodine D, et al.
Helper virus induced T cell lymphoma in nonhuman primates after retroviral mediated gene transfer.
J Exp Med.
1992;176:1125-1135
73.
Münk C, Löhler J, Prassolov V, et al.
Amphotropic murine leukemia viruses induce spongiform encephalomyelopathy.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1997;94:5837-5842 74. Farson D, Witt R, McGuinness R, et al. A new-generation stable inducible packaging cell line for lentiviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12:981-997[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 75. Klages N, Zufferey R, Trono D. A stable system for the high-titer production of multiply attenuated lentiviral vectors. Mol Ther. 2000;2:170-176[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 76. Vogt B, Roscher S, Abel B, et al. Lack of superinfection interference in retroviral vector producer cells. Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12:359-365[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 77. Miller AD. PA317 retrovirus packaging cells. Mol Ther. 2002;6:572-575[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
78.
Powell SK, Artlip M, Kaloss M, et al.
Efficacy of antiretroviral agents against murine replication-competent retrovirus infection in human cells.
J Virol.
1999;73:8813-8816
79.
Patience C, Takeuchi Y, Cosset FL, Weiss RA.
Packaging of endogenous retroviral sequences in retroviral vectors produced by murine and human packaging cells.
J Virol.
1998;72:2671-2676
80.
Browning MT, Schmidt RD, Lew KA, Rizvi TA.
Primate and feline lentivirus vector RNA packaging and propagation by heterologous lentivirus virions.
J Virol.
2001;75:5129-5140 81. Yang S, Delgado R, King SR, et al. Generation of retroviral vector for clinical studies using transient transfection. Hum Gene Ther. 1999;10:123-132[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 82. Coffin JM. Retroviridae: the viruses and their replication. In: Fields BN,Knipe DM,Howley PM, eds. Fundamental Virology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Raven; 1996:763-844. 83. An W, Telesnitsky A. Frequency of direct repeat deletion in a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vector during reverse transcription in human cells. Virology. 2001;286:475-482[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 84. Leboulch P, Huang GM, Humphries RK, et al. Mutagenesis of retroviral vectors transducing human beta-globin gene and beta-globin locus control region derivatives results in stable transmission of an active transcriptional structure. EMBO J. 1994;13:3065-3076[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
85.
Sorrentino BP, McDonagh KT, Woods D, Orlic D.
Expression of retroviral vectors containing the human multidrug resistance 1 cDNA in hematopoietic cells of transplanted mice.
Blood.
1995;86:491-501
86.
Garin MI, Garrett E, Tiberghien P, et al.
Molecular mechanism for ganciclovir resistance in human T lymphocytes transduced with retroviral vectors carrying the herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase gene.
Blood.
2001;97:122-129 87. Cmejlova J, Hildinger M, Cmejla R, et al. Impact of splice-site mutations of the human MDR1 cDNA on its stability and expression following retroviral gene transfer. Gene Ther. In press.
88.
Zhang J, Temin HM.
Retrovirus recombination depends on the length of sequence identity and is not error prone.
J Virol.
1994;68:2409-2414 89. Galipeau J, Benaim E, Spencer HT, Blakley RL, Sorrentino BP. A bicistronic retroviral vector for protecting hematopoietic cells against antifolates and P-glycoprotein effluxed drugs. Hum Gene Ther. 1997;8:1773-1783[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 90. Chalmers D, Ferrand C, Apperley JF, et al. Elimination of the truncated message from the herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase suicide gene. Mol Ther. 2001;4:146-148[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 91. Rosenberg N, Joelicoer P. Retroviral pathogenesis. In: Coffin JM,Hughes SH,Varmus HE, eds. Retroviruses. 1st ed. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1997:475-586. 92. Wahlers A, Schwieger M, Li Z, et al. Influence of multiplicity of infection and protein stability on retroviral vector-mediated gene expression in hematopoietic cells. Gene Ther. 2001;8:477-486[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
93.
Rohdewohld H, Weiher H, Reik W, Jaenisch R, Breindl M.
Retrovirus integration and chromatin structure: Moloney murine leukemia proviral integration sites map near DNase I-hypersensitive sites.
J Virol.
1987;61:336-343 94. Schroder AR, Shinn P, Chen H, Berry C, Ecker JR, Bushman F. HIV-1 integration in the human genome favors active genes and local hotspots. Cell. 2002;110:521-529[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 95. Muller HP, Varmus HE. DNA bending creates favored sites for retroviral integration: an explanation for preferred insertion sites in nucleosomes. EMBO J. 1994;13:4704-4714[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 96. Copeland NG, Hutchison KW, Jenkins NA. Excision of the DBA ecotropic provirus in dilute coat-color revertants of mice occurs by homologous recombination involving the viral LTRs. Cell. 1983;33:379-387[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
97.
King W, Patel MD, Lobel LI, Goff SP, Nguyen-Huu MC.
Insertion mutagenesis of embryonal carcinoma cells by retroviruses.
Science.
1985;228:554-558
98.
Mortreux F, Leclercq I, Gabet AS, et al.
Somatic mutation in human T-cell leukemia virus type 1 provirus and flanking cellular sequences during clonal expansion in vivo.
J Natl Cancer Inst.
2001;93:367-377 99. Stoye JP. Endogenous retroviruses: still active after all these years? Curr Biol. 2001;11:R914-R916[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
100.
Zhou ZH, Akgun E, Jasin M.
Repeat expansion by homologous recombination in the mouse germ line at palindromic sequences.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2001;98:8326-8333 101. Miller DG, Rutledge EA, Russell DW. Chromosomal effects of adeno-associated virus vector integration. Nat Genet. 2002;30:147-148[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 102. Stocking C, Bergholz U, Friel J, et al. Distinct classes of factor-independent mutants can be isolated after retroviral mutagenesis of a human myeloid stem cell line. Growth Factors. 1993;8:197-209[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 103. Moolten FL, Cupples LA. A model for predicting the risk of cancer consequent to retroviral gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther. 1992;3:479-486[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
104.
Bartholomew C, Ihle JN.
Retroviral insertions 90 kilobases proximal to the Evi-1 myeloid transforming gene activate transcription from the normal promoter.
Mol Cell Biol.
1991;11:1820-1828 105. Joosten M, Vankan-Berkhoudt Y, Tas M, et al. Large-scale identification of novel potential disease loci in mouse leukemia applying an improved strategy for cloning common virus integration sites. Oncogene. 2002;21:7247-7255[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 106. Lund AH, Turner G, Trubetskoy A, et al. Genome-wide retroviral insertional tagging of genes involved in cancer in Cdkn2a-deficient mice. Nat Genet. 2002;32:160-165[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 107. Roe T, Reynolds TC, Yu G, Brown PO. Integration of murine leukemia virus DNA depends on mitosis. EMBO J. 1993;12:2099-2108[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 108. Hahn WC, Weinberg RA. Modelling the molecular circuitry of cancer. Nature Rev Cancer. 2002;2:331-341[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
109.
Bunting KD, Zhou S, Lu T, Sorrentino BP.
Enforced P-glycoprotein pump function in murine bone marrow cells results in expansion of side population stem cells in vitro and repopulating cells in vivo.
Blood.
2000;96:902-909
110.
Sellers SE, Tisdale JF, Agricola BA, et al.
The effect of multidrug-resistance 1 gene versus neo transduction on ex vivo and in vivo expansion of rhesus macaque hematopoietic repopulating cells.
Blood.
2001;97:1888-1891 111. Shi PA, Hematti P, Von Kalle C, Dunbar CE. Genetic marking as an approach to studying in vivo hematopoiesis: progress in the non-human primate model. Oncogene. 2002;21:3274-3283[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 112. Woods NB, Muessig A, Schmidt M, et al. Lentiviral vector transduction of NOD/SCID repopulating cells results in multiple vector integrations per transduced cell: risk of insertional mutagenesis. Blood. Prepublished online October 17, 2002, as DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-07-2238.
113.
Riviere I, Brose K, Mulligan RC.
Effects of retroviral vector design on expression of human adenosine deaminase in murine bone marrow transplant recipients engrafted with genetically modified cells.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1995;92:6733-6737
114.
Furger A, Monks J, Proudfoot NJ.
The retroviruses human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and Moloney murine leukemia virus adopt radically different strategies to regulate promoter-proximal polyadenylation.
J Virol.
2001;75:11735-11746
115.
Zaiss AK, Son S, Chang LJ.
RNA 3' readthrough of oncoretrovirus and lentivirus: implications for vector safety and efficacy.
J Virol.
2002;76:7209-7219
116.
Emery DW, Yannaki E, Tubb J, Nishino T, Li Q, Stamatoyannopoulos G.
Development of virus vectors for gene therapy of beta chain hemoglobinopathies: flanking with a chromatin insulator reduces gamma-globin gene silencing in vivo.
Blood.
2002;100:2012-2019 117. Bushman F. Targeting retroviral integration? Mol Ther. 2002;6:570-571[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 118. Hirata R, Chamberlain J, Dong R, Russell DW. Targeted transgene insertion into human chromosomes by adeno-associated virus vectors. Nat Biotechnol. 2002;20:735-738[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
119.
Eckert HG, Stockschlader M, Just U, et al.
High-dose multidrug resistance in primary human hematopoietic progenitor cells transduced with optimized retroviral vectors.
Blood.
1996;88:3407-3415 120. Pawliuk R, Eaves CJ, Humphries RK. Sustained high-level reconstitution of the hematopoietic system by preselected hematopoietic cells expressing a transduced cell-surface antigen. Hum Gene Ther. 1997;8:1595-1604[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 121. Persons DA, Allay JA, Riberdy JM, et al. Use of the green fluorescent protein as a marker to identify and track genetically modified hematopoietic cells. Nat Med. 1998;4:1201-1205[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
122.
Halene S, Wang L, Cooper RM, et al.
Improved expression in hematopoietic and lymphoid cells in mice after transplantation of bone marrow transduced with a modified retroviral vector.
Blood.
1999;94:3349-3357 123. Li Z, Fehse B, Schiedlmeier B, et al. Persisting multilineage transgene expression in the clonal progeny of a hematopoietic stem cell. Leukemia. 2002;16:1655-1663[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 124. Richard E, Mendez M, Mazurier F, et al. Gene therapy of a mouse model of protoporphyria with a self-inactivating erythroid-specific lentiviral vector without preselection. Mol Ther. 2001;4:331-338[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
125.
Sauvageau G, Thorsteinsdottir U, Eaves CJ, et al.
Overexpression of HOXB4 in hematopoietic cells causes the selective expansion of more primitive populations in vitro and in vivo.
Genes Dev.
1995;9:1753-1765 126. Buske C, Humphries RK. Homeobox genes in leukemogenesis. Int J Hematol. 2000;71:301-308[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 127. Kyba M, Perlingeiro RC, Daley GQ. HoxB4 confers definitive lymphoid-myeloid engraftment potential on embryonic stem cell and yolk sac hematopoietic progenitors. Cell. 2002;109:29-37[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 128. Buske C, Feuring-Buske M, Abramovich C, et al. Deregulated expression of HOXB4 enhances the primitive growth activity of human hematopoietic cells. Blood. 2002;100:862-868. 129. Schiedlmeier B, Klump H, Will E, et al. High level ectopic HOXB4 expression confers a profound in vivo competitive growth advantage to human cord blood CD34+ cells, but impairs lymphomyeloid differentiation. Blood. Prepublished online October 24, 2002, as DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-03-07672002. 130. Rideout WM III, Hochedlinger K, Kyba M, Daley GQ, Jaenisch R. Correction of a genetic defect by nuclear transplantation and combined cell and gene therapy. Cell. 2002;109:17-27[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 131. Krosl J, Baban S, Krosl G, Rozenfeld S, Largman C, Sauvageau G. Cellular proliferation and transformation induced by HOXB4 and HOXB3 proteins involves cooperation with PBX1. Oncogene. 1998;16:3403-3412[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
132.
Bunting KD.
ABC transporters as phenotypic markers and functional regulators of stem cells.
Stem Cells.
2002;20:11-20
133.
Scharenberg CW, Harkey MA, Torok-Storb B.
The ABCG2 transporter is an efficient Hoechst 33342 efflux pump and is preferentially expressed by immature human hematopoietic progenitors.
Blood.
2002;99:507-512
134.
Sorrentino BP, Brandt SJ, Bodine D, et al.
Selection of drug-resistant bone marrow cells in vivo after retroviral transfer of human MDR1.
Science.
1992;257:99-103
135.
Mickisch GH, Aksentijevich I, Schoenlein PV, et al.
Transplantation of bone marrow cells from transgenic mice expressing the human MDR1 gene results in long-term protection against the myelosuppressive effect of chemotherapy in mice.
Blood.
1992;79:1087-1093
136.
Pallis M, Russell N.
P-glycoprotein plays a drug-efflux-independent role in augmenting cell survival in acute myeloblastic leukemia and is associated with modulation of a sphingomyelin-ceramide apoptotic pathway.
Blood.
2000;95:2897-2904 137. Sorrentino BP. Gene therapy to protect haematopoietic cells from cytotoxic cancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:431-441[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 138. Zhou S, Schuetz JD, Bunting KD, et al. The ABC transporter Bcrp1/ABCG2 is expressed in a wide variety of stem cells and is a molecular determinant of the side-population phenotype. Nat Med. 2001;7:1028-1034[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 139. Carpinteiro A, Peinert S, Ostertag W, et al. Genetic protection of repopulating hematopoietic cells with an improved MDR1-retrovirus allows administration of intensified chemotherapy following stem cell transplantation in mice. Int J Cancer. 2002;98:785-792[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
140.
Licht T, Aksentijevich I, Gottesman MM, Pastan I.
Efficient expression of functional human MDR1 gene in murine bone marrow after retroviral transduction of purified hematopoietic stem cells.
Blood.
1995;86:111-121
141.
Licht T, Haskins M, Henthorn P, et al.
Drug selection with paclitaxel restores expression of linked IL-2 receptor gamma-chain and multidrug resistance (MDR1) transgenes in canine bone marrow.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2002;99:3123-3128
142.
Cowan KH, Moscow JA, Huang H, et al.
Paclitaxel chemotherapy after autologous stem-cell transplantation and engraftment of hematopoietic cells transduced with a retrovirus containing the multidrug resistance complementary DNA (MDR1) in metastatic breast cancer patients.
Clin Cancer Res.
1999;5:1619-1628 143. Qin S, Ward M, Raftopoulos H, et al. Competitive repopulation of retrovirally transduced haemopoietic stem cells. Br J Haematol. 1999;107:162-168[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
144.
Mavilio F, Ferrari G, Rossini S, et al.
Peripheral blood lymphocytes as target cells of retroviral vector-mediated gene transfer.
Blood.
1994;83:1988-1997 145. Comoli P, Dilloo D, Hutchings M, Hoffma T, Heslop HE. Measuring gene-transfer efficiency. Nat Med. 1996;2:1280-1281[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
146.
Austin TW, Salimi S, Veres G, et al.
Long-term multilineage expression in peripheral blood from a Moloney murine leukemia virus vector after serial transplantation of transduced bone marrow cells.
Blood.
2000;95:829-836
147.
Rosenzweig M, MacVittie TJ, Harper D, et al.
Efficient and durable gene marking of hematopoietic progenitor cells in nonhuman primates after nonablative conditioning.
Blood.
1999;94:2271-2286
148.
Bonini C, Ferrari G, Verzelleti S, et al.
HSV-TK gene transfer into donor lymphocytes for control of allogeneic graft-versus-leukemia.
Science.
1997;276:1719-1724 149. Bonini C, et al. Infusion of donor lymphocytes expressing a suicide gene for controlled immune reconstitution and anti-tumor reactivity after stem cell transplantation. Mol Ther. 2001;3,5-2/2:S144.
150.
Gerson SL.
Clinical relevance of MGMT in the treatment of cancer.
J Clin Oncol.
2002;20:2388-2399
151.
Ragg S, Xu-Welliver M, Bailey J, et al.
Direct reversal of DNA damage by mutant methyltransferase protein protects mice against dose-intensified chemotherapy and leads to in vivo selection of hematopoietic stem cells.
Cancer Res.
2000;60:5187-5195 152. Hobin DA, Fairbairn LJ. Genetic chemoprotection with mutant O6-alkylguanine-DNA-alkyltransferases. Curr Gene Ther. 2002;2:1-8[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 153. Jin L, Zeng H, Chien S, et al. In vivo selection using a cell-growth switch. Nat Genet. 2000;26:64-66[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
154.
Neff T, Horn PA, Valli VE, et al.
Pharmacologically regulated in vivo selection in a large animal.
Blood.
2002;100:2026-2031 155. Matsuda KM, Kume A, Ueda Y, et al. Development of a modified selective amplifier gene for hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy. Gene Ther. 1999;6:1038-1044[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 156. Hantzopoulos PA, Suri C, Glass DJ, Goldfarb MP, Yancopoulos GD. The low affinity NGF receptor, p75, can collaborate with each of the Trks to potentiate functional responses to the neurotrophins. Neuron. 1994;13:187-201[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 157. Lee FS, Kim AH, Khursigara G, Chao MV. The uniqueness of being a neurotrophin receptor. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2001;11:281-286[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
158.
Labouyrie E, Dubus P, Groppi A, et al.
Expression of neurotrophins and their receptors in human bone marrow.
Am J Pathol.
1999;154:405-415 159. Lauer UM, Staehler P, Lambrecht RM, et al. A prototype transduction tag system (delta LNGFR/NGF) for noninvasive clinical gene therapy monitoring. Cancer Gene Ther. 2000;7:430-437[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 160. Ashkenazi A, Dixit VM. Apoptosis control by death and decoy receptors. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 1999;11:255-260[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 161. Louz D, van den Broek M, Verbakel S, et al. Erythroid defects and increased retrovirally induced tumor formation in Evi1 transgenic mice. Leukemia. 2000;14:1876-1884[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
162.
Kazama H, Kodera T, Shimizu S, Mizoguchi H, Morishita K.
Ecotropic viral integration site-1 is activated during, and is sufficient for, neuroectodermal P19 cell differentiation.
Cell Growth Differ.
1999;10:565-573
163.
Chittka A, Chao MV.
Identification of a zinc finger protein whose subcellular distribution is regulated by serum and nerve growth factor.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1999;96:10705-10710 164. Katzav S, Martin-Zanca B, Barbacid M, et al. The trk oncogene abrogates growth factor requirements and transforms hematopoietic cells. Oncogene. 1989;4:1129-1135[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 165. Kaebisch A, Brokt S, Seay U, et al. Expression of the nerve growth factor receptor c-TRK in human myeloid leukaemia cells. Br J Haematol. 1996;95:102-109[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
166.
Reuther GW, Lambert QT, Caligiuri MA, Der CJ.
Identification and characterization of an activating TrkA deletion mutation in acute myeloid leukemia.
Mol Cell Biol.
2000;20:8655-8666 167. Sadelain M, Riviere I. Sturm und Drang over Suicidal Lymphocytes. Mol Ther. 2002;5:655-657[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 168. Brown MP, Topham DJ, Sangster MY, et al. Thymic lymphoproliferative disease after successful correction of CD40 ligand deficiency by gene transfer in mice. Nat Med. 1998;4:1253-1260[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 169. Bunting KD, Sangster MY, Ihle JN, Sorrentino BP. Restoration of lymphocyte function in Janus kinase 3-deficient mice by retroviral-mediated gene transfer. Nat Med. 1998;4:58-64[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 170. Sandmaier BM, McSweeney P, Yu C, Storb R. Nonmyeloablative transplants: preclinical and clinical results. Semin Oncol. 2000;27:78-81[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 171. Kohn DB. Adenosine deaminase gene therapy protocol revisited. Mol Ther. 2002;5:96-97[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
172.
Mardiney M III, Malech HL.
Enhanced engraftment of hematopoietic progenitor cells in mice treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor before low-dose irradiation: implications for gene therapy.
Blood.
1996;87:4049-4056
173.
Dahlke MH, Lauth OS, Jager MD, et al.
In vivo depletion of hematopoietic stem cells in the rat by an anti-CD45 (RT7) antibody.
Blood.
2002;99:3566-3572
174.
Brown BD, Lillicrap D.
Dangerous liaisons: the role of "danger" signals in the immune response to gene therapy.
Blood.
2002;100:1133-1140 175. Raper SE, Yudkoff M, Chirmule N, et al. A pilot study of in vivo liver-directed gene transfer with an adenoviral vector in partial ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. Hum Gene Ther. 2002;13:163-175[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
176.
Balague C, Zhou J, Dai Y, et al.
Sustained high-level expression of full-length human factor VIII and restoration of clotting activity in hemophilic mice using a minimal adenovirus vector.
Blood.
2000;95:820-828 177. Knaan-Shanzer S, Van Der Velde I, Havenga MJ, et al. Highly efficient targeted transduction of undifferentiated human hematopoietic cells by adenoviral vectors displaying fiber knobs of subgroup B. Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12:1989-2005[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
178.
Scherr M, Battmer K, Blomer U, et al.
Lentiviral gene transfer into peripheral blood-derived CD34+ NOD/SCID-repopulating cells.
Blood.
2002;99:709-712 179. Tuschong L, Soenen SL, Blaese RM, Candotti F, Muul LM. Immune response to fetal calf serum by two adenosine deaminase-deficient patients after T cell gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther. 2002;13:1605-1610[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 180. Chuah MK, Schiedner G, Thorrez L, et al. Therapeutic factor VIII levels and negligible toxicity in mouse and dog models of hemophilia A following gene therapy with high-capacity adenoviral vectors. Blood. Prepublished online October 24, 2002, as DOI 10.1182/blood-2002-03-0823. 181. Heim DA, Hanazono Y, Giri N, et al. Introduction of a xenogeneic gene via hematopoietic stem cells leads to specific tolerance in a rhesus monkey model. Mol Ther. 2000;1:533-544[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 182. Kang E, Giri N, Wu T, et al. In vivo persistence of retrovirally transduced murine long-term repopulating cells is not limited by expression of foreign gene products in the fully or minimally myeloablated setting. Hum Gene Ther. 2001;12:1663-1672[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 183. Wekerle T, Sykes M. Mixed chimerism and transplantation tolerance. Annu Rev Med. 2001;52:353-370[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
184.
Rosenzweig M, Connole M, Glickman R, et al.
Induction of cytotoxic T lymphocyte and antibody responses to enhanced green fluorescent protein following transplantation of transduced CD34(+) hematopoietic cells.
Blood.
2001;97:1951-1959 185. Larson RC, Lavenir I, Larson TA, et al. Protein dimerization between Lmo2 (Rbtn2) and Tal1 alters thymocyte development and potentiates T cell tumorigenesis in transgenic mice. EMBO J. 1996;15:1021-1027[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 186. Waterston RH, Lindblad-Toh K, Birney E, et al. Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome. Nature. 2002;420:520-562[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
187.
Cheson BD, Bennett JM, Kantarjian H, et al.
Report of an international working group to standardize response criteria for myelodysplastic syndromes.
Blood.
2000;96:3671-3674
188.
Kogan SC, Ward JM, Anver MR, et al.
Bethesda proposals for classification of nonlymphoid hematopoietic neoplasms in mice.
Blood.
2002;100:238-245
189.
Morse HC III, Anver MR, Fredrickson TN, et al.
Bethesda proposals for classification of lymphoid neoplasms in mice.
Blood.
2002;100:246-258
190.
Bennett JM, Catovsky D, Daniel MT, et al.
Proposed revised criteria for the classification of acute myeloid leukemia: a report of the French-American-British Cooperative Group.
Ann Intern Med.
1985;103:620-625 191. Bernardi R, Grisendi S, Pandolfi PP. Modelling haematopoietic malignancies in the mouse and therapeutical implications. Oncogene. 2002;21:3445-3458[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 192. Wong S, Witte ON. Modeling Philadelphia chromosome positive leukemias. Oncogene. 2001;20:5644-5659[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
193.
MacKenzie KL, Dolnikov A, Millington M, Shounan Y, Symonds G.
Mutant N-ras induces myeloproliferative disorders and apoptosis in bone marrow repopulated mice.
Blood.
1999;93:2043-2056 194. Traver D, Akashi K, Weissman IL, Lagasse E. Mice defective in two apoptosis pathways in the myeloid lineage develop acute myeloblastic leukemia. Immunity. 1998;9:47-57[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 195. Holtschke T, Löhler J, Kanno Y, et al. Immunodeficiency and chronic myelogenous leukemia-like syndrome in mice with a targeted mutation of the ICSBP gene. Cell. 1996;87:307-317[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 196. Hayward WS, Neel BG, Astrin SM. Activation of a cellular onc gene by promoter insertion in ALV-induced lymphoid leukosis. Nature. 1981;290:475-480[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 197. Jonkers J, Berns A. Retroviral insertional mutagenesis as a strategy to identify cancer genes. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1996;1287:29-57[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 198. Endicott KM, Gump H. Hemograms and myelograms of healthy female mice C-57 brown and CFW strains. Blood. 1947;1:165-167.
199.
Brecher G, Endicott KM, Gump H, Brawner HP.
Effects of x-ray on lymphoid and hemopoietic tissues of albino mice.
Blood.
1948;3:1259-1274 200. Perkins AS. The pathology of murine myelogenous leukemias. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1989;149:3-21[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 201. Fredrickson TN, Harris AW. Atlas of mouse hematopathology. Newark, NJ: Harwood Academic Publishers; 2000.
202.
Vannucchi AM, Paoletti F, Linari S, et al.
Identification and characterization of a bipotent (erythroid and megakaryocytic) cell precursor from the spleen of phenylhydrazine-treated mice.
Blood.
2000;95:2559-2568 203. Geiger H, Van Zant G. The aging of lympho-hematopoietic stem cells. Nat Immunol. 2002;3:329-333[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 204. Keller G. Clonal analysis of hematopoietic stem cell development in vivo. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1992;177:41-58[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 205. Lemischka IR. What have we learned from retroviral marking of hematopoietic stem cells? Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1992;177:59-71[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
206.
Gong JK, Braunschweiger PG, Glomski CA.
Anemic stress as a trigger of myelogenous leukemia in the unirradiated RF mouse.
Science.
1972;177:274-276 207. Holyoake TL, Freshney MG, Samuel K, et al. In vivo expansion of the endogenous B-cell compartment stimulated by radiation and serial bone marrow transplantation induces B-cell leukaemia in mice. Br J Haematol. 2001;114:49-56[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
© 2003 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  U. Baranyi, B. Linhart, N. Pilat, M. Gattringer, J. Bagley, F. Muehlbacher, J. Iacomini, R. Valenta, and T. Wekerle Tolerization of a Type I Allergic Immune Response through Transplantation of Genetically Modified Hematopoietic Stem Cells J. Immunol., June 15, 2008; 180(12): 8168 - 8175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. W. Nienhuis Development of gene therapy for blood disorders Blood, May 1, 2008; 111(9): 4431 - 4444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Blank, G. Karlsson, and S. Karlsson Signaling pathways governing stem-cell fate Blood, January 15, 2008; 111(2): 492 - 503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Lisowski and M. Sadelain Locus control region elements HS1 and HS4 enhance the therapeutic efficacy of globin gene transfer in -thalassemic mice Blood, December 15, 2007; 110(13): 4175 - 4178. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Deschamps, P. Mercier-Lethondal, J. M. Certoux, C. Henry, B. Lioure, C. Pagneux, J. Y. Cahn, E. Deconinck, E. Robinet, P. Tiberghien, et al. Deletions within the HSV-tk transgene in long-lasting circulating gene-modified T cells infused with a hematopoietic graft Blood, December 1, 2007; 110(12): 3842 - 3852. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Cattoglio, G. Facchini, D. Sartori, A. Antonelli, A. Miccio, B. Cassani, M. Schmidt, C. von Kalle, S. Howe, A. J. Thrasher, et al. Hot spots of retroviral integration in human CD34+ hematopoietic cells Blood, September 15, 2007; 110(6): 1770 - 1778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. S. Kustikova, H. Geiger, Z. Li, M. H. Brugman, S. M. Chambers, C. A. Shaw, K. Pike-Overzet, D. d. Ridder, F. J. T. Staal, G. v. Keudell, et al. Retroviral vector insertion sites associated with dominant hematopoietic clones mark "stemness" pathways Blood, March 1, 2007; 109(5): 1897 - 1907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.-P. Kiem, J. Allen, G. Trobridge, E. Olson, K. Keyser, L. Peterson, and D. W. Russell Foamy virus-mediated gene transfer to canine repopulating cells Blood, January 1, 2007; 109(1): 65 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Modlich, J. Bohne, M. Schmidt, C. von Kalle, S. Knoss, A. Schambach, and C. Baum Cell-culture assays reveal the importance of retroviral vector design for insertional genotoxicity Blood, October 15, 2006; 108(8): 2545 - 2553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Shou, Z. Ma, T. Lu, and B. P. Sorrentino Unique risk factors for insertional mutagenesis in a mouse model of XSCID gene therapy PNAS, August 1, 2006; 103(31): 11730 - 11735. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Nowrouzi, M. Dittrich, C. Klanke, M. Heinkelein, M. Rammling, T. Dandekar, C. von Kalle, and A. Rethwilm Genome-wide mapping of foamy virus vector integrations into a human cell line. J. Gen. Virol., May 1, 2006; 87(Pt 5): 1339 - 1347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. S. T.-D. Ravin, D. R. Kennedy, N. Naumann, J. S. Kennedy, U. Choi, B. J. Hartnett, G. F. Linton, N. L. Whiting-Theobald, P. F. Moore, W. Vernau, et al. Correction of canine X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency by in vivo retroviral gene therapy Blood, April 15, 2006; 107(8): 3091 - 3097. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Van Damme, L. Thorrez, L. Ma, H. Vandenburgh, J. Eyckmans, F. Dell'Accio, C. De Bari, F. Luyten, D. Lillicrap, D. Collen, et al. Efficient Lentiviral Transduction and Improved Engraftment of Human Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Cells Stem Cells, April 1, 2006; 24(4): 896 - 907. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Takizawa, C. Kubo-Akashi, I. Nobuhisa, S.-M. Kwon, M. Iseki, T. Taga, K. Takatsu, and S. Takaki Enhanced engraftment of hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells by the transient inhibition of an adaptor protein, Lnk Blood, April 1, 2006; 107(7): 2968 - 2975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Recchia, C. Bonini, Z. Magnani, F. Urbinati, D. Sartori, S. Muraro, E. Tagliafico, A. Bondanza, M. T. L. Stanghellini, M. Bernardi, et al. Retroviral vector integration deregulates gene expression but has no consequence on the biology and function of transplanted T cells PNAS, January 31, 2006; 103(5): 1457 - 1462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Calmels, C. Ferguson, M. O. Laukkanen, R. Adler, M. Faulhaber, H.-J. Kim, S. Sellers, P. Hematti, M. Schmidt, C. von Kalle, et al. Recurrent retroviral vector integration at the Mds1/Evi1 locus in nonhuman primate hematopoietic cells Blood, October 1, 2005; 106(7): 2530 - 2533. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. L. Lucas, N. E. Seidel, C. D. Porada, J. G. Quigley, S. M. Anderson, H. L. Malech, J. L. Abkowitz, E. D. Zanjani, and D. M. Bodine Improved transduction of human sheep repopulating cells by retrovirus vectors pseudotyped with feline leukemia virus type C or RD114 envelopes Blood, July 1, 2005; 106(1): 51 - 58. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Imai, S. Iwamoto, and D. Campana Genetic modification of primary natural killer cells overcomes inhibitory signals and induces specific killing of leukemic cells Blood, July 1, 2005; 106(1): 376 - 383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
U. Modlich, O. S. Kustikova, M. Schmidt, C. Rudolph, J. Meyer, Z. Li, K. Kamino, N. von Neuhoff, B. Schlegelberger, K. Kuehlcke, et al. Leukemias following retroviral transfer of multidrug resistance 1 (MDR1) are driven by combinatorial insertional mutagenesis Blood, June 1, 2005; 105(11): 4235 - 4246. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Kustikova, B. Fehse, U. Modlich, M. Yang, J. Dullmann, K. Kamino, N. von Neuhoff, B. Schlegelberger, Z. Li, and C. Baum Clonal Dominance of Hematopoietic Stem Cells Triggered by Retroviral Gene Marking Science, May 20, 2005; 308(5725): 1171 - 1174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Li, M. M. Le Beau, S. Ciccone, F.-C. Yang, B. Freie, S. Chen, J. Yuan, P. Hong, A. Orazi, L. S. Haneline, et al. Ex vivo culture of Fancc-/- stem/progenitor cells predisposes cells to undergo apoptosis, and surviving stem/progenitor cells display cytogenetic abnormalities and an increased risk of malignancy Blood, May 1, 2005; 105(9): 3465 - 3471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Kimmelman Recent developments in gene transfer: risk and ethics BMJ, January 8, 2005; 330(7482): 79 - 82. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Frank, C. Rudolph, C. Heberlein, N. von Neuhoff, E. Schrock, A. Schambach, B. Schlegelberger, B. Fehse, W. Ostertag, C. Stocking, et al. Tumor cells escape suicide gene therapy by genetic and epigenetic instability Blood, December 1, 2004; 104(12): 3543 - 3549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Takacs, C. Du Roure, S. Nabarro, N. Dillon, J. H. McVey, Z. Webster, A. MacNeil, I. Bartok, C. Higgins, D. Gray, et al. The regulated long-term delivery of therapeutic proteins by using antigen-specific B lymphocytes PNAS, November 16, 2004; 101(46): 16298 - 16303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Hanawa, P. W. Hargrove, S. Kepes, D. K. Srivastava, A. W. Nienhuis, and D. A. Persons Extended {beta}-globin locus control region elements promote consistent therapeutic expression of a {gamma}-globin lentiviral vector in murine {beta}-thalassemia Blood, October 15, 2004; 104(8): 2281 - 2290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Lu, Q. Yu, G. K. Binder, Z. Chen, T. Slepushkina, J. Rossi, and B. Dropulic Antisense-Mediated Inhibition of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Replication by Use of an HIV Type 1-Based Vector Results in Severely Attenuated Mutants Incapable of Developing Resistance J. Virol., July 1, 2004; 78(13): 7079 - 7088. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Hanawa, P. Hematti, K. Keyvanfar, M. E. Metzger, A. Krouse, R. E. Donahue, S. Kepes, J. Gray, C. E. Dunbar, D. A. Persons, et al. Efficient gene transfer into rhesus repopulating hematopoietic stem cells using a simian immunodeficiency virus-based lentiviral vector system Blood, June 1, 2004; 103(11): 4062 - 4069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Horn, K. A. Keyser, L. J. Peterson, T. Neff, B. M. Thomasson, J. Thompson, and H.-P. Kiem Efficient lentiviral gene transfer to canine repopulating cells using an overnight transduction protocol Blood, May 15, 2004; 103(10): 3710 - 3716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. P. McCormack and T. H. Rabbitts Activation of the T-Cell Oncogene LMO2 after Gene Therapy for X-Linked Severe Combined Immunodeficiency N. Engl. J. Med., February 26, 2004; 350(9): 913 - 922. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Berger, C. A. Blau, M.-L. Huang, J. D. Iuliucci, D. C. Dalgarno, J. Gaschet, S. Heimfeld, T. Clackson, and S. R. Riddell Pharmacologically regulated Fas-mediated death of adoptively transferred T cells in a nonhuman primate model Blood, February 15, 2004; 103(4): 1261 - 1269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. S. Kustikova, A. Wahlers, K. Kuhlcke, B. Stahle, A. R. Zander, C. Baum, and B. Fehse Dose finding with retroviral vectors: correlation of retroviral vector copy numbers in single cells with gene transfer efficiency in a cell population Blood, December 1, 2003; 102(12): 3934 - 3937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. S. Strom, S. J. Turner, S. Andreansky, H. Liu, P. C. Doherty, D. K. Srivastava, J. M. Cunningham, and A. W. Nienhuis Defects in T-cell-mediated immunity to influenza virus in murine Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome are corrected by oncoretroviral vector-mediated gene transfer into repopulating hematopoietic cells Blood, November 1, 2003; 102(9): 3108 - 3116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2003 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Effects and side effects...
-chain into CD34+ cells and reinfusion
of cells without conditioning. This transgene was required to correct
the underlying genetic deficiency and provides (in X-SCID patients with
this deficiency) a powerful selective advantage during T-cell
maturation.
T cells.
The clone had one insertion of an intact vector copy that occurred in
one LMO2 allele (readily identified by
LAM-PCR)