Blood online
Home About Blood Authors Subscriptions Permission Advertising Public Access contact us
 

 
Advanced
Current Issue
First Edition
Archives
Submit to Blood
Search
American Society of Hematology
Meeting Abstracts
Email Alerts
Blood, 15 September 2007, Vol. 110, No. 6, pp. 1704.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davé, U. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Davé, U. P.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article in Blood Online
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

arrow to previous article Previous Article  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Article next article arrow

InsideBlood

GENE THERAPY

Comment on Cattoglio et al, page 1770

RIS defines risk

Utpal P. Davé

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

In this issue of Blood, Cattoglio and colleagues examine retroviral integration site (RIS) preferences in CD34+ cells and conclude that gamma-retroviruses carry a higher risk for insertional mutation than lentiviruses.

To date, 4 out of 10 patients treated with Necker Hospital's gene-therapy protocol for X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency (X-SCID) have developed T-cell leukemia.1 The mechanism that caused these serious complications was retroviral insertional mutagenesis. In every case, the gene-therapy vector (gamma-retrovirus–based) inserted and deregulated a nearby oncogene. Most remarkably, in 2 patients, the vector inserted and inappropriately activated the expression of a known T-cell oncogene, LIM-domain-only 2 (LMO2). In light of these complications, regulatory agencies expect improved understanding of the risk of this genotoxicity.2

So what is the probability of a retroviral vector inserting near an oncogene or tumor suppressor? Like so many things in biology, the answer is complicated and seems to depend on cell context. We now know that retroviruses have integration-site preferences. Studies in HeLa cells showed that gamma-retroviruses prefer to integrate near transcriptional start sites (26% of total sites analyzed) whereas lentiviruses prefer to insert within introns.3 Now, Cattoglio and colleagues present similar findings in CD34+ cells. They transduced CD34+ cells with either gamma-retroviral or lentiviral vectors in vitro and harvested genomic DNA 1 to 12 days after infection. Integration sites were then cloned and mapped from this largely unselected population using standard methods. They analyzed 1030 gamma-retroviral integrations and 869 lentiviral integrations. As in the HeLa study, they found a gamma-retroviral bias for transcriptional start sites (29% of total) and for actively transcribed genes. Lentiviral integrations were also biased toward actively transcribed genes, but for intragenic rather than transcriptional start sites.

The most striking result, however, was the discovery of numerous recurrent integrations in this unselected population of cells. Cattoglio and colleagues show that 20% of the total gamma-retroviral integrations were in the same locus, whereas 12.5% of the lentiviral integrations were recurrent. Wu et al reported recurrent gamma-retroviral integrations in HeLa cells, but at a lower frequency (12%).4 Additionally, Cattoglio and colleagues show that many of the recurrent gamma-retroviral integrations were cancer associated. In contrast, recurrent lentiviral integrations did not involve a statistically significant number of cancer-associated genes. Cattoglio and colleagues refer to these recurrent integrations as "hotspots," but it remains to be seen whether the exact same genomic regions will be targeted in other studies. These results also contrast with in vivo analyses of transduced cells in animal models in which recurrent integrations are infrequent, except in specific loci conferring selective growth advantage.2 Furthermore, if hotspots in cancer-associated genes existed in murine hematopoietic stem cells, then one would anticipate a high frequency of leukemias arising from marrow transduced with empty vectors, which is a rare occurrence under standard conditions. An alternate interpretation is that the human genome is highly constrained for integration in cultured CD34+ cells. In other words, there are some parts of the genome that are unavailable to gamma-retroviral integration. This raises the question of whether accessibility of the genome to integration can be altered by cell-culture conditions.

Investigation of these possibilities and additional RIS analyses will help define the risks of retroviral gene therapy.

Footnotes

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The author declares no competing financial interests. {blacksquare}

REFERENCES

  1. European Society of Gene and Cell Therapy Newsletter. Available at http://www.esgct.org/newsletter.cfm. Accessed May 23, 2007.

  2. Nienhuis AW, Dunbar CE, Sorrentino BP. Genotoxicity of retroviral integration in hematopoietic cells. Mol Ther 2006; 13:1031–1049.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

  3. Wu X, Li Y, Crise B, Burgess SM. Transcription start regions in the human genome are favored targets for MLV integration. Science 2003; 300:1749–1751.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  4. Wu X, Luke BT, Burgess SM. Redefining the common insertion site. Virology 2006; 344:292–295.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Article in Blood Online:

Hot spots of retroviral integration in human CD34+ hematopoietic cells
Claudia Cattoglio, Giulia Facchini, Daniela Sartori, Antonella Antonelli, Annarita Miccio, Barbara Cassani, Manfred Schmidt, Christof von Kalle, Steve Howe, Adrian J. Thrasher, Alessandro Aiuti, Giuliana Ferrari, Alessandra Recchia, and Fulvio Mavilio
Blood 2007 110: 1770-1778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davé, U. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Davé, U. P.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article in Blood Online
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

 click for free articles
home about blood authors subscriptions permissions advertising public access contact us
Sponsor: Genentech BioOncology and and Biogen Idec
Blood Online is supported in part by
Genentech BioOncology and Biogen Idec
  Copyright © 2007 by American Society of Hematology         Online ISSN: 1528-0020