MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biodistribution and Shedding of AAV Vectors

2011· article· en· W149315227 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Le Guiner, Valder R. Arruda

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicVirus-based gene therapy research
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodistributionVector (molecular biology)Computational biologyCapsidPreclinical researchMedicinePharmacologyBiologyBioinformaticsIn vivoVirologyRecombinant DNABiotechnologyGeneticsVirusGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the AAV vector biodistribution and shedding is central for the safety assessment of proposed early-phase clinical trials. It is especially crucial in the case of AAV vectors since they are injected directly in situ with no possibility of an intermediate ex vivo step, such as in retroviral-mediated approaches. This sole administration mode, the high capsid diversity (natural and chimeric), the various routes of delivery (e.g., intramuscular, intravenous, intra-arterial, and intracranial) make biodistribution and shedding studies a major investigational field for several years ahead. Indeed, the ideal scenario whereby they become generic is less likely to occur as long as the engineered capsid, the therapeutic strategies (expression of cDNA versus oligonucleotides for exon skipping), and the mode of delivery continue to evolve quickly to clinical translational strategies. An important aspect of biodistribution and shedding studies is that they practically should not be performed on a "research" mode but rather within the frame of the regulatory animal pharmacology and toxicology studies in order to directly implement the Investigational New Drug (IND) application. Yet, if biodistribution and shedding in animal models are explored at an early research stage, i.e., to investigate whether a given AAV serotype administered in a given way transduces certain immunocompetent cells (how does the vector distribute itself in the immune system and with what kinetic?), it is advisable to use an AAV vector manufactured and quality controlled similarly to what will be done ultimately at the clinical stage. This chapter provides protocols and recommendations to study how an AAV vector distributes and sheds after administration. We discuss (1) the requirements for a rigorous methodology; (2) avoiding nucleic acid cross contamination; (3) systematically assessing the assay sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility because milieus can be drastically different, i.e., feces versus urine; and (4) choosing the appropriate animal model(s) when anticipating the regulatory pharmacological/toxicological studies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicVirus-based gene therapy researchFrench-language works237,207