Toxicity Associated with Repeated Administration of First-Generation Adenovirus Vectors Does Not Occur with a Helper-Dependent Vector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Certain gene therapy protocols may require multiple administrations of vectors to achieve therapeutic benefit to the patient. This may be especially relevant for vectors such as adenoviral vectors that do not integrate into the host chromosome. Because immunocompetent animal models used for gene transfer studies develop neutralizing antibodies to adenoviral vectors after a single administration, little is known about how repeat administrations of vectors might affect transgene expression and vector toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used mice deficient in the membrane spanning region of immunoglobulin (IgM), which do not develop antibodies, to evaluate the effect of repeated intravenous administration of first-generation and helper-dependent adenoviral vectors expressing human alpha 1-antitrypsin (hAAT). The duration and levels of transgene expression were evaluated after repeated administration of vectors. Toxicity was assessed by measuring the level of liver enzymes in the serum and the degrees of hepatocyte hypertrophy and proliferation. RESULTS: We found that previous administration of first-generation adenoviral vectors can alter the response to subsequent doses. These alterations included an increase in transgene expression early (within 1 and 3 days), followed by a rapid drop in expression by day 7. In addition, previous administrations of first-generation vectors led to an increase in toxicity of subsequent doses, as indicated by a rise in liver enzymes and an increase in hepatocyte proliferation. In contrast to first-generation vectors, use of the helper-dependent adenovirus vector, Ad-STK109, which contained no viral coding regions, did not lead to increased toxicity after multiple administrations. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the response of the host to adenoviral vectors can be altered after repeated administration, compared with the response after the initial vector dose. In addition, these experiments provide further evidence for the relative safety of helper-dependent adenoviral vectors for gene therapy, compared with first-generation vectors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".