ArticleHeliyon2024
Development of a robust cell-based potency assay for a coxsackievirus A21 oncolytic virotherapy.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neoantigen-Encoded Oncolytic Viruses as Personalized Cancer Vaccines.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Quality assessment strategy development and analytical method selection of GMP grade biological drugs for gene and cell therapy.BBA advances · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oncolytic viruses (OV) are part of a burgeoning field of investigational oncolytic therapy (OT), in which lytic viruses dissolve advanced tumors productively and specifically. One such OT is a Coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21) based OV that is currently under clinical evaluation. A tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) assay was used for CVA21 potency release and stability testing in early clinical development. The titer measured in this method was an extrapolated value from cytopathic effect (CPE) observed during the serial dilution but doesn't represent direct viral killing of cells. Moreover, the assay was not deemed to be optimal to carry into late phase clinical development due to limitations in assay precision, turn-around time, and sample throughput. To address these points, we developed a plaque assay to measure viral plaque forming units to measure the potency value for drug substance (DS), drug product (DP) and virus seed (master and working) stocks. In this manuscript, we describe the steps taken to develop this plaque assay for the late-stage clinical development, which include the assay qualification, validation, and robustness protocols, and describe statistical methods for data analysis. Moreover, the method was validated for linearity, accuracy, precision, and specificity. Furthermore, the plaque assay quantifies OV infectivity with better precision (32% vs 58%), with higher sample throughput (22 samples/week vs 3 samples/week) and shorter assay turnaround time (4 days vs 7 days) than the TCID50 method. This assay development strategy can provide guidance for the development of robust cell-based potency methods for OVs and other infectious viral products.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.