ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2024
Assessment of Key Factors Impacting Variability in AAV Vector Genome Titration by Digital PCR.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracking Particle-Encapsulated DNA Across the Anion-Exchange Chromatography Fractions of Recombinant Adeno-Associated Virus Using Droplet Digital PCR and High-Throughput Sequencing.Biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- An SDS-NaOH-based method to isolate genome of recombinant adeno-associated virus vectors for physical titer measurement.PloS one · 2025Article
- Implementing a robust platform analytical procedure for measuring adeno-associated virus vector genome titer.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) has emerged as a prominent vector for in vivo gene therapy, owing to its distinct advantages. Accurate determination of the rAAV genome titer is crucial for ensuring the safe and effective administration of clinical doses. The evolution of the rAAV genome titer assay from quantitative PCR (qPCR) to digital PCR (dPCR) has enhanced accuracy and precision, yet practical challenges persist. This study systematically investigated the impact of various operational factors on genome titration in a single-factor manner, aiming to address potential sources of variability in the quantitative determination process. Our findings revealed that a pretreatment procedure without genome extraction exhibits superior precision compared with titration with genome extraction. Additionally, notable variations in titration results across different brands of dPCR instruments were documented, with relative standard deviation (RSD) reaching 23.47% for AAV5 and 11.57% for AAV8. Notably, optimal operations about DNase I digestion were identified; we thought treatment time exceeding 30 min was necessary, and there was no need for thermal inactivation after digestion. And we highlighted that thermal capsid disruption before serial dilution substantially affected AAV genome titers, causing a greater than ten-fold decrease. Conversely, this study found that additive components of dilution buffer are not significant contributors to titration variations. Furthermore, we found that repeated freeze-thaw cycles significantly compromised AAV genome titers. In conclusion, a comprehensive dPCR titration protocol, incorporating insights from these impact factors, was proposed and successfully tested across multiple serotypes of AAV. The results demonstrate acceptable variations, with the RSD consistently below 5.00% for all tested AAV samples. This study provides valuable insights to reduce variability and improve the reproducibility of AAV genome titration using dPCR.
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.