ArticleGene therapy2026
SACF and GILA for in vitro transformation assessment of CRISPR/Cas9-edited cell therapy candidates: a multi-site study.
Article in Gene therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tumorigenicity is a key safety concern for CRISPR/Cas9-based gene therapies, yet its assessment remains challenging due to the lack of relevant and sensitive in vivo models. This HESI Global multi-site study evaluated the Soft Agar Colony Formation (SACF) assay and the Growth in Low Attachment (GILA) assay for in vitro transformation testing of CRISPR/Cas9-edited cells as part of tumorigenicity risk assessment. Across four laboratories, MCF10A cells were spiked with varying concentrations of cells carrying a CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the known tumor suppressor PTPN12 to determine the assays' limit of detection (LOD), robustness and reproducibility. Both assays demonstrated a consistent LOD of 0.8% at most sites, with SACF showing a broader dynamic range and slightly stronger correlation across laboratories. GILA exhibited weaker correlation due to plateauing at high spike-in concentrations (>12.5%), and excluding these conditions improved inter-laboratory correlations. Additionally, the study identified key determinants of assay success, including the selection of appropriate cell lines and lots, and ensuring sufficient recovery time post-thaw. Together, these data establish multi-site reproducibility of SACF and GILA in the MCF10A-PTPN12 model evaluated here and support their use as animal-free, development-stage characterization tools contributing to tumorigenicity evidence generation.
Identifiers
42527625What 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.