| Literature DB >> 31641163 |
Nathan Moore1, John R Chevillet2, Laura J Healey2, Connor McBrine3, Daniel Doty2, Jose Santos4, Bryan Teece4, James Truslow4, Vienna Mott4, Peter Hsi2, Vishal Tandon4, Jeffrey T Borenstein3, Jenna Balestrini4, Kenneth Kotz4.
Abstract
The development and approval of engineered cellular therapies are revolutionizing approaches to treatment of diseases. However, these life-saving therapies require extensive use of inefficient bioprocessing equipment and specialized reagents that can drive up the price of treatment. Integration of new genetic material into the target cells, such as viral transduction, is one of the most costly and labor-intensive steps in the production of cellular therapies. Approaches to reducing the costs associated with gene delivery have been developed using microfluidic devices to increase overall efficiency. However, these microfluidic approaches either require large quantities of virus or pre-concentration of cells with high-titer viral particles. Here, we describe the development of a microfluidic transduction device (MTD) that combines microfluidic spatial confinement with advective flow through a membrane to efficiently colocalize target cells and virus particles. We demonstrate that the MTD can improve the efficiency of lentiviral transduction for both T-cell and hematopoietic stem-cell (HSC) targets by greater than two fold relative to static controls. Furthermore, transduction saturation in the MTD is reached with only half the virus required to reach saturation under static conditions. Moreover, we show that MTD transduction does not adversely affect cell viability or expansion potential.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31641163 PMCID: PMC6806008 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50981-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Design of the microfluidic transduction device. (a) Photograph of the 2M-MTD (US quarter for size reference). (b) Cartoon of the 2M-MTD identifying major design features including the primary transduction chamber and microfluidic flow channels. (c) Cartoon for the MTD transduction protocol (i) Target cells and virus are introduced into the device using microfluidic flow down through the semi-permeable membrane, trapping the cells and virus in the transduction chamber. (ii) During transduction, transmembrane fluidic flow pins the cells and virus on the surface of the membrane, increasing the rate of interaction between the two particles. (iii) To recover cells, transmembrane fluidic flow is reversed up through the membrane while additional fluid is pushed across the membrane, driving collection of cells and virus through the recovery channel. (d) CFD prediction of wall-shear stresses are low and not expected to negatively impact cell health. (e) Top-down view of transduction chamber (only half shown) illustrating CFD predictions of target cell’s point of contract with the porous membrane. The distribution is largely uniform across the membrane surface. (f) Analytical model predictions of total relative virus found ≤10 microns of the porous membrane, plotted vs. transmembrane flow rate. (g) Analytical model predictions for relative virus concentration in a singular plane 5 microns above the membrane, plotted vs. transmembrane flow rate.
Figure 2The MTD enhances lentiviral transduction of T cells. CD3+ enriched T cells were activated for 48 hours using TransAct reagent and transduced with ZsGreen lentiviral vector in the 2M-MTD. (a) Representative experiment for the percent of transduced cells following 2M-MTD or Static transduction of cells at MOI 1.5 for the indicated period of time. ON indicates overnight transduction. MTD reached maximum transduction between 45–90 minutes and was not evaluated overnight for these experiments. Experiment was repeated with similar results. (b) Representative data for the percent of transduced cells following static transduction for 90 minutes or overnight and 2M-MTD transduction for 90 minutes at the indicated MOIs. Experiment was repeated with similar results. (c) Transduction efficiency for repeat experiments following overnight static transduction or 90 minutes MTD transduction at MOI ~1, n = 8 devices with T cells derived from N = 5 different donors, p < 0.05. (d) Percent of T cells recovered from the 2M-MTD with an average of 86%, n = 12 devices with T cells derived from N = 4 different donors. (e) T cell viability relative to time matched static controls immediately following removal from the 2M-MTD and washed in media, n = 19 devices with T cells derived from N = 7 different donors. (f) Cell counts at the indicated days post-transduction for T cells statically transduced for 90 minute or overnight and T cells transduced in the 2M-MTD for 90 minutes. Cells were transduced with 4 different MOI between 1.5 and 15 and the fold expansion for each transduction condition is shown. (g) T cell viability measured by 7AAD and flow cytometry for day 4 post transduction for the same cells in panel f. All error bars indicate standard deviation.
Figure 3The MTD can be scaled without loss of functionality. 10 million activated T cells were transduced in the 10M-MTD and compared to cells transduced in the 2M-MTD and to static controls. (a) Photograph of the 10M-MTD next to the 2M-MTD (US quarter for size reference). (b) Transduction efficiency for repeat experiments following 90 minute and overnight static transduction or 90 minutes MTD transduction at MOI of 2.5. (c) Average percent of T cells recovered from the 10M-MTD. (d) T cell viability relative to static controls immediately following removal from the 10M-MTD and wash in media. (e) T cell viability measured by 7AAD and flow cytometry for cells expanded 4 days after transduction. All panels represent data from n = 3 devices with T cells derived from N = 3 different donors. All error bars indicate standard deviation.
Figure 4The MTD enhances lentiviral transduction of HSCs. Mobilized CD34+ cells were cultured under simulating conditions for 48 hours and transduced with ZsGreen lentiviral vector in the 2M-MTD. (a) Representative experiment for the percent of transduced HSCs following static transduction or 2M-MTD transduction at MOI 1 for the indicated period of time. Experiment was repeated with similar results. (b) Representative data for the percent of transduced HSCs following overnight static transduction or 2M-MTD transduction for 6 hours at the indicated MOIs. Experiment was repeated with similar results. (c) Transduction efficiency following overnight static transduction or at least 6 hours MTD transduction at MOI ~1, n = 4 devices with HSCs derived from N = 2 different donors, p < 0.05. (d) Percent of HSCs recovered from the 2M-MTD with an average of 77%, n = 6 devices with HSCs derived from N = 2 different donors. (e) HSCs viability relative to matched static controls immediately following removal from the 2M-MTD and washed in media, n = 6 devices with HSCs derived from N = 2 different donors. (f) HSC viability measured by 7AAD and flow cytometry day 4 post transduction. (g) Cell counts at the indicated days post-transduction for HSCs statically transduced overnight and HSCs transduced in the 2M-MTD for 6 hours. Cells were transduced with at least 3 different MOI between 1.25 and 10 and the fold expansion for each transduction condition is graphed. All error bars indicate standard deviation.