| Literature DB >> 34134774 |
Gabrielle M Robbins1,2,3,4, Minjing Wang1,2,3, Emily J Pomeroy1,2,3, Branden S Moriarity5,6,7.
Abstract
Natural killer (NK) cells are cytotoxic lymphocytes of the innate immune system capable of immune surveillance. Given their ability to rapidly and effectively recognize and kill aberrant cells, especially transformed cells, NK cells represent a unique cell type to genetically engineer to improve its potential as a cell-based therapy. NK cells do not express a T cell receptor and thus do not contribute to graft-versus-host disease, nor do they induce T cell-driven cytokine storms, making them highly suited as an off-the-shelf cellular therapy. The clinical efficacy of NK cell-based therapies has been hindered by limited in vivo persistence and the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment characteristic of many cancers. Enhancing NK cell resistance to tumor inhibitory signaling through genome engineering has the potential to improve NK cell persistence in the tumor microenvironment and restore cytotoxic functions. Alongside silencing NK cell inhibitory receptors, NK cell killing can be redirected by the integration of chimeric antigen receptors (CARs). However, NK cells are associated with technical and biological challenges not observed in T cells, typically resulting in low genome editing efficiencies. Viral vectors have achieved the greatest gene transfer efficiencies but carry concerns of random, insertional mutagenesis given the high viral titers necessary. As such, this review focuses on nonviral methods of gene transfer within the context of improving cancer immunotherapy using engineered NK cells.Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas; Cell-based therapy; Genome engineering; Immunotherapy; Lipofection; NK cells; Nonviral; Nucleofection; Transposon
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34134774 PMCID: PMC8207670 DOI: 10.1186/s13287-021-02406-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther ISSN: 1757-6512 Impact factor: 6.832
Comparison of nonviral delivery strategies in NK cells
| Delivery method | Advantages | Disadvantages | Apparatus |
|---|---|---|---|
Electroporation Nucleofection | High efficiency Less regulatory constraints cGMP compliant electroporation systems DNA, RNA, or plasmids | NK cells must be expanded and require cytokines Cell viability dependent on cargo (e.g., RNA, DNA) Cargo size affects efficiency | Neon Amaxa BTX MaxCyte |
| Lipofection | Cost effective Readily available reagents DNA, RNA, or plasmids | Cell viability dependent on cargo (e.g., RNA, DNA) Limited studies Requires optimized conditions of reagents and cell medium | Lipofectamine 2000, 3000 |
Comparison of NK cell engineering reagents
| Cargo | Efficiency | Viability | Advantages | Disadvantages | Therapeutic uses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Transient mRNA DNA | Up to 99% | Poor to good | Rapid expression High efficiency | Transient—no stable genomic integration Cell viability dependent on cargo (e.g., RNA, DNA) | Transient CAR mRNA Knockout of genes that suppress or inhibit NK cell function Knock-in of activating receptors or genes that promote NK cell function |
| Transposon | Up to 80% | Poor to good | Cost effective Large cargo capacity Stable integration | Potential insertional mutagenesis Transposon must be delivered as DNA | Large cargo delivery (e.g., CAR in combination with activating receptors or cytokines) |
Cas9 Base editor Prime editor | Up to 100% | Poor to excellent | High precision High efficiency Large-scale insertion or deletion | Potential off target editing Indels and translocations | Knockout genes that suppress or inhibit NK cell function Knock-in of activating receptors or genes that promote NK cell function Treating patients bearing disease caused by a single base pair mutation |
Fig. 1SB mRNA and minicircle delivery of GFP to primary human NK cells. Primary human NK cells (n = 2 independent donors) were isolated from peripheral blood and expanded using membrane-bound interleukin-21 (mbIL21)-expressing K562 feeder cells. After expansion, NK cells were electroporated with minicircle (MC) plasmid expressing eGFP alone or in combination with SB11- or SB100X-encoding mRNA. A Representative flow plots of eGFP expression 21 days after electroporation. B eGFP expression from 2 NK cell donors 7 and 21 days after electroporation