| Literature DB >> 36096530 |
Dominik Lock1, Razieh Monjezi2, Sabrina Prommersberger2, Thomas Schaser3, Caroline Brandes3, Stephan Bates2, Simon Lennartz3, Karin Teppert3, Leon Gehrke2, Rafailla Karasakalidou-Seidt2, Teodora Lukic2, Marco Schmeer4, Martin Schleef4, Niels Werchau3, Matthias Eyrich5, Mario Assenmacher3, Andrew Kaiser3, Michael Hudecek2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing demand for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell products from patients and care givers. Here, we established an automated manufacturing process for CAR T cells on the CliniMACS Prodigy platform that is scaled to provide therapeutic doses and achieves gene-transfer with virus-free Sleeping Beauty (SB) transposition.Entities:
Keywords: Cell Engineering; Immunotherapy; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Translational Medical Research
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36096530 PMCID: PMC9472140 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2022-005189
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 12.469
Figure 1Small scale transfection of T cells using bi-pulse electroporation. (A) Restriction digestion analysis of conventional plasmids and MCS. Lane 1: SB100X plasmid digested with Sac I; Lane 2: SB100X MC digested with Pac I; Lane 3: PT2 CD19 CAR plasmid digested with Nhe I; Lane 4: PT2 CD19 CAR MC digested with Pac I, Lane 5: PT2 EGFP plasmid digested with Nhe I; Lane 6: PT2 EGFP MC digested with Pme I; lanes M: 1 kb DNA ladder (NE). (B) Schematic representation of applied bi-pulse system (red=first pulse, green=second pulse). (C) Viability and transfection efficiency (TE) of GFP-MC electroporated (Pulse) or non-electroporated (No pulse) T cells using the established bi-pulse system. (D) Episomal CAR-expression from MC vectors. T cells were electroporated with CD19 CAR transposon donor MC vector (CAR TP) in the presence or absence of transposase (SB100X), CAR-expression was assessed on day 6. (E–G) CD8 T cells were (co-)electroporated with mock (m, no DNA) or CD19 CAR and SB100X either encoded on plasmid (P) or MC in equimolar amounts using the two different electroporation systems. (E) viability, (F) transfection efficiency and (G) a representative flow cytometry analysis of anti-EGFRt staining 12 days after electroporation are shown. (C), (E, F) show mean+SD from N=3 donors. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test.
Figure 2Large-scale automated manufacturing of CAR T cells. (A, B) Workflow of the automated manufacturing process. (A) After installing the single-use disposable tubing set (TS520 in combination with the EP-2 accessory), starting material was sterile connected and automatically processed including CD4/CD8 separation, activation, electroporation, expansion and final formulation with minimal hands-on time according to a pre-defined activity matrix. In-process controls (IPC) allow tracking of viability, cellular expansion, pH value, and glucose consumption as required. (B) Flow chart of the manufacturing process and materials required. (C) Viability of in-process control samples before and after electroporation, during the process and at day of harvest. (D) Percentage of gene-modified T cells and (E) CAR T cell expansion was tracked during the entire process.
Figure 3Composition, phenotype and genotype of CAR T cells from automated manufacturing runs. (A) Cellular composition was analyzed before and after enrichment on day 0 as well as in the final cell product using flow cytometry. (B) CD4/CD8 ratio was analyzed before and after enrichment as well as after harvest. (C) T cell immunophenotype in final cell product. T cells were stained with antibodies against CD45RO, CD62L and CD95 and frequency of naïve T cells (Tn), stem-cell memory T cells (Tscm), central memory T cells (Tcm), effector memory T cells (Tem), and CD45-RA+ effector memory T cells (Temra) was assessed in the final cell product by flow cytometric analysis. (D) Vector copy numbers were analyzed from final cell products (CAR T, N=3) or mock T cells (control, N=2). (E) Gene expression profiles of cells from final cell product (N=4) were compared by Nanostring analysis to that of freshly isolated T cells (N=10). (B, C) Show mean±SD from N=3 donors.
Figure 4Anti-tumor reactivity of CD19 CAR T cells from automated manufacturing runs. (A) Histogram of CD19-expressing JeKo-1 wild-type (WT) or CD19 knockout (k.o.) JeKo-1 cells. (B) Effector and target cells were co-cultured for 24 hours at an effector-to-target ratio (E:T) of 1:1. Killing was analyzed using flow cytometry. (C) Cytokine release (interleukin-2 (IL-2), interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), and tumor-necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α)) was measured after co-culturing mock or CD19 CAR T cells either in the presence or absence of CD19-positive target cells. (D) After engrafting luciferase expressing Rajiffluc tumor cells in NSG mice for 7 days, non-electroporated mock or CD19 CAR engineered T cells were i.v. injected. Tumor burden was tracked using an in vivo tumor imaging system (IVIS). (B, C) Show mean+SD from N=3 donors. (D) Represents mean±SD from N=6 mice (CAR T) and N=4 mice (mock). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric unpaired t-test with 95% CI.