Systemic errors in quantitative polymerase chain reaction titration of self-complementary adeno-associated viral vectors and improved alternative methods
Open accessAbstract
Self-complementary AAV (scAAV) vector genomes contain a covalently closed hairpin derived from a mutated inverted terminal repeat that connects the two monomer single-stranded genomes into a head-to-head or tail-to-tail dimer. We found that during quantitative PCR (qPCR) this structure inhibits the amplification of proximal amplicons and causes the systemic underreporting of copy number by as much as 10-fold. We show that cleavage of scAAV vector genomes with restriction endonuclease to liberate amplicons from the covalently closed terminal hairpin restores quantitative amplification, and we implement this procedure in a simple, modified qPCR titration method for scAAV vectors. In addition, we developed and present an AAV genome titration procedure based on gel electrophoresis that requires minimal sample processing and has low interassay variability, and as such is well suited for the rigorous quality control demands of clinical vector production facilities. Fagone and colleagues address challenges in quantitative PCR titration of self-complementary adeno-associated virus (scAAV). They show that restriction nuclease cleavage of covalently closed hairpins present in scAAV genomes restores quantitative amplification of hairpin-proximal amplicons. An alternative AAV titration procedure that requires minimal sample processing and shows low interassay variability is also presented.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Stochastic and systematic sources of qPCR variability, such as low replication efficiency or choice of the primer target sequence, have been identified and alleviated with additional DNA pre-treatments and optimized primers, improving repeatability to 5% to 20% CV and intermediate precision to 15% to 50% CV.
“Stochastic and systematic sources of this variability, such as low replication efficiency or choice of the primer’s target sequence, have been identified and alleviated with additional DNA pre-treatments and optimized primers,35,57,70,72,80, 81, 82 improving repeatability to 5%–20% CV and intermediate precision to 15%–50% CV.21,24,25,35”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [70]
OD repeatability is as poor as 15% CV for content ratio and 22% CV for capsid titer.
“The precision of OD is comparable to the combined qPCR/ELISA workflow and repeatability reported as poor as 15% CV for content ratio and 22% CV for capsid titer.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [70]
OD precision is comparable to the combined qPCR/ELISA workflow.
“The precision of OD is comparable to the combined qPCR/ELISA workflow and repeatability reported as poor as 15% CV for content ratio and 22% CV for capsid titer.”
From Analytical methods for process and product characterization of recombinant adeno-associated virus-based gene therapies (2021) · cites this paper as [70]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 97
- Authors
- Fagone, P., Wright, J. F., Nathwani, A. C., Nienhuis, A. W., Davidoff, A. M., & Gray, J. T.
- Affiliations
- St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gray, John T.
- Venue
- Human Gene Therapy Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 1946-6536 (ISSN-L)
- 1946-6544
- PMC
- PMC3640491
- OpenAlex
- W2052621353
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 5.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Human Gene Therapy Methods (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Assisi Foundation of Memphis
- American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL073838, R01HL073838)
- National Cancer Institute (CA027165)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK095169)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Virus-based gene therapy research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology Techniques and Applications
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA Interference and Gene Delivery
- Keywords
- inverted terminal repeats, restriction endonuclease cleavage
- MeSH terms
- Dependovirus, DNA Restriction Enzymes, Electrophoresis, Genetic Vectors, Mutation, Quality Control, Research Design, Immunoblotting, Polymerase Chain Reaction, DNA Primers, Dimerization, Terminal Repeat Sequences, Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques, DNA Copy Number Variations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review