Advancements in Genetic Engineering
Open Access

Navigating Immune Responses in Gene Therapy: Challenges and Opportunities

Jason J^{* *}Correspondence: Jason J, Department of Immunology, North American Private University, Sakiet Ezzit, Tunisia, Email:

Author info »

Description

Gene therapy holds immense commitment for treating a wide range of diseases, from genetic disorders to cancer. However, the success of gene therapy is often hindered by immune responses mounted by the host organism against the therapeutic vector or transgene [1]. Understanding and effectively managing these immune responses is important for the development and clinical implementation of gene therapy approaches. In this article, we explore the complexities of immune responses to gene therapy, the challenges they pose, and the strategies being developed to overcome them [2].

Types of immune responses

Innate immune response: Upon administration of a gene therapy vector, the innate immune system serves as the first line of defense. Components such as Toll-Like Receptors (TLRs) and Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs) recognize the vector as foreign and trigger inflammatory responses. This can lead to the activation of innate immune cells, such as macrophages and dendritic cells, which produce cytokines and chemokines, further amplifying the immune response. While these responses are essential for host defense, they can also contribute to vector clearance and limit the efficacy of gene therapy [3].

Adaptive immune responses: In addition to the innate immune response, gene therapy can elicit adaptive immune responses mediated by T cells and B cells. T cells recognize and eliminate vector-transduced cells presenting viral or transgene-derived antigens on their surface [4]. B cells may produce neutralizing antibodies against the vector or transgene product, rendering subsequent doses of therapy ineffective. These adaptive immune responses can pose significant challenges, particularly in the context of repeat dosing and long-term therapeutic efficacy [5].

Immune tolerance and immunosuppression: One strategy to mitigate immune responses to gene therapy is to induce immune tolerance, whereby the immune system becomes tolerant to the therapeutic vector or transgene. This can be achieved through various approaches, including co-administration of immunomodulatory agents, engineering vectors to evade immune recognition, or inducing regulatory T cells) to suppress immune activation [6]. Similarly, immunosuppressive drugs may be used to dampen immune responses, although they carry risks of systemic immunosuppression and increased susceptibility to infections [7].

Strategies to evade immune detection: Researchers are developing innovative strategies to evade immune detection and improve the persistence of gene therapy vectors in target tissues [8]. This includes modifying vector capsids to shield them from neutralizing antibodies, engineering stealth vectors that evade recognition by the immune system, or incorporating decoy antigens to divert immune responses away from the therapeutic transgene [9]. Additionally, advancements in gene editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 enable targeted disruption of immunogenic epitopes, reducing the antigenicity of gene therapy vectors [10].

Localized delivery and targeted immunomodulation: Another approach to minimize immune responses is to optimize the delivery of gene therapy vectors to specific tissues or organs, thereby reducing systemic exposure and immune activation [11]. Localized delivery strategies, such as intratumoral injection or direct administration to target organs, can enhance therapeutic efficacy while minimizing off-target effects and immune stimulation. Furthermore, targeted immunomodulation techniques, such as the expression of immunosuppressive cytokines or checkpoint inhibitors within the vector, can modulate the local immune microenvironment to promote tolerance and prevent immune rejection[12].

Personalized immunomodulatory therapies: Given the variability in immune responses among individuals, personalized immunomodulatory therapies customized to each patient's immune profile hold promise for optimizing gene therapy outcomes [13]. Biomarkers predictive of immune responses, such as cytokine profiles or T cell phenotypes, can inform the selection of immunomodulatory interventions tailored to the patient's specific immunological profile. This personalized approach may enhance therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse immune reactions, ultimately improving patient outcomes [14].

Clinical translation and regulatory considerations: As gene therapy approaches advance towards clinical translation, regulatory agencies face the challenge of evaluating the safety and efficacy of these therapies in the context of immune responses. Comprehensive preclinical studies are essential to assess the immunogenicity of gene therapy vectors, identify potential immune-related adverse events, and develop strategies to mitigate immune responses in clinical trials. Regulatory agencies must balance the need for rigorous safety evaluations with the imperative to expedite the development of life-saving therapies for patients with unmet medical needs [15].

Conclusion

Immune responses pose significant challenges to the success of gene therapy, but they also present opportunities for innovation and improvement. By understanding the complex interplay between the immune system and gene therapy vectors, researchers can develop strategies to modulate immune responses, enhance therapeutic efficacy, and improve patient outcomes. With continued advancements in immunomodulation techniques, personalized medicine approaches, and regulatory frameworks, gene therapy has the potential to revolutionize the treatment of genetic diseases and usher in a new era of precision medicine.

References

1. Wagner DE, Turner L, Panoskaltsis-Mortari A, Weiss DJ, Ikonomou L. Co-opting of ClinicalTrials. gov by patient-funded studies. Lancet Respir Med. 2018;6(8):579-81.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

2. Ginn SL, Amaya AK, Alexander IE, Edelstein M, Abedi MR. Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2017: An update. J. Gene Med. 2018;20(5):3015.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

3. Wills CA, Drago D, Pietrusko RG. Clinical holds for cell and gene therapy trials: Risks, impact, and lessons learned. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. 2023;31.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

4. Dallas MH, Triplett B, Shook DR, Hartford C, Srinivasan A, Laver J, et al. Long-term outcome and evaluation of organ function in pediatric patients undergoing haploidentical and matched related hematopoietic cell transplantation for sickle cell disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(5):820-830.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

5. Walters MC, Patience M, Leisenring W, Rogers ZR, Aquino VM, Buchanan GR, et al. Stable mixed hematopoietic chimerism after bone marrow transplantation for sickle cell anemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2001;7(12):665-673.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

6. Shenoy S, Eapen M, Wu JM, Walters MC, Levine JE, Logan BR, et al. Results of the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Study BMT CTN 0601: SCURT-a multicenter phase II trial of unrelated donor reduced intensity bone marrow transplantation (BMT) for children with severe sickle cell disease. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22(3):104.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Demirci S, Uchida N, Tisdale JF. Gene therapy for sickle cell disease: An update. Cytotherapy. 2018;20(7):899-910.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

8. Brandow AM, DeBaun MR. Key components of pain management for children and adults with sickle cell disease. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2018;32(3):535-550.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

9. Muñoz-Planillo R, Kuffa P, Martínez-Colón G, Smith BL, Rajendiran TM, Núñez G. K+ efflux is the common trigger of NLRP3 inflammasome activation by bacterial toxins and particulate matter. Immunity. 2013;38(6):1142-1153.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

10. Hara H, Seregin SS, Yang D, Fukase K, Chamaillard M, Alnemri ES, et al. The NLRP6 inflammasome recognizes lipoteichoic acid and regulates gram-positive pathogen infection. Cell. 2018;175(6):1651-1664.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

11. Karki R, Man SM, Malireddi RS, Gurung P, Vogel P, Lamkanfi M, et al. Concerted activation of the AIM2 and NLRP3 inflammasomes orchestrates host protection against Aspergillus infection. Cell host & microbe. 2015;17(3):357-368.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

12. Kalantari P, DeOliveira RB, Chan J, Corbett Y, Rathinam V, Stutz A, et al. Dual engagement of the NLRP3 and AIM2 inflammasomes by plasmodium-derived hemozoin and DNA during malaria. Cell Rep. 2014;6(1):196-210.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

13. Sundaram B, Pandian N, Mall R, Wang Y, Sarkar R, Kim HJ, et al. NLRP12-PANoptosome activates PANoptosis and pathology in response to heme and PAMPs. Cell. 2023;186(13):2783-2801.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

14. Fava A, Petri M. Systemic lupus erythematosus: diagnosis and clinical management. J Autoimmun. 2019;96:1-3.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]

15. Tenbrock K, Rauen T. T cell dysregulation in SLE. Clin Immunol. 2022;239:109031.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pubmed]