Short Communication - (2025) Volume 9, Issue 4
Received: 01-Jul-2025, Manuscript No. vcrh-26-180162;
Editor assigned: 03-Jul-2025, Pre QC No. P-180162;
Reviewed: 17-Jul-2025, QC No. Q-180162;
Revised: 22-Jul-2025, Manuscript No. R-180162;
Published:
29-Jul-2025
, DOI: 10.37421/2736-657X.2025.9.320
Citation: Clarke, Benjamin. ”Gene Therapy Vectors: Choices, Challenges and Future.” Virol Curr Res 09 (2025):320.
Copyright: © 2025 Clarke B. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Viral vector systems are foundational to the advancement of gene therapy, serving as critical conduits for the delivery of therapeutic genetic material into target cells. Among these, adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) have emerged as a prominent platform due to their advantageous characteristics, including low immunogenicity, broad tropism, and the capacity to achieve long-term gene expression, although the judicious selection of serotypes remains paramount for optimal delivery and immune evasion [1].
Lentiviruses represent another powerful class of vectors, offering robust transduction capabilities and the ability to integrate into the host genome, thereby facilitating sustained therapeutic effects. However, concerns regarding the potential for insertional mutagenesis continue to be a subject of rigorous investigation and mitigation strategies [1].
Adenoviruses, while capable of achieving high levels of transgene expression, are known to elicit strong immune responses. This inherent immunogenicity can limit their application, particularly for therapies intended for chronic conditions where repeated administration or prolonged expression is required [1].
In parallel, a growing interest is being directed towards emerging non-viral vectors, such as lipid nanoparticles and polymeric nanoparticles. These systems are gaining traction as potentially safer alternatives, especially for in vivo gene therapy applications, although ongoing research is actively addressing their delivery efficiency and targeting precision [1].
The selection of an appropriate vector is a nuanced decision, contingent upon the specific disease pathology, the designated target cell type, and the desired therapeutic outcome. The continuous evolution of gene therapy necessitates ongoing research aimed at enhancing vector safety, efficacy, and the scalability of their manufacturing processes [1].
Understanding the immune response triggered by viral vectors is a significant challenge in the development of gene therapies. Comprehensive knowledge of both innate and adaptive immune mechanisms engaged by different vector types is essential for designing therapies that are both safer and more effective [2].
While adeno-associated virus (AAV) vectors are generally considered less immunogenic compared to other viral counterparts, they can still provoke capsid-specific T cell responses and the generation of neutralizing antibodies. These immune reactions can pose a limitation, particularly for strategies involving re-administration of the vector [2].
Furthermore, the presence of pre-existing immunity to naturally occurring AAVs in the population presents an additional complication for in vivo gene therapy applications, potentially reducing transduction efficiency and necessitating careful patient stratification [2].
To address these immunogenicity concerns, various strategies are being explored. These include the engineering of vector capsids to reduce their immunogenic potential, the implementation of immunosuppressive pre-conditioning regimens, and the investigation of novel vector systems designed to elicit a milder immune response [2].
This extensive research underscores the critical need for meticulous consideration of immune responses throughout the entire process of vector selection and therapeutic development to ensure successful gene therapy outcomes [2].
Viral vector systems are indispensable tools in gene therapy, facilitating the introduction of therapeutic genetic material into target cells. Adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) have become a leading platform due to their favorable attributes, including low immunogenicity, broad tropism, and sustained expression capabilities, though serotype choice is crucial for effective delivery and immune evasion [1].
Lentiviruses are also highly effective, integrating into the host genome for long-term therapeutic benefits, but the risk of insertional mutagenesis remains a concern [1].
Adenoviral vectors provide high transgene expression but trigger robust immune responses, limiting their use in chronic conditions [1].
Emerging non-viral vectors, such as lipid and polymeric nanoparticles, are increasingly favored as safer alternatives for in vivo applications, with active research focusing on improving their delivery efficiency and targeting accuracy [1].
The choice of vector is dictated by the disease, target cells, and desired outcome, with ongoing efforts to improve safety, efficacy, and manufacturing scalability [1].
The immune response to viral vectors presents a significant hurdle in gene therapy. Understanding the immune mechanisms activated by different vectors is vital for developing safer and more effective treatments [2].
AAV vectors, while generally less immunogenic, can still induce T cell responses and neutralizing antibodies, potentially hindering re-administration. Pre-existing immunity to wild-type AAVs further complicates in vivo gene therapy [2].
Strategies to mitigate immunogenicity include capsid engineering, immunosuppressive pre-conditioning, and the development of less immunogenic vector systems [2].
Lentiviral vectors are versatile for gene therapy, enabling stable integration for sustained effects, suitable for a broad range of genetic disorders. Advances focus on enhancing safety through LTR self-inactivation and improved transfer plasmids, alongside optimized production for clinical use. Despite insertional mutagenesis concerns, they remain promising for indications requiring stable integration [3].
Adenovirus-based vectors offer high transgene expression and efficient transduction but their inherent immunogenicity limits widespread clinical use. Current research aims to overcome this by engineering less immunogenic capsids and developing transient expression systems, though they remain valuable for applications needing potent, transient expression like cancer gene therapy [4].
Gene therapy relies heavily on viral vectors for delivering genetic material. Adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) are favored for their low immunogenicity and sustained expression, though serotype selection is key. Lentiviruses offer stable integration for long-term effects but carry a risk of insertional mutagenesis. Adenoviruses provide high expression but trigger strong immune responses, limiting their chronic use. Non-viral vectors like lipid and polymeric nanoparticles are emerging as safer alternatives, with ongoing research into their delivery efficiency and targeting. The choice of vector depends on the specific disease and therapeutic goals, with continuous efforts to improve vector safety, efficacy, and manufacturing. Immune responses to vectors are a significant challenge, with strategies like capsid engineering and immunosuppression being explored to mitigate these issues. Lentiviral and adenoviral vectors have specific advantages and limitations regarding integration and immunogenicity, respectively. Non-viral vectors, particularly lipid nanoparticles, are showing promise, especially for mRNA therapeutics. Targeting specific cells is crucial, employing methods like capsid modification and tissue-specific promoters. Manufacturing and scalability of vectors remain significant hurdles, driving innovation in production processes. Gene editing technologies, like CRISPR-Cas9, are being integrated with viral vectors for precise genetic correction. Finally, navigating the complex and evolving regulatory landscape is essential for bringing gene therapies to patients.
None
None
Virology: Current Research received 187 citations as per Google Scholar report
