Table 2:
A comparison of viral and non-viral approaches for production of CAR immune cells.
| Approach | Type | Production | Packing capacity | Transfection efficiency | Genome integration | Insertion site | Expression | Immunogenicity | Mutagenesis risk | Overall cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lentivirus | ssRNA viral vector | Labor-intensive | ∼9 kb | High | Yes | Semi-Random | Stable | Low | High | Very Costly |
| Retrovirus | ssRNA viral vector | Moderate | ∼8 kb | High | Yes | Semi-Random | Stable | Low | High | Costly |
| Adeno-associated virus | ssDNA viral vector | Labor-intensive | ∼5 kb | High | Yes | Targeted/Episomal | Stable | Low | Low | Very Costly |
| Transposon | DNA Element | Simple | ≈10 kb (SB)/≈220 kb (PB) | Various | Yes | Not completely random | Stable | Low | Medium to low | Cheap |
| CRISPR/Cas9 | Gene-Editing Tool | Moderate | Moderate | High | Yes | Site-specific | Stable | Low | Very Low | Cheap |
| mRNA | Genetic Template | Easy | Large | Various/High | No | None | Transient | None | None | Cheap |
| Electroporation | Physical device | Easy | No known upper limit | High | No | None | Transient | None | None | Cheap |
| Biomaterials | Material science | Easy | No known upper limit | Less efficient than viral vector and electroporation | No | None | Transient | Depend on biomaterials used | None | Cheap |