Table 1.
Summary of Genetic Marking Approaches
| Gene marker | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| NEO | No need of high technology methods for detection (Dick et al., 1985) | Selection by G418 resistance is time consuming and time in culture may change cell characteristics, which can have a negative effect should selection by this method be used. |
| Most data indicates no impact on cell function (Wu et al., 1998) | ||
| EGFP (and FPs) | Rapid detection and ability to select by fluorescence-activated cell and/or fluorescent microscopy (Hawley et al., 2001; Persons et al., 1997, 1998) | Possible immunogenicity (Morris et al., 2004)High level of some FPs toxic (Hanazono et al., 1997) |
| Transgenic animals available | Cell death by free radicals release after prolonged in vitro excitation | |
| DNA methylation effects (Liu et al., 1999) | ||
| ΔLNGFR | Human protein, nonimmunogenic. | AML in murine studies using ΔNGFR- (Li et al., 2002) |
| Detectable by flow cytometry. | ||
| Endogenous NGFR not present on hematopoietic cells | ||
| Commercially available monoclonal antibodies for ex vivo immunoselection and detection | ||
| Reported safe in human clinical trials targeted to T cells (Bonini et al., 2003) | ||
| ΔCD19 | Human protein | Limited clinical experience |
| Not immunogenic | ||
| Detectable by flow cytometry. | ||
| Commercially available monoclonal antibodies for ex vivo immunoselection and detection | ||
| tCD34 | Human protein | Impact on homing and differentiation of transduced cells (Fehse et al., 2000) |
| Detectable by flow cytometry | ||
| Commercially available monoclonal antibodies for ex vivo immunoselection and detection | ||
| Drug-selectable FPs | Fluorescent-mediated detection and drug-mediated selection (Weber et al., 2010) | Limited experience |
EGFP, enhanced green fluorescent protein; FPs, fluorescent proteins; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; NGFR, nerve growth factor receptor.