PTX Media related, page-699

Shellbell, my knowledge of this is pretty basic – I’m no Biotech Bec! - so I’m not sure I have much of value to add.

I would point out that in the article you provided, only adenovirus vectors are mentioned, whereas PTX is initially using lentiviral vectors in its CAR-T program(s), like many of the other current CAR-T programs in development.

What I do know is that this field is fast moving - the paper you referenced was published almost 8 years ago and there will have been numerous developments since. Here’s a link to another more recent paper which you might find of interest.

From what I’ve read, there seems to be a general push away from use of viral vectors in cell production. Safety risk usually gets mentioned as one of the drawbacks of viral vectors, though I think that’s more theoretical for lentiviral vectors which do have an established history of safety. The main drawbacks of lentiviral vectors seem to be their high cost, manufacturing complexity and limited cargo capacity. On the other hand, to date they have offered more efficient transfection than non-viral vector systems. A challenge which researchers have been working on!

My thinking is that the non-viral vector approach to be used by PTX in conjunction with Thermo Fisher will involve electroporation, and specifically, Thermo Fisher’s new Gibco CTS Xenon Electroporation System. The TF system claims to be large-volume and offer reliable, high transfection efficiency; delivery of larger payloads than viral methods; increased ease and safety and significantly lower costs than viral transfection. All of that comes in a compact, closed but controllable system that enables decentralised manufacturing.

With Cell-Pryme dropped in, TF’s system could also offer production of superior cells; cells better able to get to and penetrate the tumour and survive twice as long once there.

Just my speculation.