Lam, Anh K.Mulcrone, Patrick L.Frabutt, DylanZhang, JunpingChrzanowski, MatthewArisa, SreevaniMunoz, MaiteLi, XinBiswas, MoanaroMarkusic, DavidHerzog, Roland W.Xiao, Weidong2024-05-092024-05-092023Lam AK, Mulcrone PL, Frabutt D, et al. Comprehensive Comparison of AAV Purification Methods: Iodixanol Gradient Centrifugation vs. Immuno-Affinity Chromatography. Adv Cell Gene Ther. 2023;2023:2339702. doi:10.1155/2023/2339702https://hdl.handle.net/1805/40586Recombinant adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) have emerged as a widely used gene delivery platform for both basic research and human gene therapy. To ensure and improve the safety profile of AAV vectors, substantial efforts have been dedicated to the vector production process development using suspension HEK293 cells. Here, we studied and compared two downstream purification methods, iodixanol gradient ultracentrifugation versus immuno-affinity chromatography (POROS™ CaptureSelect™ AAVX column). We tested multiple vector batches that were separately produced (including AAV5, AAV8, and AAV9 serotypes). To account for batch-to-batch variability, each batch was halved for subsequent purification by either iodixanol gradient centrifugation or affinity chromatography. In parallel, purified vectors were characterized, and transduction was compared both in vitro and in vivo in mice (using multiple transgenes: Gaussia luciferase, eGFP, and human factor IX). Each purification method was found to have its own advantages and disadvantages regarding purity, viral genome (vg) recovery, and relative empty particle content. Differences in transduction efficiency were found to reflect batch-to-batch variability rather than disparities between the two purification methods, which were similarly capable of yielding potent AAV vectors.en-USPublisher PolicyAdeno-associated viruses (AAVs)TransductionDownstream purification methodsArticle