Adeno-associated virus (AAV) based vectors have emerged as important tools for gene therapy in humans. The recent successes seen in Phase I/II clinical trials have also highlighted the issues related to the host and vector-related immune response that preclude the universal application of this promising vector system. A fundamental insight into the biological mechanisms by which AAV infects the host cell and a thorough understanding of the immediate and long-lived cellular responses to AAV infection is likely to offer clues and help design better intervention strategies to improve the therapeutic efficiency of AAV vectors. This article reviews the biology of AAV-host cellular interactions and outlines their application in the development of novel and improved AAV vector systems.

AAV-based gene transfer protocols have shown remarkable success when directed to immune-privileged sites such as for retinal disorders like Lebers congenital amaurosis. In contrast, AAV-mediated gene transfer into liver or muscle tissue for diseases such as hemophilia B, α1 anti-trypsin deficiency and muscular dystrophy has demonstrated a decline in gene transfer efficacy over time. It is now known that in humans, AAV triggers specific pathways that recruit immune sensors. These factors initiate an immediate reaction against either the viral capsid or the vector encoded protein as part of innate immune response or to produce a more specific adaptive response that generates immunological memory. The vector-transduced cells are then rapidly destroyed due to this immune activation. However, unlike other viral vectors, AAV is not immunogenic in murine models. Its immunogenicity becomes apparent only in large animal models and human subjects. Moreover, humans are natural hosts to AAV and exhibit a high seroprevalence against AAV vectors. This limits the widespread application of AAV vectors into patients with pre-existing neutralising antibodies or memory T cells. To address these issues, various strategies are being tested. Alternate serotype vectors (AAV1-10), efficient expression cassettes, specific tissue targeting, immune-suppression and engineered capsid variants are some approaches proposed to minimise this immune stimulation. In this review, we have summarised the nature of the immune response documented against AAV in various pre-clinical and clinical settings and have further discussed the strategies to evade them.

The unfolded protein response (UPR) is a stress-induced cyto-protective mechanism elicited towards an influx of large amount of proteins in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). In the present study, we evaluated if AAV manipulates the UPR pathways during its infection. We first examined the role of the three major UPR axes, namely, endoribonuclease inositol-requiring enzyme-1 (IRE1α), activating transcription factor 6 (ATF6) and PKR-like ER kinase (PERK) in AAV infected cells. Total RNA from mock or AAV infected HeLa cells were used to determine the levels of 8 different ER-stress responsive transcripts from these pathways. We observed a significant up-regulation of IRE1α (up to 11 fold) and PERK (up to 8 fold) genes 12–48 hours after infection with self-complementary (sc)AAV2 but less prominent with single-stranded (ss)AAV2 vectors. Further studies demonstrated that scAAV1 and scAAV6 also induce cellular UPR in vitro, with AAV1 vectors activating the PERK pathway (3 fold) while AAV6 vectors induced a significant increase on all the three major UPR pathways [6–16 fold]. These data suggest that the type and strength of UPR activation is dependent on the viral capsid. We then examined if transient inhibition of UPR pathways by RNA interference has an effect on AAV transduction. siRNA mediated silencing of PERK and IRE1α had a modest effect on AAV2 and AAV6 mediated gene expression (∼1.5–2 fold) in vitro. Furthermore, hepatic gene transfer of scAAV2 vectors in vivo, strongly elevated IRE1α and PERK pathways (2 and 3.5 fold, respectively). However, when animals were pre-treated with a pharmacological UPR inhibitor (metformin) during scAAV2 gene transfer, the UPR signalling and its subsequent inflammatory response was attenuated concomitant to a modest 2.8 fold increase in transgene expression. Collectively, these data suggest that AAV vectors activate the cellular UPR pathways and their selective inhibition may be beneficial during AAV mediated gene transfer.

Despite significant advancements with recombinant AAV2 or AAV8 vectors for liver directed gene therapy in humans, it is well-recognized that host and vector-related immune challenges need to be overcome for long-term gene transfer. To overcome these limitations, alternate AAV serotypes (1–10) are being rigorously evaluated. AAV5 is the most divergent (55% similarity vs. other serotypes) and like AAV1 vector is known to transduce liver efficiently. AAV1 and AAV5 vectors are also immunologically distinct by virtue of their low seroprevalence and minimal cross reactivity against pre-existing AAV2 neutralizing antibodies. Here, we demonstrate that targeted bio-engineering of these vectors, augment their gene expression in murine hepatocytes in vivo (up to 16-fold). These studies demonstrate the feasibility of the use of these novel AAV1 and AAV5 vectors for potential gene therapy of diseases like hemophilia.

Viruses are excellent vehicles for gene therapy due to their natural ability to infect and deliver the cargo to specific tissues with high efficiency. Although such vectors are usually “gutted” and are replication defective, they are subjected to clearance by the host cells by immune recognition and destruction. Unfolded protein response (UPR) is a naturally evolved cyto-protective signaling pathway which is triggered due to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress caused by accumulation of unfolded/misfolded proteins in its lumen. The UPR signaling consists of three signaling pathways, namely PKR-like ER kinase, activating transcription factor 6, and inositol-requiring protein-1. Once activated, UPR triggers the production of ER molecular chaperones and stress response proteins to help reduce the protein load within the ER. This occurs by degradation of the misfolded proteins and ensues in the arrest of protein translation machinery. If the burden of protein load in ER is beyond its processing capacity, UPR can activate pro-apoptotic pathways or autophagy leading to cell death. Viruses are naturally evolved in hijacking the host cellular translation machinery to generate a large amount of proteins. This phenomenon disrupts ER homeostasis and leads to ER stress. Alternatively, in the case of gutted vectors used in gene therapy, the excess load of recombinant vectors administered and encountered by the cell can trigger UPR. Thus, in the context of gene therapy, UPR becomes a major roadblock that can potentially trigger inflammatory responses against the vectors and reduce the efficiency of gene transfer.