Recombinant adeno-associated viruses (AAVs) have emerged as promising gene delivery vehicles resulting in three US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and one European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved AAV-based gene therapies. Despite being a leading platform for therapeutic gene transfer in several clinical trials, host immune responses against the AAV vector and transgene have hampered their widespread application. Multiple factors, including vector design, dose, and route of administration, contribute to the overall immunogenicity of AAVs. The immune responses against the AAV capsid and transgene involve an initial innate sensing. The innate immune response subsequently triggers an adaptive immune response to elicit a robust and specific response against the AAV vector. AAV gene therapy clinical trials and preclinical studies provide important information about the immune-mediated toxicities associated with AAV, yet studies suggest preclinical models fail to precisely predict the outcome of gene delivery in humans. This review discusses the contribution of the innate and adaptive immune response against AAVs, highlighting the challenges and potential strategies to mitigate these responses, thereby enhancing the therapeutic potential of AAV gene therapy.

Regulatory T cells are critical for maintaining immune tolerance. Recent studies have confirmed their therapeutic suppressive potential to modulate immune responses in organ transplant and autoimmune diseases. However, the unknown and nonspecific antigen recognition of polyclonal Tregs has impaired their therapeutic potency in initial clinical findings. To address this limitation, antigen specificity can be conferred to Tregs by engineering the expression of transgenic T-cell receptor (TCR) or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR). In contrast to TCR Tregs, CAR Tregs are major histocompatibility complex (MHC) independent and less dependent on interleukin-2 (IL-2). Furthermore, CAR Tregs maintain Treg phenotype and function, home to the target tissue and show enhanced suppressive efficacy compared to polyclonal Tregs. Additional development of engineered CAR Tregs is needed to increase Tregs’ suppressive function and stability, prevent CAR Treg exhaustion, and assess their safety profile. Further understanding of Tregs therapeutic potential will be necessary before moving to broader clinical applications. Here, we summarize recent studies utilizing CAR Tregs in modulating immune responses in autoimmune diseases, transplantation, and gene therapy and future clinical applications.

Immune responses to adeno-associated virus (AAV) capsids limit the therapeutic potential of AAV gene therapy. Herein, we model clinical immune responses by generating AAV capsid-specific chimeric antigen receptor (AAV-CAR) T cells. We then modulate immune responses to AAV capsid with AAV-CAR regulatory T cells (Tregs). AAV-CAR Tregs in vitro display phenotypical Treg surface marker expression, and functional suppression of effector T cell proliferation and cytotoxicity. In mouse models, AAV-CAR Tregs mediated continued transgene expression from an immunogenic capsid, despite antibody responses, produced immunosuppressive cytokines, and decreased tissue inflammation. AAV-CAR Tregs are also able to bystander suppress immune responses to immunogenic transgenes similarly mediating continued transgene expression, producing immunosuppressive cytokines, and reducing tissue infiltration. Taken together, AAV-CAR T cells and AAV-CAR Tregs are directed and powerful immunosuppressive tools to model and modulate immune responses to AAV capsids and transgenes in the local environment.

Precise gene manipulation by gene editing approaches facilitates the potential to cure several debilitating genetic disorders. Gene modification stimulated by engineered nucleases induces a double-stranded break (DSB) in the target genomic locus, thereby activating DNA repair mechanisms. DSBs triggered by nucleases are repaired either by the nonhomologous end-joining or the homology-directed repair pathway, enabling efficient gene editing. While there are several ongoing ex vivo genome editing clinical trials, current research underscores the therapeutic potential of CRISPR/Cas-based (clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeats-associated Cas nuclease) in vivo gene editing. In this review, we provide an overview of the CRISPR/Cas-mediated in vivo genome therapy applications and explore their prospective clinical translatability to treat human monogenic disorders. In addition, we discuss the various challenges associated with in vivo genome editing technologies and strategies used to circumvent them. Despite the robust and precise nuclease-mediated gene editing, a promoterless, nuclease-independent gene targeting strategy has been utilized to evade the drawbacks of the nuclease-dependent system, such as off-target effects, immunogenicity, and cytotoxicity. Thus, the rapidly evolving paradigm of gene editing technologies will continue to foster the progress of gene therapy applications.

Adeno-associated virus (AAV) mediated gene therapy is a leading gene delivery platform with potential to transform the landscape of treatment for neurological disorders. While AAV is deemed non-immunogenic compared to other viral vectors, adverse immune reactions have been observed in the clinic, raising concerns. As the central nervous system (CNS) has a tightly regulated immune system, characterized by a degree of tolerance, it has been considered a unique target for AAV gene therapy. AAV vectors have shown promising results for the treatment of several CNS disorders including Spinal Muscular Atrophy, Giant Axonal Neuropathy, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Tay Sachs Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and others, demonstrating safety and success. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Zolgensma and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval of Upstaza, for Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) and Aromatic l-amino acid decarboxylase deficiency (AADC) respectively, represent this success, all while highlighting significant differences in immune responses to AAV, particularly with regards to therapeutic administration route. AAV therapies like Upstaza that are injected directly into the immune-specialized brain have been characterized by mild immune response profiles and minor adverse events, whereas therapies like Zolgensma that are injected systemically demonstrate more robust immune stimulation and off-target toxicities. Despite these contrasting parallels, these therapeutics and others in the clinic have demonstrated clinical benefit for patients, warranting further exploration of immune responses to CNS-directed AAV clinical trials. Thus, in this review, we discuss effects of different routes of AAV administration on eliciting local and peripheral immune responses specifically observed in CNS-targeted trials.