Post by Philipp Beck

Before you (like me) flick to the very end of this new #AAV analytics paper to see the figures (they look a bit bland), here is my takeaway: 👏No👏analytical👏shortcut👏to👏potency👏testing. (Sorry for this 2018-ish writing style) The authors spill all the beans already in the abstract: „Changes in transduction efficiency were mostly represented inadequately at the structural or molecular level by the analytical methods employed.“ It is a problem I struggle with on a daily basis: ⬇️⬇️⬇️ There is no reliable „shortcut“ stability-indicating method for AAV that comes close to potency testing. ⬆️⬆️⬆️ Our clients know this & most have a good potency assay set up either on their end or with us. ➡️I’m happy to share an office with our cell biology expert Nicole. She and her team run all potency projects at Ascend Advanced Therapies in Munich & I am thankful to experience how much effort and dedication goes into cell-based potency assays. 🙏Thanks also to the colleagues at Roche in Penzberg & Basel and at the KIT in Karlsruhe for the publication of their data! Jakob Heckel, Lukas Bongers, David Naylor, Ole Schmidt, Raphael Ruppert, Marco Thomann, Florian Semmelmann, Angie Kirchner, Alexandra Machado, Markus Haindl, Michael Leiss, Jürgen Hubbuch and Tobias Graf Thanks John Carpenter for highlighting the publication! But maybe the people from LumaCyte have a good solution that might serve as a shortcut. We couldn’t test it yet though. Christof Hasse any news on AAV testing?