Source 1review2017Frontiers in Neuroscience
Toolkit/viral vector technology for gene transfer
viral vector technology for gene transfer
Taxonomy: Mechanism Branch / Architecture. Workflows sit above the mechanism and technique branches rather than replacing them.
Summary
Viral vector technology for gene transfer is described as an enabling delivery platform for optogenetic neuromodulation by introducing light sensitivity into target cells. In the cited review, recent advances are reported to substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation.
Usefulness & Problems
Why this is useful
This delivery platform is useful because optogenetics can in principle provide more selective neuromodulation than conventional deep brain stimulation when target cells are rendered light sensitive. The cited evidence specifically positions improved viral gene transfer as a translational enabler for optogenetic neuromodulation.
Problem solved
It addresses the need to deliver genes that confer light sensitivity to target cells for optogenetic control. The review also frames it as helping overcome safety-related barriers to translation by reducing vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses.
Problem links
Need precise spatiotemporal control with light input
DerivedViral vector technology for gene transfer is presented as an enabling delivery platform for optogenetic neuromodulation. In the cited review, recent advances are reported to substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation.
Need tighter control over protein production
DerivedViral vector technology for gene transfer is presented as an enabling delivery platform for optogenetic neuromodulation. In the cited review, recent advances are reported to substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation.
Taxonomy & Function
Primary hierarchy
Mechanism Branch
Architecture: A delivery strategy grouped with the mechanism branch because it determines how a system is instantiated and deployed in context.
Mechanisms
Translation ControlTechniques
No technique tags yet.
Target processes
translationInput: Light
Implementation Constraints
cofactor dependency: cofactor requirement unknownencoding mode: externally suppliedimplementation constraint: context specific validationimplementation constraint: payload burdenimplementation constraint: spectral hardware requirementoperating role: delivery
The available evidence supports only that this is a viral gene transfer approach used to make target cells light sensitive for optogenetic neuromodulation. No specific construct architecture, promoter choice, serotype, dosing, delivery route, or expression system is described in the supplied material.
The supplied evidence does not identify specific viral vector classes, payloads, target cell types, or quantitative performance metrics. It also does not provide direct experimental validation details beyond the review-level claim of reduced cytotoxicity and immune responses.
Validation
Cell-freeBacteriaMammalianMouseHumanTherapeuticIndep. Replication
Supporting Sources
Ranked Claims
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that current deep brain stimulation is limited by relatively coarse neuromodulation, whereas optogenetics offers the prospect of more selective action on physiological structures when target cells are made light sensitive.
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
Approval Evidence
1 source1 linked approval claimfirst-pass slug viral-vector-technology-for-gene-transfer
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses.
Source:
translational enablersupports
The review states that recent advances in viral vector gene transfer have substantially reduced vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses, supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Recent advancements of viral vector technology for gene transfer substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This brings about the possibility to transfer this technology into the clinic as a possible alternative to DBS and neuromodulation.
Source:
Comparisons
Source-backed strengths
The cited review states that recent advancements in viral vector technology substantially reduce vector-associated cytotoxicity and immune responses. This improvement is presented as supporting possible clinical translation of optogenetic neuromodulation.
Source:
the current practice of DBS is hampered by the relatively coarse level of neuromodulation achieved. Optogenetics, in contrast, offers the perspective of much more selective actions on the various physiological structures, provided that the stimulated cells are rendered sensitive to the action of light.
Compared with blue-light-activated DNA template ON switch
viral vector technology for gene transfer and blue-light-activated DNA template ON switch address a similar problem space because they share translation.
Shared frame: shared target processes: translation; shared mechanisms: translation_control; same primary input modality: light
Compared with cLIPS1
viral vector technology for gene transfer and cLIPS1 address a similar problem space because they share translation.
Shared frame: shared target processes: translation; shared mechanisms: translation_control; same primary input modality: light
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
Compared with optogenetic systems adapted to regulate gene expression
viral vector technology for gene transfer and optogenetic systems adapted to regulate gene expression address a similar problem space because they share translation.
Shared frame: shared target processes: translation; shared mechanisms: translation_control; same primary input modality: light
Strengths here: looks easier to implement in practice.
Ranked Citations