Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Hepatol. May 27, 2022; 14(5): 866-884
Published online May 27, 2022. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i5.866
Table 1 Methods to detect covalently closed circular DNA
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Ref.
Blotting
Southern blotSpecific detection of DNA sequences; Able to distinguish cccDNA from other viral DNA species; Reliable and reproducibleComplicated, time-consuming, and costly[101-102]
PCR-based methods
Conventional qPCRSimple, accurate, and sensitive; Suitable for high-throughput screening; Rapid and economicalSpecificity is reduced if high concentration of rcDNA is present[100,102]
Semi-nested and nested qPCRSensitive and specific; Allows for cccDNA quantification [100,102,104,106]
Competitive qPCRSensitive; Can readily distinguish cccDNA from rcDNA; Allows for cccDNA quantification [100,102,107]
Droplet-digital PCRVery sensitive and accurate; Can detect a single copy of cccDNA precisely; Allows for cccDNA quantification [102,108-114]
Rolling circle amplification qPCRVery sensitive; cccDNA is visible at single-cell resolutionEffective amplification may be hindered by cross-linked proteins or diffusion of DNA[100,102,115-117]
Magnetic capture hybridization PCRSensitive and specific; Allows for selective isolation of cccDNA; ReproducibleUnable to capture all cccDNA completely; Complicated and costly[100,102,118-119]
Invader AssaySpecific, simple, and reproducible[100,102,121-124]
In situ hybridizationSpecific; Can distinguish different types of nucleic acids; Visible at single-cell resolutionComplicated probe design[100,102,125-126]
Indirect method
Surrogate markersNon-invasive; Convenient and cost-effective; Suitable for high-throughput screeningIndirect [100,114,126-128,131-135]
Table 2 Gene editing and epigenetic modification techniques to target and eliminate covalently closed circular DNA
Technique
Study model
Study results
Ref.
Gene editing
Synthetic RNAiClinical trialARC-520 was well tolerated, with only two serious adverse effects. ARC-520 was active in both HBeAg-neg and HBeAg-pos patients, but only moderate reduction in HBsAg was observed[122]
Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs)In vitro (AAV-mediated delivery of ZFNs in HepAD38 cells)Completely inhibited HBV DNA replication and decreased HBV pgRNA level[124]
In vitro Decreased pgRNA level, thus having the potential to target cccDNA[123]
Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs)In vitro and in vivo [murine hydrodynamic injection (HDI)]Efficient disruption of target sites and suppression of viral replication markers; targeted mutation in 35% of cccDNAs was observed in vitro under mildly hyphothermic conditions and further confirmed in vivo[125]
CRISPR/Cas9 SystemIn vitro (A64 cells)Inhibited both HBV antigen expression and replication, excised the entire full-length of integrated HBV genome, and disrupted cccDNA[126-131]
Epigenetic modification
DicoumarolIn vitro (HBV-infected cells HepG2-NTCP cells) and in vivo (humanised liver mouse)Reduced HBx protein expression, therefore having a potent antiviral activity against HBV RNAs, DNA, HBsAg, and HBc protein; cccDNA-ChIP decreased active histone marks and increased repressive histone marks [132]
In vitro (NTCP-expressing HepG2 and primary hepatocytes)Inhibited HBV replication in HBV-infected primary human hepatocytes by inhibiting the activity of cccDNA[133]
Interferon-alpha (IFN)In vitro and in vivo (chimeric uPA/SCID mice)Hypoacetylation of cccDNA-bound histone and active recruitment of transcriptional corepressors to the cccDNA; Inhibited HBV replication and cccDNA transcription [134]
In vitroInduced a prolonged suppression of human and duck HBV cccDNA transcription[135]
Zinc finger proteins (ZFPs)In vitro (male longhorn hepatoma cells)ZFPs binding to HBV enhancer region inhibited viral replication by inhibiting cccDNA transcriptional activity [136]
CurcuminIn vitro (HepG2.2.15)Reduced HBsAg and cccDNA levels up to 58% and 76%, respectively [137]