BACKGROUND: The use of oncolytic viruses for treatment of cancer marks a significant alteration in the battle between host and virus. Viruses are confronted by cellular innate immune responses and contain an armamentarium of immunomodulatory proteins that suppress innate immunity. Tumorigenesis can result in impairment of innate immune responses. Viruses engineered to be vulnerable to normal responses may mediate tumor-specific killing with minimal off-target toxicity. OBJECTIVE: To examine the mechanisms by which mammalian cells respond to viral infections in normal versus cancer cells and how viruses overcome these responses and to illustrate how this knowledge is used to develop physiologically targeted oncolytic viruses. METHODS: Literature describing studies investigating innate responses to virus infections, cancer-specific molecular defects, immunosuppressive viral products and design of oncolytic viruses is extensively reviewed, and pertinent concepts are distilled and developed. RESULTS/ CONCLUSION: Innate responses to viral infections are complex involving i) viral detection; ii) induction of interferon and other cytokines; and iii) establishment of an antiviral state. Oncolytic viruses are engineered to be susceptible to antiviral responses in normal cells. Cancers can be partially vulnerable to these viruses because they have defective antiviral responses but the antitumor potency of physiologically targeted viruses may be significantly diminished.
BACKGROUND: The use of oncolytic viruses for treatment of cancer marks a significant alteration in the battle between host and virus. Viruses are confronted by cellular innate immune responses and contain an armamentarium of immunomodulatory proteins that suppress innate immunity. Tumorigenesis can result in impairment of innate immune responses. Viruses engineered to be vulnerable to normal responses may mediate tumor-specific killing with minimal off-target toxicity. OBJECTIVE: To examine the mechanisms by which mammalian cells respond to viral infections in normal versus cancer cells and how viruses overcome these responses and to illustrate how this knowledge is used to develop physiologically targeted oncolytic viruses. METHODS: Literature describing studies investigating innate responses to virus infections, cancer-specific molecular defects, immunosuppressive viral products and design of oncolytic viruses is extensively reviewed, and pertinent concepts are distilled and developed. RESULTS/ CONCLUSION: Innate responses to viral infections are complex involving i) viral detection; ii) induction of interferon and other cytokines; and iii) establishment of an antiviral state. Oncolytic viruses are engineered to be susceptible to antiviral responses in normal cells. Cancers can be partially vulnerable to these viruses because they have defective antiviral responses but the antitumor potency of physiologically targeted viruses may be significantly diminished.
Authors: Silvia Ravera; Andrea Reyna-Neyra; Giuseppe Ferrandino; L Mario Amzel; Nancy Carrasco Journal: Annu Rev Physiol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 19.318
Authors: Christoforos Kosmidis; Konstantinos Sapalidis; Efstathios Kotidis; Nikolaos Mixalopoulos; Paul Zarogoulidis; Drosos Tsavlis; Sofia Baka; Yan-Gao Man; John Kanellos Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2016-05
Authors: Amy K LeBlanc; Shruthi Naik; Gina D Galyon; Nathan Jenks; Mike Steele; Kah-Whye Peng; Mark J Federspiel; Robert Donnell; Stephen J Russell Journal: Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 5.032
Authors: Markus J V Vähä-Koskela; Fabrice Le Boeuf; Chantal Lemay; Naomi De Silva; Jean-Simon Diallo; Julie Cox; Michelle Becker; Youngmin Choi; Abhirami Ananth; Clara Sellers; Sophie Breton; Dominic Roy; Theresa Falls; Jan Brun; Akseli Hemminki; Ari Hinkkanen; John C Bell Journal: J Virol Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Franz J Zemp; Xueqing Lun; Brienne A McKenzie; Hongyuan Zhou; Lori Maxwell; Beichen Sun; John J P Kelly; Owen Stechishin; Artee Luchman; Samuel Weiss; J Gregory Cairncross; Mark G Hamilton; Brian A Rabinovich; Masmudur M Rahman; Mohamed R Mohamed; Sherin Smallwood; Donna L Senger; John Bell; Grant McFadden; Peter A Forsyth Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2013-04-12 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Megan Moerdyk-Schauwecker; Nirav R Shah; Andrea M Murphy; Eric Hastie; Pinku Mukherjee; Valery Z Grdzelishvili Journal: Virology Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.616