| Literature DB >> 26569321 |
Ivan Y C Lin1, Thi Thu Hao Van2, Peter M Smooker3.
Abstract
Genetically attenuated microorganisms, including pathogenic and commensal bacteria, can be engineered to carry and deliver heterologous antigens to elicit host immunity against both the vector as well as the pathogen from which the donor gene is derived. These live attenuated bacterial vectors have been given much attention due to their capacity to induce a broad range of immune responses including localized mucosal, as well as systemic humoral and/or cell-mediated immunity. In addition, the unique tumor-homing characteristics of these bacterial vectors has also been exploited for alternative anti-tumor vaccines and therapies. In such approach, tumor-associated antigen, immunostimulatory molecules, anti-tumor drugs, or nucleotides (DNA or RNA) are delivered. Different potential vectors are appropriate for specific applications, depending on their pathogenic routes. In this review, we survey and summarize the main features of the different types of live bacterial vectors and discussed the clinical applications in the field of vaccinology. In addition, different approaches for using live attenuated bacterial vectors for anti-cancer therapy is discussed, and some promising pre-clinical and clinical studies in this field are outlined.Entities:
Keywords: Salmonella; attenuated vector; cancer; infectious disease; vaccine
Year: 2015 PMID: 26569321 PMCID: PMC4693226 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines3040940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccines (Basel) ISSN: 2076-393X
Figure 1The use of bacterial vectors to vaccinate against pathogens. (I–IV) Cloning of heterologous gene and insertion into bacterial vector, either carried on a plasmid or inserted into the chromosome; (V) Expression of the heterologous antigen; (VI) Elicitation of immune responses; (VII) protection against pathogens.
Characteristics of the main microorganisms used for the development of live-attenuated bacterial vector vaccines.
| Vector | Target Host Cell | Advantages | Limitations/Concerns | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intestinal epithelial cells and non-phagocytic cells such as hepatocytes are primary invasion sites before systemic dissemination. | Ability to present homologous and heterologous antigens to both endogenous and exogenous antigen-presenting pathways, thus eliciting CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte responses. | Wild-type | [ | |
| M cells as primary invasion site, and taken up by phagocytic cells for systemic dissemination. | Among the first bacteria used as vaccine-carrier to deliver heterologous antigens, well-established protocol for genetic manipulation. | Pre-existing immunity could decrease immunogenicity. | [ | |
| M cells and intestinal epithelial cells. | Ability to adhere to M cells and other epithelial cells without further invasion (decreased pathogenicity). Ideal for delivering antigens from luminal pathogens rather than systemic infections. | Unable to elicit systemic and potent cell-mediated immune responses. | [ | |
| Colonize gastrointestinal and uro-genital mucosa. | Non-pathogenic bacteria. | Unable to elicit cell-mediated immune responses. | [ | |
| Colonize oral, nasal and uro-genital mucosa. | Food grade bacteria with intrinsic safety profiles. | Possible cause of pyelonephritis and endocarditis. | [ | |
Examples of live-attenuated bacterial vector vaccines that have reached preclinical evaluation and Phase I clinical trials.
| Vector | Mutation/Attenuation | Heterologous Antigen | Inoculation Route | Target Host | Outcome | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Δ | Influenza A nucleoprotein | Oral and transcutaneous | Human | All volunteers who received the vector vaccine developed detectible mucosal immune responses to listerial antigens, but not to the heterologous influenza antigen. | [ | |
| Lacking | SP70 derived from enterovirus 71 | Intranasal | Mouse | Strong and sustained systemic anti-SP70 antibody response was observed in nasally immunized mice. | [ | |
| HPV-16 E7 antigen | Intravenous | Human | HPV-16 E7-specific T lymphocyte responses were elicited | [ | ||
| Δ | Oral | Human | Humoral immune responses to LT-B and | [ | ||
| ΔgalE with undefined attenuating mutations | OprF-Oprl derived from | Oral and intranasal | Human | A significant elevated IgA and IgG antibody levels in the lower airways was observed. | [ | |
| Δ | Urease or HP0231 derived from | Oral | Human | T cell-mediated immunity against | [ | |
| Δ | O-Ps derived from | Oral | Human | Protective immunity was elicited against challenge assay with | [ | |
| ΔCTA | Cholera toxin-B | Oral and intranasal | Mouse and rabbit | Cholera toxin has >80% identity to | [ |
Figure 2Tumor-targeting ability of bacterial vectors. (I) The hypoxic microenvironment in necrotic areas of solid tumor favours the colonization and proliferation of facultative anaerobes and obligate anaerobes; (II) Increased entrapment in the organisationally compromised and leaky vasculature, caused by neo-angiogenesis; (III) Chemo-attracting compounds present in necrotic areas (e.g., aspartate, serine, citrate, ribose or galactose) allow bacterial vectors to taxi toward tumors; (IV) Compromised pathogen clearance due to the presence of myeloid-derived immune suppressor cells and the accumulation of ligands of immunosuppressive receptors in the tumor micro-environment.
Examples of therapeutic genes carried by bacterial vectors for anti-cancer treatment.
| Mode of Action | Therapeutic Approach | Example of Passenger Gene (or Antigen) | Delivery Vector | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct cell killing or tumor growth retardation | Intrinsic oncolytic vector | None | Clostridium spp. | [ |
| Anti-angiogenic molecule | Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 molecule (fetal liver kinase-1) | [ | ||
| Endostatin | [ | |||
| [ | ||||
| RNA interference | Anti-bcl2 shRNA | [ | ||
| Anti-MDR1 siRNA | S. Typhi | [ | ||
| Cell death inducer | Fas ligand | [ | ||
| HylE cytolynsin | [ | |||
| TNF-related factor apoptosis ligand (TRAIL) | [ | |||
| Apoptin | [ | |||
| Pro-drug activating enzyme (+drug) | Herpes Simplex Virus thymidine kinase (HSVtk) + ganciclovir | [ | ||
| [ |
Figure 3Bactofection into tumors. (A) Bacteria are used as a vector to deliver the genetic information into the eukaryotic cell. Bacterial vectors that possess plasmid (each bacterial vector can carry multiple copies of transgenic plasmid) carrying a transgene are administered into the target tissue, I.: The vectors penetrate into the cells. II: Vectors undergo lysis and the plasmids are released into the cytoplasm, III: The released plasmids enter the nuclei and the therapeutic transgene is expressed by eukaryotic transcription and translation mechanisms; (B) Alternative gene therapy: recombinant bacterial vectors express the recombinant therapeutic protein in situ intracellularly or in the intercellular space. Recombinant bacterial vector that possess plasmid carrying the transgene are administered into the target tissue and either enter the cells or stay in the intercellular space; I: The transgene is expressed and secreted after entering the cell, or; II: Bacteria do not enter the eukaryotic cell, but express the therapeutic transgene in the intercellular space.
Figure 4Tumor therapy using RNA interference: Bacterial vectors are transformed with an shRNA-encoding vector for intra-bacterial transcription. shRNA are expressed inside the vectors before release into the target tumour cell’s cytoplasm. Following bacterial lysis, the shRNA molecules are cleaved by Dicer into the corresponding siRNA molecules. The anti-sense strand of the siRNA specifically binds with its target mRNA, which is then degraded by the RNA-induced silencing (RISC) complex resulting to a post-transcriptional gene silencing or suppression.
Figure 5Tumor therapy with cell death inducer or pro-drug activating enzymes. (I) Cancer cells transfected with apoptosis inducers such as Fas ligand could lead to apoptosis in Fas-sensitive cells; (II) Cells transfected with pro-drug activating enzyme allow more specific and localised cell destruction, even upon systemic pro-drug administration.