Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Bacteria in gene therapy: bactofection versus alternative gene therapy

Gene Therapy volume 13, pages 101–105 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Recent advances in gene therapy can be attributed to improvements of gene delivery vectors. New viral and nonviral transport vehicles that considerably increase the efficiency of transfection have been prepared. However, these vectors still have many disadvantages that are difficult to overcome, thus, a new approach is needed. The approach of bacterial delivery could in the future be important for gene therapy applications. In this article we try to summarize the most important modifications that are used for the preparation of applied strains, difficulties that are related with bacterial gene delivery and the current use of bactofection in animal experiments and clinical trials. Important differences to the alternative gene therapy (AGT) are discussed. AGT resembles bacteria-mediated protein delivery, as the therapeutical proteins are produced not by host cells but by the bacteria in situ and the expression can be regulated exogenously. Although the procedure of bacterial gene delivery is far from being definitely solved, bactofection remains a promising technique for transfection in human gene therapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Mountain A . Gene therapy: the first decade. Trends Biotechnol 2000; 18: 119–128.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hacein-Bey-Abina S et al. LMO2-associated clonal T cell proliferation in two patients after gene therapy for SCID-X1. Science 2003; 302: 415–419.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gardlik R et al. Vectors and delivery systems in gene therapy. Med Sci Monit 2005; 11: RA110–RA121.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Page DT, Cudmore S . Innovations in oral gene delivery: challenges and potentials. Drug Discov Today 2001; 6: 92–101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Loessner H, Weiss S . Bacteria-mediated DNA transfer in gene therapy and vaccination. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2004; 4: 157–168.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schaffner W . Direct transfer of cloned genes from bacteria to mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1980; 77: 2163–2167.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Weiss S, Chakraborty T . Transfer of eukaryotic expression plasmids to mammalian host cells by bacterial carriers. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2001; 12: 467–472.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fu GF et al. Bifidobacterium longum as an oral delivery system of endostatin for gene therapy on solid liver cancer. Cancer Gene Ther 2005; 12: 133–140.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Urashima M et al. An oral CD40 ligand gene therapy against lymphoma using attenuated Salmonella typhimurium. Blood 2000; 95: 1258–1263.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Darji A et al. Oral delivery of DNA vaccines using attenuated Salmonella typhimurium as carrier. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2000; 27: 341–349.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Michael A et al. Novel strains of Salmonella typhimurium as potential vectors for gene delivery. FEMS Microbiol Letts 2004; 238: 345–351.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Shen H et al. Modulation of the immune system by Listeria monocytogenes-mediated gene transfer into mammalian cells. Microbiol Immunol 2004; 48: 329–337.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Celec P et al. The use of transformed Escherichia coli for experimental angiogenesis induced by regulated in situ production of vascular endothelial growth factor - an alternative gene therapy. Med Hypotheses 2005; 64: 505–511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fajac I et al. Recombinant Escherichia coli as a gene delivery vector into airway epithelial cells. J Control Release 2004; 97: 371–381.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Grillot-Courvalin C et al. Functional gene transfer from intracellular bacteria to mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol 1998; 16: 862–866.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pilgrim S et al. Bactofection of mammalian cells by Listeria monocytogenes: improvement and mechanism of DNA delivery. Gene Therapy 2003; 10: 2036–2045.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Dietrich G et al. Delivery of antigen-encoding plasmid DNA into the cytosol of macrophages by attenuated suicide Listeria monocytogenes. Nat Biotechnol 1998; 16: 181–185.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Grillot-Courvalin C, Goussard S, Courvalin P . Bacteria as gene delivery vectors for mammalian cells. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1999; 10: 477–481.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Weiss S . Transfer of eukaryotic expression plasmids to mammalian hosts by attenuated Salmonella spp. Int J Med Microbiol 2003; 293: 95–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nemunaitis J et al. Pilot trial of genetically modified, attenuated Salmonella expressing the E. coli cytosine deaminase gene in refractory cancer patients. Cancer Gene Ther 2003; 10: 737–744.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sznol M et al. Use of preferentially replicating bacteria for the treatment of cancer. J Clin Invest 2000; 105: 1027–1030.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhao M et al. Tumor-targeting bacterial therapy with amino acid auxotrophs of GFP-expressing Salmonella typhimurium. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005; 102: 755–760.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Toso JF et al. Phase I study of the intravenous administration of attenuated Salmonella typhimurium to patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 142–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Medina E, Guzman CA . Use of live bacterial vaccine vectors for antigen delivery: potential and limitations. Vaccine 2001; 19: 1573–1580.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Fox ME et al. Anaerobic bacteria as a delivery system for cancer gene therapy: in vitro activation of 5-fluorocytosine by genetically engineered clostridia. Gene Therapy 1996; 3: 173–178.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chakrabarty AM . Microorganisms and cancer: quest for a therapy. J Bacteriol 2003; 185: 2683–2686.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu SC et al. Anticancer efficacy of systemically delivered anaerobic bacteria as gene therapy vectors targeting tumor hypoxia/necrosis. Gene Therapy 2002; 9: 291–296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Minton NP . Clostridia in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Microbiol 2003; 1: 237–242.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Niethammer AG et al. A DNA vaccine against VEGF receptor 2 prevents effective angiogenesis and inhibits tumor growth. Nat Med 2002; 8: 1369–1375.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee CH, Wu CL, Shiau AL . Systemic administration of attenuated Salmonella choleraesuis carrying thrombospondin-1 gene leads to tumor-specific transgene expression, delayed tumor growth and prolonged survival in the murine melanoma model. Cancer Gene Ther 2005; 12: 175–184.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Krusch S et al. Listeria monocytogenes mediated CFTR transgene transfer to mammalian cells. J Gene Med 2002; 4: 655–667.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Darji A et al. Oral somatic transgene vaccination using attenuated S. typhimurium. Cell 1997; 91: 765–775.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dietrich G et al. Live attenuated bacteria as vectors to deliver plasmid DNA vaccines. Curr Opin Mol Ther 2003; 5: 10–19.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Timmons L, Fire A . Specific interference by ingested dsRNA. Nature 1998; 395: 854.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Timmons L, Court DL, Fire A . Ingestion of bacterially expressed dsRNAs can produce specific and potent genetic interference in Caenorhabditis elegans. Gene 2001; 263: 103–112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Theys J et al. Stable Escherichia coli-Clostridium acetobutylicum shuttle vector for secretion of murine tumor necrosis factor alpha. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999; 65: 4295–4300.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Klink D et al. Gene delivery systems--gene therapy vectors for cystic fibrosis. J Cyst Fibros 2004; 3 (Suppl 2): 203–212.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Paglia P et al. In vivo correction of genetic defects of monocyte/macrophages using attenuated Salmonella as oral vectors for targeted gene delivery. Gene Therapy 2000; 7: 1725–1730.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Li X et al. Bifidobacterium adolescentis as a delivery system of endostatin for cancer gene therapy: selective inhibitor of angiogenesis and hypoxic tumor growth. Cancer Gene Ther 2003; 10: 105–111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Saltzman DA et al. Attenuated Salmonella typhimurium containing interleukin-2 decreases MC-38 hepatic metastases: a novel anti-tumor agent. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 1996; 11: 145–153.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are greatful to L'ubomír Tomáška for the motivation to write this review. The authors are supported by Grant of the Comenius University 116/2004 and 117/2004 and the Grant Agency for Science and Technology APVT-20-003104.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BiomeD Research and Publishing Group, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Republic

    R Pálffy, R Gardlík, J Hodosy, M Behuliak, P Reško, J Radvánský & P Celec

  2. Department of Molecular Biology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Republic

    R Pálffy, R Gardlík, M Behuliak, P Reško, J Radvánský & P Celec

  3. Institute of Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Republic

    J Hodosy & P Celec

  4. Department of Animal Physiology and Ethology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia Republic

    J Hodosy

Authors
  1. R Pálffy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R Gardlík
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J Hodosy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M Behuliak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P Reško
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Radvánský
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P Celec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pálffy, R., Gardlík, R., Hodosy, J. et al. Bacteria in gene therapy: bactofection versus alternative gene therapy. Gene Ther 13, 101–105 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302635

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302635

Keywords

  • bactofection
  • alternative gene therapy
  • gene delivery
  • transfection

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links