Recent trends and advances in microbe-based drug delivery systems

  • Pravin ShendeEmail author
  • Vasavi Basarkar
Review article


Since more than a decade, pharmaceutical researchers endeavor to develop an effective, safe and target-specific drug delivery system to potentiate the therapeutic actions and reduce the side effects. The conventional drug delivery systems (DDSs) show the improvement in the lifestyle of the patients suffering from non-communicable diseases, autoimmune diseases but sometimes, drug resistance developed during the treatment is a major concern for clinicians to find an alternative and more advanced transport systems. Advancements in drug delivery facilitate the development of active carrier for targeted action with improved pharmacokinetic behavior. This review article focuses on microbe-based drug delivery systems to provide safe, non-toxic, site-specific targeted action with lesser side effects. Pharmaceutical researchers play a vital part in microbe-based drug delivery systems as a therapeutic agent and carrier. The properties of microorganisms like self-propulsion, in-situ production of therapeutics, penetration into the tumor cells, increase in immunity, etc. are of interest for development of highly effective delivery carrier. Lactococcus lactis is therapeutically helpful in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and is under investigation of phase I clinical trial. Moreover, bacteria, anti-cancer oncolytic viruses, viral vectors (gene therapy) and viral immunotherapy are the attractive areas of biotechnological research. Virus acts as a distinctive candidate for imaging of tumor and accumulation of active in tumor.

Graphical abstract

Classification of microbe-based drug delivery system


Bacteria Tumoricidal Attenuated Virosomes Biomolecules 


Authors contributions

Dr. Pravin Shende is involved in constructing, planning and organizing the manuscript.

Ms. Vasavi Basarkar is involved in literature search and writing of manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Chang WW, Lee C. Salmonella as an innovative therapeutic antitumor agent. J Mol Sci. 2014;15:14546–4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhaskar M, Sanib B. Virosomes: a novel strategy for drug Deliveryand targeting. Bio-Pharm International Supplements. 2011;24:12–3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar A, Kumar A.V., Why Chitosan? From properties to perspective ofmucosal drug delivery, J Biological Macromolecules. 2016; (S0141–8130) (16) 30465–2.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yin L. Bacillus spore-based oral carriers loading curcumin for the therapy of colon cancer. J Control Release. 2017;S0168-3659(17):31079–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nauts H, The beneficial effects of bacterial infections on host resistance to cancer: End result in 449 cases, Cancer research institute monograph no. 8, New York, USA; 1980; (2).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barbe S, Mellaert V, Anne J. The use of clostridial spores for cancer treatment. J Appl Microbiol. 2006;101(3):571–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson MA, Ramirez T, Russell NC, Moye LA. Coley toxins immunotherapy: a retrospective review. AlternTher Health Med. 1999;5(3):42.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zacharski LR, Sukhatme VP. Coley’s toxin revisited: immunotherapy or plasminogen activator therapy of cancer. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3(3):424–7.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gravekamp C, Paterson Y. Harneeing Listeria monocytogenes to target tumors. Cancer Biol Ther. 2010;9:257–65.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forbes NS. Perspectives. Engineering the perfect (bacterial) cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10:785–94.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffman HR, Zhao M. Methods for the development of tumor targeting bacteria. Expert Opinion. J Drug Discov. 2014;(9):741–50.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Minton NP. Clostridia in cancer therapy. Nat Re Microbiol. 2003;1:237–42.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carswell EP, Old LJ, Kassel RL, Green S. Williamson, an endotoxin-induced serum factor that causes necrosis of tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1975;72:3666–70.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dang LH, Bettegowda C, Huso DL, Kinzler K, Vogelstein WB. Combination bacteriolytic therapy for the treatment of experimental tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(26):15155–60.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gericke D, Engelbart K. Oncolysis by clostridia. II. Experiments on a tumor spectrum, 1208. Cancer Res. 1964;24:217–21.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thiele EH, Arison RN, Boxer G. E., Oncolysis by clostridia. IV. Effect of nonpathogenic 1210 clostridial spores. Cancer Res. 1964;24:234–8.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bone RC. Toward an epidemiology and natural history of SIRS (systemic inflammatory response syndrome). JAMA. 1992;268:3452–5.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dinarello CA, Gelfand JA, Wolff SM. Anticytokine strategies in the treatment of the 1214 systemic inflammatory response syndrome. JAMA. 1993;269:1829–35.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jr Somerville JE, Cassiano LBB, Cunningham MD, Darveau RP. A novel 1216 Escherichia coli lipid a mutant that produces an anti-inflammatory lipopolysaccharide, 1217 J. Clin Investig. 1996;97:359–65.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan S.A., Everest, P. Servos S, Foxwell N, Zahringer U, et al. 1219 Dougan, I.G. Charles, D.J. Maskell, A lethal role for lipid, A in Salmonella infections, Mol.1220 Microbiol. 1998; 29, 571–579.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Low KB, Ittensohn M, Le T, Platt J, Sodi S, AmossMAsh O, et al. Lipid a mutant Salmonella with suppressed virulence and TNFα induction retain tumor-targeting in vivo. Nat Biotechnol. 1999;17:37–41.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Foligne B, Dessein R, Marceau M, Poiret S, Chamaillard M, Pot B, et al. 1226 prevention and treatment of colitis with Lactococcus lactis secreting the immunomodula-1227 tory Yersinia LcrV protein. Gastroenterology. 2007;133:862–74.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steidler L, Hans W, Schotte L, Neirynck S, Obermeier F, Falk W, et al. 1229 treatment of murine colitis by Lactococcus lactis secreting interleukin-10. Science. 2000;289:1352–5.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Duan FF, Liu JH, March JC. Engineered commensal bacteria reprogram intestinal cells into glucose-responsive insulin-secreting cells for the treatment of diabetes. Diabetes. 2015;64(5):1794–803.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu al. Engineered vaginal lactobacillus strain for mucosal delivery of the human immunodeficiency virus inhibitor cyanovirin-N, Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 50. 2006; 3250–3259.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mazumder B., Bhattacharya S., Virosomes: a novel strategy for drug delivery and targeting. The science and business of biopharmaceuticals, Biochem Pharmacol. 2001; Jan.02, 24.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A.W. Paton, Morona R and Paton J.C, Bioengineered microbes in disease therapy, Trends Mol Med. 2012; (18) 7, 417–425.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldstein R.A., Soyer O. S., Evolution of taxis responses in virtual bacteria: non-adaptive dynamics, PLoS Comput Biol 2008; 23; 4 (5).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor BL, Zhulin IB, Johnson MS. Aerotaxis and other energy-sensing behavior in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1999;53:103–28.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taniguchi S., Shimatani Y., Fujimori M., Tumor-targeting therapy using gene-engineered anaerobic-nonpathogenic Bifidobacterium longum, Methods Mol Biol 2016; 1409,1375 49–60.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Seavey MM, Pan ZK, Maciag PC, Wallecha A, Rivera S, Paterson Y, et al. A novel human Her-2/neu chimeric molecule expressed by Listeria monocytogenes can elicit potent HLA-A2 restricted CD8-positive T -cell responses and impact the growth and spread of Her-2/neu-positive breast tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:924–32.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Theys J, Pennington O, Dubois L, Anlezark G, Vaughan T, Mengesha A, et al. Repeated cycles of Clostridium-directed enzyme prodrug therapy result in sustained antitumour effects in vivo. Br J Cancer. 2006;95:1212–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Du Z.Q. Wang J.Y., A novel lumazine synthase molecule from Brucell a significantly promotes the immune-stimulation effects of antigenic protein, Genet. Mol. Res. 14. 2015; 13084–13095.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Friend DR, Chang GW. A colon-specific drug-delivery system based on drug glycosides and the glycosidases of colonic bacteria. J Med Chem. 1984;27:261–6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fu GF, Li X, Hou YY, Fan YR, Liu WH, Xu GX. Bifidobacterium longum as an oral delivery system of endostatin for gene therapy on solid liver cancer. Cancer Gene Ther. 2005;12:133–40.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yazawa K, et al. Bifidobacterium longum as a delivery system for gene therapy of chemically induced rat mammary tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;66:165–70.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lee, B., P. Thiyagarajan, R.E. Winans, X. Li, Z. Niu, Q. Wang, Effect of interfacial interaction on the cross-sectional morphology of tobacco mosaic virus using GISAXS, Langmuir 23. 2007; 11157–11163.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Xiao X. The antitumor effect of suicide gene therapy using Bifidobacterium infantise-mediated herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase/ganciclovir in a nude mice model of renal cell carcinoma, Urology 84. 2014; 84(4), 982.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jiang L. Proteomic analysis of bladder cancer by iTRAQ after Bifidobacterium infantis-mediated HSV-TK/GCV suicide gene treatment. Biol Chem. 2013;394:1333–42.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yin X. Bifidobacterium infantis-mediated HSV-TK/GCV suicide gene therapy induces both extrinsic and intrinsic apoptosis in a rat model of bladder cancer. Cancer Gene Ther. 2013;20:77–81.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Yin X, Yu B, Tang Z, He B, Xiao X. Bifidobacterium infantis-mediated HSV-TK\ GCV suicide gene therapy induces both extrinsic and intrinsic apoptosis in a rat model of bladder cancer. Cancer Gene Ther. 2013;20:77–81.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Okuda K, Wada Y, Shimada M. Recent developments in preclinical DNA vaccination. Vaccines (Basel). 2014;2:89–106.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gentschev, I., G. Dietrich, Spreng S., Kolb-Maurer, Brinkmann V, Grode L, Hess J, Kaufmann S.H.E, Goebel E, Recombinant attenuated bacteria for the delivery of subunit vaccines, Vaccine 19. 2001; 2621–2628.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Radford KJ, Higgins DE, Pasquini S, Cheadle EJ, Carta LA. A recombinant E. coli vaccine to promote MHC class I-dependent antigen presentation: Application to cancer immunotherapy. Gene Ther. 2002;9:1455–63.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Storz G., Hengge, R., Bacterial Stress Responses, 2nd ed. American Society for Microbiology Press. 2010.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Faivre D. Magnetotactic bacteria and magnetosomes. Chem Rev. 2008;108:4875–98.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Felfoul, O., Martel S., Assessment of navigation control strategy for magnetotactic bacteria in microchannel: Toward targeting solid tumors, Biomed Microdevices 15. 2013; 1015–1024.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Martel S. Bacterial microsystems and microrobots. Biomed Microdevices. 2012;14:1033–45.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen CY, Song T. Construction of a microrobot system using magnetotactic bacteria for the separation of staphylococcus aureus. Biomed Microdevices. 2014;16:761–70.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brown J. M., Wilson W.R., Exploiting tumor hypoxia in cancer treatment, Natl Rev 1620. 2004; Cancer 4, 437–447.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang X, Lin Y, Gillies RJ. Tumor pH and its measurement. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1167–70.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kluger M, Rothenburg B, Fever and reduced iron: their interaction as a host defense response to bacterial infection, Science 203. 1979; 374–376.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zhuan, G.J., Wright Carlsen R., Sitti M., pH-taxis of biohybrid microsystems, Sci. Report. 2015; 5, 11403.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Patyar S, Joshi R, Byrav DS, Das P. Bacteria in cancer therapy: a novel experimental strategy. J Biomed Sci. 2010;17(1):21.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Carey R, Holland J, Whang H, Neter E, Bryant B. Clostridial oncolysis in man, Eur. J. Cancer. 1967; 3:37, 46.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bermudes D, Zheng L, King IC. Live bacteria as anticancer agents and tumor-selective protein delivery vectors. CurrOpin Drug DiscovDevel. 2002;5(2):194–9.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Malmgren RA, Flanigan CC. Localization of the vegetative form of Clostridium tetani in mouse tumors following intravenous spore administration. Cancer Res. 1955;15:473–8.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liu S, Minton N, Giaccia A, Brown J. Anticancer efficacy of systemically delivered anaerobic bacteria as gene therapy vectors targeting tumor hypoxia/necrosis. Gene Ther. 2002;9(4):291–6.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    King I, Itterson M, Bermudes D. Tumor-targeted Salmonella typhimurium overexpressing cytosine deaminase: a novel, tumor-selective therapy. Methods Mol Biol. 2009;542:649–59.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Avogadri F, Martinoli C, Petrovska L, Chiodoni C, Transidico P, Bronte V, et al. Cancer immunotherapy based on killing of Salmonella-infected tumor cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65(9):3920–7.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sabzehali F, Azimi H, Goudarzi M. Bacteria as a vehicle in cancer therapy and drug delivery. J of Paramedical Sciences. 2017; (8), 1 52–59.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Frankel AE, Rossi P, Kuzel TM, Foss F. Diphtheria fusion protein therapy of chemo resistant malignancies. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2002;(1):19–36.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Falnes PO, Ariansen S, Sandvig K, Olsnes S. Requirement for prolonged action in the cytosol for optimal protein synthesis inhibition by diphtheria toxin. J Biol Chem. 2005;275(6):4363–8.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Pastan I., Targeted therapy of cancer with recombinant Immunotoxins Bio chimicaet Biphysica Acta (BBA)-Rev Cancer. 1997; 1333(2) C1-C6.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kokai JF, Mcclane BA. Determination of functional regions of Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin through deletion analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 1997;25:S165–7.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kokai JF, Benton K, Wieckowski EU, Mcclane BA. Identification of a Clostridium perfringens enterotoxin region required for large complex formation and cytotoxicity by random mutagenesis. Infect Immun. 1999;67:5634–41.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Langemann T, Koller VJ, Muhammad A, Kudela P, Mayr UB, Lubitz W. The bacterial ghost platform system: production and applications. Bioengineered Bugs. 2010;1:326–36.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tabrizi C.A. et al, Bacterial ghosts — biological particles as delivery systems for antigens, nucleic acids and drugs, Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2004; 15, 530–537, (2004).Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Huter V, Szostak MP, Prethaler GJ. Bacterial ghosts as drug carrier and targeting vehicles. J Control Release. 1999;61:51–63.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Paukner S, Kohl G, Jalava K. Lubitz W, sealed bacterial ghosts—novel targeting vehicles for advanced drug delivery of water-soluble substances. J Drug Target. 2003;11:151–61.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Paukner S, Kohl G. Lubitz W, bacterial ghosts as novel advanced drug delivery systems: anti proliferative activity of loaded doxorubicin in human Caco-2 cells. J Control Release. 2004;94:63–74.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Stein E. et al, In vitro and in vivo uptake study of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 bacterial ghosts: cell-based delivery system to target ocular surface diseases, Invest. Ophthalmol. 2013; Vis. Sci. 54 6326–6333.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mengesha, In: Clostridia: Molecular Biology in the Post-genomic Era. Bruggemann H, Gottschalk G, editor. Caister Academic Press; Clostridia in Anti-tumor Therapy. 2009.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Theys J, Landuyt W, Nuyts S, van Mellaert L, van Oosterom A, Lambin P, et al. Specific targeting of cytosine deaminasto solid tumors by engineered Clostridium acetobutylicum. Cancer Gene Ther. 2001;8:294–7.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Rabanel JM, Hildgen P, Banquy X. Assessment of PEG on polymeric particles surface, a key step in drug carrier translation. J Control Release. 2014;185:71–87.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fujimori M. AmanoJ. Taniguchi S The genus Bifidobacterium for cancer gene therapy CurrOpin Drug Discov Devel. 2003;5:200–3.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Carlsen R.W., Sitti M., Bio-hybrid cell-based actuators for microsystems, Small 10. 2012; 1250 3831–3851.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kim D, Liu A. Diller E, Sitti M, chemotactic steering of bacteria propelled microbeads, 1717 biomed. Microdevices. 2012;14:1009–17.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Akin D, Sturgis J, Ragheb K, Sherman D, Burkholder K. Bacteria-mediateddelivery of nanoparticles and cargo into cells. Nat Nanotechnol. 2007;2:441–9.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kolate A. BaradiaD, PatilS, VhoraI., PEG –a versatile conjugating ligand for drugs and drug delivery systems. J Control Release. 2014;192:67–81.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Xu J, et al. Combination of immunotherapy with anaerobic bacteria for immunogene therapy of solid tumours. Gene TherMol Biol. 2009;13:36–52.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wood LM, Guirnalda PD, Seavey MM, Paterson Y. Cancer immunotherapy using Listeria monocytogenes and listerial virulence factors. Immunol Res. 2008;(42):233–45.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kelly RE. History of oncolytic viruses: genesis to genetic engineering. Mol Ther. 2007;15(4):651–9.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Moore AE. The destructive effect of the virus of Russian Far East encephalitis on the transplantable mouse sarcoma 180. Cancer. 1949;2(3):525–34.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Clinical virotherapy: four historically significant clinical trials.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Simona D, Strēle L, Proboka G, Auziņš J, Pēteris A, Björn J, et al. Adapted ECHO-7 virus Rigvir immunotherapy (oncolytic virotherapy) prolongs survival in melanoma patients after surgical excision of the tumour in a retrospective study. Melanoma Res. 2015;25(5):421–6.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Viruses: The new cancer hunters. Isra Cast (News article). March 1, 2016.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Amato RJ, Hawkins RE, Kaufman HL, Thompson JA, Tomczak P. Vaccination of metastatic renal cancer patients with MVA-5T4: a randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled phase III study. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(22):5539–47.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bayer ME, Blumberg BS, Werner B. Particles associated with Australia antigen in the sera of patients with leukaemia, Down's syndrome and hepatitis. Nature. 1968;218(5146):1057–9.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Petry H, Goldmann C, Ast O. Lüke W, "the use of virus-like particles for gene transfer". Curr Opin Mol Ther. 2003;5(5):524–8.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Galaway FA, Stockley PG. MS2 virus like particles: A robust, semisynthetic targeted drug delivery platform. Mol Pharm. 2013;10:59–68.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Kovacs EW, et al. Dual-surface-modified bacteriophage MS2 as an ideal scaffold for a viral capsid-based drug delivery system. Bioconjug Chem. 2007;18:1140–7.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Akahata W., Yang Z. Y, Andersen H, et al. "a VL vaccine for epidemic chikungunya virus protects non-human primates against infection". Nat Med 2010; 16 (3), 334–338.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Zhang X, Xin L, Li S, Fang M, Zhang J, Xia N, et al. Lessons learned from successful human vaccines: delineating key epitopes by dissecting the capsid proteins. Human Vacc Immunother. 2015;11(5):1277–92.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Shende P, Waghchaure M. Combined vaccines for prophylaxis of infectious conditions. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. 2019;47(1):696–705.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Almeida JD, Brand CM, Edwards DC. T.D. Heath, Formation of virosomes from influenza subunits and liposomes. Lancet. 1975;2:899–901.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bagai S, Puri A. Hemagglutinin- neuraminidase enhances F protein-mediated membrane fusion of reconstituted Sendai virus envelopes with cells. J Virol. 1993;67:3312–8.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Uchida T, Kim J. Reconstitution of lipid vesicles associated with HVJ (Sendai virus) spikes. Purification and some properties of vesicles containing nontoxic fragment a of diphtheria toxin. J Cell Biol. 1979;80:10–20.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Vainstein A, Hershkovitz M, Israel S, Rabin S, Loyter A. A new method for reconstitution of highly fusogenic Sendai virus envelopes. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1984;773:181–8.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Helenius A, Sarvas M, Simons K. Asymmetric and symmetric membrane reconstitution by detergent elimination. Studies with Semliki-Forest-virus spike glycoprotein and penicillinase from the membrane of Bacillus licheniformis Eur J Biochem. 1981;116:27–35.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Helenius A, Fries E, Kartenbeck J. Reconstitution of Semliki Forest virus membrane. J Cell Biol. 1977;75:866–80.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Metsikkö K, Simons K. Reconstitution of the fusogenicactivity of vesicular stomatitis virus. EMBO J. 1986;5:3429–35.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Petri WA, Wagner RR. Reconstitution into liposomes of the glycoprotein of vesicular stomatitis virus by detergent dialysis. J Biol Chem. 1979;(254):4313–6.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Scheule RK. Novel preparation of functional Sindbis virosomes. Biochem. 1986;25:4223–32.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Cusi MG. Applications of influenza virosomes as a delivery system. Human Vaccines. 2006;2:1–7.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    DaemenTde Mare A, Bungener L, de Jonge J, Huckriede A, Wilschut J. Virosomes for antigen and DNA delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57:451–63.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Felnerova D, Viret JF, Glück R, Moser C. Liposomes and virosomes as delivery systems for antigens, nucleic acids and drugs. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2004;15:518–29.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Zhao S, Penman M, Hoffman RM. Tumor-targeting bacterial therapy with amino acid auxotrophs of GFP-expressing Salmonella typhimurium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:755–60.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Rosenberg GA. Neurological diseases in relation to the blood–brain barrier. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2012;32:1139–51.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Van Sorge N. M, Doran K.S., Defense at the border: the blood–brain barrier versus bacterial foreigners, Future Microbiol 7, 2012; 383–394.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Zwagerman N.T., Friedlander R. M, Monaco E.A., Intratumoral Clostridium novyi as a potential treatment for solid necrotic brain tumors, Neurosurgery 75, 2014; N17–N18.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Guo S.G., Yan W.W, Mc Donough S.P., Lin N.F., et al The recombinant Lactococcus lactis oral vaccine induces protection against C. difficile spore challenge in a mouse model, Vaccine 33. 2015; 1586–1595.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Ahmed B, Loos M, Vanrompay D, Cox E. Oral immunization with Lactococcus lactis-expressing EspB induces protective immune responses against Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a murine model of colonization. Vaccine. 2014;32:3909–16.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wei P, et al. Oral delivery of Bifidobacterium longum expressing alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone to combat ulcerative colitis. J Med Microbiol. 2016;65(2):160–8.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Takei S, et al Oral administration of genetically modified Bifidobacterium displaying HCV-NS3 multi-epitope fusion protein could induce an HCV- NS3-specific systemic immune response in mice, Vaccine 32, 2014; 3066–3074.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Yu ZJ, Huang Z, Sao CW, Huang YJ, Zhang F, Yang J, et al. Bifidobacterium as an oral delivery carrier of interleukin-12 for the treatment of Coxsackie virus B3-induced myocarditis in the Balb/c mice. Int Immunopharmacol. 2012;12:125–30.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ning JF, Zhu W, Xu JP, Zheng CY, Meng XL. Oral delivery of DNA vaccine encoding VP28 against white spot syndrome virus in crayfish by attenuated Salmonella typhimurium. Vaccine. 2009;27:1127–35.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Chen G. et al, Oral delivery of tumor-targeting Salmonella exhibits promising therapeutic efficacy and low toxicity, Cancer Sci. 2009; 100, 2437–2443, (2009).Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Castagliuolo I, et al Engineered E. coli delivers therapeutic genes to the colonic mucosa, Gene Ther. 2005; 12, 1070–1078.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Grillot-Courvalin C, et al Fruehauf, Development of a therapeutic RNAi delivery system using nonpathogenic bacteria expressing inv and hly: trans kingdom RNA interference (tkRNAi), Hum. Gene Ther. 2009; 20, 670.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Ivory K. et al, Oral delivery of Lactobacillus casei Shirota modifies allergen-induced immune responses in allergic rhinitis, Clin. Exp. Allergy 38. 2008; 1282–1289.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Lee CH. Engineering bacteria toward tumor targeting for cancer treatment: current state and perspectives. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;93:517–23.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Liu SC, Minton NP, Giaccia AJ, Brown JM. Anticancer efficacy of systemically delivered anaerobic bacteria as gene therapy vectors targeting tumor hypoxia/necrosis. Gene Ther. 2002;9:291–6.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Ganai Set al, In tumors Salmonella migrate away from vasculature toward the transition zone and induce apoptosis, Cancer Gene Ther. 2011; 18, 457–466.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Loeffler M. Et al reed, inhibition of tumor growth using Salmonella expressing Fas ligand. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1113–6.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Yam,Met al Hoffman, monotherapy with a tumor-targeting mutant of S. typhimurium inhibits liver metastasis in a mouse model of pancreatic cancer, J Surg Res 2010; 164, 248–255.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Ciabattini, A. et al, Primary activation of antigen- specific naive CD4 (+) and CD8 (+) T cells following intranasal vaccination with recombinant bacteria, Infect. Immun. 76. 2008; 5817–5825.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Palffy F. Bacteria in gene therapy: bactofection versus alternative gene therapy. Gene Ther. 2006;13:101–5.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Malmgren RA, Flanigan CC. Localization of the vegetative form of Clostridium tetani in mouse tumors following intravenous spore administration. Cancer Res. 1955;15:473–8.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Hosseinidoust Z. Bioengineered and biohybrid bacteria-based systems for drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;106:27–44.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Guidance for Industry: Considerations for developmental toxicity studies for preventive and therapeutic vaccines for infectious disease indications. 2006.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    ICH guideline on Guidance on genotoxicity testing and data interpretation for pharmaceuticals intended for human use. 2011.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Husain S.R., Han J, Au P, Shannon K, Puri K. R, Gene therapy for cancer:regulatory considerations for approval. Cancer Gene Ther. 2015; (22) 554–563.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Guidance for Industry: Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products. 2015; (73).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Shobhaben Pratapbhai Patel School of Pharmacy and Technology ManagementSVKM’s NMIMSMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations