4.7 Review

Bacterial targeted tumour therapy-dawn of a new era

期刊

CANCER LETTERS
卷 259, 期 1, 页码 16-27

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2007.10.034

关键词

anaerobic bacteria; solid tumour; hypoxia; cancer therapy; genetic modification; plasmid; group II intron

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Original observation of patients' spontaneous recovery from advanced tumours after an infection or a fever inspired extensive research. As a result, Coley's toxin for the therapy of sarcomas and live Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) for bladder cancer were born. In addition, three genera of anaerobic bacteria have been shown to specifically and preferentially target solid tumours and cause significant tumour lyses. Initial research had focused on determining the best tumour colonizing bacteria, and assessing the therapeutic efficacy of different strategies either as a single or combination treatment modalities. However, although clinical trials were carried out as early as the 1960s, lack of complete tumour lyses with injection of Clostridial spores had limited their further use. Recent progress in the field has highlighted the rapid development of new tools for genetic manipulation of Clostridia which have otherwise been a hurdle for a long time, such as plasmid transformation using electroporation that bore the problems of inefficiency, instability and plasmid loss. A new Clostridium strain, C. novyi-NT made apathogenic by genetic modification, is under clinical trials. New genetic engineering tools, such as the group 11 intron has shown promise for genetic manipulation of bacteria and forecast the dawn of a new era for a tumour-targeted bacteria] vector system for gene therapy of solid tumours. In this review we will discuss the potential of genetically manipulated bacteria that will usher in the new era of bacterial therapy for solid tumours, and highlight strategies and tools used to improve the bacterial oncolytic capability. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据