《微生物生物学》课程教学资源（书籍文献）Microbial Cell Factories.pdf

BioMed Central Page 1 of 12 (page number not for citation purposes) Microbial Cell Factories Review Open Access Live bacterial vaccines – a review and identification of potential hazards Ann Detmer*1 and Jacob Glenting2 Address: 1Danish Toxicology Centre, Hørsholm, Denmark and 2Bioneer A/S, Hørsholm, Denmark Email: Ann Detmer* - ad@dhigroup.com; Jacob Glenting - jag@bioneer.dk * Corresponding author Abstract The use of live bacteria to induce an immune response to itself or to a carried vaccine component is an attractive vaccine strategy. Advantages of live bacterial vaccines include their mimicry of a natural infection, intrinsic adjuvant properties and their possibility to be administered orally. Derivatives of pathogenic and non-pathogenic food related bacteria are currently being evaluated as live vaccines. However, pathogenic bacteria demands for attenuation to weaken its virulence. The use of bacteria as vaccine delivery vehicles implies construction of recombinant strains that contain the gene cassette encoding the antigen. With the increased knowledge of mucosal immunity and the availability of genetic tools for heterologous gene expression the concept of live vaccine vehicles gains renewed interest. However, administration of live bacterial vaccines poses some risks. In addition, vaccination using recombinant bacteria results in the release of live recombinant organisms into nature. This places these vaccines in the debate on application of genetically modified organisms. In this review we give an overview of live bacterial vaccines on the market and describe the development of new live vaccines with a focus on attenuated bacteria and food-related lactic acid bacteria. Furthermore, we outline the safety concerns and identify the hazards associated with live bacterial vaccines and try to give some suggestions of what to consider during their development. Background Live vaccines have played a critical role from the beginning of vaccinology. Indeed, the very first vaccination experiment in the Western world was Jenner's inoculation of a boy with the milder cowpox virus to protect against the deadly smallpox. Although effective the technology has safety problems associated with the risk of reversion to a virulent organism and the possibility of causing disease in immune compromised individuals. Within the last 20 years the concept of live vaccines gains renewed interest due to our increased immunological understanding and the availability of molecular techniques making the construction of safer live vaccines possible. This opens for the development of new live bacterial vaccines that can avoid the downsides of parenterally administered vaccine because it (i) mimics the route of entry of many pathogens and stimulate the mucosal immune response (ii) can be administered orally or nasally avoiding the risk associated with contaminated needles and need for a professional healthcare infra structure (iii) has a simple down stream processing. Broadly, live bacterial vaccines can be classified as a self-limiting asymptomatic organism stimulating an immune response to one or more expressed antigens. Published: 23 June 2006 Microbial Cell Factories 2006, 5:23 doi:10.1186/1475-2859-5-23 Received: 25 April 2006 Accepted: 23 June 2006 This article is available from: http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 © 2006 Detmer and Glenting; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Microbial Cell Factories 2006.5:23 http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 ologous antigen.A non-virulent or attenuated derivative fficacious V.cholerde vaccine,however still parenteral of th The first live oral v. cholerae vaccine en u as a vaccine v 103 Hg -R has he 1980 monly these vaccne vehides are based on either attenu genic after a single oral dose.a bivalent vaccine ated pathogensor ba eria used in the food industry.Bot olerae called the tio ith of n CVD 111 later on Tmedoaopmentoftheolheregisteredliebaieriivac ine began g-in the early 1970 using vaned also be allemp opment is the use of invasive bacteria for the delivery of failed to be efficacious in freeze-dried formulation plasmid 'urthermore, the applications of live bact erial vace a defect gale gene,as well as other not define requires This strain was the pro have xtensively evaluated nd has showr iuminainghedifalynieveopmgeormd live vaccine amino acids were developed and tested on humanvolun aienuated ministered orally s with vari safety and immunogen lati withi nity.The bacte efia is s of Shig have een bur ects in c ica ls and points to the n tio 、This vaccine is,edn ated the g bacteria)for travellers from non-endemic regions and a g two genes encod og higher ents in enden cins 14.In a phase this nic cor ard to the uanine clinical trials.However,we believe that the safety of these strain that contain active entoroxins accines is another issue Ind prophylactic mbinant shieella has also bee cord they remain targets of un-subs antiated alleg by anti vaccine movements.Furthermore,future live vac encoding proteins involved in thesecretion apparatus and cines wil mo likely be either targeted mutagenis necessary for the ntry proc det into uma such.they fall into the debate on reeas plasmid DNA encodes an antigen,v vacci strategy thereto protein synth appar believe that considering safety issues alongside the scier tific consideration early in vaccine development will facil [16].Human ts public nd its re vaccines and their safety aspects. sted as vaccine ogens oy n,the imicry of n on mal components of differer t origins like e.g.HIV 15,17,18] was in Spain in 1884 and consisted of a subcutaneous or piece of parasitic DNA l191 or gamete specific antigen Page 2 of 12 purposes)

Microbial Cell Factories 2006, 5:23 http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 Page 2 of 12 (page number not for citation purposes) Furthermore, live bacterial vaccines can be designed to induce an immune response to itself or to a carried heterologous antigen. A non-virulent or attenuated derivative of the pathogen is used to induce a response to the bacterium itself. When used as a vaccine vehicle the bacterium expresses an antigen from another species. Most commonly, these vaccine vehicles are based on either attenuated pathogens or bacteria used in the food industry. Both classes of bacteria deliver the vaccine component to the immune system whereby immunization may benefit from the bacterium's intrinsic adjuvant. The vaccine component to be delivered can be either protein or DNA. In addition, the vaccine component may be a classical antigen but may also be allergens or therapeutics. A recent development is the use of invasive bacteria for the delivery of plasmid DNA vaccines to mammalian cells obtaining in vivo synthesis of the plasmid-encoded antigen. As such, the applications of live bacterial vaccines are extensive and has lead to more than 2000 published papers. However, only very few of the promising candidates have survived the licensing process and become registered [1] illuminating the difficulty in developing a commercial live vaccine. One typhoid vaccine (Ty21a) contains live attenuated Salmonella typhi and is administered orally either as a liquid or as acid resistant capsules. Both formulations require three doses within one week to give immunity. The other registered vaccine based on live bacteria is against cholera and is given orally as a single dose of attenuated Vibrio cholerae (CVD 103-HgR) in liquid formulation. This vaccine is used in a lower dose (5 × 108 live bacteria) for travellers from non-endemic regions and a one log higher dose for residents in endemic regions (5 × 109 live bacteria). The very few examples of live bacterial vaccines on the market may be due to lack of success in clinical trials. However, we believe that the safety of these vaccines is another issue. Indeed, prophylactic vaccines are given to healthy people and despite excellent safety record they remain targets of un-substantiated allegations by anti vaccine movements. Furthermore, future live vaccines will most likely be either targeted mutagenised or equipped with foreign antigens and therefore considered recombinant. As such, they fall into the debate on releasing genetically modified organisms into nature. The feasibility of this new vaccine strategy will therefore in particular depend on considerations of safety issues. We believe that considering safety issues alongside the scientific consideration early in vaccine development will facilitate its public acceptance and its entrance to the market. We therefore felt compelled to outline a review about live vaccines and their safety aspects. Attenuated pathogens as vaccines and vaccine vehicles Lindberg [2] has excellently reviewed the history of live bacterial vaccines. The first use of a live bacterial vaccine was in Spain in 1884 and consisted of a subcutaneous injection of weakened Vibrio cholerae. This study was followed a few years later by field trials in India with a more efficacious V. cholerae vaccine, however still parenteral. The first live oral V. cholerae vaccine candidate did not appear until the 1980s. Later the V. cholerae strain CVD 103 Hg-R has been found to be both safe and immunogenic after a single oral dose. In 1996 a bivalent vaccine waspresented including two strains of V. cholerae called CVD 103 Hg-R and CVD 111 [3]. However, later on problems with attenuation of strain CVD 111 appeared [4]. The development of the other registered live bacterial vaccine began Hg-in the early 1970s using various live attenuated S. typhi to vaccinate against typhoid fever. One proposed strain was made streptomycin-dependent, but failed to be efficacious in freeze-dried formulation [5]. Furthermore, the strain was genetically unstable and reverted to virulence. Another S. typhi strain (Ty21a) with a defect galE gene, as well as other not defined mutations, requires an external source of galactose. This strain was extensively evaluated in several field trials and has shown excellent safety record [6]. Later, other auxotrophic strains unable to synthesise essential compounds like aromatic amino acids were developed and tested on human volunteers with variable safety and immunogenicity results [7- 10]. Attenuated live vaccines to prevent shigellosis have also been proposed. Both genetically engineered or selected mutants of Shigella have been tried but showed side effects in clinical trials and points to the need of additional attenuation without hampering immunogenicity [11-13]. Kotloff et al attenuated the guanine auxotrophic Shigella flexneri 2a further by deleting two genes encoding enterotoxins [14]. In a phase 1 trial this strain with inactivated enterotoxin genes was better tolerated but still immunogenic compared to the guanine auxotrophic strain that contain active entoroxins. Recombinant Shigella has also been proposed as a vaccine vehicle [15]. Pathogenic Shigella has a virulence plasmid encoding proteins involved in thesecretion apparatus and proteins necessary for the entry process into human cells. This invasive capacity can be used to deliver plasmid DNA vaccines into mammalian cells [16]. Here, the delivered plasmid DNA encodes an antigen, which is expressed by the protein synthesis apparatus of the infected cells. Diaminopimelate Shigella auxotrophs undergo lysis unless diaminopimelate is present in the growth media [16]. Human cells contain low amounts of diaminopimelate and upon entry the Shigella mutant lyse making the delivery of vaccine components more effective. Other attenuated bacteria have also been tested as vaccine vehicles of various proteins and plasmid DNA (Table 1). In conclusion, the mimicry of natural infection makes attenuated bacteria effective. The ability to deliver vaccine components of different origins like e.g., HIV [15,17,18] or piece of parasitic DNA [19] or gamete specific antigen

Microbial Cell Factories 2006, 5:23 http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 Page 3 of 12 (page number not for citation purposes) [20] make attenuated bacteria a versatile vaccinology tool. However, in spite of the efforts in constructing attenuated pathogens for use as bacterial vaccine vehicles none of them has reached the market yet. Lactic acid bacteria as vaccine vehicles The potential of using lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for the delivery of vaccine components is less exploited than attenuated pathogens. Due to their safe status and the availability of genetic tools for recombinant gene expression LAB are attractive for use as vaccine vehicles. Furthermore, their non-pathogenic status circumvents the need to construct attenuated mutants. However, LAB are noninvasive and the vaccine delivery to antigen presenting cells may be less effective than invasive bacteria. Still, antigen specific immune responses have been obtained with several LAB (Table 2). Geoffroy et al [21] used a green fluorescent protein to visualize the phagocytosis of Lactobacillus plantarum by macrophages in vitro and in mice. Macrophages act as antigen presenting cells and this can explain a possible way to at least elicit a ClassII MHC receptor presentation of the antigen. Even though the transit time of Lactococcus lactis through the intestine is less than 24 h in mice [22], a potent immune response has been obtained with several antigens including tetanus toxin fragment C (TTFC). Surprisingly, a similar response was induced using dead or alive Lactococcus suggesting that in situ antigen synthesis is not essential [23]. A slightly better result was in the same study obtained with L. plantarum, but also here a similar response was induced from living or UV-light inactivated cells. Active vaccination using LAB The prospect of using live LAB as vaccine carriers has been reviewed [24,25]. The most frequently used model antigen is TTFC in which good results have been obtained both in intranasal and oral mice models using strains of L. plantarum and L. lactis [23,26]. Grangette et al [27] tested cytoplasmic expression of TTFC antigen in both L. plantarum and L. lactis showing protective effect in an oral mouse model. Shaw et al [28] tested both cytoplasmic and surface associated expression of same TTFC antigen and found that cytoplasmic expression was superior to surface exposed TTFC in L. lactis. In contrast, Bermúdez-Humarán et al [29] tested human papillomavirus type 16 E7 antigen sorted in different cellular compartments and found cell Table 1: Attenuated bacteria as vaccine vehicles Vaccine strain Attenuation Foreign insert Model Ref. Shigella flexneri Δasd pCMVβ Guinea pig, in vitro [80] Δasd CS3 and LTB/STm Mouse [81] ΔrfbF HIV-1 SF2Gag Mouse [17] ΔdapA ΔdapB β-gal, gene vaccine In vitro [16] ΔaroA ΔiscA gp120, gene vaccine Mouse [15] Salmonella enterica ΔaroA pCMVβ, pCMVactA and pCMVhly In vitro, mouse [82] ΔaroA ΔaroD C. tetani TTFC Mouse [83] ΔaroA ΔhtrA TTFC Mouse [83] ΔaroA+others GFP+cytokines Mouse [84] Δcya Δcrp Δasd SP10 cDNA Mouse [20] GalE + unspecified H. pylori, ureAB Human [85] Yersinia enterocolitica pYV- B. abortus, P39 Mouse [86] pYV- Ova Mouse [87] Listeria monocytogenes ΔactA Leichmania major Mouse [88] ΔactA LCM virus Mouse [89] Δdal Δdat HIV-1 gag gene vaccine Mouse [90] Δ2 M. bovis gene vaccine Mouse [91] Bordetella bronhiseptica ΔaroA TTFC Mouse [92] Erysipelotrix rhusiopatie Tn916- M. hyopneumonie Mouse, pig [93] Mycobacterium bovis unspecified P. falciparum, CSP Mouse [94] Brucella abortus Rough mutant (O- ) lacZ or HSP65 Mouse [95]

Microbial Cell Factories 2006, 5:23 http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 Page 4 of 12 (page number not for citation purposes) wall-anchored antigen to induce the most potent immune response. The different outcome of these experiments may be explained by different stability of surface exposed TTFC and E7 antigen. Intracellular expression of a labile antigen can protect it from proteolytic degradation and environmental stress encountered at the mucosal surfaces. Genetic modification of the LAB cell wall rendering the strain more permeable increases the in vivo release of cytoplasmic TTFC antigen and was tested by Grangette et al [27]. When administered orally these alanin racemase mutants were more immunogenic than their wild type counterparts. One explanation could be that oral immunization is very dependant on a sufficiently large dose of the antigen [27]. The use of live LAB as carriers of DNA vaccines has until now not been an option as they are non-invasive and therefore inefficiently deliver the plasmid DNA to the cytoplasma of antigen presenting cells. Recently Guimarães et al [30] developed L. lactis expressing cell wallanchored internalin from Listeria monocytogenes. This L. lactis inlA+ strain has been shown to enter eukaryotic cells in vitro, but also in vivo using an oral guinea pig model. To determine the tropism of recombinant invasive strains Critchley-Thorne el al used a perfusion bath with murine ileal tissue and tested an invasive E. coli vaccine candidate [31]. Although change of tropism of a bacterial carrier opens for targeted delivery it introduces new safety issues that should be addressed by persistence and distribution studies of the bacterial strain after vaccination. Active vaccination using recombinant L. johnsonii to treat allergy has been suggested [32]. IgE epitopes was fused to proteinase PrtB and cell wall-anchored. Subcutaneous and intranasal immunization of mice induced a systemic IgG response against human IgE. As such, allergy-inducing IgE may be cleared by IgG antibodies induced by the recombinant L. johnsonii. However, it remains to be proven if these antibodies are protective in human patients. In conclusion, LAB has been successfully used for active vaccination of animals like rodents (Table 2). Whether LAB will be effective as a mucosal vaccine in humans can only be answered by clinical trials. Furthermore, as the dose of recombinant LAB needed to elicit immune Table 2: LAB as vaccine vehicles Vaccine strain Foreign insert Model Ref. Lactococcus lactis C. tetani TTFC Mouse [23,96] TTFC+IL-2 or IL-6 Mouse [97] Human IL-10 Mouse [39] H. pylori ureB Mouse [98] B. abortus L7/L12 Mouse [99] S. pneumonie CPS Mouse [100] Rotavirus vp7 Mouse [101] B-lactoglobulin Mouse [102] HIV-1 gp120 Mouse [103] Malaria MSP-1 Mouse [104] SARS Nucleocapsid protein In vitro [105] E. rhusiopathiae SpaA Mouse [106] Lactobacillus plantarum TTFC Mouse [107] Allergen Der p1 Mouse [36] H. pylori (ureB) Mouse [108] Streptococcus gordonii Antibody Rat [34] Hornet venom Ag5.2 Mouse [109] TTFC Mouse [110] Lactobacillus casei B. anthracis (protective Ag) In vitro [111] SARS spike protein Mouse [112] Human papillomavirus L1 In vitro [113] Coronavirus S glycoprotein Mouse [114] S. pneumonie PsaA PspA In vitro [115] Lactobacillus zeae Antibody Rat [33] Lactobacillus johnsonii TTFC mimotope Mouse [116]

http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 unk if the needed to select the strain with anti allergic immune polarization.Further odies or antibody frag in alle and non-a mal ons was observd when usingm strain of LAB [41j. e or effects oflAR was delivered using lactobacilli that secretes single-chain Among LAB's effect on the immune system there is a strain dependent induction of cyt at the i an rain for cus mtans decreased the number of S.mutans and reduced the development of caries.Rec mbinant St or a partial down regulation of the immune system.The model 34].Although passive immunity has limits in its (Th2)/IgG2a(Th1)antibody ratio in mice further compli that LAB elegantly ot choosing the proper st n for spe can the dd es a c mo of th shown that non-specific immune modulation by a given Allergy vacci s using LAB exp gens strain of L (GG to thga infe nsid ered a side effect.This side effec more prone to hap when vaccin aung early in ).How inductic pose is to treat allergy.In a mouse model thes ecombinant L plantarum expressing the house dust mite cilli with similar probiotic properties in vitr were shown allergen Derpl as afusion n in the cyto and house dust mite peptide and then given either L Lplantarum was used in a mouse model of birch pollen ut De combinatio with birch pollen allergen antigen. This ratio.The immune polarizing effect of LAB has also been ndicates cilli strain expr observed in humans. al trial sho LAB on induction and main De a65notobiotc vaccine(Ty21a)47].Here,thirty healthy volunteers w e groups rec tive to induce and maintain oral tol ce in en orally.Analysis showed a high mice than was L johnsonii (NCC 533).The allergen car umber of specifi IgA-secret ting cells in the group receiv obe LAB.Mu d ins nt expre ng L.rham nd a highe C lactis together with birch pollen allergen Bet v shifted the of the immune svatem has also been immune response towards an anti-allergic ThI respons erved.Atopic children receiving GG daily like have also been developed and in i efectsin mononuclear cells 41. ogen- both mice 3]and pigs 40]have been observed.More knowledge on the mechanisms behind skewing the Page 5 of12 (page number not for citation puposes)

Microbial Cell Factories 2006, 5:23 http://www.microbialcellfactories.com/content/5/1/23 Page 5 of 12 (page number not for citation purposes) responses in animals is high it is unknown if the necessary dose for use in humans will be feasible and cost effective. Passive immunization using LAB Protection by preformed antibodies or antibody fragments is called passive vaccination. The pioneer experiments were based on injection of antisera produced by immunized animals like horse or sheep to combat for example rattlesnake venom. Recently, passive immunity was delivered using lactobacilli that secretes single-chain antibodies [33]. In a rat caries model, colonisation of the mouth with a L. zeae expressing a single-chain antibody fragment recognizing the adhesion molecule of Streptococcus mutans decreased the number of S. mutans and reduced the development of caries. Recombinant Streptococcus gordonii displaying a microbiocidal single-chain antibody (H6) has been used to treat vaginal candidiasis in a rat model [34]. Although passive immunity has limits in its temporary nature, these results suggest that LAB elegantly can be used for the delivery of neutralising antibodies at mucosal sites. Allergy vaccines using LAB expressing allergens For a normal vaccination against an infectious disease, induction of tolerance to the infectious agent is considered a side effect. This side effect is more prone to happen when vaccinating early in life [35]. However, induction of tolerance can have positive clinical implications when the purpose is to treat allergy. In a mouse model the use of a recombinant L. plantarum expressing the house dust mite allergen Der p1 as a fusion protein in the cytoplasm inhibited house dust mite-specific T-cell responses [36]. In this study mice were sensitized by immunization with the house dust mite peptide and then given either L. plantarum expressing Der p1 or L. plantarum without Der p1. Both strains inhibited IFN-γ production by T cells. But the decrease in production of-5 was only seen for the L. plantarum expressing the Der p1 peptide antigen. This indicates that the lactobacilli strain expressing Der p1 can suppress the cytokine milieu promoting the Th2 allergic response. Another example of the strain specific effect of LAB on induction and maintenance of oral tolerance has been shown using ί-lactoglobulin and gnotobiotic mice [37]. In this study L. paracasei (NCC 2461) was more effective to induce and maintain oral tolerance in gnotobiotic mice than was L. johnsonii (NCC 533). The allergen can also be co-administered instead of recombinant expressed by the LAB. Mucosal co-application of L. plantarum or L. lactis together with birch pollen allergen Bet v1 shifted the immune response towards an anti-allergic Th1 response both in sensitized and un-sensitized animals [38]. Recombinant strains expressing immune polarizing cytokines like IL-10 have also been developed and in vivo effects in both mice [39] and pigs [40] have been observed. More knowledge on the mechanisms behind skewing the immune response is however needed to select the proper strain with anti allergic immune polarization. Furthermore, the immune regulatory effect of one strain of LAB may differ in allergic and non-allergic individuals. A down regulation in allergic persons and an immune stimulating effect in normal persons was observed when using same strain of LAB [41]. Immune stimulatory effects of LAB Among LAB's effect on the immune system there is a strain dependent induction of cytokines. Different LAB strains induce distinct mucosal cytokine profiles in BALB/c mice [42] pointing at the importance of using one strain for immune induction and another for induction of tolerance or a partial down regulation of the immune system. The same authors [43] also indicate growth phase dependent differences of orally administered LAB strains on the IgG1 (Th2)/IgG2a (Th1) antibody ratio in mice further complicating the process of choosing the proper strain for specific modulation of the immune response. Adding to the complexity of these observations, a human study has shown that non-specific immune modulation by a given strain of L. rhamnosus (GG, ATCC 53103) differs in healthy and allergic subjects. In healthy persons the strain was immune stimulatory whereas in allergic persons it down-regulated an inflammatory response [44]. Interactions between different LAB strains can also interfere with the in vitro production of cytokines by dendritic cells [45]. As is shown in another study [46], two different lactobacilli with similar probiotic properties in vitro were shown to elicit divergent patterns of colonisation and immune response in germfree mice. Further evidence for an immune modulating effect is seen when either L. lactis or L. plantarum was used in a mouse model of birch pollen allergy [38]. In combination with birch pollen allergen Bet v1 both strains skewed the immune response from Th2 to Th1 in sensitised mice as indicated by the IFN-γ/IL- 5 ratio. The immune polarizing effect of LAB has also been observed in humans. A clinical trial showed a strain dependent immune modulation of two different LAB strains when administered together with an oral S. typhi vaccine (Ty21a) [47]. Here, thirty healthy volunteers were randomised into three groups receiving L. rhamnosus GG, L. lactis or placebo for 7 days. On days 1, 3 and 5 the Ty21a vaccine was given orally. Analysis showed a higher number of specific IgA-secreting cells in the group receiving L. rhamnosus GG and a higher CR3 receptor expression on neutrophils in the group receiving L. lactis. A partial down regulation of the immune system has also been observed. Atopic children receiving 2 × 1010 L. rhamnosus GG daily for 30 days enhanced their IL-10 production in sera as well as in mitogen-induced peripheral blood mononuclear cells [41]