Cell type specific gene delivery by lentiviral vectors

Zhou, Qi; Buchholz, Christian J.

doi:10.4161/onci.22566

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be attributed to the particular properties of the displayed scFv derived from the antibody OKT8, which has been shown to induce cytotoxic effector functions following CD8 binding. 91 Exchanging the MV glycoproteins against those of NiV recently enabled the increase of vector titers to 10 8 TU/mL, 66 an important step toward translating this promising vector type into the clinic.…”

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface-Engineered Lentiviral Vectors for Selective Gene Transfer into Subtypes of Lymphocytes

Frank

Buchholz

2019

Molecular Therapy - Methods & Clinical Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lymphocytes have always been among the prime targets in gene therapy, even more so since chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have reached the clinic. However, other gene therapeutic approaches hold great promise as well. The first part of this review provides an overview of current strategies in lymphocyte gene therapy. The second part highlights the importance of precise gene delivery into B and T cells as well as distinct subtypes of lymphocytes. This can be achieved with lentiviral vectors (LVs) pseudotyped with engineered glycoproteins recognizing lymphocyte surface markers as entry receptors. Different strategies for envelope glycoprotein engineering and selection of the targeting ligand are discussed. With a CD8-targeted LV that was recently used to achieve proof of principle for the in vivo reprogramming of CAR T cells, these vectors are becoming a key tool to genetically engineer lymphocytes directly in vivo.

show abstract

Section: Main Textmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface-Engineered Lentiviral Vectors for Selective Gene Transfer into Subtypes of Lymphocytes

Frank

Buchholz

2019

Molecular Therapy - Methods & Clinical Development

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…DNA-based anticancer vaccines rely on TAAcoding constructs, be them naked or vectored (by viral particles, non-pathogenic bacteria or yeast cells) [32,[244][245][246]. DNA-based vaccines either become a source of such TAA (as it is the case for bacterial and yeast vectors) or transform APCs or muscular cells to do so (as it is the case for naked constructs and viral vectors) [32,[244][245][246][247]. Theoretically, and especially in the presence of adequate adjuvants, this prompts resident DCs or other APCs to prime a TAA-targeting immune response [32,183,248,249].…”

Section: Peptide-and Dna-based Anticancer Vaccinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2014

Oncotarget

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past decades, anticancer immunotherapy has evolved from a promising therapeutic option to a robust clinical reality. Many immunotherapeutic regimens are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, and many others are being investigated as standalone therapeutic interventions or combined with conventional treatments in clinical studies. Immunotherapies may be subdivided into "passive" and "active" based on their ability to engage the host immune system against cancer. Since the anticancer activity of most passive immunotherapeutics (including tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies) also relies on the host immune system, this classification does not properly reflect the complexity of the drug-host-tumor interaction. Alternatively, anticancer immunotherapeutics can be classified according to their antigen specificity. While some immunotherapies specifically target one (or a few) defined tumor-associated antigen(s), others operate in a relatively non-specific manner and boost natural or therapy-elicited anticancer immune responses of unknown and often broad specificity. Here, we propose a critical, integrated classification of anticancer immunotherapies and discuss the clinical relevance of these approaches. www.impactjournals.com/oncotarget 174. Fernandez NC, Lozier A, Flament C, Ricciardi-Castagnoli P, Bellet D, Suter M, Perricaudet M, Tursz T, Maraskovsky E, Zitvogel L. Dendritic cells directly trigger NK cell functions: cross-talk relevant in innate anti-tumor immune responses in vivo. Nat Med. 1999; 5:405-411. 175.

show abstract

“…DNA-based anticancer vaccines rely on TAA-coding constructs, be them naked or vectored (by viral particles, non-pathogenic bacteria or yeast cells) [ 32 , 244 - 246 ]. DNA-based vaccines either become a source of such TAA (as it is the case for bacterial and yeast vectors) or transform APCs or muscular cells to do so (as it is the case for naked constructs and viral vectors) [ 32 , 244 - 247 ]. Theoretically, and especially in the presence of adequate adjuvants, this prompts resident DCs or other APCs to prime a TAA-targeting immune response [ 32 , 183 , 248 , 249 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classification of current anticancer immunotherapies

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the past decades, anticancer immunotherapy has evolved from a promising therapeutic option to a robust clinical reality. Many immunotherapeutic regimens are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, and many others are being investigated as standalone therapeutic interventions or combined with conventional treatments in clinical studies. Immunotherapies may be subdivided into “passive” and “active” based on their ability to engage the host immune system against cancer. Since the anticancer activity of most passive immunotherapeutics (including tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies) also relies on the host immune system, this classification does not properly reflect the complexity of the drug-host-tumor interaction. Alternatively, anticancer immunotherapeutics can be classified according to their antigen specificity. While some immunotherapies specifically target one (or a few) defined tumor-associated antigen(s), others operate in a relatively non-specific manner and boost natural or therapy-elicited anticancer immune responses of unknown and often broad specificity. Here, we propose a critical, integrated classification of anticancer immunotherapies and discuss the clinical relevance of these approaches.

show abstract

Cell type specific gene delivery by lentiviral vectors

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

Surface-Engineered Lentiviral Vectors for Selective Gene Transfer into Subtypes of Lymphocytes

Surface-Engineered Lentiviral Vectors for Selective Gene Transfer into Subtypes of Lymphocytes

Untitled

Classification of current anticancer immunotherapies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About