Title |
Activation of multiple chemotherapeutic prodrugs by the natural enzymolome of tumour-localised probiotic bacteria
|
---|---|
Published in |
Journal of Controlled Release, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.11.030 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Panos Lehouritis, Michael Stanton, Florence O. McCarthy, Matthieu Jeavons, Mark Tangney |
Abstract |
Some chemotherapeutic drugs (prodrugs) require activation by an enzyme for efficacy. We and others have demonstrated the ability of probiotic bacteria to grow specifically within solid tumours following systemic administration, and we hypothesised that the natural enzymatic activity of these tumour-localised bacteria may be suitable for activation of certain such chemotherapeutic drugs. Several wild-type probiotic bacteria; Escherichia coli Nissle, Bifidobacterium breve, Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus species, were screened against a panel of popular prodrugs. All strains were capable of activating at least one prodrug. E. coli Nissle 1917 was selected for further studies because of its ability to activate numerous prodrugs and its resistance to prodrug toxicity. HPLC data confirmed biochemical transformation of prodrugs to their toxic counterparts. Further analysis demonstrated that different enzymes can complement prodrug activation, while simultaneous activation of multiple prodrugs (CB1954, 5-FC, AQ4N and Fludarabine phosphate) by E. coli was confirmed, resulting in significant efficacy improvement. Experiments in mice harbouring murine tumours validated in vitro findings, with significant reduction in tumour growth and increase in survival of mice treated with probiotic bacteria and a combination of prodrugs. These findings demonstrate the ability of probiotic bacteria, without the requirement for genetic modification, to enable high-level activation of multiple prodrugs specifically at the site of action. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 49 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 10 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
Other | 11 | 22% |
Unknown | 6 | 12% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 16 | 31% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 14% |
Chemistry | 6 | 12% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 10% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
Other | 6 | 12% |
Unknown | 8 | 16% |