
Citation: Marzena Połaska, Barbara Sokołowska. Bacteriophages—a new hope or a huge problem in the food industry[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2019, 5(4): 324-346. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2019.4.324
[1] | Omar El Deeb, Joseph El Khoury Edde . COVID19 vaccines as boosters or first doses: simulating scenarios to minimize infections and deaths. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(2): 239-254. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024014 |
[2] | Dinesh Bhatia, Tania Acharjee, Shruti Shukla, Monika Bhatia . Nano-technological advancements in multimodal diagnosis and treatment. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(4): 464-507. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024026 |
[3] | Zaynah Sheeraz, James C.L. Chow . Evaluation of dose enhancement with gold nanoparticles in kilovoltage radiotherapy using the new EGS geometry library in Monte Carlo simulation. AIMS Biophysics, 2021, 8(4): 337-345. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2021027 |
[4] | Shen Helvig, Intan D. M. Azmi, Seyed M. Moghimi, Anan Yaghmur . Recent Advances in Cryo-TEM Imaging of Soft Lipid Nanoparticles. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(2): 116-130. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.2.116 |
[5] | Gayane Semerjyan, Inesa Semerjyan, Mikayel Ginovyan, Nikolay Avtandilyan . Characterization and antibacterial/cytotoxic activity of silver nanoparticles synthesized from Dicranum scoparium moss extracts growing in Armenia. AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(1): 29-42. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025003 |
[6] | Takayuki Yoshida, Hiroyuki Kojima . Subcutaneous sustained-release drug delivery system for antibodies and proteins. AIMS Biophysics, 2025, 12(1): 69-100. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2025006 |
[7] | Mati ur Rahman, Mehmet Yavuz, Muhammad Arfan, Adnan Sami . Theoretical and numerical investigation of a modified ABC fractional operator for the spread of polio under the effect of vaccination. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(1): 97-120. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024007 |
[8] | Zubaidah Ningsih, James W.M. Chon, Andrew H.A. Clayton . A Microfluidic Device for Spatiotemporal Delivery of Stimuli to Cells. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(2): 58-72. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.2.58 |
[9] | Sweta Raikundalia, Ling Ling Few, Siti Asma' Hassan, Get Bee Yvonne-Τee, Wei Cun See Too . Choline kinase and miR-32-5p: A crucial interaction promoting apoptosis and delaying wound repair in cervical cancer cells. AIMS Biophysics, 2024, 11(3): 281-295. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2024016 |
[10] | Christophe A. Monnier, David C. Thévenaz, Sandor Balog, Gina L. Fiore, Dimitri Vanhecke, Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser, Alke Petri-Fink . A guide to investigating colloidal nanoparticles by cryogenic transmission electron microscopy: pitfalls and benefits. AIMS Biophysics, 2015, 2(3): 245-258. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2015.3.245 |
A messenger RNA (mRNA) is a single-stranded RNA molecule that functions in the biosynthesis of proteins through ribosomes in the cytoplasm [1]. Changes in the production levels of proteins due to the mutations affecting mRNA maturation, ribosome biogenesis or translation may cause many ailments such as cancer while infections may play a major role in the sudden change of protein levels [2]. Therefore, mRNA level in the cytoplasm is important for many diseases. For instance, in case of choroideremia, an X-linked disease of retinal degeneration, the male patients carry the variants of CHM gene causing deficiency in REP1 protein. However, some patients have c.940 + 3delA variation affecting the splice site of CHM intron 7. Thus, the level of correctly spliced mRNA for CHM variant is decreased, and the disease progression is decelerated [3].
In eukaryotes, mature mRNA covers 5′ methylguanosine (m7G or 5′ cap), 5′–untranslated region (UTR), coding region, 3′–UTR, and polyadenylated [poly(A)] tail [4]. Biosynthesis of proteins begins with the recognition of mRNA sequence by ribosome at 5′–UTR. The 3′–UTR is involved in mRNA stabilization, containing various microRNA (miRNA) binding sites. When the poly(A) tail is less than 12 adenosine nucleotides, the mRNA is separated from the 5′ cap structure; therefore, this tail is critical for mRNA to continue or stop translation [5].
In addition to its role in cellular biological activities, mRNA has also been shown as a promising molecule for various therapeutic and vaccine applications over the past few years [6]–[8]. Especially in 2020, a liposome nanoparticle (NP)-based mRNA vaccine encoding S protein (mRNA-1273) became a candidate vaccine (in phase 3 trial) against the new type of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) which spread globally from Wuhan, China [9].
mRNA vaccines provide relatively reliable, simple, and inexpensive vaccine solutions which are suitable for mass production [10]–[12]. In these vaccine systems, mRNAs enable the expression of encoded antigens in the transfected cells providing a strong T cell response. mRNA vaccines offer advantages such as producing a strong immune response without a separate adjuvant compared to subunit vaccines. Also, mRNA vaccines do not possess the drawbacks such as reversibility of live attenuated vaccines, and weak cellular immunity in DNA vaccines [13],[14]. Single-stranded RNAs may integrate into the genome. However, mRNAs used for vaccine purposes do not enter into the nucleus, and their integration into genomic DNA is prevented. [15]. One of the most important advantages of mRNA vaccines is their capacity to transfect dendritic cells (DCs) higher than other types of vaccines [16]. mRNA vaccines can be produced using non-replicating or self-amplifying mRNA molecules (Figure 1) [17],[18].
mRNA vaccines highly target DCs to provide an increased T cell response. As shown in Figure 2, mRNA molecules enter into the antigen presenting cells (APCs), are transported to appropriate vesicles, and enable coding of antigens with ribosomal activity. The peptide antigens activate CD8+ T cells by binding to major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC I) through proteosomal activities, and activate CD4+ T cells by binding to MHC II molecules through endosomal activity [19]. Humoral immunity is usually provided by mRNA vaccines via antigen-specific antibodies produced by B cells [20],[21]. Follicular T cells, one of the T cell subtypes induced by mRNA-NP immunization in mice, increase the responses of B cells that can produce long-lived antibodies with strong affinity to bacterial and viral pathogens [22],[23]. The CD8+ cytotoxic T cells (CTLs), providing cellular immunity, were shown to attack viruses or destroy cancer cells. mRNA vaccines exhibit strong CTL and Th1 immune responses, especially with an increase in cytokine levels. Cellular immune responses are promising for the treatment of serious illnesses such as AIDS and cancer [24],[25].
There are some drawbacks in the development of mRNA vaccines [26]. In particular, mRNA molecules possess low stability, and cannot easily cross the cell membrane [27]. Difficulties in intracellular delivery also pose a problem since mRNA molecules are sensitive to catalytic hydrolysis by the omnipresent ribonucleases [28]. Therefore, when administered to the body on their own, mRNA molecules may not reach to the desired target. Many strategies have been developed to overcome this problem encountered during in vivo studies of mRNA vaccines. RNA conjugations and modifications, viral vector transfections, micro and nanoparticles have been used for RNA delivery [29]–[31]. Structure of mRNA can also be improved for enhanced expression of encoded antigen. Codon modifications in protein coding regions of mRNA sequences can significantly increase protein expression levels [32],[33]. The 5′ cap modification of mRNA can induce translation by increasing the resistance of RNA to hydrolytic catalysis [34]. Eventually, efficiency of mRNA vaccines can be advanced via optimization of mRNA structure and utilization of proper delivery systems [35]–[37].
Many of the next-generation vaccines were observed to provide weak immune responses [38]. Therefore, new applications have been introduced, and more technological materials are needed to increase the immunogenicity of technological vaccines. NPs produced from various biocompatible materials with sizes ranging from 1-100 nanometers (nm) have many advantageous properties [39]. Since the NPs can be obtained smaller than the size of a cell, molecules capable of cellular entry through endocytosis or pinocytosis can be synthesized [40].
NP systems have been used for the delivery of diverse pharmaceuticals, and offer many advantages for mRNA vaccines, such as increased pharmacokinetic efficacy. Thus, the potential of mRNAs to be used in gene therapy, immunotherapy, and cancer therapies as well as in therapeutic and prophylactic vaccine applications was increased [41],[42]. The nano-carrier systems used in formulations can increase the stability of the mRNAs by protecting them from enzymatic degradation in bloodstream, and can also provide adjuvant properties, easily delivering vaccines to APCs [43]. Encapsulation of mRNA molecules with NPs facilitates receptor interactions of APCs by expanding surface adsorption, and provides controlled release [44]. Due to their small size, NPs can quickly pass through the epithelial barriers, and enter into the bloodstream in invasive applications. However, our innate immune system might constitute a risk to damage the NP system after introduction into the body. In addition to vaccine agents (mRNA, DNA, peptide etc.), NPs can also have immunotoxicological effects [45].
Various biocompatible polymeric, lipid-based, and inorganic NPs such as gold, carbon, liposome, dendrimer, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA), polyethylene glycol (PEG), and silica have been applied in the vaccine delivery studies [46],[47]. PLGA, PEG and polylactic acid (PLA) are also approved by The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). NPs are produced with desired size, shape and surface modifications, and used effectively in the successful and stable delivery of antigens. For instance, gold NPs (AuNPs) delivering antigens of pathogens such as influenza virus or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) showed a robust immune response in vivo [48],[49].
Polymeric NPs are frequently preferred in the delivery of vaccines due to their biodegradability and biocompatibility, lack of toxicity, easy surface modifications, and low cost of synthesis [50]. Various types of polymeric materials are used for NP production, such as polyamines and polypeptides as well as bipolar and triblock polymers (Figure 3). Especially, poly(ethyleneimine) (PEI) is a cationic polymer commonly used for the delivery of nucleic acids [51],[52]. The combination of PEI and PLGA can also be used for the efficient delivery of IVT mRNA to DCs [53]. Uchida et al. [54] added a cholesterol moiety to PEG-polycation block copolymers in the formulation with IVT mRNA encoding anti-angiogenic protein (sFlt-1), and it was shown to inhibit growth of pancreatic tumor tissues significantly.
Biocompatible and pH-sensitive poly(β-amino ester)s (PBAEs) are synthesized by the addition of amines and acrylates, and interact with IVT mRNAs electrostatically from their tertiary amine groups. Antigen production can be obtained after 24 hours in the lung using properly dispersed PBAE-mRNA formulations in mice via inhalation. They showed very high stability in the blood serum when administered intravenously [55],[56]. PBAE nanosystems are also used to form copolymers with polymers such as PEG, PLA and poly(ϵ-caprolactone) (PCL) [57]. Capasso Palmiero et al. [58] used PBAE-co-PCL terpolymers for the delivery of mRNA molecules, and showed that the terpolymer had higher transfection efficiency than PEI. Palamà et al. [59] produced highly stable PCL NPs loaded with mRNA-protamine complex for the delivery of mRNA molecules into the cell. Recently, mRNA transfection with PLA micelles capable of targeting DCs was also reported [60]. Structure-activity relationship analysis of poly(glycoamidoamine) (PGAA) showed that increased number of amino groups elevated the transfection efficiency of mRNA [61].
Dendrimers are highly branched, globular, polymeric macromolecules. The architecture of dendrimers is uniform and well-defined with three distinct components: a core domain at the center, repetitive hyperbranched units, and corona with modifiable functional groups. Desired properties can be given to dendrimers via controlling their architecture, and functional nanocarriers can be obtained. It is possible to encapsulate pharmaceuticals in the internal cavity or bound them to the surface of dendrimers via electrostatic or hydrophobic interactions. Attachment between pharmaceutical and dendrimer can also be obtained through covalent bonds at the terminal functional groups [62],[63].
Chahal et al. [52] produced a dendrimer-based mRNA vaccine composed of an ionizable modified dendrimer NP, a lipid-anchored PEG, and mRNA molecules encoding H1N1 hemagglutinin (HA), Ebola virus (EBOV) glycoprotein (GP) or multiplexed antigens of Toxoplasma gondii. This vaccine was shown to protect mice against lethal viral and T. gondii challenges. Moreover, Islam et al. [64] obtained a polymer-lipid hybrid NP using a modified polyamidoamine (PAMAM) dendrimer, ceramide-PEG, and PLGA. The hybrid NP successfully delivered mRNA encoding phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) to prostate cancer cells, and tumor growth was inhibited in mice.
Polysaccharide-based NPs have been used efficiently for the targeted delivery of pharmaceuticals. Chitosan is composed of N-acetyl-D-glucosamine monomers, and chitosan NPs have been used for the delivery of mRNA molecules. The mRNA vaccine encoding influenza proteins H9N2 HA2 and M2e formulated with chitosan NPs provided increased immune responses and protection in chickens against challenge with avian influenza viruses H7N9 or H9N2 [65]. McCullough et al. [66] also reported that chitosan NPs successfully delivered mRNA molecules, encoding HA and nucleoprotein of influenza virus, to DCs. Additionally, chitosan-coated selenium NPs were used for the delivery of Fluc mRNA, and induced apoptosis was observed in the targeted colorectal and colon carcinoma cells in vitro [67]. Another polysaccharide used for NP production is mannan. Son et al. [68] reported that the mannan capsules were efficient in the delivery of mRNA and activation of DCs. Moreover, Siewert et al. [69] showed that cationic polysaccharide diethylaminoethylen (DEAE)-dextran system can be used for mRNA delivery.
Peptides used for the mRNA delivery should be cationic, containing positively charged amino acids like lysine and arginine to have electrostatic interactions with the negatively charged phosphate groups of nucleic acids. Encapsulation efficiency can be enhanced via increasing the amount of charged amino groups compared to phosphate groups [70].
Protamine is a small, cationic, arginine-rich nuclear protein playing role in DNA stability during spermatogenesis in testis. Due to its association with nucleic acids, protamine was shown to stabilize and deliver mRNA molecules [71],[72]. Protamine-mRNA complex is protected from nucleases, and has adjuvant effect via TLR7 activation. However, the mRNA in this complex might be translated poorly [70]. Fotin-Mleczek et al. [73] showed that protamin-complexed mRNA vaccine stimulated TLR7-mediated immune responses and displayed antitumor activity against ovalbumin (OVA)-expressing lymphoma cells in mice. Moreover, Schnee et al. [74] reported that the mRNA encoding glycoprotein of rabies virus (RABV-G) formulated with protamine induced immune responses and provided protection against viral challenge in mice and pigs.
Cell-penetrating peptides (CPPs) are also cationic molecules promising in mRNA delivery. Arginine-rich RALA peptide (WEARLARALARALARHLARALARALRACEA) was used to obtain a condensed nanocomplex with OVA-mRNA, providing specific CTL response in mice [75]. Additionally, Coolen et al. [76] used RALA, LAH4 (KKALLALALHHLAHLALHLALALKKA), and LAH4-L1 (KKALLAHALHLLALLALHLAHALKKA) amphipathic CPPs to vector mRNA molecules onto PLA NPs, and showed that LAH4-L1/mRNA and PLA-NP/LAH4-L1/mRNA formulations were promising platforms for the development of mRNA vaccines.
Virus-like particles (VLPs) are other successful peptide-based mRNA delivery systems. VLPs can efficiently package mRNAs, and carry them to target cells protecting from degradation by RNases [77]. The recombinant bacteriophage MS2 VLP-based mRNA vaccine was shown to provide high humoral and cellular responses in mice delaying the tumor growth [78]. Sun et al. [79] also used MS2 VLPs for the delivery of mRNA encoding Gag protein of HIV-1, and showed increased antibody response in mice specific to Gag antigen. Recently, a chimeric VLP system was obtained by the fusion of a ribosomal protein (L7Ae) from Archaeoglobus fulgidus and the protein G of Vesicular Stomatitis Virus, and effective delivery of mRNA was achieved into the cell lines difficult to transfect [80]. Moreover, artificial VLPs can be produced using synthetic peptides. Jekhmane et al. [77] composed an artificial VLP composed of an oligolysine, a midblock similar to silk protein, and a hydrophilic C-terminal random coil. Self-assembly of these peptides resulted in the rod-shaped VLPs each containing one to five mRNAs.
Liposomes are generally circular NPs with hydrophilic nuclei from 20 nm to several microns in size, and with one or more lipid layers. Two-layered liposomes are preferred for the formulations due to ease of cellular endocytosis. Cholesterol and PEG are used to stabilize those two layers and to avoid immune cell attack, respectively [81],[82]. The first use of liposomes in mRNA vaccines was demonstrated in 1978 by introducing rabbit globin mRNA sequences to mouse lymphocyte cells [83]. Many liposomes were effective in vaccine studies, especially for the antigens weak in cell internalization. The single- or multi-layered liposomes can be degraded in biological fluids and contain many types of units such as phosphatidylserine, phosphatidylcholine, and cholesterol [84],[85].
Among the NP systems used for the delivery of mRNA into cells, lipid-based nanomaterials are highly effective [86]. Monslow et al. [87] reported that mRNA encoding gE antigen of Varicella-zoster virus (VZV) formulated with lipid NP conferred higher immune responses than live attenuated VZV. In addition to antigen encoding mRNAs, delivery of exogenous mRNAs encoding monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for the treatment of infectious diseases has also been studied. Recently, Erasmus et al. [88] showed that intramuscular (i.m.) administration of mRNA encoding ZIKV-117, a neutralizing human mAb, delivered by lipid NPs provided protection against Zika virus challenge in mice. Also, lipid NP-formulated mRNA vaccine encoding multiple conserved antigens of Influenza virus conferred protection against challenge with a panel of Group 1 Influenza A viruses in mice [89]. Additionally, Lo et al. [90] reported that a lipid-based mRNA vaccine encoding the soluble glycoprotein of Hendra virus provided protection against Nipah virus challenge in Syrian hamsters.
A clinically advanced form of lipid NPs, ionizable lipid NPs (iLNPs) are widely used for mRNA delivery. The iLNPs are neutral under physiological conditions but charges are formed in the acidic environments such as endosomes [91]. Moyo et al. [92] developed a tetravalent iLNP-mRNA vaccine “HIVconsvM” against HIV, which conferred strong T-cell responses in mice.
Additionally, utilization of cationic lipid NPs in mRNA vaccine formulations, such as dimethyldioctadecylammonium (DDA)- or 1,2-dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane (DOTAP)-based SAM vaccines, were shown to provide strong immune responses in mice as much as iLNPs [93]. The mRNA encoding cytokeratin 19 delivered by cationic liposome/protamine complex increased cellular immune responses and anti-tumor activity in a Lewis lung cancer model ]94]. Moreover, lipid NPs including cholesterol analogs have higher capacity of gene transfection [95]. The mRNA vaccine formulation containing DOTAP/cholesterol NPs reduced Influenza A viral titers and morbidity in mice [96].
Cationic nanoemulsions (CNEs) are also used in mRNA vaccines, consisted of a dispersion of an oil phase stabilized with an aqueous phase containing a cationic lipid layer of about 200 nm in size [97]. The mRNA vaccine encoding HIV-1 envelope protein formulated with CNEs exhibited strong immune responses in rhesus macaques [98].
Different approaches can be used to enhance the immunological activity of lipid-based NPs. The mRNA vaccines developed using lipid and PLA NPs boosted Th1 responses, and elevated endosomal and cytosolic receptor activity, inducing innate immune response by DC transfection in vitro [76]. Yang et al. [8] used a hybrid PLGA-core/lipid-shell NP system to co-deliver mRNA and gardiquimod, a TLR7 agonist, and showed an efficient gene expression in spleen as well as induced immune responses in mice.
Clinical trials of some mRNA vaccines formulated with lipid-based NPs are under assessment. Currently, clinical trials of mRNA-1273 vaccine encoding full-length spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2 (NCT04283461) [99], and the mRNA encoding RABV-G (NCT03713086) [100], both formulated with lipid NPs, are ongoing. Also, lipid NP-formulated mRNA vaccines against influenza reached to clinical trials (NCT03076385, NCT03345043) after pre-clinical studies in primates and mice. These vaccines were shown to induce humoral immune response against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses in humans [101],[102].
Gold NPs (AuNPs) are promising for mRNA delivery because of their small size and scalability as well as nontoxic and immunologically inert properties. Additionally, biodistribution and cytotoxicity of AuNPs can be adjusted according to their surface functionality and particle size [103],[104]. Yeom et al. [105] observed that mRNA encoding a pro-apoptotic factor, Bcl-2-associated X (BAX) protein, encapsulated with AuNPs inhibited xenograft tumors.
Adjuvants are immunostimulating agents essential for the success of the vaccine formulation [106]. Adjuvants are compounds that can either stimulate or increase the immune response to the antigens included in the vaccine formulation [107]–[109]. Many adjuvants such as Freund's adjuvant, lipid A, cholera toxin, aluminum salts, cytokines, saponins and CpG oligodeoxynucleotides have been used in vaccine development studies [110]–[112]. However, the immune stimulating capacities of many adjuvants are poor or they have toxic properties, making them unsuitable for use in humans. Therefore, safer and more efficient adjuvants are needed for vaccine formulations. NPs are usually taken up effectively by APCs [113], the key elements of the primary innate immune system [114], also responsible for triggering adaptive immune responses. For this reason, NPs generally stimulate immune responses, and increase immunogenic properties of the antigens they carry [115],[116].
TLRs are important receptor groups located on APCs that can recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs). TLRs play an important role in the development of new adjuvants because different DC subsets express distinct TLRs, shaping the type of adaptive immune responses. The main idea behind is to boost immune responses against the infection via vaccine formulations targeting specific type of TLRs [117]. Vasilichin et al. [118] reported that metal oxide NPs increased the expression of TLR4 and TLR6. Moreover, zinc oxide NPs were shown to increase TLR2, TLR4, and TLR6 in mice [119].
A proper adjuvant such as PLGA nucleus/lipid-shell hybrid NP carrier system for mRNA vaccines should have capacity for induction of APCs and CTLs [8]. Dendrimer NPs are also useful as adjuvant. Efficiency of a dendrimer-based mRNA vaccine platform was reported without using any additional adjuvants [52]. Additionally, NPs have been increasingly used to deliver not only antigen of interest but also co-adjuvants such as poly(I:C), CpG and monophosphoryl lipid A [120],[121].
Vaccines have been saving millions of lives protecting from infectious diseases especially in childhood. Although there are efficient commercial vaccines against many pathogens, protective vaccines still lack for various infectious agents. Novel technologies and methodologies have been developed to obtain vaccines with better characteristics. RNA-based vaccines, especially mRNA vaccines have many advantages compared to conventional vaccines. However, they also have drawbacks such as degradation by ubiquitous nucleases. NP-based delivery systems are efficient vehicles to target the mRNA molecules safely to the APCs. There are different types of NPs for mRNA delivery, such as widely preferred polymers and liposomes. In addition to utilization of a single material, hybrid NP delivery platforms are also used to increase the efficiency. Studies have been conducted to obtain perfect combination for the NP-based mRNA vaccines. NPs also have the adjuvant capacity inducing TLRs, APCs, and CTLs, so that diverse immune responses are boosted. As the technologies for NP production advance, more efficient vaccines will be obtained for various diseases.
[1] |
Hendrix WR (2002) Bacteriophages: evolution of the majority. Theor Popul Biol 61: 471–480. doi: 10.1006/tpbi.2002.1590
![]() |
[2] |
Hietala V, Horsma-Heikkinen J, Carron A, et al. (2019) The removal of endo- and enterotoxins from bacteriophage preparations. Front Microbiol 10: 1–9. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00001
![]() |
[3] |
Sarhan WA, Azzazy HM (2015) Phage approved in food, why not as a therapeutic? Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 13: 91–101. doi: 10.1586/14787210.2015.990383
![]() |
[4] |
Górski A, Międzybrodzki R, Borysowski J, et al. (2012) Phage as a modulator of immune responses: practical implications for phage therapy. Adv Virus Res 83: 41–71. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394438-2.00002-5
![]() |
[5] |
Wittebole X, Roock De S, Opa M (2014) Historical overview of bacteriophage therapy as an alternative to antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial pathogens. Virulence 5: 226–235. doi: 10.4161/viru.25991
![]() |
[6] |
Kazi M, Annapure US (2016) Bacteriophage biocontrol of foodborne pathogens. J Food Sci Technol 53: 1355–1362. doi: 10.1007/s13197-015-1996-8
![]() |
[7] |
Gilmore BF (2012) Bacteriophages as anti-infective agents: recent developments and regulatory challenges. Expert Rev Anti Infe Ther 10: 533–535. doi: 10.1586/eri.12.30
![]() |
[8] |
Fernández L, Gutiérrez D, Rodríguez A, et al. (2018) Application of bacteriophages in the agro-food sector: a long way toward approval. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 8: 1–5. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00001
![]() |
[9] |
Balogh B, Jones JB, Iriarte FB (2010) Phage therapy for plant disease control. Curr Pharm Biotechno 11: 48–57. doi: 10.2174/138920110790725302
![]() |
[10] | Civerolo EL, Kiel HL (1969) Inhibition of bacterial spot of peach foliage by Xanthomonas pruni bacteriophage. Phytopathology 59: 1966–1967. |
[11] |
Eman OH, El-Meneisy Afaf ZA (2014) Biocontrol of halo blight of bean caused by pseudomonas phaseolicola. Int J Virol 10: 235–242. doi: 10.3923/ijv.2014.235.242
![]() |
[12] |
Fujiwara A, Fujisawa M, Hamasaki R, et al. (2011) Biocontrol of ralstonia solanacearum by treatment with lytic bacteriophages. Appl Environ Microbiol 77: 4155–4162. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02847-10
![]() |
[13] | Born Y, Bosshard L, Duffy B, et al. (2015) Protection of Erwinia amylovora bacteriophage Y2 from UV-induced damage by natural compounds. Bacteriophage 5: 1–5. |
[14] | Zaccardelli M, Saccardi A, Gambin E (1992) Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni bacteriophages on peach trees and their potential use for biological control. Plant Pathogenic Bacteria 8th International Conference 875–878. |
[15] |
Balogh B, Canteros BI, Stall RE (2008) Control of citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot with bacteriophages. Plant Dis 92: 1048–1052. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-92-7-1048
![]() |
[16] |
Balogh B, Jones JB, Iriarte FB (2010) Phage therapy for plant disease control. Curr Pharm Biotechno 11: 48–57. doi: 10.2174/138920110790725302
![]() |
[17] |
Leverentz B, Conway WS, Alavidze Z (2001) Examination of bacteriophage as a biocontrol method for Salmonella on fresh-cut fruit: a model study. J Food Protect 64: 1116–1121. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-64.8.1116
![]() |
[18] |
Szczepankowska A (2012) Role of CRISPR/cas system in the development of bacteriophage resistance. Adv Virus Res 82: 289–338. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-394621-8.00011-X
![]() |
[19] |
Koskella B, Brockhurs MA (2014) Bacteria–phage coevolution as a driver of ecological and evolutionary processes in microbial communities. FEMS Microbiol Rev 38: 916–931. doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12072
![]() |
[20] |
Carrillo LC, Atterbury JR, El-Shibiny A (2005) Bacteriophage therapy to reduce Campylobacter jejuni colonization of broiler chickens. Appl Environ Microb 71: 6554–6563. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.11.6554-6563.2005
![]() |
[21] |
Wagenaar AJ, Van Bergen M, Mueller M (2005) Phage therapy reduces Campylobacter jejuni colonization in broilers. Vet Microbiol 109: 275–283. doi: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.06.002
![]() |
[22] |
Arthur MT, Kalchayanand N, Agga EG, et al. (2017) Evaluation of bacteriophage application to cattle in lairage at beef processing plants to reduce Escherichia coli O157:H7. Prevalence on hides and carcasses. Foodborne Pathog Dis 14: 17–22. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2016.2189
![]() |
[23] |
Wall KS, Zhang J, Rostagno HM (2010) Phage therapy to reduce preprocessing Salmonella infections in market-weight swine. Appl Environ Microb 76: 48–53. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00785-09
![]() |
[24] |
Bach JS, Johnson PR, Stanford K (2009) Bacteriophages reduce Escherichia coli O157:H7 levels in experimentally inoculated sheep. Can J Animal Sci 89: 285–293. doi: 10.4141/CJAS08083
![]() |
[25] |
Huanga K, Nitin N (2019) Edible bacteriophage based antimicrobial coating on fish feed for enhanced treatment of bacterial infections in aquaculture industry. Aquaculture 502: 18–25 doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.12.026
![]() |
[26] |
Rivas L, Coffey B, McAuliffe O (2010) In vivo and ex vivo evaluations of bacteriophages e11/2 and e4/1c for use in the control of Escherichia coli O157:H7. App Environ Microb 76: 7210–7216. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01530-10
![]() |
[27] |
Hussain MA, Liu H, Wang Q (2017) Use of encapsulated bacteriophages to enhance farm to fork food safety. Crit Rev Food Sci 57: 2801–2810. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2015.1069729
![]() |
[28] | Murthy K, Engelhardt R (2012) Encapsulated bacteriophage formulation. United States Patent 2012/0258175 A1. 2012-10-11. |
[29] |
Stanford K, Mcallister AT, Niu DY (2010) Oral delivery systems for encapsulated bacteriophages targeted at Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Feedlot Cattle. J Food Protect 73: 1304–1312. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.7.1304
![]() |
[30] |
Saez AC, Zhang J, Rostagno MH, et al. (2011) Direct feeding of microencapsulated bacteriophages to reduce Salmonella colonization in pigs. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8: 1241–1248. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2011.0868
![]() |
[31] |
Ma Y, Pacan CJ, Wang Q (2008) Microencapsulation of bacteriophage felix O1 into chitosan- alginate microspheres for oral delivery. Appl Environ Microb 74: 4799–4805. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00246-08
![]() |
[32] | EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) (2017) The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2016. EFSA J 15: 5077. |
[33] | Word Health Organzation (2019) Food safety. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety. |
[34] | Moye ZD, Woolstone J, Sulakvelidze A (2018) Bacteriophage Applications for Food Production and Processing. Viruses 10: 1–22. |
[35] |
Endersen L, O'Mahony J, Hill C, et al. (2014) Phage Therapy in the Food Industry. Annu. Rev Food Sci Technol 5: 327–349. doi: 10.1146/annurev-food-030713-092415
![]() |
[36] |
de Melo AG, Levesque S, Moineau S (2018) Phages as friends and enemies in food processing. Curr Opin Biotechnol 49: 185–190. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2017.09.004
![]() |
[37] |
Atterbury RJ, Connerton PL, Dodd CE, et al. (2003) Application of host-specific bacteriophages to the surface of chicken skin leads to a reduction in recovery of Campylobacter jejuni. Appl Environ Microb 69: 6302–6306. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.10.6302-6306.2003
![]() |
[38] |
Goode D, Allen VM, Barrow PA (2003) Reduction of experimental Salmonella and Campylobacter contamination of chicken skin by application of lytic bacteriophages. Appl Environ Microb 69: 5032–5036. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.8.5032-5036.2003
![]() |
[39] |
Bigwood T, Hudson JA, Billington C (2009) Influence of host and bacteriophage concentrations on the inactivation of food-borne pathogenic bacteria by two phages. FEMS Microbiol Lett 291: 59–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01435.x
![]() |
[40] | Orquera S, Golz G, Hertwig S, et al. (2012) Control of Campylobacter spp. and Yersinia enterocolitica by virulent bacteriophages. J Mol Genet Med 6: 273–278. |
[41] |
O'Flynn G, Ross RP, Fitzgerald GF, et al. (2004) Evaluation of a cocktail of three bacteriophages for biocontrol of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Appl Environ Microb 70: 3417–3424. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.6.3417-3424.2004
![]() |
[42] |
Abuladze T, Li M, Menetrez MY, et al. (2008) Bacteriophages reduce experimental contamination of hard surfaces, tomato, spinach, broccoli, and ground beef by Escherichia coli O157:H7. Appl Environ Microb 74: 6230–6238. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01465-08
![]() |
[43] |
Sharma M, Patel JR, Conway WS, et al. (2009) Effectiveness of bacteriophages in reducing Escherichia coli O157:H7 on fresh-cut cantaloupe and lettuce. J Food Prot 72: 1481–1485. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-72.7.1481
![]() |
[44] |
Carter CD, Parks A, Abuladze T, et al. (2012) Bacteriophage cocktail significantly reduced Escherichia coli O157H:7contamination of lettuce and beef, but does not protect against recontamination. Bacteriophage 2: 178–185. doi: 10.4161/bact.22825
![]() |
[45] | Boyacioglu O, Sharma M, Sulakvelidze A, et al. (2013) Biocontrol of Escherichia coli O157: H7 on fresh-cut leafy greens. Bacteriophage 3: 1–6. |
[46] | Viazis S, Akhtar M, Feirtag J, et al. (2011) Reduction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 viability on leafy green vegetables by treatment with a bacteriophage mixture and trans-cinnamaldehyde. Food Microbiol 28: 149–157. |
[47] |
Patel J, Sharma M, Millner P, et al. (2011) Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 attached to spinach harvester blade using bacteriophage. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8: 541–546. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2010.0734
![]() |
[48] |
Carlton RM, Noordman WH, Biswas B, et al. (2005) Bacteriophage P100 for control of Listeria monocytogenes in foods: genome sequence, bioinformatic analyses, oral toxicity study, and application. Regul Toxicol Pharm 43: 301–312. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2005.08.005
![]() |
[49] |
Holck A, Berg J (2009) Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes in cooked ham by virulent bacteriophages and protective cultures. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 6944–6946 . doi: 10.1128/AEM.00926-09
![]() |
[50] |
Soni KA, Nannapaneni R., Hagens S (2010) Reduction of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of fresh channel catfish fillets by bacteriophage listex p100. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7: 427–434 . doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0432
![]() |
[51] |
Soni KA, Desai M, Oladunjoye A, et al. (2012) Reduction of Listeria monocytogenes in queso fresco cheese by a combination of listericidal and listeriostatic GRAS antimicrobials. Int J Food Microbiol 155: 82–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.01.010
![]() |
[52] |
Chibeu A, Agius L, Gao A, et al. (2013) Efficacy of bacteriophage LISTEXTM P100 combined with chemical antimicrobials in reducing Listeria monocytogenes in cooked turkey and roast beef. Int J Food Microbiol 167: 208–214. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.08.018
![]() |
[53] |
Figueiredo ACL, Almeida RCC (2017) Antibacterial efficacy of nisin, bacteriophage P100 and sodium lactate against Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat sliced pork ham. Braz J Microbiol 48: 724–729. doi: 10.1016/j.bjm.2017.02.010
![]() |
[54] |
Guenther S, Loessner MJ (2011) Bacteriophage biocontrol of Listeria monocytogenes on soft ripened white mold and red-smear cheeses. Bacteriophage 1: 94–100. doi: 10.4161/bact.1.2.15662
![]() |
[55] |
Bigot B, Lee WJ, McIntyre L, et al. (2011) Control of Listeria monocytogenes growth in a ready-to-eat poultry product using a bacteriophage. Food Microbiol 28: 1448–1452. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2011.07.001
![]() |
[56] |
Modi R, Hirvi Y, Hill A, et al. (2001) Effect of phage on survival of Salmonella Enteritidis during manufacture and storage of cheddar cheese made from raw and pasteurized milk. J Food Protect 64: 927–933. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-64.7.927
![]() |
[57] |
Leverentz B, Conway WS, Camp MJ, et al. (2003) Biocontrol of Listeria monocytogenes on fresh-cut produce by treatment with lytic bacteriophages and a bacteriocin. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 4519–4526. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.8.4519-4526.2003
![]() |
[58] |
Whichard JM, Sriranganathan N, Pierson FW, et al. (2003) Suppression of Salmonella growth by wild-type and large-plaque variants of bacteriophage Felix O1 in liquid culture and on chicken frankfurters. J Food Prot 66: 220–225. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-66.2.220
![]() |
[59] |
Guenther S, Herzig O, Fieseler L, et al. (2012) Biocontrol of Salmonella Typhimurium in RTE foods with the virulent bacteriophage FO1-E2. Int J Food Microbiol 154: 66–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.12.023
![]() |
[60] |
Spricigo DA, Bardina C, Cortés P, et al. (2013) Use of a bacteriophage cocktail to control Salmonella in food and the food industry. Int J Food Microbiol 165: 169–174. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.05.009
![]() |
[61] | Farber JM, Peterkin PI (1991) Listeria monocytogenes, a foodborne pathogen. Microbiol Rev 55: 476–511. |
[62] |
Leistner L, Gorris LGM (1995) Food preservation by hurdle technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 6: 41–46 . doi: 10.1016/S0924-2244(00)88941-4
![]() |
[63] | Phages as probiotics. Available from: http://intralytix.com/index.php?page=pro. |
[64] | Proteon Pharmaceuticals. Available from: https://www.proteonpharma.com. |
[65] |
Schmelcher M, Loessner JM (2016) Bacteriophage endolysins: applications for food safety. Curr Opin Biotechnol 37: 76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.10.005
![]() |
[66] | Gutiérrez D, Rodríguez-Rubio L, Martíne B, et al. (2016) Bacteriophages as weapons against bacterial biofilms in the food industry. Front Microbiol 7: 1–16. |
[67] | Da Silva Felício MT, Hald T, Liebana E, et al. (2015) Risk ranking of pathogens in ready-to-eat unprocessed foods of non-animal origin (FoNAO) in the EU: initial evaluation using outbreak data (2007–2011). Int J Food Microbiol 16: 9–19. |
[68] |
Beuchat LR (2002) Ecological factors influencing survival and growth of human pathogens on raw fruits and vegetables. Microbes Infect 4: 413–423. doi: 10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01555-1
![]() |
[69] |
Siringan P, Connerton PL, Payne RJ (2011) Bacteriophage-mediated dispersal of Campylobacter jejuni biofilms. Appl Environ Microb 77: 3320–3326. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02704-10
![]() |
[70] |
Soni KA, Nannapaneni R, Hagens S (2010) Reduction of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of fresh channel catfish fillets by bacteriophage listex p100. Foodborne Pathog Dis 7: 427–434. doi: 10.1089/fpd.2009.0432
![]() |
[71] |
Sutherland IW, Hughes KA, Skillman LC, et al. (2004) The interaction of phage and biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett 232: 1–6. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1097(04)00041-2
![]() |
[72] |
Maszewska A (2015) Phage associated polysaccharide depolymerases–characteristics and application. Postep Hig Med Dos 69: 690–702. doi: 10.5604/17322693.1157422
![]() |
[73] |
Drulis-Kawa Z, Majkowska-Skrobek G, Maciejewska B (2015) Bacteriophages and phage- derived proteins--application approaches. Curr Med Chem 22: 1757–1773. doi: 10.2174/0929867322666150209152851
![]() |
[74] | Lehman SM (2007) Development of a bacteriophage-based biopesticide for fire blight. PhD Thesis. Department of Biological Sciences, Brock University, Canada. |
[75] |
Hughes KA, Sutherland IW, Jones MV (1998) Biofilm susceptibility to bacteriophage attack: the role of phage-borne polysaccharide depolymerase. Microbiology 144: 3039–3047. doi: 10.1099/00221287-144-11-3039
![]() |
[76] |
Chai Z, Wang J, Tao S, et al. (2014) Application of bacteriophage-borne enzyme combined with chlorine dioxide on controlling bacterial biofilm. LWT Food Sci Technol 59: 1159–1165. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2014.06.033
![]() |
[77] | Love JM, Bhandari D, Dobson CR, et al. (2018) Potential for bacteriophage endolysins to supplement or replace antibiotics in food production and clinical care. Antibiotics 7: 1–25. |
[78] | Gutierrez D, Ruas-Madiedo P, Martınez B (2014) Effective removal of Staphylococcal biofilms by the endolysin LysH5. PloS One 9: 1–8. |
[79] | Oliveira H, Thiagarajan V, Walmagh M (2014) A thermostable Salmonella phage endolysin Lys68, with broad bactericidal properties against gram-negative pathogens in presence of weak acids. PloS One 9: 1–11. |
[80] |
Obeso MJ, Martínez B, Rodríguez A, et al. (2008) Lytic activity of the recombinant staphylococcal bacteriophage ΦH5 endolysin active against Staphylococcus aureus in milk. Int J Food Microbiol 128: 212–218. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.08.010
![]() |
[81] | Olsen NMC, Thiran E, Hasler T, et al. (2018) Synergistic removal of static and dynamic Staphylococcus aureus biofilms by combined treatment with a bacteriophage endolysin and a polysaccharide depolymerase. Viruses 10: 2–17. |
[82] | Yoyeon Ch, Son B, Ryu S (2019) Effective removal of staphylococcal biofilms on various food contact surfaces by Staphylococcus aureus phage endolysin LysCSA13. Food Microbiol 84: 1–7. |
[83] |
Zhang H, Bao H, Billington C (2012) Isolation and lytic activity of the Listeria bacteriophage endolysin LysZ5 against Listeria monocytogenes in soya milk. Food Microbiol 31: 133–136. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2012.01.005
![]() |
[84] |
Van Nassau TJ, Lenz CA, Scherzinger AS (2017) Combination of endolysins and high pressure to inactivate Listeria monocytogenes. Food Microbiol 68: 81–88. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2017.06.005
![]() |
[85] |
Gaeng S, Scherer S, Neve H (2000) Gene cloning and expression and secretion of Listeria monocytogenes bacteriophage-lytic enzymes in Lactococcus lactis. Appl Environ Microb 66: 2951–2958. doi: 10.1128/AEM.66.7.2951-2958.2000
![]() |
[86] | Garneau EJ, Moineau S (2001) Bacteriophages of lactic acid bacteria and their impact on milk fermentations. Microb Cell Fact 10: 1–10. |
[87] | Atamer Z, Samtlebe M, Neve H, et al. (2013) Review: elimination of bacteriophages in whey and whey products. Front Microbiol 4: 1–9. |
[88] |
Mercanti D, Carminati D, Reinheimer JA, et al. (2011) Widely distributed lysogeny in probiotic lactobacilli represents a potentially high risk for the fermentative dairy industry. Int J Food Microbiol 144: 503–510. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.11.009
![]() |
[89] |
Tahir A, Asif M, Abbas Z (2017) Three bacteriophages SA, SA2 and SNAF can control growth of milk isolated Staphylococcal species. Pak J Zool 49: 425–759. doi: 10.17582/journal.pjz/2017.49.2.425.434
![]() |
[90] |
Singh A, Poshtiban S, Evoy S (2013) Recent advances in bacteriophage based biosensors for food-borne pathogen detection. Sensors 13: 1763–1786. doi: 10.3390/s130201763
![]() |
1. | Dmitrii S. Linnik, Yana V. Tarakanchikova, Mikhail V. Zyuzin, Kirill V. Lepik, Joeri L. Aerts, Gleb Sukhorukov, Alexander S. Timin, Layer-by-Layer technique as a versatile tool for gene delivery applications, 2021, 1742-5247, 1, 10.1080/17425247.2021.1879790 | |
2. | M. Emad Al Madadha, Rama Rayyan, Khalid E. Ahmed, Nancy Al-Sanouri, Saddam Al Demour, Muayyad Ahmad, Attitude and knowledge towards the effectiveness of nucleic acid-based vaccines among healthcare workers and medical students in the Jordanian population, 2022, 9, 2770-7571, 10.1080/27707571.2022.2145756 | |
3. | Alexander Avdoshin, Vladimir Naumov, Lucio Colombi Ciacchi, Stanislav Ignatov, Susan Köppen, Atomistic simulations of chitosan as a possible carrier system for miRNA transport, 2023, 4, 2633-5409, 1113, 10.1039/D2MA00830K | |
4. | Shalmali Shirish Cholkar, Ashwini Ramkrishana Gawade, Ashwin Bhanudas Kuchekar, Lipid Nanoparticles: Key Facilitators of mRNA Vaccine Development, 2022, 19, 24562602, 199, 10.13005/bbra/2979 | |
5. | Yinghan Chan, Sin Wi Ng, Sachin Kumar Singh, Monica Gulati, Gaurav Gupta, Sushil Kumar Chaudhary, Goh Bey Hing, Trudi Collet, Ronan MacLoughlin, Raimar Löbenberg, Brian G. Oliver, Dinesh Kumar Chellappan, Kamal Dua, Revolutionizing polymer-based nanoparticle-linked vaccines for targeting respiratory viruses: A perspective, 2021, 280, 00243205, 119744, 10.1016/j.lfs.2021.119744 | |
6. | Yeon Jeong Yoo, Chang Hoon Lee, Sei Hyun Park, Yong Taik Lim, Nanoparticle-based delivery strategies of multifaceted immunomodulatory RNA for cancer immunotherapy, 2022, 343, 01683659, 564, 10.1016/j.jconrel.2022.01.047 | |
7. | Shalmali Shirish Cholkar, Ashwini Ramkrishana Gawade, Ashwin Bhanudas Kuchekar, The Use of Medicinal Plant Extract in Hand Sanitizer and Spray to Combat Against Covid-19, 2022, 19, 24562602, 183, 10.13005/bbra/2977 | |
8. | Azam Bolhassani, Lipid-Based Delivery Systems in Development of Genetic and Subunit Vaccines, 2022, 1073-6085, 10.1007/s12033-022-00624-8 | |
9. | K. Aikawa, T. Okazoe, 2022, 978-1-83916-568-9, 477, 10.1039/9781839167591-00477 | |
10. | Olga V. Zhukova, Evgenia V. Arkhipova, Tatyana F. Kovaleva, Sergey A. Ryabov, Irina. P. Ivanova, Anna A. Golovacheva, Daria A. Zykova, Sergey D. Zaitsev, Immunopharmacological Properties of Methacrylic Acid Polymers as Potential Polymeric Carrier Constituents of Anticancer Drugs, 2021, 26, 1420-3049, 4855, 10.3390/molecules26164855 | |
11. | Rodica Elena Ionescu, Updates on the Biofunctionalization of Gold Nanoparticles for the Rapid and Sensitive Multiplatform Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Virus and Its Proteins: From Computational Models to Validation in Human Samples, 2023, 24, 1422-0067, 9249, 10.3390/ijms24119249 | |
12. | Amol D. Gholap, Juhi Gupta, Pallavi Kamandar, Deblina D. Bhowmik, Satish Rojekar, Md. Faiyazuddin, Navnath T. Hatvate, Sourav Mohanto, Mohammed Gulzar Ahmed, Vetriselvan Subramaniyan, Vinoth Kumarasamy, Harnessing Nanovaccines for Effective Immunization─A Special Concern on COVID-19: Facts, Fidelity, and Future Prospective, 2024, 10, 2373-9878, 271, 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.3c01247 | |
13. | Tingmei Zhao, Yulong Cai, Yujie Jiang, Xuemei He, Yuquan Wei, Yifan Yu, Xiaohe Tian, Vaccine adjuvants: mechanisms and platforms, 2023, 8, 2059-3635, 10.1038/s41392-023-01557-7 | |
14. | FREDMOORE L. OROSCO, LLEWELYN M. ESPIRITU, NAVIGATING THE LANDSCAPE OF ADJUVANTS FOR SUBUNIT VACCINES: RECENT ADVANCES AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES, 2024, 0975-7058, 18, 10.22159/ijap.2024v16i1.49563 | |
15. | Samaneh Yousefi Adlsadabad, John W. Hanrahan, Ashok Kakkar, mRNA Delivery: Challenges and Advances through Polymeric Soft Nanoparticles, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 1739, 10.3390/ijms25031739 | |
16. | Priyanka Yadav, Sudhir G. Warkar, Anil Kumar, 2024, 9789815256772, 254, 10.2174/9789815256772124010011 | |
17. | Larissa Henke, Ali Ghorbani, Sara E. Mole, The use of nanocarriers in treating Batten disease: A systematic review, 2024, 03785173, 125094, 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2024.125094 | |
18. | Amol D. Gholap, Pankaj R. Khuspe, Md Faiyazuddin, Md Jasim Uddin, Deblina D. Bhowmik, Rushikesh P. Said, Kalyani S. Sonawane, Swapnali Parit, Navnath T. Hatvate, 2025, 9780443223747, 409, 10.1016/B978-0-443-22374-7.00019-0 | |
19. | Dariush Haghmorad, Majid Eslami, Niloufar Orooji, Iryna Halabitska, Iryna Kamyshna, Oleksandr Kamyshnyi, Valentyn Oksenych, mRNA vaccine platforms: linking infectious disease prevention and cancer immunotherapy, 2025, 13, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1547025 |