Table of contents :





|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| maximum insert size | 7-7.5 kb | 7-7.5 kb | 30 kb | 3.5-4.0 kb | unlimited size |
| concentratrions (viral particles per mL) | > 108 | > 108 | > 1011 | > 1012 | no limitation |
| route of gene delivery | ex vivo | ex/in vivo | ex/in vivo | ex/in vivo | ex/in vivo |
| integration | yes | yes | no | yes/no | very poor |
| duration of expression in vivo | short | long | short | long | short |
| stability | good | not tested | good | good | very good |
| ease of preparation (scale up) | pilot scale up (up to 20-50 L) | not known | easy to scale up (up to 100 Lref) | difficult to purify, difficult to scale up | easy to scale up |
| immunological problems | few | few | extensive | not known | none |
| pre-existing immunity | unlikely | unlikely, except maybe AIDS patients | yes | yes | no |
| safety problems | insertional mutagenesis ? | insertional mutagenesis ? | inflammatory response, toxicity | inflammatory response, toxicity | none |
|
|
|
|
| GFP | CMV, muscle-specific creatine kinase (CKM) promoter | Consistently higher levels of GFP expression were driven by the CKM promoter compared to CMV in miceref |
| LacZ | CMV, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) promoter, neuron-specific enolase (NSE) promoter | Injection of mice with the constructs containing the different promoters showed that GFAP is as efficient at driving lacZ expression as CMVref. |
| CAT | HIV-1-LTR (long terminal repeat), RSV-TAR (transactivation response element) | HIV-1-LTR could be transactivated by tat in both stimulated and unstimulated cells; RSV-TAR was only transactivated in unstimulated cellsref. |
| CAT | CMV, RSV, SV40, murine leukemia virus (SL3-3) promoter | The CMV promoter was found to be stronger than any of the other promoters tested in muscleref. |
| CAT | CMV, SV2 | The CMV promoter was found to have greatest transcriptional activityref. |
| Luciferase | CMV, RSV, SV40, PGK, hybrid b-actin promoter/CMV enhancer, CMV/IA (intron A) | The hybrid b-actin/CMV promoter/enhancer showed greater luciferase expression than RSV, SV40, PGK or CMV. CMV/IA also showed 2–6 fold in vitro and 1.5–3 fold in vivo higher luciferase expression than CMVref. |
| Hepatitis B surface antigen
(HBsAg) |
CMV, desmin | The promoters performed equally well in vitro, and CTL and Th1 serum antibody responses against HbsAg in mice were of similar magnituderef. |
| Hepatitis B envelope proteins | CMV, desmin | Greater in vitro expression of antigen was attributed to the desmin promoter. However, comparable humoral and cytotoxic immune responses were stimulated following i.m. injection of miceref. |
| Rabies virus G protein | CMV, SV40 | Comparable G antigen-specific antibody titres were stimulated in mice. Slightly higher T cell responses were observed from the CMV constructref. |
| Influenza virus H5 hemagglutinin
(HA) |
CMV, b-actin | Constructs containing the CMV or b-actin promoters provided comparable protection against influenza in chickensref. |
| Influenza virus H5 hemagglutinin
(HA) |
CMV, b-actin, RSV, SV40 | Similar in vitro expression of HA. The greatest HA-specific antibody and protection against influenza in chickens was provided with the CMV construct. |
| Bovine herpesvirus glycoprotein
D (gD) |
RSV, CMV/IA | CMV/IA construct produced higher neutralising antibody titres against gD in i.d. injected cattleref. |
| HIV-1 gag/env | CMV, AKV murine leukemia viral long terminal repeat | CMV showed 10–20 fold greater activity than AKV in vitro. Immunised macaques developed high humoral responses with the CMV construct onlyref. |
| SV40 large tumour antigen | CMV, SV40 | The CMV construct induced higher levels of antibody and protection in the murine experimental metastasis model than the SV40 constructref. |
| M. tuberculosis apa + pro
proteins |
CMV, UbC | The CMV promoter was the most efficient testedref. |
| Adenovirus E4 ORF3 | CMV, RSV, SV40, UbC, EF-1a | Following i.n. dosing to mice, constructs containing the UbC and EF-1a promoters stimulated the most stable expression of antigenref |

|
|
|
|
|