Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune disease characterized by T-cell mediated destruction of insulin-producing β-cells.1 Approximately 13,000 new cases of T1D are diagnosed each year in US children, with a prevalence of about 2 cases per 1,000 individuals, and associated treatment and care costs are large.2 Following clinical diagnosis, many T1D patients maintain functional pancreatic β-cell mass for some time.3 This therapeutic window has motivated attempts to halt autoimmune inflammation of pancreatic islets before too many islets are destroyed to maintain glucose regulation. Schemes involving broad immunosuppression4 or antigen non-specific immunomodulation5 have been explored for T1D treatment, however, only antigen-specific approaches hold the unique promise of long-lasting disease remission in the absence of adverse side effects.6 Therefore, efforts have focused on manipulating the body’s most efficient antigen-presenting cell, dendritic cells (DCs), in T1D and other autoimmune diseases.7 Early and ongoing efforts involving DCs therapeutically focus on the exogenous generation of DCs for administration as a cellular vaccine.7,8 In fact, an exogenously manipulated DC-based vaccine is currently being investigated in clinical trials for application in T1D.9 However, it is generally accepted that cell-based vaccines for T1D are primarily intended to provide proof-of-concept, as several factors limit this approach.10 In particular, dissemination and lymph node homing of exogenously delivered DCs is inefficient11 and treatment involves isolation and storage of DCs under stringent manufacturing standards, amounting to high costs which prohibit widespread application.12,13
An attractive alternative strategy involves the in vivo targeting of DCs with injectable polymeric, biodegradable microparticles delivering a payload of vaccine components and immunomodulatory factors. Microparticle systems may be easily administered in a single injection to patients with extended delivery of both prime and boost doses using timed-release materials.14,15 Furthermore, polymeric microparticle strategies greatly simplifies issues related to manufacturing, storage and shipping, as microparticle encapsulation affords stability for off-the-shelf availability.16,17 Microparticles can be engineered to be multifunctional and modular, where features of particular interest are: (1) targeting to DCs, (2) providing a depot for antigen, (3) providing controlled delivery and subcellular targeting of adjuvants, immunosuppressants, chemokines or other conditioning factors. Conceptually, microparticle systems can thus be designed to attract DCs and precursors into an injection site, provide signals to promote differentiation into DCs, promote uptake of antigen and provided immunosuppressive/tolerogenic conditioning of DCs to induce specific tolerance. In practice, the amalgamation of these design principles are just beginning to be assembled for application toward T1D. The goal of this review is in part to showcase recent microparticle-based efforts toward immunosuppression and T1D mitigation in particular, but also to draw on the broader literature of DC-targeting of microparticles, largely applied to infection or cancer, as instructive examples to highlight the repertoire of tools available for the scientist/clinician investigating T1D therapies.
Tolerogenic Dendritic Cells
The rationale for therapeutic interest in DCs is founded in their physiological roles. Dendritic cells are phagocytes and the most efficient antigen presenting cell.18 Moreover, DCs are central regulators of the immune system, processing and presenting antigen to direct induction and expansion of specific T-cell subsets (e.g., Th1, Th2, Th17, regulatory T-cells), promoting either antigen-specific tolerance or immunity.19,20 Key characteristics of DCs include: (1) their ability to uptake and transport antigen from peripheral tissues to T-cell zones in secondary lymphoid organs, (2) activation marked by upregulation of major histocompatibility complex II (MHC II), co-stimulatory surface molecules (e.g., CD80, CD83, CD86), (3) Ag processing and presentation on both MHC II and MHC I complexes and (4) T-cell interaction and stimulation.18,20 Furthermore, DCs play a critical role in both the establishment of central tolerance and the maintenance of peripheral tolerance. Mechanisms by which DCs facilitate immune protection in homeostasis include induction of T-cell deletion, anergy or regulatory T-cells (Tregs) for peripheral tolerance.7,21-24 General (but not requisite) characteristics of tolerance-promoting/tolerogenic DCs that have been reported include low expression of stimulatory and co-stimulatory molecules, low production of inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-12), and increased production of immunosuppressive cytokines (e.g., IL-10); with various reports of specific markers such as high levels of inhibitory molecules (e.g., programmed death ligand, immunoglobulin-like transcript-3) and indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO).21,25-29 There is enormous potential use of tolerogenic DCs as therapeutic agents to mitigate autoimmune diseases and transplant rejection.7,25 Of particular interest for durable antigen-specific tolerance are tolerogenic DCs which can induce CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ Tregs. These regulatory T-cells have the ability to suppress the actions of effector T-cells and also impair the activation of DCs.23,24 A number of biological and pharmacological agents have been shown to induce DCs capable of generating CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ Tregs and halt or reverse autoimmunity in animal models.7,22 Conceivably, any of these factors or combination of factors are readily incorporated into microparticle formulations, some of which have already been reported, as discussed below.
Polymeric Microparticles for Targeted Antigen Delivery
Numerous polymeric biomaterials have been investigated in particle-based drug delivery vehicles to deliver immunomodulatory, functionally-active proteins, peptides, nucleic acids, antigens and adjuvants.30-36 Of these, microparticles fabricated using biodegradable poly(lactide-glycolide) (PLGA) have been the most investigated vehicle for delivering immunotherapeutics and the influence of PLGA microparticles on DCs has been characterized.14,37-43 Many biomaterial options exist for particle formulation, with various advantages.44 However, PLGA, is appealing in terms of translation, as it has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for numerous devices including resorbable surgical sutures and drug delivery products, and is degraded in the body into natural products of lactic and glycolic acid. By altering the composition, polymeric microparticles can be designed to provide a tailored initial burst of the encapsulated immuno-modulatory molecule followed by sustained release, permitting the design of a one-time drug administration with prime and boost doses.14
The most common technique to fabricate polymeric microparticles encapsulating molecules is the double-emulsion solvent-evaporation method.14,30,45 Using this technique, a hydrophilic molecule (e.g., protein, peptide, nucleic acid) to be encapsulated is placed in aqueous solution while the polymer and a hydrophobic molecule (e.g., immunosuppressive drugs) to be incorporated is dissolved in an organic solution. The two phases are emulsified by sonication or homogenization and this primary emulsion is then added to a second larger, bulk aqueous phase and again mixed by homogenization to form a water-in-oil-in-water double emulsion. The organic solvent is then evaporated and the polymer-containing droplets harden to form microparticles, which are then isolated by filtration or centrifugation. Finally, the particles are lyophilized to remove water from the interior aqueous phase to result in a dry suspension of the encapsulated material within the polymer matrix. Additionally, microparticles can be surface-modified. For example, surface immobilization of a polycationic polymer allows surface-loading of nucleic acids or cell surface receptor-targeting molecules such as antibodies can be immobilized to promote DC interactions.
Microparticles of appropriate size (generally 1–5 μm) are too large to be taken up by cells through pinocytosis/endocytosis (by which nanoparticles are taken up), but are phagocytosed efficiently by specialized phagocytes.30,46 This size exclusion of particulate uptake by cells provides a simple, but powerful passive targeting mechanism to deliver a payload of antigen and immunomodulatory factors to phagocytic cells such as DCs.47-49 Protein-based antigen choices for microparticle formulations include whole protein antigens (e.g., insulin50-52) or specific antigenic peptides.53-55 An advantage to whole protein antigens is it is not necessary to determine the immunodominant peptides, which may vary from patient to patient, while use of defined antigenic peptides carries less risk of an adverse immune response. Protein degradation within DC endosomes involves acidic hydrolysis, reactive oxygen species and enzymatic degradation, the mechanisms and consequences of the timing of which are being uncovered.56 Critically, encapsulation of antigen in microparticles (e.g., PLGA) provides the advantages of enhancing and prolonging antigen presentation on both MHC-II and MHC-I molecules, requiring orders of magnitude less antigen compared to a soluble dose and providing antigen presentation for days-to-weeks, compared to hours-to-days for soluble antigen.47,48,57,58 Loading of microparticle encapsulated antigen onto MHC-II complexes occurs in phagosomes.59 On the other hand, loading onto MHC-I molecules through cross-presentation of exogenously-delivered antigen occurs via endosomal escape into the cytosol.57,58 Microparticles of PLGA have the demonstrated ability to provide effective cross-presentation, shown to require active proteasome, indicating access to the cytosol,60 possibly because polymer degradation acidifies the endosome, increasing the osmotic pressure to the point of leakage,58,61 or through an alternate MHC-I processing pathway.62,63 The molecular weight of the PLGA used to form microparticles can direct the kinetics of delivery to the endosome and subsequent release to the cytoplasm, with the lower molecular weight polymer (6 kDa) delivering an encapsulate after 24 h, while endosomal release generated from the higher molecular weight polymer (60 kDa) was delayed to day 5.64
Microparticle-associated endosomal escape has also been capitalized upon to effect non-viral delivery of nucleic acids to the cytosol for subsequent nuclear localization.30 Microparticle incorporation of nucleic acids such as DNA plasmids, antisense oligodeoxynucleotides and small interfering RNA has been well-established, and provides protection from degradation by nucleases, as well as effective nucleotide delivery for gene expression or knockdown.65-67 Gene delivery for expression of antigenic proteins is also an established means of establishing an antigen depot, generally referred to as DNA vaccines.68 As applied to autoimmunity, DNA-based vaccines with genes encoding for autoantigen have been referred to as an “inverse vaccination”, and are being investigated clinically for multiple sclerosis and T1D.69 In cases where endogenous antigen presentation by DCs is considered favorable (i.e., MHC-I loading for presentation to CD8+ T-cells), DNA-based vaccines are expected to benefit from incorporation into microparticles for targeting and delivery. A number of polymeric microparticle systems have been developed to deliver DNA to cells, primarily incorporating polycationic molecules to facilitate DNA loading and nuclear translocation.70,71
Taken together, polymeric microparticles have demonstrated versatility to provide an antigen depot for vaccines and biomaterial properties are easily tailored to suit the design constraints set by the form of the antigen. An antigen depot can be passively targeted to DCs through microparticle size, and subcellular sites can be further targeted for payload delivery to the phagosome and cytosol as well as translocation into the nucleus. However, issues remain related to reduced protein stability when encapsulated in acidic microparticles such as PLGA. Denaturation of protein antigen is expected to reduce conformationally-dependent antibody responses, whereas, T-cell mediated responses, relying on recognition of processed antigen, are not as sensitive to a harsh carrier environment.72,73 In order to improve encapsulated protein stability, the introduction of protein stabilizers has been explored.74
Tuning Microparticle Properties
Controlling the loading and degradation rate of polymeric systems is an important parameter that can affect immune responses. For instance, the level of antigen loading into polymeric microparticles is important as antigen dosing at both the high (e.g., in autoimmune encephalomyelitis75) and low extremes have been shown to either maintain ignorance or to induce tolerance.76-79 Tuning the rate of polymer degradation in antigen-loaded microparticles is an important parameter, optimization of which currently requires empirical determination for a given application. For example, in the case of antigenic peptide loading into PLGA microparticles for rabies vaccination, the faster-releasing formulation was found to provide protection superior to complete Freund’s adjuvant.80 In contrast, slower-degrading ovalbumin-loaded PLGA microparticles induced longer-lasting anti-ovalbumin antibody titers.81 On the other hand, low levels of prolonged antigen delivery are capable of inducing an “exhausted” T-cell phenotype, and in some (location-dependent) cases, tolerance.82,83 It should be noted, however, that composition of the PLGA copolymer in itself could potentially affect DC response, as PLGA microparticles with a 50:50 ratio of lactide to glycolide been reported to maintain DC immaturity,43 while a 75:25 ratio has been reported to induce DC activation.41 It has been postulated that this effect may be explained by the fact that the higher lactide-containing polymers possess an increased surface hydrophobicity, which may conceivably present hydrophobic moieties interacting with receptors involved in danger signal recognition.84 However, this issue remains to be resolved, as conflicting evidence regarding this trend has been reported.85
Because PLGA degrades relatively slowly, even at lysosomal pH, it has been posited that newer materials for microparticle vaccine systems which have been designed to primarily release their payload only when in phagosolysosomes, will prove advantageous.44 For example, DC-targeting microparticles fabricated with materials incorporating pH-responsive elements such as cleavable acetal linkages86,87 and orthoesters88 have been investigated. These materials capitalize on the fact that extracellular pH is an average of 7.4, while phagosolysomes reach ~pH 5,89,90 and have been used to provide high levels of DC-mediated CD8+ T-cell stimulation in vitro and vivo.86-88 Additionally, reduction-oxidation states can be exploited for timed payload delivery given that the endosomal compartment is reductive while the lysosomal compartment is increasingly oxidative, compared to an extracellular environment that is only mildly oxidative.44,89 This concept has been utilized to deliver contents to the early endosome using reduction-sensitive materials,91 while oxidation-sensitive particles have been used to generate humoral and cellular immunity to particle-loaded ovalbumin.92 Furthermore, biomaterial schemes have been developed to facilitate endosomal escape through use of these same endosomal triggers of pH and reduction state to generate membranolytic products with demonstrated ability for antigen delivery and cross-presentation.91,93
Finally, reports indicate that particle size can modulate tissue targeting, cellular uptake specificity and adjuvancy. For example, despite a presumed loss in phagocyte-targeting specificity, subcutaneous injection of very small sized nanoparticles (20–45 nm) have been shown to be driven to lymph nodes through interstitial fluid flow and taken up by lymph node-resident DCs.92,94-96 Additionally, it has been reported that 40–100 nm inert particles injected subcutaneously were taken up more efficiently by DCs, while 1 μm particles were taken up more by macrophages, and that 40 nm antigen-loaded particles were more immunogenic.96 On the other hand, phagocyte targeting has been shown to also be dependent on the route of administration, as intraperitoneal injection of PLGA microparticles favored the uptake and migration to lymph nodes by macrophages while subcutaneous injection favored DCs.39 PLGA microparticles size (a range of 1–14 μm) has been demonstrated to direct adjuvancy of antigen-loaded PLGA microparticles delivered orally, with an optimal particle size of 4 μm.97 Interplay between the parameters of particle size and receptor targeting can also be a factor, receptor-targeted nanoparticles (0.2 μm) but not microparticles (2 μm) have demonstrated increased specificity of antigen delivery to DCs, in vitro.98
Dendritic Cell Receptor Targeting
The targeting of antigens to specific DC receptors has been investigated primarily utilizing soluble antigens. Normally, endocytosed soluble antigens are cross-presented by DCs less efficiently than particulate antigens which are taken up by phagocytosis,99 however, DC receptor-targeting has been shown to facilitate cross-presentation.100,101 This is an important consideration given that cross-presentation by DCs can enable peripheral CD8+ T-cell cross-tolerance.102 Ligation of antigens to molecules targeting DC upatke receptors, for example, the dendritic and epithelial cell 205 receptor (DEC-205,103) can increase uptake efficiency by approximately 100-fold.101,104,105 Approaches for targeting DC receptors have generally involved either natural receptor ligands or the use of antibodies raised against specific receptors. Ligands for DC receptors that have been investigated for soluble antigen delivery include heat shock proteins,106 bacterial toxins,107 sugar residues108 and CD40-ligand.109 For example, targeting C-type lectin receptors has been accomplished through incorporation of specific sugar residues such as mannose/mannan.110 Additionally, antigen targeting to DC receptors through the use of receptor-specific antibodies has been widely investigated.108 Dendritic cell surface receptors which have been antibody-targeted for antigen delivery include the integrin CD11c/CD18,111 Fc receptors,112,113 and the C-type lectin receptors: mannose receptor,114,115 DEC-205100,116 and DC-SIGN.117,118
Notably, immunogenic applications benefit from targeting antigen to a receptor which provides concomitant DC activation (e.g., CD40-ligand119), however a tolerogenic application will require targeting DC receptors which do not activate DCs. Fortunately, certain receptors have the potential for DC targeting reportedly without activation. For example, targeting soluble antigen to DEC-205 did not activate DCs, and in fact, lead to DC-induced peripheral T-cell unresponsiveness in the absence of an additional stimulatory signal.101,120,121 In fact, targeting antigen to DEC-205 has demonstrated the ability to induce tolerance in animal models of T1D.122,123 Additionally, inhibitory receptors such as the Fc receptor, CD32b,124,125 or DC inhibitory receptor-2 (DCIR2/Clec4a2)126,127 may present a potential way to simultaneously target and provide inhibitory signals to DCs.
A number of these targeting approaches described for soluble antigen delivery have also been applied toward DC-targeting of microparticles. For example, mannose/mannan has also been surface bound to microparticles, demonstrating a dose-dependent response in DC uptake.128 In this study, Wattendorf et al. also investigated targeting microparticles to DC integrins by incorporating the RGD adhesive peptide. Surface-modified microparticles with RGD peptide also increased DC uptake (this aspect is corroborated by others129) and combining both mannan and RGD provided cumulative effects on microparticle uptake by DCs. It was also found that these ligand-modified microparticles did not activate DCs, as determined by expression of MHC-II, CD86 and CD83.128 Furthermore, microparticles have been surface modified to target DEC-205,86,98 demonstrating increased receptor-mediated uptake by DCs, migration to lymph nodes and stimulation of naïve T-cells in vivo.86 Additionally, other microparticle modification approaches to target DCs include surface-tethering antibodies targeting CD40, and the αVβ3, αVβ5 and CD11c integrins, reporting differential levels of DC activation for each.130,131 This is an informative comparison, as the functional consequences of DC integrin binding is not well understood,132,133 and are currently under investigation.134
Incorporating Immunomodulatory Signals into Microparticles
Immunogenic applications of microparticle-based vaccines have established precedent for the incorporation of immunomodulatory factors. In particular, incorporation of adjuvants in polymeric microparticles have ranged from the well-established (e.g., alum135) to the well-defined (e.g., toll-like receptor ligands: CpG,136,137 poly(I:C),87 monophosphoryl lipid A138,139). Within these types of combined antigen/adjuvant microparticle systems, co-encapsulation has been shown to be more beneficial than co-administration, by sustaining immunomodulatory signaling after antigen collection.136,140 Notably, the use of polymeric microparticles can facilitate a mechanistic understanding of DC endocytic processes. For example, the requirement that both antigen and TLR ligand need to be colocalized in the same endosome in order distinguish non-self-antigen from self antigen has recently been determined.141 Together, these data begin to reveal to a set of design principles for immunogenic microparticle-based vaccine applications. Whether or not these design principles will have an effective tolerogenic/immunosuppressive counterpart remains to be seen.
In addition to stimulatory signals, a promising approach is the incorporation of factors such as chemokines and growth factors to both attract DCs and condition the local injection microenvironment. For example, chemokines such as the peptide N-formyl-Nle-Leu-Phe-Nle-Tyr-Lys,142 macrophage inflammatory protein-3α (MIP-3α; CCL20),142,143 CCL19,144 CCL21144 and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)145,146 have all been investigated in biomaterial timed-release systems consisting of microparticles and/or hydrogels, demonstrating sustained ability to attract DCs. GM-CSF is a particularly interesting case, as use has been FDA-approved, and its effects are pleiotropic by: serving as a chemoattractant for both DCs and monocytes, promoting monocyte differentiation into DCs and increasing DC endocytic activity.145,146 Furthermore, treatment with GM-CSF in NOD mice has been shown to be able to delay T1D through acting on DCs and expanding Foxp3+ Tregs.147
Compared to investigations with stimulatory molecules, incorporation of immunosuppressive molecules into microparticles has only recently begun to be explored. In particular, incorporation of rapamycin-loaded microparticles targeted to DCs has demonstrated generation of DCs maintained in an immature state,148-150 that resist maturation,150 with lowered expression of ICAM-1,149 with high levels of TGFβ1 produced,150 and which have reduced T-cell stimulatory capacity.148,150 Additionally, microparticles with encapsulated IL-10 plasmid targeted to DCs generates DCs which elicit only weak T-cell stimulatory capacity,151 and which expand Foxp3+ Tregs.152
Dendritic Cell-Targeting Microparticle-Based Vaccine for T1D
Other types of particle-based approaches have been explored, such as the recent investigation using T-cell-targeting nanoparticles with tethered peptide-MHC molecules.153 However, there is apparently only one study which has reported DC-targeting microparticle-based vaccines for T1D amelioration, led by the Giannoukakis group at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. This line of research began with the demonstration that injection of NOD DCs treated ex vivo with antisense oligonucleotides knocking down expression of the costimulatory molecules CD40, CD80 and CD86, was able to significantly delay the incidence of diabetes in NOD mice.154 This was subsequently linked to the increased prevalence of regulatory CD4+CD25+ T-cells through DC production of IL-7.155 Remarkably, this approach is currently being investigated in a phase I clinical trial, in which antisense-treated autologous DCs are being administered to established T1D adult patients in order to establish safety (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00445913). Despite the promise of this study, anticipating the limitations of cell-based vaccinations, the Pittsburgh group is also pursuing a microparticle-based vaccine for T1D targeting DCs in vivo. This approach relies on the demonstrated ability67 of microparticle-encapsulated antisense oligonucleotides to effect gene knockdown in DCs. In the study by Phillips et al. polymeric microparticles carrying antisense oligonucleotides to CD40, CD80 and CD86 were delivered to a subcutaneous site proximal to the pancreatic lymph nodes in NOD mice.10 The injected microparticle formulation augmented Foxp3+ Tregs and provoked hypo-responsiveness to β-cell antigen without compromising global immune responses to alloantigen. A fraction of the microparticles were found to accumulate primarily within the pancreatic lymph nodes and to a lesser extent the spleen after injection subcutaneously or intraperitoneally, indicating uptake and migration by phagocytes. Most importantly, the microparticle formulation both prevented and reversed new-onset T1D.10 Notably, this formulation did not employ the use of a delivered antigen, which raises questions regarding the antigen-specific nature of the immune response. Additionally, it’s not clear if the microparticle system used (ProMaxx156) is optimal for loading and extended delivery of antisense oligonucleotides, given that eight injections were necessary to effect reversal.
Concluding Remarks
Collectively, from these examples we can see that the advantages of microparticle-based vaccines delineated in the literature with immunogenic applications are beginning to be appreciated by the autoimmunity/immunosuppression community. Critically, the advantages of in vivo targeting of DCs/phagocytes, antigenic depot, incorporation of additional immunomodulatory factors and sustained release are all retained in these new applications, opening up a multitude of new avenues for research in T1D. Given the number of antigens, targeting molecules, immunomodulatory agents, chemokines and growth factors that may be of interest for delivery to DCs, the large number of potentially useful microparticle formulations is staggering. Advancement in key areas would enable transformative gains. Primarily, the identification of predictive in vitro markers is critical.157 Additionally, development of a high-throughput screening methodology for the efficient, systematic examination of DC responses to microparticle formulations45 is also important, representing a step toward personalized vaccines.
Footnotes
Previously published online: www.landesbioscience.com/journals/vaccines/article/12916
References
- 1.Atkinson MA, Eisenbarth GS. Type 1 diabetes: new perspectives on disease pathogenesis and treatment. Lancet. 2001;358:221–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05415-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Haller MJ, Atkinson MA, Schatz D. Type 1 diabetes mellitus: etiology, presentation and management. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2005;52:1553–78. doi: 10.1016/j.pcl.2005.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.bdul-Rasoul M, Habib H, Al-Khouly M. ‘The honeymoon phase in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus: frequency, duration and influential factors. Pediatr Diabetes. 2006;7:101–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-543X.2006.00155.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lipton R, LaPorte RE, Becker DJ, Dorman JS, Orchard TJ, Atchison J, et al. Cyclosporin therapy for prevention and cure of IDDM. Epidemiological perspective of benefits and risks. Diabetes Care. 1990;13:776–84. doi: 10.2337/diacare.13.7.776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Chatenoud L, Bluestone JA. CD3-specific antibodies: a portal to the treatment of autoimmunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7:622–32. doi: 10.1038/nri2134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Steinman RM, Banchereau J. Taking dendritic cells into medicine. Nature. 2007;449:419–26. doi: 10.1038/nature06175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hilkens CM, Isaacs JD, Thomson AW. Development of dendritic cell-based immunotherapy for autoimmunity. Int Rev Immunol. 2010;29:156–83. doi: 10.3109/08830180903281193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Palucka K, Ueno H, Fay J, Banchereau J. Harnessing dendritic cells to generate cancer vaccines. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1174:88–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05000.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. http://clinicaltrials.gov/; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00445913; Autologous Dendritic Cell Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes Suppression: A Safety Study 2010.
- 10.Phillips B, Nylander K, Harnaha J, Machen J, Lakomy R, Styche A, et al. A microsphere-based vaccine prevents and reverses new-onset autoimmune diabetes. Diabetes. 2008;57:1544–55. doi: 10.2337/db07-0507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.MartIn-Fontecha A, Sebastiani S, Hopken UE, Uguccioni M, Lipp M, Lanzavecchia A, et al. Regulation of dendritic cell migration to the draining lymph node: impact on T lymphocyte traffic and priming. J Exp Med. 2003;198:615–21. doi: 10.1084/jem.20030448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Giannoukakis N, Phillips B, Trucco M. Toward a cure for type 1 diabetes mellitus: diabetes-suppressive dendritic cells and beyond. Pediatr Diabetes. 2008;9:4–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-5448.2008.00401.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Tacken PJ. de V, Torensma RI, Figdor CG. Dendritic-cell immunotherapy: from ex vivo loading to in vivo targeting. Nat Rev Immunol. 2007;7:790–802. doi: 10.1038/nri2173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cohen S, Yoshioka T, Lucarelli M, Hwang LH, Langer R. Controlled delivery systems for proteins based on poly(lactic/glycolic acid) microspheres. Pharm Res. 1991;8:713–20. doi: 10.1023/a:1015841715384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zhao Z, Leong KW. Controlled delivery of antigens and adjuvants in vaccine development. J Pharm Sci. 1996;85:1261–70. doi: 10.1021/js9602812. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Pean JM, Venier-Julienne MC, Boury F, Menei P, Denizot B, Benoit JP. NGF release from poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres. Effect of some formulation parameters on encapsulated NGF stability. J Control Release. 1998;56:175–87. doi: 10.1016/s0168-3659(98)00086-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Schaefer MJ, Singh J. Effect of additives on stability of etoposide in PLGA microspheres. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2001;27:345–50. doi: 10.1081/ddc-100103734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Steinman RM. Dendritic cells in vivo: a key target for a new vaccine science. Immunity. 2008;29:319–24. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2008.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Steinman RM, Nussenzweig MC. Dendritic cells: features and functions. Immunol Rev. 1980;53:127–47. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065x.1980.tb01042.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Banchereau J, Briere F, Caux C, Davoust J, Lebecque S, Liu YJ, et al. Immunobiology of dendritic cells. Annu Rev Immunol. 2000;18:767–811. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.18.1.767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Steinman RM, Hawiger D, Nussenzweig MC. Tolerogenic dendritic cells. Annu Rev Immunol. 2003;21:685–711. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.21.120601.141040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Morelli AE, Thomson AW. Dendritic cells: regulators of alloimmunity and opportunities for tolerance induction. Immunol Rev. 2003;196:125–46. doi: 10.1046/j.1600-065x.2003.00079.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wing K, Sakaguchi S. Regulatory T cells exert checks and balances on self tolerance and autoimmunity. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:7–13. doi: 10.1038/ni.1818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Mellanby RJ, Thomas DC, Lamb J. Role of regulatory T-cells in autoimmunity. Clin Sci (Lond) 2009;116:639–49. doi: 10.1042/CS20080200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Adler HS, Steinbrink K. Tolerogenic dendritic cells in health and disease: friend and foe! Eur J Dermatol. 2007;17:476–91. doi: 10.1684/ejd.2007.0262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Adorini L, Penna G. Dendritic cell tolerogenicity: a key mechanism in immunomodulation by vitamin D receptor agonists. Hum Immunol. 2009;70:345–52. doi: 10.1016/j.humimm.2009.01.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Chang CC, Ciubotariu R, Manavalan JS, Yuan J, Colovai AI, Piazza F, et al. Tolerization of dendritic cells by T(S) cells: the crucial role of inhibitory receptors ILT3 and ILT4. Nat Immunol. 2002;3:237–43. doi: 10.1038/ni760. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Keir ME, Francisco LM, Sharpe AH. PD-1 and its ligands in T-cell immunity. Curr Opin Immunol. 2007;19:309–14. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2007.04.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Huang L, Baban B, Johnson BA, III, Mellor AL. Dendritic cells, indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase and acquired immune privilege. Int Rev Immunol. 2010;29:133–55. doi: 10.3109/08830180903349669. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Singh M, Chakrapani A, O’Hagan D. Nanoparticles and microparticles as vaccine-delivery systems. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007;6:797–808. doi: 10.1586/14760584.6.5.797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Shi Y, Huang G. Recent developments of biodegradable and biocompatible materials based micro/nanoparticles for delivering macromolecular therapeutics. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2009;26:29–84. doi: 10.1615/critrevtherdrugcarriersyst.v26.i1.20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Newman KD, Samuel J, Kwon G. Ovalbumin peptide encapsulated in poly(d,l lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres is capable of inducing a T helper type 1 immune response. J Control Release. 1998;54:49–59. doi: 10.1016/s0168-3659(97)00142-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Newman KD, Sosnowski DL, Kwon GS, Samuel J. Delivery of MUC1 mucin peptide by Poly(d,l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres induces type 1 T helper immune responses. J Pharm Sci. 1998;87:1421–7. doi: 10.1021/js980070s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Tamber H, Johansen P, Merkle HP, Gander B. Formulation aspects of biodegradable polymeric microspheres for antigen delivery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57:357–76. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2004.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lutolf MP, Hubbell JA. Synthetic biomaterials as instructive extracellular microenvironments for morphogenesis in tissue engineering. Nat Biotechnol. 2005;23:47–55. doi: 10.1038/nbt1055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Peppas NA, Langer R. New challenges in biomaterials. Science. 1994;263:1715–20. doi: 10.1126/science.8134835. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Johansen P, Martinez Gomez JM, Gander B. Development of synthetic biodegradable microparticulate vaccines: a roller coaster story. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2007;6:471–4. doi: 10.1586/14760584.6.4.471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Elamanchili P, Diwan M, Cao M, Samuel J. Characterization of poly(D,L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) based nanoparticulate system for enhanced delivery of antigens to dendritic cells. Vaccine. 2004;22:2406–12. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2003.12.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Newman KD, Elamanchili P, Kwon GS, Samuel J. Uptake of poly(D,L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres by antigen-presenting cells in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;60:480–6. doi: 10.1002/jbm.10019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Wang D, Molavi O, Lutsiak ME, Elamanchili P, Kwon GS, Samuel J. Poly(D,L-lactic-co-glycolic acid) microsphere delivery of adenovirus for vaccination. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2007;10:217–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Yoshida M, Mata J, Babensee JE. Effect of poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) contact on maturation of murine bone marrow-derived dendritic cells. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007;80:7–12. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.30832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Yoshida M, Babensee JE. Molecular aspects of microparticle phagocytosis by dendritic cells. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2006;17:893–907. doi: 10.1163/156856206777996844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Fischer S, Uetz-von AE, Waeckerle-Men Y, Groettrup M, Merkle HP, Gander B. The preservation of phenotype and functionality of dendritic cells upon phagocytosis of polyelectrolyte-coated PLGA microparticles. Biomaterials. 2007;28:994–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2006.10.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Hubbell JA, Thomas SN, Swartz MA. Materials engineering for immunomodulation. Nature. 2009;462:449–60. doi: 10.1038/nature08604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Acharya AP, Clare-Salzler MJ, Keselowsky BG. A high-throughput microparticle microarray platform for dendritic cell-targeting vaccines. Biomaterials. 2009;30:4168–77. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.04.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Mailander V, Landfester K. Interaction of nanoparticles with cells. Biomacromolecules. 2009;10:2379–400. doi: 10.1021/bm900266r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Waeckerle-Men Y, Allmen EU, Gander B, Scandella E, Schlosser E, Schmidtke G, et al. Encapsulation of proteins and peptides into biodegradable poly (D,L-lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres prolongs and enhances antigen presentation by human dendritic cells. Vaccine. 2006;24:1847–57. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.10.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Waeckerle-Men Y, Gander B, Groettrup M. Delivery of tumor antigens to dendritic cells using biodegradable microspheres. Methods Mol Med. 2005;109:35–46. doi: 10.1385/1-59259-862-5:035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Waeckerle-Men Y, Groettrup M. PLGA microspheres for improved antigen delivery to dendritic cells as cellular vaccines. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57:475–82. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2004.09.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Hamishehkar H, Emami J, Najafabadi AR, Gilani K, Minaiyan M, Hassanzadeh K, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of controlled release insulin loaded PLGA microcapsules using dry powder inhaler in diabetic rats. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2010;31:189–201. doi: 10.1002/bdd.702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Hamishehkar H, Emami J, Najafabadi AR, Gilani K, Minaiyan M, Mahdavi H, et al. The effect of formulation variables on the characteristics of insulin-loaded poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres prepared by a single phase oil in oil solvent evaporation method. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2009;74:340–9. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Sheshala R, Peh KK, Darwis Y. Preparation, characterization, and in vivo evaluation of insulin-loaded PLA-PEG microspheres for controlled parenteral drug delivery. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2009;35:1364–74. doi: 10.3109/03639040902939213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Goncharova E, Ryzhikov E, Poryvaev V, Bulychev L, Karpyshev N, Maksyutov A, et al. Intranasal immunization with inactivated tick-borne encephalitis virus and the antigenic peptide 89-119 protects mice against intraperitoneal challenge. Int J Med Microbiol. 2006;296:195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmm.2006.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Cui C, Stevens VC, Schwendeman SP. Injectable polymer microspheres enhance immunogenicity of a contraceptive peptide vaccine. Vaccine. 2007;25:500–9. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.07.055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Goldberg J, Shrikant P, Mescher MF. In vivo augmentation of tumor-specific CTL responses by class I/peptide antigen complexes on microspheres (large multivalent immunogen) J Immunol. 2003;170:228–35. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.1.228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Savina A, Amigorena S. Phagocytosis and antigen presentation in dendritic cells. Immunol Rev. 2007;219:143–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2007.00552.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Gerelchuluun T, Lee YH, Lee YR, Im SA, Song S, Park JS, et al. Dendritic cells process antigens encapsulated in a biodegradable polymer, poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide), via an alternate class I MHC processing pathway. Arch Pharm Res. 2007;30:1440–6. doi: 10.1007/BF02977369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Shen H, Ackerman AL, Cody V, Giodini A, Hinson ER, Cresswell P, et al. Enhanced and prolonged cross-presentation following endosomal escape of exogenous antigens encapsulated in biodegradable nanoparticles. Immunology. 2006;117:78–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2567.2005.02268.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Jones KS. Biomaterials as vaccine adjuvants. Biotechnol Prog. 2008;24:807–14. doi: 10.1002/btpr.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Men Y, Audran R, Thomasin C, Eberl G, Demotz S, Merkle HP, et al. MHC class I- and class II-restricted processing and presentation of microencapsulated antigens. Vaccine. 1999;17:1047–56. doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(98)00321-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Heit A, Schmitz F, Haas T, Busch DH, Wagner H. Antigen co-encapsulated with adjuvants efficiently drive protective T cell immunity. Eur J Immunol. 2007;37:2063–74. doi: 10.1002/eji.200737169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Gerelchuluun T, Lee YH, Lee YR, Im SA, Song S, Park JS, et al. Dendritic cells process antigens encapsulated in a biodegradable polymer, poly(D,L-lactide-co-glycolide), via an alternate class I MHC processing pathway. Arch Pharm Res. 2007;30:1440–6. doi: 10.1007/BF02977369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Shen Z, Reznikoff G, Dranoff G, Rock KL. Cloned dendritic cells can present exogenous antigens on both MHC class I and class II molecules. J Immunol. 1997;158:2723–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Newman KD, Kwon GS, Miller GG, Chlumecky V, Samuel J. Cytoplasmic delivery of a macromolecular fluorescent probe by poly(d, l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;50:591–7. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-4636(20000615)50:4<591::aid-jbm15>3.0.co;2-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Caputo A, Sparnacci K, Ensoli B, Tondelli L. Functional polymeric nano/microparticles for surface adsorption and delivery of protein and DNA vaccines. Curr Drug Deliv. 2008;5:230–42. doi: 10.2174/156720108785914961. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Lewis KJ, Irwin WJ, Akhtar S. Development of a sustained-release biodegradable polymer delivery system for site-specific delivery of oligonucleotides: characterization of P(LA-GA) copolymer microspheres in vitro. J Drug Target. 1998;5:291–302. doi: 10.3109/10611869808995882. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Singh A, Nie H, Ghosn B, Qin H, Kwak LW, Roy K. Efficient modulation of T-cell response by dual-mode, single-carrier delivery of cytokine-targeted siRNA and DNA vaccine to antigen-presenting cells. Mol Ther. 2008;16:2011–21. doi: 10.1038/mt.2008.206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Kutzler MA, Weiner DB. DNA vaccines: ready for prime time? Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9:776–88. doi: 10.1038/nrg2432. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Steinman L. Inverse vaccination, the opposite of Jenner’s concept, for therapy of autoimmunity. J Intern Med. 2010;267:441–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2010.02224.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Jechlinger W. Optimization and delivery of plasmid DNA for vaccination. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2006;5:803–25. doi: 10.1586/14760584.5.6.803. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Wagstaff KM, Jans DA. Nucleocytoplasmic transport of DNA: enhancing non-viral gene transfer. Biochem J. 2007;406:185–202. doi: 10.1042/BJ20070505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Jiang W, Gupta RK, Deshpande MC, Schwendeman SP. Biodegradable poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microparticles for injectable delivery of vaccine antigens. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2005;57:391–410. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2004.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Bramwell VW, Perrie Y. Particulate delivery systems for vaccines: what can we expect? J Pharm Pharmacol. 2006;58:717–28. doi: 10.1211/jpp.58.6.0002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Son S, Lee WR, Joung YK, Kwon MH, Kim YS, Park KD. Optimized stability retention of a monoclonal antibody in the PLGA nanoparticles. Int J Pharm. 2009;368:178–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2008.09.061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Critchfield JM, Racke MK, Zuniga-Pflucker JC, Cannella B, Raine CS, Goverman J, et al. T cell deletion in high antigen dose therapy of autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Science. 1994;263:1139–43. doi: 10.1126/science.7509084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Kurts C, Sutherland RM, Davey G, Li M, Lew AM, Blanas E, et al. CD8 T cell ignorance or tolerance to islet antigens depends on antigen dose. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:12703–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.96.22.12703. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Lim DG, Hollsberg P, Hafler DA. Strength of prior stimuli determines the magnitude of secondary responsiveness in CD8+ T cells. Cell Immunol. 2002;217:36–46. doi: 10.1016/s0008-8749(02)00511-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Firpo EJ, Kong RK, Zhou Q, Rudensky AY, Roberts JM, Franza BR. Antigen-specific dose-dependent system for the study of an inheritable and reversible phenotype in mouse CD4+ T cells. Immunology. 2002;107:480–8. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2567.2002.01540.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Piaggio E, Hartemann-Heurtier A, Cabarrocas J, Desbois S, Mars LT, Zappulla JP, et al. Maintaining or breaking CD8+ T-cell tolerance to beta islet cell antigens: lessons from transgenic mouse models. J Autoimmun. 2004;22:115–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2003.10.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Ertl HC, Varga I, Xiang ZQ, Kaiser K, Stephens L, Otvos L., Jr. Poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres as carriers for peptide vaccines. Vaccine. 1996;14:879–85. doi: 10.1016/0264-410x(96)00005-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Coombes AG, Lavelle EC, Jenkins PG, Davis SS. Single dose, polymeric, microparticle-based vaccines: the influence of formulation conditions on the magnitude and duration of the immune response to a protein antigen. Vaccine. 1996;14:1429–38. doi: 10.1016/s0264-410x(96)00077-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Yang TC, Millar J, Groves T, Grinshtein N, Parsons R, Takenaka S, et al. The CD8+ T cell population elicited by recombinant adenovirus displays a novel partially exhausted phenotype associated with prolonged antigen presentation that nonetheless provides long-term immunity. J Immunol. 2006;176:200–10. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.176.1.200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Strobel S. Immunity induced after a feed of antigen during early life: oral tolerance v. sensitisation. Proc Nutr Soc. 2001;60:437–42. doi: 10.1079/pns2001119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Reddy ST, Swartz MA, Hubbell JA. Targeting dendritic cells with biomaterials: developing the next generation of vaccines. Trends Immunol. 2006;27:573–9. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2006.10.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Jilek S, Ulrich M, Merkle HP, Walter E. Composition and surface charge of DNA-loaded microparticles determine maturation and cytokine secretion in human dendritic cells. Pharm Res. 2004;21:1240–7. doi: 10.1023/b:pham.0000033012.16152.5d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Kwon YJ, James E, Shastri N, Frechet JM. In vivo targeting of dendritic cells for activation of cellular immunity using vaccine carriers based on pH-responsive microparticles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:18264–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509541102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Heffernan MJ, Kasturi SP, Yang SC, Pulendran B, Murthy N. The stimulation of CD8+ T cells by dendritic cells pulsed with polyketal microparticles containing ion-paired protein antigen and poly(inosinic acid)-poly(cytidylic acid) Biomaterials. 2009;30:910–8. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.10.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Wang C, Ge Q, Ting D, Nguyen D, Shen HR, Chen J, et al. Molecularly engineered poly(ortho ester) microspheres for enhanced delivery of DNA vaccines. Nat Mater. 2004;3:190–6. doi: 10.1038/nmat1075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Watts C. Phagosome neutrality in host defense. Cell. 2006;126:17–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Lee S, Yang SC, Heffernan MJ, Taylor WR, Murthy N. Polyketal microparticles: a new delivery vehicle for superoxide dismutase. Bioconjug Chem. 2007;18:4–7. doi: 10.1021/bc060259s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Cerritelli S, Velluto D, Hubbell JA. PEG-SS-PPS: reduction-sensitive disulfide block copolymer vesicles for intracellular drug delivery. Biomacromolecules. 2007;8:1966–72. doi: 10.1021/bm070085x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Reddy ST, van’d V, Simeoni E, Angeli V, Randolph GJ, O’Neil CP, et al. Exploiting lymphatic transport and complement activation in nanoparticle vaccines. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:1159–64. doi: 10.1038/nbt1332. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Flanary S, Hoffman AS, Stayton PS. Antigen delivery with poly(propylacrylic acid) conjugation enhances MHC-1 presentation and T-cell activation. Bioconjug Chem. 2009;20:241–8. doi: 10.1021/bc800317a. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Swartz MA, Hubbell JA, Reddy ST. Lymphatic drainage function and its immunological implications: from dendritic cell homing to vaccine design. Semin Immunol. 2008;20:147–56. doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Reddy ST, Rehor A, Schmoekel HG, Hubbell JA, Swartz MA. In vivo targeting of dendritic cells in lymph nodes with poly(propylene sulfide) nanoparticles. J Control Release. 2006;112:26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2006.01.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Fifis T, Gamvrellis A, Crimeen-Irwin B, Pietersz GA, Li J, Mottram PL, et al. Size-dependent immunogenicity: therapeutic and protective properties of nano-vaccines against tumors. J Immunol. 2004;173:3148–54. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.5.3148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Uchida T, Goto S. Oral delivery of poly(lactide-co-glycolide) microspheres containing ovalbumin as vaccine formulation: particle size study. Biol Pharm Bull. 1994;17:1272–6. doi: 10.1248/bpb.17.1272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Cruz LJ, Tacken PJ, Fokkink R, Joosten B, Stuart MC, Albericio F, et al. Targeted PLGA nano- but not microparticles specifically deliver antigen to human dendritic cells via DC-SIGN in vitro. J Control Release. 2010 doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2010.02.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Reis e Sousa Germain RN. Major histocompatibility complex class I presentation of peptides derived from soluble exogenous antigen by a subset of cells engaged in phagocytosis. J Exp Med. 1995;182:841–51. doi: 10.1084/jem.182.3.841. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Bonifaz LC, Bonnyay DP, Charalambous A, Darguste DI, Fujii S, Soares H, et al. In vivo targeting of antigens to maturing dendritic cells via the DEC-205 receptor improves T cell vaccination. J Exp Med. 2004;199:815–24. doi: 10.1084/jem.20032220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Hawiger D, Inaba K, Dorsett Y, Guo M, Mahnke K, Rivera M, et al. Dendritic cells induce peripheral T cell unresponsiveness under steady state conditions in vivo. J Exp Med. 2001;194:769–79. doi: 10.1084/jem.194.6.769. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Lutz MB, Kurts C. Induction of peripheral CD4+ T-cell tolerance and CD8+ T-cell cross-tolerance by dendritic cells. Eur J Immunol. 2009;39:2325–30. doi: 10.1002/eji.200939548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Jiang W, Swiggard WJ, Heufler C, Peng M, Mirza A, Steinman RM, et al. The receptor DEC-205 expressed by dendritic cells and thymic epithelial cells is involved in antigen processing. Nature. 1995;375:151–5. doi: 10.1038/375151a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Trumpfheller C, Finke JS, Lopez CB, Moran TM, Moltedo B, Soares H, et al. Intensified and protective CD4+ T cell immunity in mice with anti-dendritic cell HIV gag fusion antibody vaccine. J Exp Med. 2006;203:607–17. doi: 10.1084/jem.20052005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Soares H, Waechter H, Glaichenhaus N, Mougneau E, Yagita H, Mizenina O, et al. A subset of dendritic cells induces CD4+ T cells to produce IFNgamma by an IL-12-independent but CD70-dependent mechanism in vivo. J Exp Med. 2007;204:1095–106. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.Suzue K, Young RA. Adjuvant-free hsp70 fusion protein system elicits humoral and cellular immune responses to HIV-1 p24. J Immunol. 1996;156:873–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Guermonprez P, Khelef N, Blouin E, Rieu P, Ricciardi-Castagnoli P, Guiso N, et al. The adenylate cyclase toxin of Bordetella pertussis binds to target cells via the alpha(M)beta(2) integrin (CD11b/CD18) J Exp Med. 2001;193:1035–44. doi: 10.1084/jem.193.9.1035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Tacken PJ, Torensma R, Figdor CG. Targeting antigens to dendritic cells in vivo. Immunobiology. 2006;211:599–608. doi: 10.1016/j.imbio.2006.05.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Zhang L, Tang Y, Akbulut H, Zelterman D, Linton PJ, Deisseroth AB. An adenoviral vector cancer vaccine that delivers a tumor-associated antigen/CD40-ligand fusion protein to dendritic cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:15101–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2135379100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Apostolopoulos V, Pietersz GA, Gordon S, Martinez-Pomares L, McKenzie IF. Aldehyde-mannan antigen complexes target the MHC class I antigen-presentation pathway. Eur J Immunol. 2000;30:1714–23. doi: 10.1002/1521-4141(200006)30:6<1714::AID-IMMU1714>3.0.CO;2-C. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Berry JD, Licea A, Popkov M, Cortez X, Fuller R, Elia M, et al. Rapid monoclonal antibody generation via dendritic cell targeting in vivo. Hybrid Hybridomics. 2003;22:23–31. doi: 10.1089/153685903321538053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Schuurhuis DH, Ioan-Facsinay A, Nagelkerken B, van Schip JJ, Sedlik C, Melief CJ, et al. Antigen-antibody immune complexes empower dendritic cells to efficiently prime specific CD8+ CTL responses in vivo. J Immunol. 2002;168:2240–6. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.5.2240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Kalergis AM, Ravetch JV. Inducing tumor immunity through the selective engagement of activating Fcgamma receptors on dendritic cells. J Exp Med. 2002;195:1653–9. doi: 10.1084/jem.20020338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Ramakrishna V, Treml JF, Vitale L, Connolly JE, O’Neill T, Smith PA, et al. Mannose receptor targeting of tumor antigen pmel17 to human dendritic cells directs anti-melanoma T cell responses via multiple HLA molecules. J Immunol. 2004;172:2845–52. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.172.5.2845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.He LZ, Crocker A, Lee J, Mendoza-Ramirez J, Wang XT, Vitale LA, et al. Antigenic targeting of the human mannose receptor induces tumor immunity. J Immunol. 2007;178:6259–67. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.178.10.6259. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Boscardin SB, Hafalla JC, Masilamani RF, Kamphorst AO, Zebroski HA, Rai U, et al. Antigen targeting to dendritic cells elicits long-lived T cell help for antibody responses. J Exp Med. 2006;203:599–606. doi: 10.1084/jem.20051639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Tacken PJ, de V, Gijzen KI, Joosten B, Wu D, Rother RP, et al. Effective induction of naive and recall T-cell responses by targeting antigen to human dendritic cells via a humanized anti-DC-SIGN antibody. Blood. 2005;106:1278–85. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-01-0318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Engering A, Geijtenbeek TB, van Vliet SJ, Wijers M, van LE, Demaurex N, et al. The dendritic cell-specific adhesion receptor DC-SIGN internalizes antigen for presentation to T cells. J Immunol. 2002;168:2118–26. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.5.2118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Tillman BW, de Gruijl TD, Luykx-de Bakker SA, Scheper RJ, Pinedo HM, Curiel TJ, et al. Maturation of dendritic cells accompanies high-efficiency gene transfer by a CD40-targeted adenoviral vector. J Immunol. 1999;162:6378–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Bonifaz L, Bonnyay D, Mahnke K, Rivera M, Nussenzweig MC, Steinman RM. Efficient targeting of protein antigen to the dendritic cell receptor DEC-205 in the steady state leads to antigen presentation on major histocompatibility complex class I products and peripheral CD8+ T cell tolerance. J Exp Med. 2002;196:1627–38. doi: 10.1084/jem.20021598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Mahnke K, Qian Y, Knop J, Enk AH. Induction of CD4+/CD25+ regulatory T cells by targeting of antigens to immature dendritic cells. Blood. 2003;101:4862–9. doi: 10.1182/blood-2002-10-3229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Bruder D, Westendorf AM, Hansen W, Prettin S, Gruber AD, Qian Y, et al. On the edge of autoimmunity: T-cell stimulation by steady-state dendritic cells prevents autoimmune diabetes. Diabetes. 2005;54:3395–401. doi: 10.2337/diabetes.54.12.3395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Mukhopadhaya A, Hanafusa T, Jarchum I, Chen YG, Iwai Y, Serreze DV, et al. Selective delivery of beta cell antigen to dendritic cells in vivo leads to deletion and tolerance of autoreactive CD8+ T cells in NOD mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:6374–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0802644105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Nimmerjahn F, Ravetch JV. Fcgamma receptors: old friends and new family members. Immunity. 2006;24:19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2005.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Ravetch JV, Lanier LL. Immune inhibitory receptors. Science. 2000;290:84–9. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5489.84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Yamazaki S, Dudziak D, Heidkamp GF, Fiorese C, Bonito AJ, Inaba K, et al. CD8+ CD205+ splenic dendritic cells are specialized to induce Foxp3+ regulatory T cells. J Immunol. 2008;181:6923–33. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.181.10.6923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Fujikado N, Saijo S, Yonezawa T, Shimamori K, Ishii A, Sugai S, et al. Dcir deficiency causes development of autoimmune diseases in mice due to excess expansion of dendritic cells. Nat Med. 2008;14:176–80. doi: 10.1038/nm1697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Wattendorf U, Coullerez G, Voros J, Textor M, Merkle HP. Mannose-based molecular patterns on stealth microspheres for receptor-specific targeting of human antigen-presenting cells. Langmuir. 2008;24:11790–802. doi: 10.1021/la801085d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Faraasen S, Voros J, Csucs G, Textor M, Merkle HP, Walter E. Ligand-specific targeting of microspheres to phagocytes by surface modification with poly(L-lysine)-grafted poly(ethylene glycol) conjugate. Pharm Res. 2003;20:237–46. doi: 10.1023/a:1022366921298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Kempf M, Mandal B, Jilek S, Thiele L, Voros J, Textor M, et al. Improved stimulation of human dendritic cells by receptor engagement with surface-modified microparticles. J Drug Target. 2003;11:11–8. doi: 10.1080/1061186031000072978. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Regner M, Martinez X, Belnoue E, Sun CM, Boisgerault F, Lambert PH, et al. Partial activation of neonatal CD11c+ dendritic cells and induction of adult-like CD8+ cytotoxic T cell responses by synthetic microspheres. J Immunol. 2004;173:2669–74. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.4.2669. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Acharya AP, Dolgova NV, Clare-Salzler MJ, Keselowsky BG. Adhesive substrate-modulation of adaptive immune responses. Biomaterials. 2008;29:4736–50. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.08.040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Acharya AP, Dolgova NV, Xia CQ, Clare-Salzler MJ, Keselowsky BG. Adhesive substrates modulate activation and stimulatory capacity of non-obese diabetic mouse-derived dendritic cells. Acta Biomater. 2010;7:180–92. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.08.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Acharya AP, Dolgova NV, Xia CQ, Clare-Salzler MJ, Becker ML, Moore NM, et al. The modulation of dendritic cell integrin binding and activation by RGD-peptide density gradient substrates. Biomaterials. 2010;31:7444–54. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.06.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Raghuvanshi RJ, Mistra A, Talwar GP, Levy RJ, Labhasetwar V. Enhanced immune response with a combination of alum and biodegradable nanoparticles containing tetanus toxoid. J Microencapsul. 2001;18:723–32. doi: 10.1080/02652040110055261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Schlosser E, Mueller M, Fischer S, Basta S, Busch DH, Gander B, et al. TLR ligands and antigen need to be coencapsulated into the same biodegradable microsphere for the generation of potent cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. Vaccine. 2008;26:1626–37. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.01.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Vollmer J, Weeratna R, Payette P, Jurk M, Schetter C, Laucht M, et al. Characterization of three CpG oligodeoxynucleotide classes with distinct immunostimulatory activities. Eur J Immunol. 2004;34:251–62. doi: 10.1002/eji.200324032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Elamanchili P, Lutsiak CM, Hamdy S, Diwan M, Samuel J. “Pathogen-mimicking” nanoparticles for vaccine delivery to dendritic cells. J Immunother. 2007;30:378–95. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e31802cf3e3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Hamdy S, Molavi O, Ma Z, Haddadi A, Alshamsan A, Gobti Z, et al. Co-delivery of cancer-associated antigen and Toll-like receptor 4 ligand in PLGA nanoparticles induces potent CD8+ T cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity. Vaccine. 2008;26:5046–57. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Malyala P, Chesko J, Ugozzoli M, Goodsell A, Zhou F, Vajdy M, et al. The potency of the adjuvant, CpG oligos, is enhanced by encapsulation in PLG microparticles. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97:1155–64. doi: 10.1002/jps.21065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Blander JM, Medzhitov R. Toll-dependent selection of microbial antigens for presentation by dendritic cells. Nature. 2006;440:808–12. doi: 10.1038/nature04596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Zhao X, Jain S, Benjamin LH, Gonzalez S, Irvine DJ. Directed cell migration via chemoattractants released from degradable microspheres. Biomaterials. 2005;26:5048–63. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Singh A, Suri S, Roy K. In-situ crosslinking hydrogels for combinatorial delivery of chemokines and siRNA-DNA carrying microparticles to dendritic cells. Biomaterials. 2009;30:5187–200. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Hori Y, Winans AM, Huang CC, Horrigan EM, Irvine DJ. Injectable dendritic cell-carrying alginate gels for immunization and immunotherapy. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3671–82. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Ali OA, Mooney DJ. Sustained GM-CSF and PEI condensed pDNA presentation increases the level and duration of gene expression in dendritic cells. J Control Release. 2008;132:273–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.Ali OA, Huebsch N, Cao L, Dranoff G, Mooney DJ. Infection-mimicking materials to program dendritic cells in situ. Nat Mater. 2009;8:151–8. doi: 10.1038/nmat2357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Cheatem D, Ganesh BB, Gangi E, Vasu C, Prabhakar BS. Modulation of dendritic cells using granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) delays type 1 diabetes by enhancing CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cell function. Clin Immunol. 2009;131:260–70. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2008.12.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Jhunjhunwala S, Raimondi G, Thomson AW, Little SR. Delivery of rapamycin to dendritic cells using degradable microparticles. J Control Release. 2009;133:191–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2008.10.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Das S, Haddadi A, Veniamin S, Samuel J. Delivery of rapamycin-loaded nanoparticle down regulates ICAM-1 expression and maintains an immunosuppressive profile in human CD34+ progenitor-derived dendritic cells. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;85:983–92. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.Haddadi A, Elamanchili P, Lavasanifar A, Das S, Shapiro J, Samuel J. Delivery of rapamycin by PLGA nanoparticles enhances its suppressive activity on dendritic cells. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2008;84:885–98. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 151.Jia L, Kovacs JR, Zheng Y, Gawalt ES, Shen H, Meng WS. Attenuated alloreactivity of dendritic cells engineered with surface-modified microspheres carrying a plasmid encoding interleukin-10. Biomaterials. 2006;27:2076–82. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.09.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Jia L, Kovacs JR, Zheng Y, Shen H, Gawalt ES, Meng WS. Expansion of Foxp3-expressing regulatory T cells in vitro by dendritic cells modified with polymeric particles carrying a plasmid encoding interleukin-10. Biomaterials. 2008;29:1250–61. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Tsai S, Shameli A, Yamanouchi J, Clemente-Casares X, Wang J, Serra P, et al. Reversal of autoimmunity by boosting memory-like autoregulatory T cells. Immunity. 2010;32:568–80. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2010.03.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Machen J, Harnaha J, Lakomy R, Styche A, Trucco M, Giannoukakis N. Antisense oligonucleotides down-regulating costimulation confer diabetes-preventive properties to nonobese diabetic mouse dendritic cells. J Immunol. 2004;173:4331–41. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.7.4331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Harnaha J, Machen J, Wright M, Lakomy R, Styche A, Trucco M, et al. Interleukin-7 is a survival factor for CD4+ CD25+ T-cells and is expressed by diabetes-suppressive dendritic cells. Diabetes. 2006;55:158–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Mandal TK. Inhaled insulin for diabetes mellitus. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62:1359–64. doi: 10.2146/ajhp040249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.Poland GA, Ovsyannikova IG, Jacobson RM, Smith DI. Heterogeneity in vaccine immune response: the role of immunogenetics and the emerging field of vaccinomics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;82:653–64. doi: 10.1038/sj.clpt.6100415. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]