Mini­cells on Tar­get

by Elio

The gold ring every­one in can­cer chemother­apy is reach­ing for is the abil­ity to se­lec­tively kill can­cer cells with­out dam­ag­ing nor­mal ones.  Eas­ier said than done.  So far, clever at­tempts at de­liv­ering po­tent drugs straight to the can­cer cells us­ing tech­niques such as con­ju­gat­ing them to an­tibodies spe­cific to those cells, have been in­con­clu­sive at best.  Now, a group of Aus­tralian inves­tigators re­port promis­ing re­sults us­ing bac­te­r­ial mini­cells as the drug de­liv­ery sys­tem.  (This re­search is high­lighted in Na­ture Re­view: Drug Dis­cov­ery.)

Thin-sec­tion elec­tron mi­cro­graph show­ing a mini­cell pro­duc­ing E. coli cell, mag­nification ×66,000. Source

Sev­eral items here are of mi­cro­bi­o­log­i­cal in­ter­est, the most sur­pris­ing of which is that mini­cells can be loaded with an­ti­cancer drugs with the great­est of ease. Just place the mini­cells in a so­lu­tion con­tain­ing the drugs and pres­to! The mini­cells im­bibe with such gusto that, de­pend­ing on the drug, be­tween 200,000 and 10 mil­lion mol­e­cules are stowed per mini­cell. No ef­flux takes place, so once loaded, the mini­cells be­come a sta­ble de­liv­ery sys­tem. It seems to make no dif­fer­ence whether the drugs are hy­drophilic (e.g., irinote­can), hy­drophobic (e.g., pa­cli­taxel and cis­platin), or am­phipatic (e.g., dox­oru­bicin, vin­blastin, and 5‑FU). Magic!

Of course, stop­ping at this point would not re­sult in se­lec­tive tar­get­ing of the drugs. There­fore, the au­thors coat their mini­cells with a bis­pe­cific an­ti­body. One an­ti­body arm binds to the O‑antigen of the lipopolysac­cha­ride on the mini­cell sur­face, the other to a spe­cific sur­face re­cep­tor on the can­cer cell. The mini­cells are now ready to go.

Mini­cells are rapidly taken up by can­cer cells and bro­ken up in­ter­nally, thus de­liv­er­ing the drugs where in­tended. For a va­ri­ety of hu­man tu­mors, treat­ment with drug laden mini­cells de­stroys the tu­mors in vitro and also in vivo in mice car­ry­ing such tu­mors. The ef­fect was much greater than with the drugs alone. Mini­cells also hand­ily beat out drug-loaded li­po­somes. Mice, dogs, and pigs ex­hib­ited es­sen­tially no ill ef­fects from the ad­min­is­tra­tion of the mini­cells. Im­pres­sive, in­deed, and cheer­ing. Bac­te­r­ial mini­cells hold out sig­nif­i­cant promise for the de­vel­op­ment of tol­er­a­ble anti­cancer ther­a­pies. And there promise to be yet other uses. Al­ready mini­cells are be­ing used as a safe de­liv­ery sys­tem for vac­cines against lym­pho­cytic chori­omenin­gi­tis virus in mice.

One won­ders if mini­cells might pos­si­bly be pre­pared to­tally free of bac­te­ria so that one could avoid in­ject­ing whole live bac­te­ria into pa­tients. The au­thors use a com­bi­na­tion of cen­trifu­ga­tion and fil­tra­tion steps to sep­a­rate the mini­cells from their mother cells. They achieve a cleaner sep­a­ra­tion of the two cell pop­u­la­tions by mak­ing the par­ent bac­te­ria fil­a­men­tous, hence larger and eas­ier to re­tain on fil­ters. The fi­nal mini­cell prepa­ra­tion con­tains no bac­te­ria ca­pa­ble of form­ing colonies. In­ter­est­ingly, they don't use the usual tech­niques for in­duc­ing fil­a­ments (adding murein-syn­the­sis in­hibitors such as β‑lactams or us­ing min mu­tants that al­low con­tin­u­ous pro­duc­tion of mini­cells from fil­a­ments). In­stead, they use high salt (5% NaCl) for 4 hours, which also works. As a per­sonal aside, I'd like to quote from a pre­his­toric re­view I wrote in 1975 with Mar­tin Salter: "It seems pos­si­ble that any chem­i­cal at some con­cen­tra­tion, whether at­tain­able in the lab­o­ra­tory or not, could cause fil­a­ment for­ma­tion."

These tiny struc­tures have held the at­ten­tion of mi­cro­bi­ol­o­gists since they were first de­scribed in de­tail by Howard Adler in 1966. In the early days, spe­cific pieces of DNA were in­tro­duced into mini­cells via phages or plas­mids, thus con­vert­ing them into fac­to­ries for man­u­fac­tur­ing spe­cific pro­teins. Later on, mini­cells led to the 1989 dis­cov­ery of the Min sys­tem by Piet de Boer, Larry Roth­field, and col­leagues, a dis­cov­ery which ma­te­ri­ally in­creased our un­der­stand­ing of bac­te­r­ial cell di­vi­sion. So, who says a cell has to have DNA to be ex­cit­ing?

 

Other Posts

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Robert Murray
19 years ago

I am sure that vec­tors have to be safe (ex­pe­ri­ence in the virus field un­der­lines this) and one should be a bit cau­tious. I am sure I would be un­happy fol­low­ing an in­cau­tious dose of LPS along with mini­cells of Gram neg­a­tive bac­te­ria. I note that there is at least one pa­per that had this in mind and used pro­to­plas­ted, achro­mo­so­mal bac­te­r­ial mini­cells for DNA trans­fer pur­poses.( M.J. Gi­a­colone et al., Cell. Mi­cro­biol. 8:1624, 2006) They recog­nised this as one of a num­ber of nec­es­sary steps be­fore there is util­ity. On the other hand maybe a tiny dose of some such stim­u­lus primes use­ful processes.