RESULTS: The constructed integration system comprises of a lactococcal promoter (PnisA or P170), phage attachment site (attP) from bacteriophage TP901-1, a signal peptide (USP45 or SPK1) for translocation of the target protein, and a PrtP344 anchor domain in the case of the integrative vectors for surface display. There were eight successfully constructed integrative vectors with each having a different combination of promoter and signal peptide; pS1, pS2, pS3 and pS4 for secretion, and pSD1, pSD2, pSD3 and pSD4 for surface display of desired protein. The integration of the vectors into the host genome was assisted by a helper vector harbouring the integrase gene. A nuclease gene was used as a reporter and was successfully integrated into the L. lactis genome and Nuc was secreted or displayed as expected. The signal peptide SPK1 was observed to be superior to USP45-LEISSTCDA fusion in the secretion of Nuc. As for the surface display integrative vector, all systems developed were comparable with the exception of the combination of P170 promoter with USP45 signal peptide which gave very low signals in whole cell ELISA.
CONCLUSION: The engineered synthetic integrative vectors have the potential to be used for secretion or surface display of heterologous protein production in lactococcal expression system for research or industrial purposes, especially in live vaccine delivery.
RESULTS: In this study, we isolated gut K and L-cells to compare the potential of both cell types to produce insulin when exposed to similar conditions. The isolated pure K and L-cells were transfected with recombinant plasmids encoding insulin and with specific promoters for K or L-cells. Insulin expression was studied in response to glucose or meat hydrolysate. We found that glucose and meat hydrolysate efficiently induced insulin secretion from K and L-cells. However, the effects of meat hydrolysate on insulin secretion were more potent in both cells compared with glucose. Results of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays showed that L-cells secreted more insulin compared with K-cells regardless of the stimulator, although this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The responses of K and L-cells to stimulation with glucose or meat hydrolysate were generally comparable. Therefore, both K and L-cells show similar potential to be used as surrogate cells for insulin gene expression in vitro. The potential use of these cells for diabetic gene therapy warrants further investigation.
METHODS: We searched the current literature through searchable online databases, journals and other library sources using relevant keywords and search parameters. Only relevant publications in English, between the years 2000 and 2018, with evidences and proper citations, were considered. The publications were then analyzed and segregated into several subtopics based on common words and content. A total of 126 studies were found suitable for this review.
FINDINGS: Generally, the pros and cons of each of the gene-based therapies have been discussed based on the results collected from the literature. However, there are certain interventions that require further detailed studies to ensure their effectiveness. We have also highlighted the future direction and perspectives in gene therapy, which, researchers could benefit from.