Disease Prevention: An Opportunity to Expand Edible Plant-Based Vaccines?

vaccines
Review
Disease Prevention: An Opportunity to Expand
Edible Plant-Based Vaccines?
Christopher Concha 1, Raúl Cañas 2, Johan Macuer 3, María José Torres 2, Andrés A. Herrada 4,
Fabiola Jamett 5 and Cristian Ibáñez 6,*
1 Departamento de Biología Marina, Universidad Católica del Norte, Programa de Doctorado en Biología y
Ecología Aplicada, Coquimbo 1780000, Chile; [email protected]
2 Departamento de Ingeniería en Alimentos, Universidad de La Serena, Programa de Doctorado en Ingeniería
en Alimentos y Bioprocesos, La Serena 1700000, Chile; [email protected] (R.C.);
[email protected] (M.J.T.)
3 Departamento de Biología, Universidad de La Serena, Programa de Doctorado en Ingeniería en Alimentos y
Bioprocesos, La Serena 1700000, Chile; [email protected]
4 Facultad de Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Talca 3460000, Chile; [email protected]
5 Departamento de Química, Universidad de La Serena, La Serena 1700000, Chile; [email protected]
6 Departamento de Biología, Universidad de La Serena, La Serena 1700000, Chile
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +56-51-2204309; Fax: +56-51-2204383
Academic Editor: Wilmore C.Webley
Received: 17 February 2017; Accepted: 23 May 2017; Published: 30 May 2017
Abstract: The lethality of infectious diseases has decreased due to the implementation of crucial
sanitary procedures such as vaccination. However, the resurgence of pathogenic diseases in different
parts of the world has revealed the importance of identifying novel, rapid, and concrete solutions
for control and prevention. Edible vaccines pose an interesting alternative that could overcome
some of the constraints of traditional vaccines. The term “edible vaccine” refers to the use of edible
parts of a plant that has been genetically modified to produce specific components of a particular
pathogen to generate protection against a disease. The aim of this review is to present and critically
examine “edible vaccines” as an option for global immunization against pathogenic diseases and
their outbreaks and to discuss the necessary steps for their production and control and the list of
plants that may already be used as edible vaccines. Additionally, this review discusses the required
standards and ethical regulations as well as the advantages and disadvantages associated with this
powerful biotechnology tool.
Keywords: edible vaccine; medicinal food; genetic modification; immunogenicity; disease outbreaks;
food biotechnology
1. Introduction: The Current State of Vaccination
Infectious diseases account for more than 54% of total mortality in developing countries, where
vaccines are the most effective means of prevention [1,2]. Vaccination is a relatively new process that
was introduced approximately 200 years ago with the purpose of delivering a minimum dose of a
disease-causing pathogen to induce a humoral or cellular immune reaction without subjecting the
individual to the risk of true infection [3–6]. Diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, tuberculosis, and
poliomyelitis have been controlled by massive vaccination campaigns [7].
Vaccine development is currently in an extremely dynamic phase, and vaccines are safer and more
effective than ever. However, to achieve the public health goals set by theWorld Health Organization
(WHO) for 2011–2020 [8], more people must benefit from vaccines that save lives and prevent old and
new diseases. In most countries, routine immunization programs now go beyond the traditional six
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14; doi:10.3390/vaccines5020014 www.mdpi.com/journal/vaccines
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 2 of 23
childhood vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, measles, polio, and tuberculosis [8];
vaccines to prevent hepatitis B, rubella, pneumococcal disease, and rotavirus have been included
in several traditional vaccination programs worldwide [8,9]. Over the next decade, it is expected
that a growing number of countries will use new vaccines, such as the human papillomavirus (HPV)
vaccine [9].
Despite the advantages of vaccination, limitations restricting the use of vaccines remain. Not all
pathogenic agents can be cultivated in an exogenous medium and, due to their highly pathogenic
features, the cultivation of some agents demands biosecurity and biosafety infrastructures that are
difficult for some countries to afford. Consequently, the production of certain vaccines remains costly
and restricted in numerous countries, thus generating an undesirable dependence on hygiene [9].
Another restrictive factor is that, although the attenuation of bacteria or viruses involves very controlled
processes, the possibility that these pathogens could revert to their original pathogenic form must
be considered [10]. Additionally, the highly specified expiration time and refrigeration requirements
inherent to nearly all commercial vaccines demand constant attention to the pathogen contained in
such vaccines, thus increasing control, storage, and distribution costs [7]. Vaccine degradation after
acid digestion in the stomach is another concern [11].
Recognizing these limitations and exploiting advances in recombinant DNA technology,
Mason et al. succeeded in expressing a surface antigen from hepatitis B in tobacco plants [12]. This
finding immediately suggested that plants were potentially effective vectors for the production of
vaccines to prevent diseases, giving rise to the concept of “edible vaccines,” a term coined in 1990 by
Charles Arntzen [13]. However, the development of edible vaccines remains in its infancy, and various
medical, legal, ethical, and environmental uncertainties have emerged [7]. The aim of this review is to
provide an overview of edible vaccines to assess their potential as real functional foods for helping
to control and prevent pathogenic diseases and outbreaks in remote areas and on longer time scales.
Moreover, this overview discusses the types of edible vaccines, how they are developed and evaluated,
their advantages, disadvantages, challenges for their producers, consumer populations, and vaccine
distributors. Finally, because most edible vaccines currently being developed and tested in animals are
not for diseases associated with recent outbreaks, the feasibility of expanding edible vaccines studies
to those diseases with more recent outbreaks is discussed.
2. The Problem of Infectious Diseases and their Outbreaks
In the early twentieth century, infectious diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms were
the main source of mortality worldwide [6,14]. Although the lethality of infectious diseases has
decreased due to the use of different control agents and the application of sanitary measures, such as
vaccination [6,7], recent outbreaks of pathogens have occurred in different parts of the world [15–17].
These outbreaks are associated with the relaxation of certain levels of hygiene control; overcrowding
of cities, which tends to perpetuate certain diseases; the presence of factors that decrease the ability of
each individual to confront pathogens; and the growing mobility of the world’s population to locations
where infectious diseases have not existed previously [18], causing unexpected consequences for the
entire global health system. For example, after 25 years without any positive case, an outbreak of
measles recently occurred in Chile [19]. Another measles outbreak occurred in the United States, with
700 cases in 2014 and 171 cases in 2015 [17]. In both of these outbreaks, a person who returned from a
country where the disease is active was the triggering factor, revealing the new threat associated with
aerial mobility. Moreover, in recent years, increasing vaccine-hesitant parents has risen around the
world for diverse reasons, ranging from objections to buying pharmaceutical products to religious
ideologies or simply as a fashionable practice [20]. It is particularly instructive to observe a recent case
of a Spanish child who was infected with diphtheria (Corynebacterium diphtheriae), a disease considered
“extremely rare” in Spain that is still circulating in Russia and other former Soviet republics [16,21]. In
this case, the parents had voluntarily decided not to vaccinate their two children against this bacterium,
citing misinformation about the harms of vaccination in children [22]. Outbreaks of infectious diseases
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 3 of 23
observed in the last decade have not only occurred in countries with food and health requirements
that historically have been affected by this phenomenon but are also increasingly affecting countries
with consolidated health systems [8], demonstrating the need for effective prevention strategies to stop
the worldwide emergence of new pandemics and serving as a reminder that only one disease has been
eradicated so far: smallpox.
Table 1 shows the most recent outbreaks of diseases occurring around the world since 2010,
highlighting the number of countries affected by these outbreaks, years of outbreaks, and edible
vaccines already tested in animals. Zika virus was the most mobile disease in terms of countries,
affecting 29 nations in the last six years (Table 1). Only three diseases with recent outbreaks have an
edible vaccine that has been tested in animals but not yet in humans. A more detailed description of
disease outbreaks that have occurred since 2010, divided by continents, epidemiological agents, and
time of year of the outbreak, is presented in Supplementary Materials Table S1.
Table 1. Onset of outbreak of infectious diseases around the world over the last six years
(until September 2016) according theWorld Health Organization (WHO) [15–18]. Data are presented
by continent, country, disease, and year of outbreak.
Infectious Diseases Number of
Countries Affected
Year(s) of Outbreak
Occurrence (Since 2010)
Edible Vaccines Already Tested in
Animals (Not Humans)
Zika 29 2015, 2016
Poliomyelitis 19 2010, 2011, 2013 to 2016
Measles 17 2010, 2011, 2013 to 2015
Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) 15 2012 to 2016 Tomato [23], Corn [24–26]
Ebola 12 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015
Yellow fever 12 2010 to 2013, 2016
Cholera 8 2010 to 2013, 2015 Potato [27], Tomato [28], Algae [29]
Lassa fever 7 2012, 2015, 2016
Chikungunya 6 2014, 2015, 2016
Dengue 5 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016
Avian influenza, H5N1 virus 5 2010 to 2014
Rift Valley fever 4 2010, 2012, 2016
West Nile virus 3 2011, 2014, 2015
Microcephaly 3 2015, 2016
Meningococcal disease 2 2010, 2015
Plagues (bubonic, pneumonic) 2 2010, 2015
Rubella 2 2014, 2015 Tomato [23]
Monkeypox 1 2016
Marburg hemorrhagic fever 1 2012
Typhoid fever 1 2015
Hantavirus 1 2012
Enterovirus D68 1 2014
Elizabethkingia 1 2016
Oropouche virus 1 2016
Avian influenza, H7N9 virus 1 2013 to 2016
Avian influenza, H5N6 virus 1 2014 to 2016
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever 1 2010
Hemolytic uremic syndrome 1 2011
Diphtheria 1 2015
Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli 1 2016
The limited number of edible vaccines developed for recent outbreaks raises questions about
whether it is time to expand edible vaccine studies to those diseases with more recent outbreaks, which
warrants a deeper investigation of the current state of edible vaccines.
3. Edible Vaccines: What Are They and How Do They Work?
The information outlined above highlights the importance of identifying novel, rapid, and
concrete solutions for control and prevention. Edible vaccines are of interest as alternative methods
of vaccination; as the name suggests, these are foods that provide nourishment in terms of vitamins,
proteins, and other nutritional qualities that also act as vaccines to immunize the consumer against a
certain disease.
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 4 of 23
Edible vaccines include all vaccines that are produced in a type of edible format (i.e., part of a
plant, its fruit, or subproducts derived from that plant) that, upon oral ingestion, stimulate the immune
system [5,7,30]. It is worth mentioning that edible does not necessarily mean nutritious, tasty, or
organoleptically pleasing, since edible vaccines need only be safe (non-toxic) for human consumption.
To create an edible vaccine, the information necessary to produce an antigenic protein must be
introduced into the plant of interest by genetic engineering techniques (Figure 1). Once an individual
consumes an edible vaccine, the outer wall of plant cells protects the antigens from degradation by
gastric secretion, allowing the antigens to be delivered to the intestinal mucosal surfaces, where they
are absorbed by different mechanisms in order to stimulate a strong and specific immune response [31].
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 5 of 23
autoimmune diseases, based on the selective activation of the autoimmune system to teach the body
to tolerate antigenic proteins [38]. Therefore, oral administration of autoantigens could induce
tolerance [44].
Figure 1. Procedures involved in obtaining an edible vaccine and an immune response. Edible vaccine
development begins with the identification of the gene encoding the antigenic protein and its
introduction into the plant that will process the food (edible vaccines), which can then potentially be
distributed globally. After an edible vaccine has been consumed, and the subsequent passage of the
antigenic protein through the M cells specialized in the delivery of antigens to dendritic cells, the
individual’s immune system triggers a response involving B cells and T helper cells as the main
factors. For simplicity, other routes of antigen delivery have been omitted. This figure was adapted
from the work of Langridge [4].
How Are Edible Vaccines Developed?
The mechanisms of edible vaccines involve a series of general principles. The first step consists
of the identification, isolation, and characterization of the antigen of interest [48,49]. This antigen
must elicit a strong specific immune response [7,30,50]. If the latter criterion is met, the gene encoding
for this antigen must be cloned into a transfer vector carrying an antibiotic-resistance gene, followed
by transformation of the plant of interest. Plant viral vectors appear to be the most promising for
expressing foreign proteins in plants [51]. Plant transformation is attained by different methodologies
[13,52]. One of the most commonly used methods for efficiently transferring recombinant DNA into
plant cells involves the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens [4,52,53]. An Agrobacterium strain has
been designed to eliminate virulent genes that produce a tumor growing at the base of plants while
retaining the genes involved in efficient DNA transfer. The tumor DNA (T-DNA) is contained in a
plasmid called the Ti plasmid [53]. The sequence of interest (pathogen) is then inserted into T-DNA
to produce the antigenic protein [7,53]. Once the transgene (T-DNA + antigen DNA) is integrated into
the plant genome, the sequence should be expressed and inherited in a typical Mendelian fashion
[54,55], following permanent or temporary (transient) expression of the antigen of interest in the plant
or fruit [50]. Later, this genetic line may be propagated by vegetative methods (cutting) or seeds
arising from asexual reproduction [56]. This technology is time-consuming, and the scientific
Figure 1. Procedures involved in obtaining an edible vaccine and an immune response. Edible
vaccine development begins with the identification of the gene encoding the antigenic protein and
its introduction into the plant that will process the food (edible vaccines), which can then potentially
be distributed globally. After an edible vaccine has been consumed, and the subsequent passage of
the antigenic protein through the M cells specialized in the delivery of antigens to dendritic cells, the
individual’s immune system triggers a response involving B cells and T helper cells as the main factors.
For simplicity, other routes of antigen delivery have been omitted. This figure was adapted from the
work of Langridge [4].
One of the main routes of antigen capture at the intestinal level is through Microfold (M) cells. M
cells represent a small number of specialized follicular-associated epithelium (FAE) enterocytes found
primarily in the gastrointestinal tract. These cells efficiently capture a wide variety of macromolecules
and microorganisms from the lumen of the small intestine to submucosal antigen-presenting
cells (APCs) on Peyer’s patches [32]. Among APCs, dendritic cells (DCs) are the most potent
antigen-presenting cells in priming naïve T cells to initiate an adaptive immune response [33]. DCs
in steady state are found in an immature stage, characterized by high endocytic activity and a low
capability to prime naïve T cells. However, under inflammatory conditions, DCs mature, increasing
the expression of co-stimulatory molecules and migrating to T-cell-rich zones in lymph nodes. There,
they present antigens together with the release of cytokines facilitating the differentiation of naïve
antigen-specific T cells into effector cells and their migration to the specific site of inflammation [34].
Interestingly, intestinal DCs can promote the activation of naïve T cells and the differentiation to
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 5 of 23
follicular T helper cells (Tfh) either by directly promoting Tfh differentiation or indirect by promoting
Th17 cells that later will become Tfh [35,36]. Tfh cells specifically promote the activation of follicular
B cells and the generation of IgG and IgA-secreting plasma cells [37]. Then, these activated B cells
leave the lymphoid follicles and migrate to the mucosa associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), where
plasma cells secreting immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies are found [4,38]. These IgA antibodies are
transported across epithelial cells in secretions to the lumen, where they can interact with antigens [38].
It has been recently shown that DCs are critically important in IgA class switching and secretion in
B cells [39]. Moreover, DCs can directly capture luminal antigens by projecting dendrites through
the epithelial cell layer and into the lumen [40]. Another recent mechanism of antigen capture in the
small intestine involved goblet cells, a cell type involved in the production of mucins. By intravital
microscopy it was shown that goblet cells can directly capture and deliver antigens to intestinal
DCs [41]. An efficient, edible vaccine will stimulate specific T and B cell responses, which will
promote long-lasting memory cells for subsequent encounters in which the antigen is presented in
the course of an actual infection [4,38]. However, one of the debates about the oral administration
of vaccines has been the development of “oral tolerance”, referring to the phenomenon mediated by
T cells that involves a decrease in the specific immune response to antigens previously encountered
through the oral route [42,43]. In the intestinal immune system, the release of antigens occurs in
the absence of inflammation (because antigen presentation is not mediated by adjuvants that induce
this inflammation), where the antigens are presented to T cells by immature dendritic cells, inducing
tolerance [44]. This occurs by the secretion of cytokines, such as IL-10, or by direct cell-to-cell contact,
where regulatory T cells interfere with the maturation of dendritic cells, altering their tolerogenic
function [44]. Repeated administration of antigens in the mucosa may even result in the suppression
of the humoral immune response [45], and it remains difficult to generate vaccines with stable
concentrations of antigen in transgenic plants. Recent studies have applied different strategies to
overcome this problem. For example, Kesik-Brodacka et al. use hepatitis B virus (HBV) core protein
(HBcAg) as a carrier of the antigen to induce immunogenicity, with promising results [46]. Other
strategies involve intramuscular priming before the delivery of the edible vaccine [47]. However,
more studies are necessary to efficiently overcome this problem. Alternatively, these particular issues
provide the basis for the introduction of edible vaccines in solving problems of autoimmune diseases,
based on the selective activation of the autoimmune system to teach the body to tolerate antigenic
proteins [38]. Therefore, oral administration of autoantigens could induce tolerance [44].
How Are Edible Vaccines Developed?
The mechanisms of edible vaccines involve a series of general principles. The first step consists of
the identification, isolation, and characterization of the antigen of interest [48,49]. This antigen
must elicit a strong specific immune response [7,30,50]. If the latter criterion is met, the gene
encoding for this antigen must be cloned into a transfer vector carrying an antibiotic-resistance
gene, followed by transformation of the plant of interest. Plant viral vectors appear to be the
most promising for expressing foreign proteins in plants [51]. Plant transformation is attained by
different methodologies [13,52]. One of the most commonly used methods for efficiently transferring
recombinant DNA into plant cells involves the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens [4,52,53]. An
Agrobacterium strain has been designed to eliminate virulent genes that produce a tumor growing at the
base of plants while retaining the genes involved in efficient DNA transfer. The tumor DNA (T-DNA)
is contained in a plasmid called the Ti plasmid [53]. The sequence of interest (pathogen) is then
inserted into T-DNA to produce the antigenic protein [7,53]. Once the transgene (T-DNA + antigen
DNA) is integrated into the plant genome, the sequence should be expressed and inherited in a typical
Mendelian fashion [54,55], following permanent or temporary (transient) expression of the antigen of
interest in the plant or fruit [50]. Later, this genetic line may be propagated by vegetative methods
(cutting) or seeds arising from asexual reproduction [56]. This technology is time-consuming, and
the scientific infrastructure costs can be a barrier for massive production, especially in low-income
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 6 of 23
countries [57–59]. However, transient transformation using either Agrobacterium or viral vectors is
robust, less time-consuming, easier to manipulate, and offers better opportunities for the industrial
production of vaccines or vaccine-related products in a short time [57]. A limitation of transient
transformation is that transformation must be repeated if new plant products are required [57,58].
Ultimately, both transformation systems have their advantages and disadvantages, and the selection
of one of these systems depends on the long-term aims and/or urgency of implementing vaccination.
However, the genetic transformation process is not a trivial event. Some agronomically important
species (for example, soybeans and most cereal grains) strongly resist Agrobacterium transformation.
For such plants, a bioballistic method (micromissile bombing) is commonly used, in which gold
microparticles are coated with DNA and then blasted into the vegetables using compressed helium
gas to attain random transgenic incorporation into the target plant’s chromosomal DNA [54]. Due to
the random nature of the insertion, there is variability in the percentage of the genetic transformation
achieved, and post-transformation diligence is required to select the most vigorous and stable
transgenic lines.
Bioballistic methods are also a very efficient alternative when the objective is the plant chloroplast,
since more than one copy of the gene of interest can be integrated, thus improving the efficiency of
protein expression [60,61]. In addition, because plastids are not contained in the pollen of most plant
species, public acceptance of chloroplast-based transformation seems promising [62]. As mentioned
above, edible vaccines can also be generated using viral vectors for expression, by infecting a plant
with a virus that is able to replicate independently and transcribe and translate a recombinant protein
inserted into the virus genome that corresponds to a characteristic epitope of another pathogenic
agent, whether it be from animals or humans [61,63,64]. The system is very efficient [53,61,63] since the
soluble protein is not only expressed in the host plant cells but may also be fused to the capsid of the
virus and multiply each time the virus replicates [61]. One of the first edible vaccines developed using
the viral vector methodology was a virion that expressed malarial epitopes on its surface [63,65]; other
viruses that have been used include the potato virus, the bamboo mosaic virus, the papaya mosaic
virus, and the cowpea mosaic virus [51,63,66]. The final step is the oral administration of the vaccine,
whether through direct consumption of the part of the plant that contains the vaccine or by ingesting
the part of the plant that carries the vaccine in concentrated pill form. However, as we discussed in
the previous section, immune tolerance is a potential problem for edible vaccines, and thus, in order
to overcome this immune tolerance, increased concentrations of antigen are needed in the vaccine to
stimulate a strong immune response [3,67]. In fact, studies in the potato in 2005 showed that, although
vaccine parenteral administration requires a dose of 40 g of HBsAg (surface antigen of hepatitis B),
oral vaccines require at least three doses of 100 g of potatoes containing a dose of 1 mg of HBsAg to be
partially effective [63]. Better results have been obtained through production by viral vectors of up to
295 g of protein in 1 g of fresh weight of plant tissue [68].
Due to the difficulty of achieving stable vaccine production, compound systems have been
developed to generate more stable protein concentration yields in plant tissue systems. These systems
combine the integration of Agrobacterium DNA with high protein expression of the plant RNA virus
and posttranslational capabilities of a plant; this system is called a “launch vector” [69]. In this system,
the -1-3 1-4 glucanase (lichenase) thermostable enzyme, which is stable up to 65 C, is used as a carrier
to enhance stability and protein expression [69,70]. Transient expression using vector methodologies
based on viruses or agroinfection in specific parts of a plant can facilitate stabilization via convenience
and speed; both viral vectors and systems based on Agrobacterium infiltration can produce large
amounts of protein in the days after the initial molecular cloning event, in contrast to months for
the development of plant and transgene expression [63,71]. The system based on viral vectors not
only enables the expression of the antigenic protein in the particular plant tissue more quickly and
efficiently but also results in higher protein concentrations due to expression of this protein in the
virus structure that is replicated [72]. First-generation viral vectors retain infectivity in the plant but
have raised safety concerns. Second-generation viral vectors maintain a minimum of viral elements
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 7 of 23
required for replication of the vector, and most DNA delivery to the target plant is via non-viral
elements [73]. The latter are called viral “deconstructed” vectors and deliver higher performance than
the full virus [73–75]. These types of vectors have been used as an expression system for monoclonal
antibodies due to their high and stable levels of protein expression in plant tissue [76–78]. An example
of this is the production of antibodies for West Nile virus in Nicotiana benthamiana developed by
agroinfiltration [77].
4. Edible Vaccine Advantages and Disadvantages
During the past 10 years, many studies have been conducted regarding the potential to express
antigens in the edible parts of plants, with very promising results [62,79–87]. It appears possible that
this type of oral immunization may become a realistic main strategy in significantly preventing
devastating diseases, particularly in low-income countries [13]. Moreover, edible vaccines do
not require an extensive framework for their production, purification, sterilization, packaging, or
distribution, reducing costs in the long term compared to traditional vaccines [7,50,88,89]. Furthermore,
the distribution and maintenance of the vaccine are easier than for conventional vaccines, enabling
application of a form of immunization worldwide without the constant cold chains used to preserve
conventional vaccines [10,38]. Consumption of a raw material is another advantage of plant-based
vaccines that reduces the cost of processing and purification of antigens [90] as well as the potential
degradation of antigens by the gastrointestinal tract due to the protective role of plant cells inside the
stomach [91]. Antigen expression in seeds allows maintenance and stability for longer periods, another
advantage of edible vaccines [91].
Although edible vaccines are presented as a lower-cost option from a strategic point of view
after production of the transgenic plant, this statement is not strictly true. While the administration
of an edible vaccine is less complex than conventional vaccine administration because of the use
of the oral route, the costs associated with the development and distribution of edible vaccines is a
complex issue, particularly for the storage and maintenance of transgenic plants [92–94]. Additionally,
control, purification, and biosafety are the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies, which involves
additional costs and presents a barrier to the development of vaccines by small- and medium-size
pharmaceutical companies [95]. In that sense, edible vaccines appear to be more promising in terms of
animal vaccination [4,5,96], although the quality and safety of raw plant materials need to be assured.
Another limitation of edible vaccines is the uncertainty related to the calculation of adequate oral
administration dosage, which may require several rounds of administration, increasing the final cost
of its application [97,98]. As long as the production costs remain high and a proper estimation of
necessary antigen concentration remains unresolved, the future of edible vaccines will be as uncertain
as that of traditional oral vaccines.
Despite these issues, the potential of edible vaccines for immunization is undisputed. A notable
example is the outbreak of Ebola virus in Africa in mid-2014, which caused a great number of casualties.
No vaccine or globally tested treatment against Ebola virus is available [15]. Nicotiana benthamiana
plants were used to transiently express three monoclonal antibodies that recognize Ebola virus surface
glycoproteins isolated from individuals who survived Ebola infections [99], demonstrating that
plants can be effectively used as biopharmacies. The development of an edible vaccine against
this lethal disease would be extremely helpful (once the viral antigen that triggers an effective
immune response has been identified) in regions where the transportation and delivery of conventional
vaccines are difficult. The goal would be to deliver not only vaccines but also “pharmafood”. The
objective in creating a vaccine as a food is to create a food source to reinforce health, particularly in
underdeveloped countries, where it is difficult to obtain treatments that require complex equipment for
their development or conventional vaccines that are difficult to store and transport. However, increased
developmental research is essential, as is the need to develop essential legislation as soon as possible,
before mass production occurs. Among other concerns, overconsumption of these plants bearing
antigens that stimulate the immune system might produce overstimulation of the immune system
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 8 of 23
itself. Moreover, the secondary effects of antigen ingestion should be more thoroughly investigated
over the long term, similar to the production of traditional vaccines [100]. Another important factor to
be considered is the site where edible vaccine-producing plants are grown. Absolute control should be
exercised to protect the environment where such plants are grown to avoid the loss of seeds or pollen
during plant removal. The presence of pesticide residues and secondary or toxic metabolites in the
plants may pose a major problem [13]. Post-production of the transgenic plant, the risks associated with
the use of this plant and its crop are directed to the spread of pollen, seed dispersal, possible horizontal
gene transfer, and protein toxicity in herbivores [53]. Contact with insects and release of contaminated
water into the environment are also possible mechanisms of transgene escape, though the escape
of genes into a food chain is a more serious concern that cannot be underestimated. However, the
likelihood and severity of each risk depends on the plant species and the antigen for each vaccine
in transgenic plants [73]. Another important point is that, although, in principle, the development
of an edible vaccine has been presented as a solution for the stimulation of the immune response
based on the ingestion of a portion of a plant, the process presents difficulties in standardizing antigen
concentrations in different plant tissues [48]. The prime difficulty lies with the plants’ inherent genetic
variability, even in plants propagated by in vitro asexual conditions (e.g., somaclonal variation). Here,
factors such as growth and fruit development, type ,and texture of eatable leaves or roots might
influence the availability of antigens [101]. Nonetheless, future prospects also include the possibility
of generating vaccines in unicellular green algae, which have many of the same advantages as land
plants but much simpler handling and faster mass production [102]. Commercialization of edible
vaccine-producing plants might face problems in countries that do not allow transgenic food sales or
are not willing to allow the entry or consumption of plants (or parts of plants) that produce edible
vaccines. However, the pros and cons of edible vaccines are not restricted to legislation and distribution,
as shown by Jacob et al. [96] and Waheed et al. [62], who have presented general summaries of the
advantages and disadvantages of edible vaccines.
5. Plants Already Transformed for Use as Edible Vaccines
Most plants studied as edible vaccines have been transformed to express antigens for rotavirus,
cholera, gastroenteritis, autoimmune diseases, or rabies [53]. Additionally, most studies have
used potatoes for cultivation, but potatoes may not be the best choice for edible vaccines because
cooking or boiling may destroy most of the antigenic proteins. Other plants, such as tomatoes, corn,
tobacco, bananas, carrots, and peanuts, have a more promising future as edible vaccines, not due to
their widespread use but due to the successful development and testing of genetic transformation
methods [7,53].
The plant checklist that follows presents developed edible vaccines that have already been
tested in animals and whose use is expected to be authorized in both human and animal medicine.
A summary of this checklist is presented in Table 2.
5.1. Potatoes
Mason et al. conducted the first assay based on a vaccine produced in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)
to combat enteritis produced by Escherichia coli strain LT-B in mice [103]. That same year, the
effectiveness of antigens produced by potatoes against the pathogen from Norwalk virus capsid
and the non-toxic subunit (CT-B) of Vibrio cholerae enterotoxin was demonstrated in rats and human
volunteers [27,104]. Tacket’s second-phase clinical assay (Phase I considered patients previously
vaccinated) involved the study of human immune responses to Norwalk virus capsid expressed in
potatoes, with 95% (19 out of 20 volunteers) developing a type of immune response. However, a
significant increment was not always obtained [56]. In 2005, Thanavalas’s group proposed that the
potato might have a role as an oral reinforcement to the hepatitis B injectable vaccine in humans [85].
Moreover, edible vaccines have also been developed as an oral reinforcement to injectable vaccines
for animal protection. For example, an edible vaccine was developed in potatoes to protect minks
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 9 of 23
from diseases caused by mink enteritis virus (MEV) [105]. In wild rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus),
immunization via potatoes producing the protein VP60 provided protection against infection produced
by rabbit hemorrhagic virus (RHDV) [106].
5.2. Tobacco
First, we want to highlight that tobacco per se is not an edible plant; rather, it is used as a
proof-of-concept model species for edible vaccine development. Thus, in 1996, in parallel with the
potato studies, transgenic tobacco (Nicotiana benthamiana) plants expressing a protein from Norwalk
virus capsid that produces gastroenteritis were developed [50,53,107] and resulted in antibody,
specifically IgA and IgG, development in rats [50,108]. In 2007, transgenic tobacco expressing the
virus VP1 protein from chicken infectious anemia was reported [109]. Other studies in tobacco
have demonstrated the ability to express a polypeptide associated with hepatitis B [50]. In this
study, it was feasible to stimulate a humoral immune response that produced the HBsAg; such
stimulation evoked higher blood T-cell counts, and these results were used to calculate correlations
of the immunoglobulin A and G humoral responses with the corresponding vaccine dose [50,110].
Gómez et al. [111] endeavored to more effectively express the virus antigen in transgenic tobacco.
In 2012, transgenic tobacco plants expressing HPAIV H5N1 from avian flu virus gave rise to IgG
stimulation when tested in rats [112,113]. Recently, transgenic tobacco plants expressing a protein
from Eimeria tenella, the agent that causes coccidiosis [84], and transgenic tobacco plants to combat
anthrax [114] were reported. In the latter, the tobacco expressed a protective antigen (PA) that resulted
in elevated serum IgA and IgG in murine models.
5.3. Tomatoes
An effective vaccine candidate against the coronavirus that causes a highly acute respiratory
syndrome (SARS) was developed in the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), [23]. A study in 2006
showed that tomatoes expressing the Norwalk surface virus protein that were dried outdoors
instead of lyophilized before consumption by rats provided immune protection superior to that
of potatoes [50,115]. Tomatoes have also been used to express CT-B protein from Vibrio cholerae B toxin,
as supported by ELISA andWestern blot analysis in leaves, stems, fruits, and other tissues [28]. HBsAg
has recently been produced in tomatoes of the Megha variety, as confirmed by qRT-PCR and ELISA, the
first report of stable expression of an antigen in tomatoes [50,116,117]. In 2008, human beta-amyloid
was expressed in the tomato as a potential vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease [118]. Another study of
transgenic tomatoes included the fusion antigen F1-V from Yersinia pestis, a bacterium that is highly
pathogenic and causes pneumonic, septicemic, and bubonic plagues [79]. In short, given the wide
possibility of indoor as well as outdoor cultivation, tomatoes are currently one of the foods with the
greatest potential for use as an edible vaccine.
5.4. Lettuce
Experiments focusing on lettuce (Lactuca sativa) plants expressing the B subunit of the thermolabile
protein of E. coli, which is responsible for enteric diseases both in humans and animals, indicate that this
vegetable may be a potential edible vaccine. In this experiment, approximately 2% of the total protein
detected in the leaves corresponded to the antigen [119]. In 2005, lettuce expressing glycoprotein E2 of
the classical swine fear hog pest virus was developed [72]. In Poland, transgenic lettuce plants that
produce effects against hepatitis B virus are in the first phase of development [120]. Because this food
is mainly consumed raw, it has the greatest potential to be used as an edible vaccine.
5.5. Rice
A study in 2007 showed that transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) plants expressing the B subunit of E. coli
induce a considerable amount of antibodies against this subunit [121]. In the same year, transgenic
rice expressing the VP2 antigenic protein from infectious bursitis was shown to induce an immune
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 10 of 23
response in chickens [86]. In 2008, functional expression of HBsAg in rice seeds was confirmed by PCR
and Southern blot analyses [122]. Furthermore, in 2008, transgenic rice was produced in parallel to
express the B subunit of the E. coli thermolabile toxin using the bioballistic approach to transform the
plant cells; the expression was verified by PCR [123]. World rice production for 2016/2017 is estimated
to be 480 million metric tons, and China and India (the two countries with the largest populations in
the world) will produce and consume almost half of that annual production [124]. Thus, any vaccine
developed using this plant will have a huge impact on the public health systems not only of these two
countries but also other nations where rice is an important part of the daily diet.
5.6. Carrots
Transgenic carrots (Daucus carota) expressing the B subunit from E. coli thermolabile toxin induced
IgA and IgG production, and occurred at the intestinal and systemic levels in rats [125]. In 2010, the
UreB subunit of Helicobacter pylori in transgenic carrots was reported to have potential use as a possible
vaccine [126]. Carrots, along with A. thaliana, were also utilized in experimental edible vaccines for
surface HIV antigen expression, and studies performed in rats showed more positive effects in treated
animals compared to non-treated animals [81]. The utilization of carrots to treat HIV appears promising
not only because carrots are healthy and delicious but also because the consumption of carrot-derived
carotenoids increases lymphocytes, monocytes and other immune defenders in rats [127]. Thus,
people with weakened immune systems might benefit from consuming this potentially edible anti-HIV
vaccine. Studies in humans must be conducted to confirm the potential of these vaccines.
5.7. Soybeans
B subunit expression studies of E. coli thermolabile toxin were conducted in the soybean
(Glycine max) endoplasmic reticulum, in which a total antigen level of up to 2.4% of the soy seeds’ total
protein was obtained without producing any instability during seed drying for further processing
treatment; moreover, oral consumption by rats led to increases in systemic IgA and IgG levels [82].
5.8. Alfalfa
In 1999, successful oral immunization was achieved against virulent foot-and-mouth disease
(FMDV) in rats, providing the first evidence that long protein chains can be successfully produced using
only raw extracts when sufficient plant quantities are utilized [128]. Transgenic alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
expressing the antigen eBRV4 from VP4 of hog rotavirus (BVR) was subsequently used as an edible
vaccine in a veterinary environment [129]. In 2005, transgenic alfalfa plants were developed to express
hog pest virus glycoprotein E2 [72]. In 2009, transgenic alfalfa development was reported in which
alfalfa expressed the C protein from the capsid virus, which causes poultry infections. The same
antigen was developed in other plants, for example, A. thaliana [86,130]. In another alfalfa study,
Eeg95-EgA31 of Echinococcus granulosus was expressed. This protein was purified and was also
delivered directly from the leaves to the target organism [131], confirming the huge potential of this
plant for veterinary purposes.
5.9. Corn
In 2012, transgenic corn (Zea mays) plants expressing rabies virus antigenic glycoproteins showed
quite promising results as an edible vaccine for both humans and animals [13,85]. Promising results
have been obtained in relation to the development of vaccines against transmissible gastroenteritis
coronavirus (TGEV) in pigs [24–26]. Studies using transgenic corn as a vaccine showed that 50% of
treated pigs developed diarrhea, in contrast to 75% of pigs not treated with the vaccine. The study
concluded that the transgenic corn conferred partial protection to piglets against clinical disease and
experimental challenge with the pathogen [25,26]. In other studies, oral feeding with transgenic corn
expressing the fusion protein of the Newcastle disease virus (NDV) produced immunogenic effects
and conferred protective immunity in poultry [26,132].
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 11 of 23
5.10. Papaya
A vaccine based on papaya (Carica papaya) fruit was produced in 2007 by expressing synthetic
peptides in 19 transgenic papaya clones to combat cysticercosis caused by Taenia solium. This vaccine
was tested in rats, and 90% of treated rats showed an immunogenic response [80]. These edible
vaccines could provide sweet relief in both humans and pigs, the main two disease carriers, but have
not been tested in these systems.
5.11. Quinoa
In 2012, an edible vaccine was developed by expressing the VP2 antigen from infectious bursitis
virus in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). The vaccine was developed for poultry veterinary medicine [133].
5.12. Bananas
The expression of HBsAg has been reported in banana plants using four different expression
cassettes (PHB, PHER, pEFEHBS, and pEFEHER). Expression was studied at various levels using PCR,
Southern hybridization and reverse transcription PCR. The expression levels in the crop plants reached
a peak of 19.92 ng/g, and the antigen was present in the leaves of the plant [134,135]. However, the
use of this vaccine was rejected due to the long periods of time that it takes for the tree to develop.
5.13. Peas
This transgenic plant was developed based on the expression of a capsid protein of Norwalk
virus. Protein accumulation of up to 8% of the soluble protein was observed in the unripened fruit,
with lower accumulation in red ripened fruits [98,115]. Expression in plant seeds allowed storage of
the antigenic peptide and thus generated a plant with a high yield of protein expression; the protein
content was estimated at 20% to 40% [98,115], and thus extraction of the pharmaceuticals would not
require extensive purification procedures [98].
Pea plants have also been used for expression of the hemagglutinin protein (H), a PA against
rinderpest virus. The level of expression was determined by Western Blot and was observed to be
between 0.12% to 49% of the total soluble protein in leaves [98,136]. Thus, further studies to optimize
protein expression in transgenic peas are needed.
5.14. Apples
The gene encoding the F protein of human respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)-F was constitutively
expressed in apple leaves using the CaMV35S promoter. Protein expression was considered stable and
corresponded to 20 mg/g of plant tissue [137].
5.15. Cherry Tomatillos
Lines of transgenic cherry tomatillos were developed for the HBsAg gene of hepatitis B. Gene
expression was observed throughout the plant but was highest in the leaves, reaching 300 ng/g fresh
weight, with 10 ng/g fresh weight in fresh fruit. Significant immune system activation was observed
in rodents [138].
5.16. Algae
The green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii has been used as a model to produce large amounts
of proteins related to therapeutic processes in both humans and animals [139]. The use of algae for
vaccine production seems promising because algae have a very fast growth rate, their entire structures
can be used as a raw material to produce edible vaccines, and there are no limitations in terms of
habitat (sea farms) or aspects related to fertility [140]. Moreover, there are no negative concerns
about cross-contamination with other field crops [102]. Additionally, algae can be cultivated in
bioreactors [141] to further accelerate their already fast growth. Importantly, algal vaccine effectiveness
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 12 of 23
is unaltered after lyophilization, which may facilitate the global distribution of edible vaccines made
from algae [142,143]. In particular, the model alga C. reinhardtii contains only one chloroplast, increasing
the stability of algal lines expressing the desired antigens [144].
Table 2. List of plants studied as edible vaccines. The checklist is organized by year, since 1998
until today.
Year Plant Disease or Infectious Agent Antigen References
1998 Potato Enteritis produced by Escherichia col – [103]
1998 Potato Norwalk virus capsid – [104]
1998 Potato Non-toxic subunit (CT-B) of Vibrio
cholerae enterotoxin – [27]
1998 Potato Rabbit hemorrhagic Protein VP60 [106]
2003 Algae Foot-and-mouth disease virus Viral structural protein VP1 [29]
2003 Cherry tomatillo Hepatitis B HBsAg (surface protein of Hepatitis B) [138]
2003 Pea Rinderpest virus Hemagglutinin protein (H) [98,136]
2004 Alfalfa Hog rotavirus (BVR) Antigen eBRV4 [129]
2005 Banana Hepatitis B HBsAg (surface protein of Hepatitis B) [134,135]
2005 Lettuce Hog pest virus Glycoprotein E2 [72]
2005 Potato Hepatitis B – [72]
2005 Tomato Coronavirus – [23]
2006 Tomato Norwalk virus Surface protein [50,115]
2007 Algae Swine fever (CSFV) disease Surface protein E2 [102,145]
2007 Papaya Cysticercosis caused by Taenia solium Synthetic peptides [80]
2007 Rice Infectious bursitis VP2 protein [86]
2007 Tomato Vibrio cholerae B toxin CT-B protein [28]
2007 Tomato Hepatitis B HBsAg (surface protein of Hepatitis B) [50,116,117]
2007 Tobacco * Chicken infectious anemia Virus VP1 protein [109]
2008 Rice Hepatitis B HBsAg (surface protein of Hepatitis B) [122,123]
2010 Carrot Helicobacter pylori Subunidad UreB [126]
2010 Corn Rabies virus Antigen glycoproteins [13,85]
2012 Tobacco * Avian flu virus HPAIV H5N1 [112,113]
2012 Quinoa Infectious bursitis virus VP2 protein [133]
2014 Algae Diabetes Glutamic acid decarboxylase [102]
2014 Algae Human Papilloma Virus E7 protein [102]
2014 Algae Hepatitis B HBsAg (surface protein of Hepatitis B) [102]
* Although the tobacco plant is not a food, we have included it because it has been demonstrated that it can serve as
a pharma plant.
The first report of recombinant proteins produced in algae described the expression of both the
viral structural protein VP1 from foot-and-mouth disease virus and the -subunit of cholera toxin
(CTB) [29]. Superior results were obtained compared with previous expression in plants and testing in
mice by Wigdorovitz et al. [128]. A second report established the in vivo efficacy of algal immunity
for the first time. Specifically, the surface protein E2 of swine fever (CSFV) disease was expressed in
the C. reinhardtii chloroplast genome, and the isolated proteins provoked an immune response after
injection into swine. Unfortunately, no results of this assay were shown [102,145]. Other antigens,
including glutamic acid decarboxylase (a known autoimmune agent of diabetes), the E7 protein of
HPV, different fragments of proteins associated with Plasmodium (the agent that causes malaria), a
surface antigen of hepatitis B and a protein from the virus that causes white spot syndrome, were also
subsequently expressed in algae [102].
6. Current and Future Challenges
6.1. Current and Future Regulation of Edible Vaccine Production, Commercialization, and Copyright
As the primary research and reporting entity, theWorld Health Organization (WHO) assembled an
Expert Board to discuss the scientific basis for the regulation of human candidates for vaccines derived
from plants [146]. They concluded that the development of current vaccine lines and the evaluation and
use of vaccines obtained in the traditional fashion could also be applied to vaccines derived from plants,
although some specific topics related to production and waste have yet to be addressed [147]. In 2005,
the World Health Organization (WHO) delivered a report on the implementation of good agricultural
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 13 of 23
practices for the development of biopharmaceuticals. This report includes detailed information about
methods of quality control for medicinal plants, testing to assess identity and purity, and recommended
materials for plants in biopharmaceuticals [73,146]. It is important to highlight that vaccines that are
derived from current plants are being produced and clinically tested according to the United States
Investigational New Drug Research Application standards and good agrarian practices. This study
has been sponsored by the United States Agriculture Agency (USDA), the European Medicine Agency
(EMA), and the Cuba Regulatory Authority and has been announced at plant production conferences
on antibodies and vaccines in France in 2004 and in the Czech Republic in 2005 [55]. The USDA has
approved vaccines used in the veterinary field after reviewing and identifying the nature of the plant,
the likelihood of cross-contamination, and the genetic background of the plants used as a vaccine. The
USDA is also responsible for considering risks, taking into account physical and geographical aspects
and plant reproduction [73]. The EMA published a report in 2008 on the importance of the quality
of biologically active substances used for stable transgene expression in plants; this report mainly
refers to plants that stably express the transgene and does not include transient expression in plants.
Nonetheless, this report provides interesting ideas on the regulation of plant vaccines [73].
Because edible vaccines may be considered both food and medicine for some countries, regulatory
and research institutions such as the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have
been seeking to rectify this duality to evaluate and regulate edible vaccines as a combined product.
Furthermore, as a result of their physical features, edible vaccines are not suitable for regulation by
other means, as in the case of additives and pharmaceutical products. If a genetically modified product
is considered substantially equivalent to its natural counterpart, both are treated according to good
harvest and safety practice regulations. The antigen that is present in edible vaccines is considered a
chemical that does not comply with FDA rules concerning nutritional additives but is recognized as
non-GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe). Nevertheless, these vaccines, under the category of food,
would be included as a genetically modified food and thus are not considered a high health risk [148].
Due to this ambiguity, a legal void currently exists with respect to regulations for standardizing
edible vaccine commercialization. It is not yet clear what part of the vaccine discharges the antigen itself:
the transgenic modified fruits or the transgenic seeds [149]. In the presence of this legal uncertainty,
every country is expected to evaluate whether the entrance of edible vaccines (or the plants producing
them) is permitted.
Another remaining challenge to be overcome is identifying the most efficient method of vaccine
production, i.e., agroinfection, viral vectors, or another method that generates a constant antigen
concentration in the plant tissue, thus allowing large-scale production of the vaccine in question. The
optimal method will depend on the containment and culture methods required to generate large
quantities of a vaccine of this type. Among the methods mentioned above, the use of viral vectors is
seen as the method that has the greatest potential. However, the use of viral DNA, even deconstructed
(second generation of viral vectors) does not rule out the possibility that some mutation events occur
that totally or partially reestablish the infectious capacity of the virus. However, this possibility seems
remote since the only study that reported an apparent stimulation of the immune system by the
consumption of a plant virus (Pepper mild mottle virus), lacked a clinical demonstration confirming
that the detected symptoms corresponded to a pathogenic trait induced by this virus in the evaluated
patients [150].
On the other hand, the development of edible vaccines will inevitably lead to the development
of transgenic plants. As long as the studies are carried out on a laboratory scale, containment
measures to avoid the risk of transgene escape into the environment would be relatively well
covered by current biosafety standards. However, the development of large-scale “edible vaccines”
would involve containment measures that would address not only the potential transfer of genes by
hybridization to other wild plants, or the dispersal of pollen, but also the action of anti-transgenic
and/or anti-vaccination activists. Furthermore, consideration should also be given to avoid theft
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 14 of 23
of such foods, which could generate a problem of clandestine consumption where non-regulated
ingestion dosage could lead to possible intoxication in the population.
Another important issue mentioned above is related to the cost of vaccine production. In this
scenario, if costs are not reduced, the use of edible vaccines will be restricted. Therefore, to effectively
produce an antigen in a plant or plant tissue, to determine the effective formulation of the vaccine
including the correct adjuvants, and to establish an immunization regimen are three major challenges
that need to be solved prior to the application of edible vaccines in the clinical field.
Despite these restrictions, the current view regarding edible vaccines remains positive in that they
represent an important scientific development opportunity in the search for alternatives to immunize
the population [151]. The potential of longer shelf-life compared to traditional vaccines and the
vegetable origin of their coating matrix will facilitate mobilization of antigens from the mouth to the
intestines triggering the immune response there (Section 3, Figure 1). These are two important factors
that highlight the interest continuing to develop this type of non-traditional immunization system.
6.2. Ethical Aspects
The use of edible vaccines certainly raises ethical concerns, and one important concern is whether
the edible vaccines are consumed as foodstuff or medicines. Such vaccines will continue to be regarded
as genetically modified organisms, a term that alarms the majority of the population. For example, a
study performed in Malaysia showed that, although such vaccination might be a less expensive way
to vaccinate and prevent diseases, it was rejected outright due to the lack of familiarity with the topic.
Another reason for this rejection is religious beliefs, which encourage the perception that transgenic
organisms are a risk to society. In the realm of religion, a transgenic combination of species is a complete
deviation [152]. Moreover, one of the main problems related to the generation of biotechnological
tools is their perception as destructive and non-productive, as in the case of bioterrorism, which is
defined as the threat of use or use of a biological agent by individuals or groups based on political,
religious, ecological, or ideological goals [153]. Although genetically modified organism development
has been under stringent control with regard to the acceptance of production and distribution, edible
vaccines still require more regulation. Moreover, because edible vaccines represent a very powerful
technological tool, their possible use by terrorists has not been discounted, and it remains difficult to
eliminate such ill-intentioned use. However, edible vaccines could be used not only in an undesirable
way but also as a solution to counter bioterrorism. An example is the edible vaccine developed in 2014
to combat anthrax (carbuncle), based on a tobacco plant expressing the PA; the antigen was tested
using murine models that exhibited a high serum content of IgA and IgG [114]. Correspondingly, the
possible beneficial or harmful use of current biological tools will depend on the people who develop
them and the manner in which their use is regulated. Moreover, despite the future promise of edible
vaccines, both veterinary and human medicine studies are lacking to promote their use within these
areas and to restrict their ill-intentioned use.
6.3. Bioterrorism
The inappropriate management of a modified plant or fruit that contains a vaccine, whether due to
negligence or ill-intentioned purposes (bioterrorism), would present serious challenges to public health
and global safety. Consequently, countries must promptly discuss the advantages and disadvantages
of developing new vaccination methods, their risks and benefits, and the regulation of edible vaccine
cultivation, commerce, and distribution. The development of vaccines from genetically modified
plants may be a key step in the development of strategies to address bioterrorism, as has been shown
with Ebola virus surface glycoproteins, which can be transiently expressed in plants. This technology
has been developed in conjunction with the U.S. Army to confront bioterrorism situations [154].
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 15 of 23
7. Conclusions
Edible vaccines represent a valuable solution to treating certain diseases whose control and
prevention is restricted by the inherent limitations of traditional vaccines, such as their production
costs, storage requirements, and expensive logistics. Sixteen foods are already producing antigens
to counter human and animal diseases. However, some challenges remain, such as the development
of edible vaccines using plants whose genetic transformation is difficult to attain or is unexplored,
whose cultivars can be developed on all continents with low water and nutritional requirements, and
whose consumption may be accomplished in a raw form or with minimal boiling. Because vaccine
legal regulations are devoid of bylaws, many uncertainties would arise if such distribution were to
gain acceptance. For example, who will be in charge of assigning the correct dose? As a drug that is
contained in a plant or its fruit, should it be evaluated, authorized, and supervised by Public Health
Institutes or a similar Human Health Organization in each country? These vaccines have undeniable
potential to counter hundreds of diseases, particularly in countries where traditional vaccines are
difficult to obtain or where the frequency of outbreaks of certain diseases makes their control and
prevention more difficult. Beyond the pros and cons of edible vaccines, one of the most complex
problems to address is the establishment of collaborations for the development of a stable vaccine
that can actually be used in human medicine. Advances in the development of transgenic plants and
antigen expression for stimulation of the immune system associated with the mucosa have been in
the botanical field and not in immunology. As explained in the previous sections, it is very difficult
to establish a stable antigenic protein concentration in plant tissues, and there is no certainty that the
expressed antigen will produce an immune response. Efforts by immunologists and conventional
vaccine developers could be of great value to advance this alternative to current vaccines. In addition
to their possible benefits, edible vaccines will decrease the costs of vaccination and allow minimally
invasive vaccine administration. Furthermore, reiterating the need to increase vaccine performance
and stability, developments in the generation of transient vaccines using viruses do not obviate the
development of transgenic plants as a long-term and longer-lasting measure. The potential opposing
role of oral tolerance might be beneficial for the treatment of autoimmune diseases in which dendritic
cells play a fundamental role in regulating and maintaining the balance between immunity and
tolerance [155,156]. However, it is also necessary to discuss the potential global consequences of the
inappropriate use of edible vaccines, particularly with respect to ecosystem imbalance (pollen and
seed flight) and disturbances of worldwide peace and safety.
In summary, to reduce outbreaks of infectious diseases worldwide, the implementation of
control and prevention measures on a massive scale is required. In this scenario, edible vaccines
represent a valuable alternative to mitigate and prevent infectious outbreaks in countries where the
conventional vaccination is difficult. In addition, in countries where the prevalence of infectious
diseases is controlled, edible vaccines may support public health programs to reduce the risk of disease
outbreaks, analogous to the use of prebiotics and probiotics as a complement to food. As shown in
this work, the current production of edible vaccines is focused on a small group of plants, some of
which are consumed globally. However, promoting the genetic transformation of plants with higher
impact on the consumption chain in specific countries remains challenging. In addition, increasing the
agricultural products of each country must be based on a consideration of country-specific policies with
respect to the production or commercialization of genetically modified plants as well as ecological and
cultural regulations, especially in those countries considered centers of origin of some important crops.
Supplementary Materials: The following is available at www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/5/2/14/s1, Table S1: Onset
of outbreaks of infectious diseases around the world over the last six years (until September 2016), according
to the World Health Organization (WHO) [15–18]. Data are presented by continent, country, disease, and year
of outbreak.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge Dirección de Investigación y Desarrollo de la
Universidad de La Serena (DIDULS), grant DIULS 90/2014, for financial support. We would like to thank the four
anonymous reviewers for their insightful suggestions and comments.
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 16 of 23
Author Contributions: Christopher Concha, Raúl Cañas, Johan Macuer, María José Torres, and Fabiola Jamett
were responsible for the literature review and for writing the first version of the manuscript. Andrés A. Herrada
revised and wrote immunological aspects of this manuscript. Christopher Concha and Raúl Cañas prepared
Figure 1, Johan Macuer prepared Table 1, María José Torres prepared Table 2, and Christopher Concha prepared
Supplementary Materials Table S1. Cristian Ibáñez coordinated the overall process, including editing and writing
the final version of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
1. Arntzen, C.; Plotkin, S.; Dodet, B. Plant-derived vaccines and antibodies: Potential and limitations. Vaccine
2005, 23, 1753–1756. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Tiwari, S.; Verma, P.; Singh, P.; Tuli, R. Plants as bioreactors for the production of vaccine antigens.
Biotechnol. Adv. 2009, 27, 449–467. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Hansson, M.; Nygren, P.Å.; Ståhl, S. Design and production of recombinant subunit vaccines. Biotechnol. Appl.
Biochem. 2000, 32, 95–107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Langridge,W.H.R. Edible Vaccines. Sci. Am. 2000, 283, 66–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. López, M.; Mallorquín, P.; Pardo, R.; Vega, M. Vacunas de Nueva Generación; Genoma España Salud humana:
Madrid, España, 2004; p. 113.
6. Madigan, M.; Martinko, J.; Parker, J. Brock Biología de los Microorganismos, 12th ed.; Pearson Addison Wesley:
Madrid, Spain, 2009; p. 1259.
7. Glick, B.R.; Pasternak, J.J.; Patten, Ch.L. Molecular Biotechnology. Principles and Applications of Recombinant
DNA, 4th ed.; ASM Press: Herndon, VA, USA, 2010; p. 999.
8. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Plan de Acción Mundial sobre Vacunas; Biblioteca OMS: Ginebra,
Suiza, 2013; p. 148. ISBN 9789243504988.
9. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS); United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); Banco Mundial.
Vacunas e Inmunización: Situación Mundial, 3rd ed.; Organización Mundial de la Salud: Ginebra, Suiza, 2010;
p. 185.
10. Kumru, O.; Joshi, S.; Smith, D.; Russell, C.; Prusik, T.; Volkin, D. Vaccine instability in the cold chain:
Mechanisms, analysis and formulation strategies. Biologicals 2014, 42, 237–249. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Daniell, H.; Streatfield, S.J.; Wyckoff, K. Medical molecular farming: Production of antibiotics,
biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2001, 6, 219–226. [CrossRef]
12. Mason, H.S.; Lam, D.M.K.; Arntzen, C.J. Expression of hepatitis B surface antigen in transgenic plants.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1992, 89, 11745–11749. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Aswathi, P.B.; Bhanja, S.K.; Yadav, A.S.; Rekha, V.; John, J.K.; Gopinath, D.; Sadanandan, G.V.; Shinde, A.;
Jacob, A. Plant Based Edible Vaccines against Poultry Diseases: A Review. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2014, 2,
305–311. [CrossRef]
14. Knipe, D.M.; Howley, P.M. Fields Virology, 6th ed.; Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2013; p. 2456.
15. OMS. Enfermedad por el Virus del Ebola. 2014. Available online: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/
factsheets/fs103/es/ (accessed on 25 March 2015).
16. OMS. Diphtheria Reported Cases. 2015. Available online: http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/
globalsummary/timeseries/tsincidencediphtheria.htlm (accessed on 10 July 2015).
17. OMS. Measles–WHO European Region. 2015. Available online: http://www.who.int/csr/don/6-march-
2015-measles/en/ (accessed on 10 July 2015).
18. Bertin, X. Sarampión en Chile: Las razones del resurgimiento de las enfermedades que creíamos erradicadas.
2015. Available online: http://www.latercera.com/noticia/nacional/2015/06/680-633372-9-sarampionen-
chile-las-razones-del-resurgimiento-de-las-enfermedades-que.shtml (accessed on 10 June 2015).
19. Minsal. Información Sobre Sarampión. 2015. Available online: http://web.minsal.cl/sites/default/files/
7REPORTECASOSjunio2015_1.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2015).
20. Polanda, G.; Jacobson, R.; Ovsyannikova, I. Trends affecting the future of vaccine development and delivery:
The role of demographics, regulatory science, the anti-vaccine movement, and vaccinomics. Vaccine 2009, 27,
3240–3244. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Gestal, J.J.; Rodríguez, L.; Montes, A.; Takkouche, B. Emergencia en europa de la difteria y la poliomelitis.
Rev. Esp. Salud Pública 1996, 70, 5–14.
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 17 of 23
22. Los padres del niño con difteria se sienten “engañados” por los antivacunas. Available online: http:
//www.abc.es/sociedad/20150605/abci-padres-nino-difteria-destrozados-201506051436.html (accessed
on 12 June 2015).
23. Pogrebnyak, N.; Golovkin, M.; Andrianov, V.; Spitsin, S.; Smirnov, Y.; Egolf, R.; Koprowski, H. Severe
acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) S protein production in plants: Development of recombinant vaccine.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 9062–9067. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Lamphear, B.J.; Streatfield, S.J.; Jilka, J.M.; Brooks, C.A.; Barker, D.K.; Turner, D.D.; Delaney, D.E.; Garcia, M.;
Wiggins, B.; Woodard, S.L.; et al. Delivery of subunit vaccines in maize seed. J. Control Release 2002, 85,
169–180. [CrossRef]
25. Lamphear, B.J.; Jilka, J.M.; Kesl, L.;Welter, M.; Howard, J.A.; Streatfield, S.J. A corn-based delivery system
for animal vaccines: An oral transmissible gastroenteritis virus vaccine boosts lactogenic immunity in swine.
Vaccine 2004, 22, 2420–2424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Liew, P.S.; Hair-Bejo, M. Farming of plant-based veterinary vaccines and their applications for disease
prevention in animals. Adv. Virol. 2015, 2015, 936940. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Tacket, C.O.; Mason, H.S.; Losonsky, G.; Clements, J.D.; Levine, M.M.; Arntzen, C.J. Immunogenicity in
humans of a recombinant bacterial antigen delivered in a transgenic potato. Nat. Med. 1998, 4, 607–609.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Jiang, X.L.; He, Z.M.; Peng, Z.Q.; Qi, Y.; Chen, Q.; Yu, S.Y. Cholera toxin B protein in transgenic tomato fruit
induces systemic immune response in mice. Transgenic Res. 2007, 16, 169–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Sun, M.; Qian, K.X.; Su, N.; Chang, H.Y.; Liu, J.X.; Chenrlekar, G.F. Foot-and-mouth disease virus VP1 protein
fused with cholera toxin B subunit expressed in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chloroplast. Biotechnol. Lett. 2003,
25, 1087–1092. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Plotkin, S. Vaccine Fact Book; Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: Washington, DC, USA,
2013; p. 97.
31. Pelosi, A.; Shepherd, R.; Guzman, G.D.; Hamill, J.D.; Meeusen, E.; Sanson, G.; Walmsley, M. The release and
induced immune responses of a plant-made and delivered antigen in the mouse gut. Curr. Drug Deliv. 2011,
8, 612–621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Mabbott, N.A.; Donaldson, D.S.; Ohno, H.; Williams, I.R.; Mahajan, A. Microfold (M) cells: Important
immunosurveillance posts in the intestinal epithelium. Mucosa Immunol. 2013, 6, 666–667. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
33. Mildner, A.; Jung, S. Development and Function of Dendritic cells Subsets. Inmmunity 2014, 40, 642–646.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Dalod, M.; Chelbi, R.; Malissen, B.; rence, T. Dendritic cell maturation: Functional specialization through
signaling specificity and transcriptional programming. EMBO J. 2014, 33, 1104–1116. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Shin, C.; Han, J.-A.; Koh, H.; Choi, B.; Cho, Y.; Jeong, H.; Ra, J.-S.; Sung, P.S.; Shin, E.-C.; Ryu, S.; et al. CD8?
Dendritic Cells Induce Antigen-Specific T Follicular Helper Cells Generating Efficient Humoral Immune
Responses. Cell Rep. 2015, 11, 1929–1940. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Milpied, P.J.; McHeyzer-Williams, M.G. High-affinity IgA needs TH17 cell functional plasticity. Nat. Immunol.
2013, 14, 313–315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Crotty, S. Follicular helper CD4 T cells (TFH). Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 29, 621–663. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Mishra, N.; Gupta, P.; Khatri, K.; Goyal, A.; Vyas, S. Edible vaccines: A new approach to oral immunization.
Indian J. Biotechnol. 2008, 7, 283–294.
39. Reboldi, A.; Arnon, T.I.; Rodda, L.B.; Atakilit, A.; Sheppard, D.; Cyster, J.G. IgA production requires B cell
interaction with subepithelial dendritic cells in Peyer’s patches. Science 2016, 352. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Rescigno, M.; Urbano, M.; Valzasina, B.; Francolini, M.; Rotta, G.; Bonasio, R.; Granucci, F.; Kraehenbuhl, J.P.;
Ricciardi-Castagnoli, P. Dendritic cells express tight junction proteins and penetrate gut epithelial monolayers
to sample bacteria. Nat. Immunol. 2001, 2, 361–367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. McDole, J.R.; Wheeler, L.W.; McDonald, K.G.; Wang, W.; Konjufca, V.; Knoop, K.A.; Newberry, R.D.;
Miller, M.J. Goblet cells deliver luminal antigen to CD103+ DCs in the small intestine. Nature 2012, 483,
345–349. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Hernandez, M.; Rosas, G.; Cervantes, J.; Fragoso, G.; Rosales-Mendoza, S.; Sciutto, E. Transgenic plants:
A 5-year update on oral antipathogen vaccine development. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2014, 13, 1523–1536.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 18 of 23
43. Chan, H.T.; Daniell, H. Plant-made oral vaccines against human infectious diseases—Are we there yet?
Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, 13, 1056–1070. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Lamichhane, A.; Azegamia, T.; Kiyonoa, H. The mucosal immune system for vaccine development. Vaccine
2014, 32, 6711–6723. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Richman, L.K.; Chiller, J.M.; Brown, W.R.; Hanson, D.G.; Vaz, N.M. Enterically induced immunologic
tolerance. I. Induction of suppressor T lymphoyctes by intragastric administration of soluble proteins.
J. Immunol. 1978, 121, 2429–2434. [PubMed]
46. Kesik-Brodacka, M.; Lipiec, A.; Kozak Ljunggren, M.; Jedlina, L.; Miedzinska, K.; Mikolajczak, M.;
Plucienniczak, A.; Legocki, A.B.; Wedrychowicz, H. Immune response of rats vaccinated orally with
various plant-expressed recombinant cysteine proteinase constructs when challenged with Fasciola hepatica
metacercariae. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e00045451. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Clarke, J.L.; Paruch, L.; Dobrica, M.-O.; Caras, J.; Tucureanu, C.; Onu, A.; Ciulean, S.; Stavaru, C.; Eerde, A.;
Wang, Y.; et al. Lettuce-produced hepatitis C virus E1E2 heterodimer triggers immune responses in mice and
antibody production after oral vaccination. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Kilany, W.H.; Arafa, A.; Erfan, A.M.; Ahmed, M.S.; Nawar, A.A.; Selim, A.A.; Khoulosy, S.G.; Hassan, M.K.;
Aly, M.M.; Hafez, H.M.; et al. Isolation of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 from table eggs after
vaccinal break in commercial layer flock. Avian Dis. 2010, 54, 1115–1119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Strugnell, R.; Zepp, F.; Cunningham, A.; Tantawichien, T. Vaccines Antigens. Chapter 3. In Understanding
Modern Vaccines: Perspectives in Vaccinology; Garçon, N., Stern, P.L., Cunningham, A.L., Stanberry, L.R., Eds.;
Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 61–88.
50. Cebadera, M. Plantas Modificadas Genéticamente Como Vacunas Comestibles: Aspectos Científicos y
Socioeconómicos. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Complutense Madrid, Madrid, España, 2012.
51. Cañizares, M.C.; Lomonossoff, G.P.; Nicholson, L. Development of cowpea mosaic virus-based vectors for
the production of vaccines in plants. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 2005, 4, 687–697.
52. Kumar, B.V.; Raja, T.K.; Wani, M.R.; Sheikh, S.A.; Lone, M.A.; Nabi, G.; Azooz, M.M.; Younis, M.; Sarwat, M.;
Ahmad, P. Transgenic plants as green factories for vaccine production. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 12, 6147–6158.
53. Ma, J.K.; Drake, P.M.; Christou, P. The production of recombinant pharmaceultical proteins in plants. Nature
2003, 4, 794–805.
54. Mason, H.S.;Warzecha, H.; Mor, T.; Arntzen, C. ; Edible plant vaccines: Applications for prophylactic and
therapeutic molecular medicine. Trends Mol. Med. 2002, 8, 324–329. [CrossRef]
55. Rybicki, E.P. Plant-produced vaccines: Promise and reality. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14, 16–24. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
56. Tacket, C.O.; Mason, H.S.; Losonsky, G.; Estes, M.K.; Levine, M.M.; Arntzen, C.J. Human immune responses
to a novel Norwalk virus vaccine delivered in transgenic potatoes. J. Infect. Dis. 2000, 182, 302–305. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
57. Komarova, T.V.; Baschieri, S.; Donini, M.; Marusic, C.; Benvenuto, E.; Dorokhov, Y.L. Transient expression
systems for plant-derived biopharmaceuticals. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2010, 9, 859–876. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Fischer, R.; Schillberg, S.; Hellwig, S.; Twyman, R.M.; Drossard, J. GMP issues for recombinant plant-derived
pharmaceutical proteins. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 434–439. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Vamvaka, E.; Twyman, R.M.; Christou, P.; Capell, T. Can plant biotechnology help break the HIV-malaria
link? Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 32, 575–582. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Daniell, H.; Khan, M.S.; Allison, L. Milestones in chloroplast genetic engineering: An environmentally
friendly era in biotechnology. Trends Plant Sci. 2002, 7, 84–91. [CrossRef]
61. Guan, Z.-J.; Guo, B.; Huo, Y.; Guan, Z.-P.; Dai, J.; Wei, Y. Recent advances and safety issues of transgenic
plant-derived vaccines. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 2817–2840. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Waheed, M.T.; Sameeullah, M.; Khan, F.A.; Syed, T.; Ilahi, M.; Gottschamenl, J.; Lössi, A.G. Need of
cost-effective vaccines in developing countries: Whay plant biotechnology can offer? SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 65.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Rybicki, E. Plant-made vaccines for humans and animals. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2010, 8, 620–637. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
64. Shirbaghaee, Z.; Bolhassani, A. Different applications of virus-like particles in biology and medicine:
Vaccination and delivery systems. Biopolymers 2016, 105, 113–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 19 of 23
65. Turpen, T.H.; Reinl, S.J.; Charoenvit, Y.; Hoffman, S.L.; Fallarme, V.; Grill, L.K. Malarial epitopes expressed
on the surface of recombinant tobacco mosaic virus. Biotechnology 1995, 13, 53–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Brennan, F.R.; Jones, T.D.; Hamilton,W.D. Cowpea mosaic virus as a vaccine carrier of heterologous antigens.
Mol. Biotechnol. 2001, 17, 15–26. [CrossRef]
67. Moxon, E.R.; Siegrist, C.A. The next decade of vaccines: Societal and scientific challenges. New decades of
vaccines Series. Lancet 2011, 378, 347–359. [CrossRef]
68. Huang, Z.; LePore, K.; Elkin, G.; Thanavala, Y.; Mason, H.S. High-yield rapid production of hepatitis B
surface antigen in plant leaf by a viral expression system. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2007, 6, 202–209. [CrossRef]
69. Musiymuck, K.; Stephenson, N.; Bi, H.; Farrance, C.E.; Orozovic, G.; Brodelius, M.; Brodelius, P.; Horsey, A.;
Ugulava, N.; Shamloul, A.M.; et al. A launch vector for the production of vaccines in plants. Influenza Other
Respir. Viruses 2006, 1, 19–25.
70. Alvarez, M.A.; Cardineau, G.A. Prevention of bubonic and pneumonic plague using plant-derived vaccines.
Biotechnol. Adv. 2010, 28, 184–196. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
71. Fischer, R.; Vaquero-Martin, C.; Sack, M.; Drossard, J.; Emans, N.; Commandeur, U. Towards molecular
farming in the future: Transient protein expression in plants. Biotechnol. Appl. Biochem. 1999, 30, 113–116.
[PubMed]
72. Legocki, A.B.; Miedzinska, K.; Czaplin, S.M.; Płucieniczak, A.; Wedrychowicz, H. Immunoprotective
properties of transgenic plants expressing E2 glycoprotein from CSFV and cysteine protease from
Fasciola hepatica. Vaccine 2005, 23, 1844–1846. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Takeyama, N.; Kiyono, H.; Yuki, Y. Plant-based vaccines for animals and humans: Recent advances in
technology and clinical trials. Ther. Adv. Vaccines 2015, 3, 139–154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
74. Peyret, H.; Lomonossoff, G. The pEAQ vector series: The easy and quick way to produce recombinant
proteins in plants. Plant Mol. Biol. 2013, 83, 51–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Salazar-González, J.; Bañuelos-Hernández, B.; Rosales-Mendoza, S. Current status of viral expression systems
in plants and perspectives for oral vaccines development. Plant Mol. Biol. 2015, 87, 203–217. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
76. Leuzinger, K.; Dent, M.; Hurtado, J.; Stahnke, J.; Lai, H.; Zhou, X.; Chen, Q. Efficient agroinfiltration of
plants for high-level transient expression of recombinant proteins. J. Vis. Exp. 2013, 77, e50521. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
77. He, J.; Lai, H.; Engle, M.; Gorlatov, S.; Gruber, C.; Steinkellner, H.; Diamond, M.S.; Chen, Q. Generation and
analysis of novel plant-derived antibody-based therapeutic molecules against west nile virus. PLoS ONE
2014, 9, e93541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
78. Fulton, A.; Lai, H.; Chen, Q.; Zhang, C. Purification of monoclonal antibody against Ebola GP1 protein
expressed in Nicotiana benthamiana. J. Chromatogr. A 2015, 1389, 128–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
79. Alvarez, M.L.; Pinyerd, H.L.; Crisantes, J.D.; Rigano, M.M.; Pinkhasov, J.; Walmsley, A.M.; Mason, H.S.;
Cardineau, G.A. Plant-made subunit vaccine against pneumonic and bubonic plague is orally immunogenic
in mice. Vaccine 2006, 24, 2477–2490. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
80. Hernández, M.; Cabrera-Ponce, J.L.; Fragoso, G.; López-Casillas, F.; Guevara-García, A.; Rosas, G. A new
highly effective anticysticercosis vaccine expressed in transgenic papaya. Vaccine 2007, 25, 4252–4260.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Lindh, I.; Brave, A.; Hallengard, D.; Hadad, R.; Kalbina, I.; Strid, A.; Andersson, S. Oral delivery of
plant-derived HIV-1 p24 antigen in low doses shows a superior priming effect in mice compared to high
doses Ingrid. Vaccine 2014, 32, 2288–2293. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Moravec, T.; Schmidt, M.A.; Herman, E.M.; Woodford-Thomas, T. Production of Escherichia coli heat labile
toxin (LT) B subunit in soybean seed and analysis of its immunogenicity as an oral vaccine. Vaccine 2007, 25,
1647–1657. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Loza-Rubio, E.; Rojas-Anaya, E.; Lopez, J.; Olivera-Florez, M.T.; Gómez-Lim, M.; Tapia-Pérez, G. Induction
of a protective immune response to rabies virus in sheep after oral immunization with transgenic maize,
expressing the rabies virus glycoprotein. Vaccine 2012, 30, 5551–5556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Sathish, K.; Sriraman, R.; Subramanian, B.M.; Rao, N.H.; Kasa, B.; Donikeni, J. Plant expressed coccidial
antigens as potential vaccine candidates in protecting chicken against coccidiosis. Vaccine 2012, 30, 4460–4464.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 20 of 23
85. Thanavala, Y.; Lugade, A. Oral transgenic plant-based vaccine for hepatitis B. Immunol. Res. 2010, 46, 4–11.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
86. Wu, J.; Yu, L.; Li, L.; Hu, J.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, X. Oral immunization with transgenic rice seeds expressing VP2
protein of infectious bursal disease virus induces protective immune responses in chickens. Plant Biotechnol. J.
2007, 5, 570–578. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
87. Wu, H.; Scissum-Gunn, K.; Singh, N.K.; Giambrone, J.J. Towards development of an edible vaccine for avian
reovirus. Avian Dis. 2009, 53, 376–381. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
88. Suzuki, K.; Kaminuma, O.; Yang, L.; Takai, T.; Mori, A.; Umezu-Goto, M.; Ohtomo, T.; Ohmachi, Y.; Noda, Y.;
Hirose, S.; et al. Prevention of allergic asthma by vaccination with transgenic rice seed expressing mite
allergen: Induction of allergen-specific oral tolerance without bystander suppression. Plant Biotechnol. J.
2011, 9, 982–990. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
89. Ahmad, P.; Ashraf, M.; Younis, M.; Hu, X.; Kumar, A.; Akram, N.; Al-Qurainy, F. Role of transgenic plants in
agriculture and biopharming. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 524–540. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
90. Jin, S.; Daniell, H. The engineered chloroplast genome just got smarter. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 622–640.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
91. Sack, M.; Hofbauer, A.; Fischer, R.; Stoger, E. The increasing value of plant-made proteins. Curr. Opin.
Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 163–170. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
92. Shah, C.P.; Trivedi, M.N.; Vachhani, U.D.; Joshi, V. Edible vaccine: A better way for immunization. Int. J.
Curr. Pharm. Res. 2011, 3, 53–56.
93. Bora, A.; Kumar Gogoi, H.; Veer, V. Molecular farming for production of biopharmaceutical and edible
vaccines in plants. In Herbal Insecticides, Repellents and Biomedicines: Effectiveness and Commercialization, 1st ed.;
Veer, V., Gopalakrishnan, R., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; p. 264.
94. Merlin, M.; Pezzotti, M.; Avesani, L. Edible plants for oral delivery of biopharmaceuticals. Br. J. Clin.
Pharmacol. 2017, 83, 71–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
95. Juarez, P.; Virdi, V.; Depicker, A.; Orzaez, D. Biomanufacturing of protective antibodies and other therapeutics
in edible plant tissues for oral applications. Plant. Biotechnol. J. 2016, 14, 1791–1799. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
96. Jacob, S.; Cherian, S.; Sumithra, T.G.; Raina, O.K.; Sankar, M. Edible vaccines against veterinary parasitic
diseases-Current status and future prospects. Vaccine 2013, 31, 1879–1885. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
97. Chaitanya, V.; Kumar, J. Edible vaccines. Sri Ramachandra J. Med. 2006, 1, 33–34.
98. Aryamvally, A.; Gunasekaran, V.; Narenthiran, K.R.; Pasupathi, R. New strategies toward edible vaccines:
An overview. J. Diet. Suppl. 2016. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99. Qui, X.; Wong, G.; Audet, J.; Bello, A.; Fernando, L.; Alimonti, J.B.; Fausther-Bovendo, H.; Wei, H.; Aviles, J.;
Hiatt, E.; et al. Reversion of advanced Ebola virus disease in nonhuman primates with ZMapp. Nature 2014,
514, 47–53.
100. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Cómo enfrentar los eventos supuestamente atribuidos a la vacunación
o inmunización, Vacunación segura; Organización Mundial de la Salud: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
Available online: http://www.who.int/immunization_safety/publications/aefi/en/vacunacion_segura_
S.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2015).
101. Fernández, A.; Ortigosa, S.; Hervás, S.; Corral, P.; Seguí, J.; Gaétan, J.; Coursaget, P.; Veramendi, J. Human
papillomavirus L1 protein expressed in tobacco chloroplasts self-assembles into virus-like particles that are
highly immunogenic. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2008, 6, 427–441. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
102. Specht, E.A.; Mayfield, S.P. Algae-based oral recombinant vaccines. Front. Microbiol. 2014, 5, 60. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
103. Mason, H.S.; Haq, T.A.; Clements, J.D. Edible vaccine protects mice against Escherichia coli heat-labile
enterotoxin (LT): Potatoes expressing a synthetic LT-B gene. Vaccine 1998, 16, 1336–1343. [CrossRef]
104. Arakawa, T.; Chong, D.K.X.; Langridge,W.H.R. Efficacy of a food plant-based oral cholera toxin B subunit
vaccine. Nat. Biotechnol. 1998, 16, 292–297. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Dalsgaard, K.; Uttenthal, A.; Jones, T.D.; Xu, F.; Merryweather, A.; Hamilton, W.D.; Langeveld, J.P.;
Boshuizen, R.S.; Kamstrup, S.; Lomonossoff, G.P.; et al. Plant-derived vaccine protects target animals
against a viral disease. Nat. Biotechnol. 1997, 15, 248–252. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Castañon, S.; Marín, M.S.; Martín-Alonso, J.M.; Boga, J.A.; Casais, R.; Humara, J.M.; Ordás, R.J.; Parra, F.
Immunization with potato plants expressing VP60 protein protects against rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus.
J. Virol. 1999, 73, 4452–4455. [PubMed]
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 21 of 23
107. Hahn, B.S.; Jeon, I.S.; Jung, Y.J.; Kim, J.B.; Park, J.S.; Ha, S.H.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, H.M.; Yang, J.S.; Kim, Y.H.
Expression of hemagglutinin-neuraminidase protein of Newcastle disease virus in transgenic tobacco.
Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2007, 1, 85–92. [CrossRef]
108. Mason, H.S.; Ball, J.M.; Shi, J.J.; Jiang, X.; Estes, M.K.; Arntzen, C.J. Expression of Norwlak virus capsid
protein in transgenic tobacco and potato and its oral immunogenicity in mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
1996, 93, 5335–5340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Lacorte, C.; Lohuis, H.; Goldbach, R.; Prins, M. Assessing the expression of chicken anemia virus proteins in
plants. Virus Res. 2007, 129, 80–86. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
110. Kostrzak, A.; Cervantes, M.; Guetard, D.; Nagaraju, D.B.; Wain-Hobson, S.; Tepfer, D.; Pniewski, T.; Sala, M.
Oral administration of low doses of plant-based HBsAg induced antigen-specific IgAs and IgGs in mice,
without increasing levels of regulatory T cells. Vaccine 2009, 27, 4798–4807. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
111. Gómez, E.; Zoth, S.C.; Asurmendi, S.; Rovere, C.V.; Berinstein, A. Expression of Hemagglutinin-
Neuraminidase glycoprotein of Newcastle Disease Virus in agroinfiltrated Nicotiana benthamiana.
Plants Biotechnol. J. 2009, 144, 337–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
112. Kanagarajan, S.; Tolf, C.; Lundgren, A.; Waldenstrom, J.; Brodelius, P.E. Transient Expression of
Hemagglutinin Antigen from Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza A (H7N7) in Nicotiana benthamiana. PLoS ONE
2012, 7, e33010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
113. Shoji, Y.; Farrance, C.E.; Bautista, J.; Bi, H.; Musiychuk, K.; Horsey, A.; Park, H.; Jaje, J.; Green, B.J.;
Shamloul, M.; et al. A plant-based system for rapid production of influenza vaccine antigens. Influ. Other
Respir Viruses 2012, 6, 204–210. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114. Gorantala, J.; Grover, G.; Rahi, A.; Chaudhary, P.; Rajwanshi, R.; Sarin, L.B.; Bhatnagar, R. Generation of
protective immune response against anthrax by oralimmunization with protective antigen plant-based
vaccine. J. Biotechnol. 2014, 176, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
115. Zhang, X.; Buehner, N.; Hutson, A.; Estes, M.; Manson, H. Tomato is a highly effective vehicle for expresión
and oral immunization with Norwalk virus capsid protein. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2006, 4, 419–432. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
116. Lou, X.M.; Yao, Q.H.; Zhang, Z.; Peng, R.H.; Xiong, A.S.; Wang, H.K. Expression of the human hepatitis
B virus large surface antigen gene in transgenic tomato plants. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. 2007, 14, 464–469.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
117. Srinivas, L.; Kumar, G.; Ganapathi, T.R.; Revathi, C.J.; Bapat, V.A. Transient and stable expression of hepatitis
b surface antigen in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2008, 2, 1–6. [CrossRef]
118. Youm, J.W.; Jeon, J.H.; Kim, H.; Kim, Y.H.; Ko, K.; Joung, H.; Kim, H. Transgenic tomatos expressinghuman
beta-amyloid for use as a vaccine against Alzheimer’s disease. Biotechnol. Lett. 2008, 30, 1839–1845.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
119. Kim, T.G.; Kim, M.Y.; Kim, B.G.; Kang, T.J.; Kim, Y.S.; Jang, Y.S.; Arntzen, C.J.; Yang, M.S. Syntesis and
assembly of Escherichia coli heat-labile enterotoxin B subunit in transgenic lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Protein Expr.
Purif. 2007, 51, 22–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
120. Spök, A. Molecular farming on the rise-GMO regulators still walking a tightrope. Trends Biotechnol. 2007, 25,
74–82.
121. Oszvald, M.; Kang, T.J.; Tomoskozi, S.; Tamas, C.; Tamas, L.; Kim, T.G.; Yang, M.S. Expression of a synthetic
neutralizing epitope of porcine epidemic diarrhea virus fused with synthetic b subunit of Escherichia coli heat
labile enterotoxin in rice endosperm. Mol. Biotechnol. 2007, 35, 215–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
122. Qian, B.J.; Shen, H.F.; Liang, W.Q.; Guo, X.M.; Zhang, C.; Wang, Y.; Li, G.; Wu, A.; Cao, K.; Zhang, D.
Immunogenicity of recombinant hepatitis b virus surface antigen fused with pres1 epitopes expressed in rice
seeds. Transgenic Res. 2008, 17, 621–631. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
123. Oszvald, M.; Kang, T.J.; Tomoskozi, S.; Jenes, B.; Kim, T.G.; Cha, Y.S.; Tamas, L.; Yang, M.S. Expression
of cholera toxin B subunit in transgenic rice endosperm. Mol. Biotechnol. 2008, 40, 261–268. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
124. USDA. Rice World Markets and Trade. Foreign Agricultural Service/USDA. Office of Global Analysis,
January 2017. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/grain-rice.pdf (accessed on
5 May 2017).
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 22 of 23
125. Rosales-Mendoza, S.; Alpuche-Solís, A.; Soria-Guerra, R.; Moreno-Fierros, L.; Martínez-González, L.;
Herrera-Díaz, A.; Korban, S.S. Expression of an Escherichia coli antigenic fusion protein comprising the heat
labile toxin B subunit and the heat stable toxin and its assembly as a functional oligomer in transplastomic
tobacco plants. Plant J. 2008, 57, 45–54. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
126. Zhang, H.; Liu, M.; Li, Y.; Zhao, Y.; He, H.; Yang, G.; Zheng, C. Oral immunogenicity and protective efficacy
in mice of a carrot-derived vaccine candidate expressing UreB subunit against Helicobacter pylori. Protein Expr.
Purif. 2010, 69, 127–131. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
127. Ekam, V.S.; Udosen, E.O.; Chighu, A.E. Comparative Effect of Carotenoid Complex from Goldenneo-Life
Dynamite and Carrot Extracted Carotenoids on Immune Parameters in Albino Wistar Rats. Niger. J.
Physiol. Sci. 2006, 21, 1–4. [PubMed]
128. Wigdorovitz, A.; Pérez Filgueira, D.M.; Robertson, N.; Carrillo, C.; Sadir, A.M.; Morris, T.J.; Borca, M.V.
Protection of mice against challenge with foot and mouth disease virus (FMDV) by immunization with foliar
extracts from plants infected with recombinant tobacco mosaic virus expressing the FMDV structural protein
VP1. Virology 1999, 264, 85–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
129. Wigdorovitz, A.; Mozovoj, M.; Santos, M.; Parreno, V.; Gomez, C.; Perez-Filgueira, D.M.; Trono, K.G.;
Ríos, R.D.; Franzone, P.M.; Fernández, F.; et al. Protective lactogenic immunity conferred by an edible
peptide vaccine to bovine rotavirus produced in transgenic plants. J. Gen. Virol. 2004, 85, 1825–1832.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
130. Huang, L.K.; Liao, S.C.; Chang, C.C.; Liu, H.J. Expression of avian reovirus C protein in transgenic plants.
J. Virol. Methods 2006, 134, 217–222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
131. Yan-Ju, Y.E.; Wen-Gui, L.I. Immunoprotection of transgenic alfalfa (Medicago sativa) containing Eg95-EgA31
fusion gene of Echinococcus granulosus against Eg protoscoleces. J. Trop. Med. 2010, 3, 10–13.
132. Guerrero-Andrade, O.; Loza-Rubio, E.; Olivera-Flores, T.; Fehérvári-Bone, T.; Gómez-Lim, M.A. Expression
of the Newcastle disease virus fusion protein in transgenic maize and immunological studies. Transgenic Res.
2006, 15, 455–463. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133. Chen, T.H.; Chen, T.H.; Hu, C.C.; Liao, J.T.; Lee, C.W.; Liao, J.W.; Lin, M.Y.; Liu, H.J.; Wang, M.Y.;
Lin, N.S.; et al. Induction of protective immunity in chickens immunized with plant–made chimeric
Bamboo mosaic virus particles expressing very virulent Infectious bursal disease virus antigen. Virus Res.
2012, 166, 109–115. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Kumar, G.B.S.; Ganapathi, T.R.; Revathi, C.J.; Srinivas, L.; Bapat, V.A. Expression of hepatitis B surface
antigen in transgenic banana plants. Planta 2005, 222, 484–493. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
135. Guan, Z.-J.; Guo, B.; Huo, Y.-L.; Guan, Z.-P.; Wei, Y.-H. Overview of expression of hepatitis B surface antigen
in transgenic plants. Vaccine 2010, 28, 7351–7362. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
136. Satyavathi, V.V.; Prasad, V.; Khandelwal, A.; Shaila, M.S.; Sita, G.L. Expression of hemagglutinin protein
of Rinderpest virus in transgenic pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] plants. Plant Cell Rep. 2003, 21,
651–658. [PubMed]
137. Lau, J.M.; Korban, S.S. Transgenic apple expressing an antigenic protein of the human respiratory synsytial
virus. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 167, 920–927. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
138. Gao, Y.; Ma, Y.; Li, M.; Cheng, T.; Li, S.-W.; Zhang, J.; Xia, N.-S. Oral immunization of animals with transgenic
cherry tomatillo expressing HBsAg. World J. Gastroenterol. 2003, 9, 996–1002. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
139. Tran, M.; Zhou, B.; Pettersson, P.L.; Gonzalez, M.J.; Mayfield, S.P. Synthesis and assembly of a full-length
human monoclonal antibody in algal chloroplasts. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2009, 104, 663–673. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
140. Yan, N.; Fan, C.; Chen, Y.; Hu, Z. The Potential for Microalgae as Bioreactors to Produce Pharmaceuticals.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, e962. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141. Franconi, R.; Demurtas, O.C.; Massa, S. Plant-derived vaccines and other therapeutics produced in contained
systems. Expert Rev. Vaccines 2010, 9, 877–892. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Dreesen, I.A.; Charpin-El, H.G.; Fussenegger, M. Heat-stable oral alga-based vaccine protects mice from
Staphylococcus aureus infection. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 145, 273–280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
143. Gregory, J.A.; Topol, A.B.; Doerner, D.Z.; Mayfield, S. Alga-produced cholera toxin-pfs25 fusion proteins as
oral vaccines. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 3917–3925. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
144. Franklin, S.E.; Mayfield, S.P. Recent developments in the production of human therapeutic proteins in
eukaryotic algae. Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 2005, 5, 225–235. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vaccines 2017, 5, 14 23 of 23
145. He, D.M.; Qian, K.X.; Shen, G.F.; Zhang, Z.F.; Li, Y.N.; Su, Z.L.; Shao, H.B. Recombination and expression
of classical swine fever virus (CSFV) structural protein E2 gene in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii chroloplasts.
Colloids Surf. B Biointerphases 2007, 55, 26–30. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
146. Van der Laan, J.W.; Minor, P.; Mahoney, R.; Arntzen, C.; Shin, J.;Wood, D. WHO informal consultation on
scientific basis for regulatory evaluation of candidate human vaccines from plants, Geneva, Switzerland,
24–25 January 2005. Vaccine 2006, 24, 4271–4278. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
147. OMS. Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals. 2014. Available online: http://www.who.int/immunization_
standards/vaccine_regulation/en/# (accessed on 25 March 2015).
148. Maxwell, S. Analysis of laws governing combination products, transgenic food, pharmaceutical products
and their applicability to edible vaccines. BYU Rev. 2014, 28, 65–82.
149. Lal, P.; Ramachandran, V.G.; Goyal, R.; Sharma, R. Edible vaccines: Current status and future. Indian J.
Med. Microbiol. 2007, 25, 93–102. [PubMed]
150. Colson, P.; Richet, H.; Desnues, D.; Balique, B.; Moal, V.; Grob, J.-J.; Bernis, P.; Lecoq, H.; Harlé, J-R.;
Berland, Y.; et al. Pepper Mild Mottle Virus, a Plant Virus Associated with Specific Immune Responses, Fever,
Abdominal Pains, and Pruritus in Humans. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e1004. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
151. Hirlekar, R.; Bhairy, S. Edible vaccines: An advancement in oral immunization. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res.
2017, 10, 82–88.
152. Amin, L.; Ayuni, N.; Azlan, A.; Ahmad, J. Ethical perception of human gene in transgenic banana.
Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 12486–12496.
153. Zapanta, P.E.; Ghorab, S. Age of bioterrorism: Are you prepared? Review of bioweapons and their clinical
presentation for otolaryngologist. Otolaryngol. Head Neck 2014, 151, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
154. Arntzen, C. Plant-made pharmaceuticals: From “edible vaccines” to ebola therapeutics. Plant Biotechnol. J.
2015, 13, 1013–1016. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
155. Mbongue, J.C.; Nicholas, D.A.; Zhang, K.; Kim, N.S.; Hamilton, B.N.; Larios, M.; Zhang, G.; Umezawa, K.;
Firek, A.F.; Langridge,W.H. Induction of indoleamine 2, 3-dioxygenase in human dendritic cells by a cholera
toxin B subunit-proinsulin vaccine. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0118562. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
156. Kim, N.S.; Mbongue, J.C.; Nicholas, D.A.; Esebanmen, G.E.; Unternaehrer, J.J.; Firek, A.F.; Langridge, W.H.
Chimeric Vaccine Stimulation of Human Dendritic Cell Indoleamine 2, 3-Dioxygenase Occurs via the
Non-Canonical NF-kB Pathway. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147509.
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.