bridge, MA 02139, United States. E-mail address: jeffrey.ulmer@novartis.com(J.B. Ulmer). immunization with a live organismvaccine, particularly for induc- tion of T cell immunity [2]. In addition, the manufacture of nucleic acid-based vaccines offered the potential to be relatively simple, inexpensive and generic. Since then, clinical trials have amply demonstrated the safety and tolerability of nucleic acid vaccines [3], and robust manufacturing processes have been developed [4]. However, potency in humans has been disappointing, which has ledto extensive activity to identify enabling technologies. The main areas for improvement have been directed toward the nucleic acid vector, targeting the innate immune system to enhance immuno- genicity, and delivery systems to overcome the barriers to efcient transfectionof host cells invivo. Signicant progress has beenmade on all these fronts. This review paper will focus on the use of an alternative nucleic acid vector, namely RNA, as the basis of a new generation of vaccines. 2. Nucleic acid vaccines By denition, nucleic acid vaccines are based on DNA or RNA encoding the antigen(s) of interest. In their simplest form, they can 0264-410X/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.060 J.B. Ulmer et al. / Vaccine 30 (2012) 44144418 4415 consist of highly puried nucleic acids formulated in a buffer. Most often, however, specializeddeliverysystems areutilizedtoincrease vaccine potency. Means to facilitate nucleic acid delivery involve (1) viral particles to take advantage of the efciency of viral entry mechanisms, (2) non-viral formulations of DNA or RNA involving lipids, polymers, emulsions or other synthetic approaches to avoid the use of viral vectors, and (3) physical delivery technologies, such as electroporationinsitu. Themajorityof thepreclinical andclinical experiences with nucleic acid vaccines so far have been with DNA vaccines and DNA-based viral vectors. 2.1. DNA vaccines DNAvaccines have been widely evaluated in many animal mod- els of infectious and non-infectious diseases with generally good success at eliciting potent immune responses against encodedanti- gens, which have ranged fromdiscrete T or B cell epitopes to large polyprotein complexes. The utility of DNA vaccines in animals has been further documented by the development and commercializa- tion of plasmid DNA-based animal health products. These include a West Nile virus vaccine for horses [5], an infectious hematopoi- etic necrosis virus vaccine for sh [6], a melanoma cancer vaccine for dogs [7], and a growth hormone releasing hormone gene ther- apy for pigs [8]. In humans, proof of concept for induction of both antibody and T cell responses has been demonstrated for various indications in multiple clinical trials. However, the magnitude of these immune responses has been lower than those observed for conventional vaccines consistingof liveor inactivatedwholeorgan- isms, or subunit proteins formulated with adjuvants. The reasons for this shortcoming of DNA vaccines are not clear, but are likely due, at least in part, to inefcient delivery of DNA into human cells andinadequate stimulationof the humanimmune system. To over- come these limitations, various technologies have been evaluated and the most promising current approaches involve facilitation of DNAdelivery by electroporation[9] and stimulationof the immune system via the use of genetic adjuvants (i.e., in situ expression of immunologically active molecules encoded by the DNA vaccine) [10]. Combinations of these approaches have resulted in potent induction of immunity in non-human primates [11,12] and pre- liminary results of human clinical trials are encouraging [3,9]. 2.2. Viral vectors In situ expression of antigens in a vaccinated host can be effec- tively achieved through the use of recombinant vectors, often DNA viruses, engineered to be safe and to encode the gene(s) of interest. Vectors based on adenoviruses and poxviruses have been studied extensively, although several other viral vectors are being evalu- atedat earlier stages of development. Bothadenovirus andpoxvirus vectors have demonstrated safety and immunogenicity in human clinical trials [13]. Notably, a poxvirus vector encoding HIV enve- lope protein used in a prime-boost regimen with recombinant envelope protein plus adjuvant elicited modest protection in a phase III efcacy trial [14]. One clear advantage of viral vectors over DNA vaccines is the efciency with which the DNA payload is introduced into host cells, due to the natural invasiveness of the viral particle. Hence, the amount of plasmid DNA required for induction of immune responses is typically many orders of magnitude greater than the amount of DNA contained in a viral vector vaccine. Two potential limitations of viral vectors, though, are related to safety and the inherent immunogenicity of the vec- tor itself. First, because viral vectors are usually originally derived from wild-type pathogenic viruses, there is at least a theoretical potential for reversion to a virulent state, just as there is for atten- uated live virus-based vaccines. However, extensive safety testing of these vectors has demonstrated that this is likely not a major issue. Second, because viral vectors contain, and in some cases express, viral antigens in addition to the target antigen of inter- est, such vectors are usually quite immunogenic (i.e., elicit immune responses against the vectors themselves). Pre-existing anti-vector immunity (either due to prior infection with wild-type virus, vac- cines or immunization with the vector) has been shown to blunt the ability of the vector to launch production of the target anti- gen and, hence, limits induction of immune responses against the antigen of interest. Strategies to circumvent this limitation have included use of certain adenovirus strains not commonly circulat- ing in humans, to allow initial take of the viral vector vaccine, and heterologous prime-boost approaches involving different vectors, to alloweffective boosting of immune responses against the target antigen. While these approaches canbe effective, at least temporar- ily, they complicate the vaccination regimen and do not provide an optimal solution. 2.3. RNA vaccines Proof of concept for RNA vaccines was provided two decades ago, when intramuscular injection of mRNA in mice resulted in local production of an encoded reporter protein [15] and induc- tion of immune responses against an encoded antigen [16]. In a direct comparison with a corresponding plasmid DNA vaccine, injection of similar doses of mRNA (on a mass basis) formulated in sucrose resulted in similar levels of reporter gene expression, suggesting equivalent efciencies of cellular transfection in vivo by the two types of nucleic acid vaccines [15]. These initial pub- lications were followed by many more demonstrating the general utility of eliciting immune responses by RNA vaccines (for review, see [17]). The variety of gene targets included reporter genes [15,1820] viral antigens [16,21], tumor antigens [2226], and allergens [27,28]. In these animal models, both antibody and T cell responses, including CD4 + and CD8 + , were elicited. Further- more, functional immunity, as measured by protective efcacy against challenge with live pathogens or tumors, was achieved. In preclinical models of allergy, low doses of an RNA vaccine encod- ing allergens induce a Th1-biased immune response that provided resistance against subsequent allergic sensitization. Induction of antigen-specic immune responses can be achieved by adminis- tration of RNA vaccines via various routes, including intramuscular [15,19], intradermal [22], subcutaneous [16], intravenous [16], intrasplenic [21], and intranodal [24], as well as delivery into the skin by the gene gun [29,30]. In addition, a considerable amount of work has been done using mRNA vaccines to pulse dendritic cells in vitro, which are then administered as the immunizing agent (for review, see [31]). Hence, like DNAvaccines, RNAvaccines have demonstrated versatility in many animal models of infectious and non-infectious diseases. However, RNA vaccines have several attributes that provide potential advantages over DNA vaccines. First, there is a nite chance that plasmid DNA vaccines can inte- grate into the genome of the immunized host. Although there has beenlittleevidencesofar that integrationoccurs after DNAvaccina- tion, use of RNA would eliminate this as an issue. Second, plasmid DNA vaccines must be delivered into and transcribed within the nucleus in order to transfect a cell, i.e. they must traverse two membrane barriers (plasma and nuclear membranes). This could be particularly problematic in non-dividing cells, such as mature myocytes, where the nuclear membrane remains intact. Several publications have demonstrated that microinjection of pDNA into the cytoplasm of non-dividing cells resulted in very low levels of gene expression, but direct intra-nuclear injection of the same number of pDNAcopies ledtoefcient transfection[3234]. Incon- trast, since RNA vaccines are translated directly in the cytoplasm, the need for delivery into the nucleus is obviated. Finally, the kinet- ics of antigen expression after RNA administration appears to peak 4416 J.B. Ulmer et al. / Vaccine 30 (2012) 44144418 5' nonstructural proteins Antigen A n m7G Replicon vector Capsid, E2/E1 glycoproteins A n m7G Virus genome 5' nonstructural proteins Sub-genomic promoter Sub-genomic promoter Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of an RNA replicon vaccine. Example of an RNA replicon vector derived froma positive-strand alphavirus genome. All replicons encode genes (indicated here as nonstructural proteins) that drive their amplication within the cytoplasmof host cells. For use as vaccine vectors, replicons also encode antigen genes. For alphavirus vectors, antigen genes are most commonly inserted in place of the capsid and glycoprotein genes, which are not needed for genome replication. In this way, the vector amplies its full-length genome when it is introduced into the cytoplasm, and then following genome amplication it initiates production of a sub-genomic mRNA encoding the target antigen. anddecay rapidly, incontrast toDNAadministrationwhere antigen expressioncanpersist for manyweeks [35]. Hence, RNAvaccination better mimics antigen expression during an acute infection, which may be more conducive to induction of antigen-specic immune responses. The mechanisms of action for RNA vaccines have not been fully elucidated, but likely involve some of the same processes utilized by DNA vaccines for the expression and presentation of encoded antigens leading to induction of immune responses. After injection, the RNA is exposed to RNases in the tissue [36], which can degrade the vaccine and limit uptake of functional RNA by cells. In addition, the 2
-hydroyxl on the ribose sugar prevents the
mRNA adopting a stable double -helix, due to steric hindrance, and makes the macromolecule more prone to hydrolysis. Never- theless, various cell types are capable of internalizing RNA by an active, saturable and specic process leading to local expression of antigen [35]. Uptake is mediated by membrane domains rich in caveolae and lipid rafts, and involves scavenger receptors [37]. Upon internalization, a portion of the RNAaccumulates in the cyto- plasm where it is translated into protein. This in situ production of antigen provides a means to mimic pathogen infections and expression of tumor antigens leading to efcient presentation of antigens by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II proteins, and induction of T cell responses in a manner analogous to that provided by DNA vaccines and viral vectors. Alternatively, RNA vaccines can be constructed for the efcient production and secretion (or cell-surface expression) of extracellular antigens to stimulate B cell responses and antigen-specic antibody produc- tion. The effectiveness of RNA vaccines may also be related to the fact that RNA is known to be a potent stimulator of innate immu- nity. In vitro, mRNA has been shown to activate dendritic cells and monocytes in a MyD88-dependent fashion involving signaling via Toll-like receptors (TLR) [38,39]. In vivo, it was recently demon- strated that an mRNA vaccine caused the upregulation of various genes involved in chemotaxis and cell activation [40] as well as induction of TLR7-dependent CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses, and anti-tumor immunity[41]. Hence, thefunctionalityof RNAvaccines involves at least two components: (1) local expression of antigen to facilitate presentation by MHC molecules and (2) engagement of patternrecognitionreceptors tostimulate innate immunityleading to potentiation of antigen-specic immune responses. Many of the above-referenced studies have used naked mRNA as the vaccine (i.e., simply formulated in a buffer). While this approach has been shown to elicit immune responses, the pres- ence of degradative enzymes in tissues likely limits the amount of RNA that is available for internalization by cells in vivo. As a means to overcome this inherent drawback of using naked RNA, work has focused on delivery systems, adjuvants, and engineering of the RNA molecule. First, to protect RNA from degradation and enhance cellular uptake, encapsulationinliposomes [16,18,26] and complexationwithcationic polymers [38,41] haveproveneffective. As an alternative delivery system, the gene gun has been used to directly introduce mRNA into the cytoplasm of cells [29]. Second, although RNA vaccines have a built-in adjuvant effect in the form of TLR engagement, mRNA vaccine potency has been enhanced by coadministration of recombinant GM-CSF [19] or Flt-3 ligand [42], or RNA encoding GM-CSF [43]. Finally, several approaches have been taken to improve the RNA molecule itself. Various modi- cations have been made to the 5
cap structure, the untranslated
regions, and codon usage in the translated region (for review, see [44]), which have resulted in increased mRNA stability and expression. The feasibility of using RNAas the basis for a nucleic acidvaccine was initially regarded as questionable, due the inherent instabil- ity of mRNA in the presence of tissue uids, the uncertainty of developing reasonable manufacturing processes yielding a stable formulation, and the anticipated high cost of the product. Each of these potential limitations is being addressed. Even naked mRNA is immunogenic in animals [1921,25,45] and humans [46], indi- cating that RNA degradation in tissues after administration does not completely abrogate vaccine effectiveness. However, the ef- ciency of RNA delivery should be increased markedly through the use of enabling synthetic and viral delivery systems. For research purposes, in vitro transcribed mRNA can be obtained from plas- mid DNA containing a bacteriophage promoter (T7, SP6 or T3) and over the past 10 years many technical renements to the com- mercial kits have resulted in dramatic improvements in quality and yield [31,47]. More recently, RNA manufacturing by enzymatic transcription of appropriate DNA templates now seems attainable at reasonable cost and large scale. Long-termstorage of lyophilized RNA vaccines have previously been studied and RNAse-free RNA vaccines were demonstrated to be no less stable than other con- ventional vaccines that require a cold chain to retain efcacy [48]. These advancements have enabled the development of process for the GMP production of mRNA vaccines in quantities sufcient for human clinical trials (for review, see [17]). While most of the published work has utilized mRNA as the vaccine, several publications have shown that RNA vaccines can also be derived from sub-genomic replicons that lack viral struc- tural proteins. Replicon RNA-based vaccines have been generated for a variety of RNA viruses including, Semliki Forest virus [21,25], Sindbis virus [20], poliovirus [49,50], tick-borne encephalitis virus [51,52], Kunjinvirus [53], andbovineviral diarrhea[54]. RNA-based vaccines have also been described in which the RNAvaccine is used to launcha live-attenuatedvirus infection. Inthis case, the inherent potency of the encoded live viral vaccine has permitted this type of RNA vaccine to elicit protective immunity at very low (ng) RNA doses [51]. More commonly, experimental RNA-based vaccines are viral-particle delivered products engineered to express a heterol- ogous antigen in place of the viral structural genes. These vaccines are produced under special conditions (e.g., packaging cell lines) that permit productionof single-roundinfectious particles carrying J.B. Ulmer et al. / Vaccine 30 (2012) 44144418 4417 Table 1 Superior attributes of RNA vaccines. Parameter Vaccine type Live Subunit Viral vector DNA mRNA Replicon RNA Synthetic +/ + + Generic manufacturing + + + Safety +/ + +/ + + + Antibody induction + + + +/ + + CTL induction + + + + + In vivo expression + + + + + Control of expression + + + + Absence of eukaryotic contaminants +/ + + + In vivo self amplication + + + Potency in humans + + +/ +/ +/ TBD RNAs encoding the vaccine antigens [5559]. In this way, transient, highlevels of antigenproductioncanbeachievedwithout theuseof a live, spreading viral infection. Replicons derived fromdifferent RNA viruses differ with regard to levels and duration of heterolo- gous gene expression allowing the generation of a versatile toolbox for vaccine or gene therapy applications [60]. An illustration of an RNA vaccine based on an alphavirus replicon is depicted in Fig. 1. The RNA amplication process in the cytoplasmproduces multiple copies of antigen-encoding mRNA and creates dsRNA intermedi- ates, which are known to be potent stimulators of innate immunity [61]. Thus, onamass basis, repliconRNAvaccines havethepotential to be more effective than corresponding mRNA vaccines. Indeed, a direct comparison of the two types of RNA vaccines demonstrated signicantly higher and more persistent expression levels in vivo after replicon RNA administration [20]. These replicon vaccines have been administered as naked RNA packaged in viral particles, or delivered by electroporation in situ [52,62,63] Viral particle delivery of replicons has the advantage of efciency, as previously describedfor viral vectors, but complicates manufacturing, introduces theoretical safety considerations, and has the potential limitation of anti-vector immunity. Hence, facil- itated delivery of RNA replicons using synthetic systems, such as those evaluated for mRNA or DNA vaccines may increase potency without the added complications commonly seen with viral vec- tors. 3. Prospects RNA vaccines, particularly self-amplifying replicons, have the potential to capture the advantages of both DNA vaccines and viral delivery while overcoming the drawbacks of each technology (see Table 1). The prospect of RNA vaccines being a more effec- tive approach than other types of nucleic acid vaccines has led to their advancement into human clinical trials. So far, mRNA vac- cines have been administered to cancer patients in several trials as active immunotherapeutic immunization protocols, supported by preclinical proof of concept inanimal tumor models (for review, see [31]). Intherst trial, mRNAencodinggenes clonedfrommetastatic melanoma tumors were usedas anautologous immunizationstrat- egy [46]. Subsequent trials used combinations of known tumor antigens, such as MUC1, CEA, telomerase, MAGE-1, tyrosinase, in metastatic melanoma [64] and renal cell carcinoma [65] patients. In these exploratory clinical trials, the mRNA vaccines elicited antigen-specic immune responses (both antibodies and T cells), demonstrating proof of concept that mRNA vaccines are active in humans. Clinical trials have also beenperformedwithRNAreplicon vaccines packaged in viral particles. A bivalent vaccine consisting of replicons encoding cytomegalovirus (CMV) gBandpp65/IE1 pro- teins was shown to be well tolerated and immunogenic in healthy CMV seronegative volunteers [66]. All 40 individuals generated polyfunctional CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses, as well as virus neutralizing antibodies. However, the magnitude of the responses in these recent trials was similar to those previously observed for other types of nucleic acid vaccines. Therefore, the RNA vac- cine approach holds promise as an effective means of eliciting functional, protective immune responses in humans, but success will likely require enabling delivery technologies. Next generation replicon RNA vaccines will be formulated with synthetic delivery technologies and will aspire to combine the effectiveness of live attenuated vaccines, an equal or better safety prole than plasmid DNA vaccines, and completely synthetic methods of manufacture. Such a vaccine would possess the desired attributes of an ideal vaccine. References [1] Rappuoli R, Mandl CW, Black S, De Gregorio E. Vaccines for the twenty-rst century society. Nature Reviews Immunology 2011;11(12):86572. [2] Ulmer JB, Donnelly JJ, Parker SE, Rhodes GH, Felgner PL, Dwarki VJ, et al. Het- erologous protection against inuenza by injection of DNA encoding a viral protein. Science 1993;259(5102):17459. [3] Ferraro B, Morrow MP, Hutnick NA, Shin TH, Lucke CE, Weiner DB. Clinical applications of DNA vaccines: current progress. Clinical Infectious Diseases 2011;53(3):296302. [4] Lara AR, Ramirez OT. Plasmid DNA production for therapeutic applications. Methods in Molecular Biology 2012;824:271303. [5] Davis BS, Chang GJ, Cropp B, Roehrig JT, Martin DA, Mitchell CJ, et al. West Nile virus recombinant DNA vaccine protects mouse and horse from virus challenge and expresses in vitro a noninfectious recombinant antigen that can be used in enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Journal of Virology 2001;75(9):40407. [6] Garver KA, LaPatraSE, KurathG. Efcacyof aninfectious hematopoietic necrosis (IHN) virus DNA vaccine in Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and sockeye O. nerka salmon. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 2005;64(1):1322. [7] Grosenbaugh DA, Leard AT, Bergman PJ, Klein MK, Meleo K, Susaneck S, et al. Safety andefcacy of a xenogeneic DNAvaccine encoding for humantyrosinase as adjunctive treatment for oral malignant melanoma in dogs following sur- gical excision of the primary tumor. American Journal of Veterinary Research 2011;72(12):16318. [8] Draghia-Akli R, Li X, Schwartz RJ. Enhanced growth by ectopic expression of growth hormone releasing hormone using an injectable myogenic vector. Nature Biotechnology 1997;15(12):12859. [9] Sardesai NY, Weiner DB. Electroporation delivery of DNA vaccines: prospects for success. Current Opinion in Immunology 2011;23(3):4219. [10] Lori F, Weiner DB, Calarota SA, Kelly LM, Lisziewicz J. Cytokine-adjuvanted HIV-DNA vaccination strategies. Springer Seminars in Immunopathology 2006;28(3):2318. [11] Belisle SE, Yin J, Shedlock DJ, Dai A, Yan J, Hirao L, et al. Long-term program- ming of antigen-specic immunity from gene expression signatures in the PBMC of rhesus macaques immunized with an SIV DNA vaccine. PLoS One 2011;6(6):e19681. [12] Hirao LA, Hokey DA, MorrowMP, Jure-Kunkel MN, Weiner DB. Immune modu- lation through 4-1BB enhances SIV vaccine protection in non-human primates against SIVmac251 challenge. PLoS One 2011;6(9):e24250. [13] Rollier CS, Reyes-Sandoval A, Cottingham MG, Ewer K, Hill AV. Viral vectors as vaccine platforms: deployment in sight. Current Opinion in Immunology 2011;23(3):37782. [14] Vaccari M, Poonam P, Franchini G. Phase III HIV vaccine trial in Thailand: a step toward a protective vaccine for HIV. Expert Review of Vaccines 2010;9(9):9971005. [15] Wolff JA, Malone RW, Williams P, Chong W, Acsadi G, Jani A, et al. Direct gene transfer into mouse muscle in vivo. Science 1990;247(4949 Pt 1): 14658. 4418 J.B. Ulmer et al. / Vaccine 30 (2012) 44144418 [16] MartinonF, KrishnanS, LenzenG, Magne R, GomardE, Guillet JG, et al. Induction of virus-specic cytotoxic Tlymphocytes invivobyliposome-entrappedmRNA. European Journal of Immunology 1993;23(7):171922. [17] Pascolo S. Messenger RNA-based vaccines. Expert Opinion on Biological Ther- apy 2004;4(8):128594. [18] Hoerr I, Obst R, Rammensee HG, Jung G. In vivo application of RNA leads to induction of specic cytotoxic T lymphocytes and antibodies. European Journal of Immunology 2000;30(1):17. [19] Carralot JP, Probst J, Hoerr I, Scheel B, Teufel R, Jung G, et al. Polarization of immunity induced by direct injection of naked sequence-stabilized mRNAvac- cines. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 2004;61(18):241824. [20] Johanning FW, Conry RM, LoBuglio AF, Wright M, Sumerel LA, Pike MJ, et al. A Sindbis virus mRNA polynucleotide vector achieves prolonged and high level heterologous gene expression in vivo. Nucleic Acids Research 1995;23(9):1495501. [21] Zhou X, Berglund P, Rhodes G, Parker SE, Jondal M, LiljestromP. Self-replicating Semliki Forest virus RNAas recombinant vaccine. Vaccine1994;12(16):15104. [22] Granstein RD, Ding W, Ozawa H. Induction of anti-tumor immunity with epi- dermal cells pulsed with tumor-derived RNA or intradermal administration of RNA. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 2000;114(4):6326. [23] Conry RM, LoBuglio AF, Wright M, Sumerel L, Pike MJ, Johanning F, et al. Charac- terization of a messenger RNA polynucleotide vaccine vector. Cancer Research 1995;55(7):1397400. [24] Kreiter S, Selmi A, Diken M, Koslowski M, Britten CM, Huber C, et al. Intranodal vaccination with naked antigen-encoding RNA elicits potent prophylactic and therapeutic antitumoral immunity. Cancer Research 2010;70(22):903140. [25] Ying H, Zaks TZ, Wang RF, Irvine KR, Kammula US, Marincola FM, et al. Cancer therapy using a self-replicating RNA vaccine. Nature Medicine 1999;5(7):8237. [26] Zhou WZ, Hoon DS, Huang SK, Fujii S, Hashimoto K, Morishita R, et al. RNA melanoma vaccine: induction of antitumor immunity by human glycoprotein 100 mRNA immunization. Human Gene Therapy 1999;10(16):271924. [27] Roesler E, Weiss R, Weinberger EE, Fruehwirth A, Stoecklinger A, Mostbock S, et al. Immunize and disappear-safety-optimized mRNA vaccination with a panel of 29 allergens. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2009;124(5), 1070-7 e111. [28] Weiss R, Scheiblhofer S, Roesler E, Weinberger E, Thalhamer J. mRNA vaccina- tionas a safe approachfor specic protectionfromtype I allergy. Expert Review of Vaccines 2012;11(1):5567. [29] Qiu P, Ziegelhoffer P, Sun J, Yang NS. Gene gun delivery of mRNA in situ results in efcient transgene expression and genetic immunization. Gene Therapy 1996;3(3):2628. [30] Aberle JH, Aberle SW, Koer RM, Mandl CW. Humoral and cellular immune response to RNA immunization with avivirus replicons derived from tick- borne encephalitis virus. Journal of Virology 2005;79(24):1510713. [31] Kreiter S, Diken M, Selmi A, Tureci O, Sahin U. Tumor vaccination using mes- senger RNA: prospects of a future therapy. Current Opinion in Immunology 2011;23(3):399406. [32] Mirzayans R, Aubin RA, Paterson MC. Differential expression and stability of foreign genes introduced into human broblasts by nuclear versus cytoplasmic microinjection. Mutation Research 1992;281(2):11522. [33] Thorburn AM, Alberts AS. Efcient expression of miniprep plasmid DNA after needle micro-injection into somatic cells. Biotechniques 1993;14(3):3568. [34] Zabner J, Fasbender AJ, Moninger T, Poellinger KA, Welsh MJ. Cellular and molecular barriers to gene transfer by a cationic lipid. Journal of Biological Chemistry 1995;270(32):189979007. [35] Probst J, Weide B, Scheel B, Pichler BJ, Hoerr I, Rammensee HG, et al. Spon- taneous cellular uptake of exogenous messenger RNA in vivo is nucleic acid- specic, saturable and ion dependent. Gene Therapy 2007;14(15):117580. [36] Probst J, Brechtel S, Scheel B, Hoerr I, Jung G, Rammensee HG, et al. Charac- terization of the ribonuclease activity on the skin surface. Genetics Vaccines Therapy 2006;4:4. [37] Lorenz C, Fotin-Mleczek M, Roth G, Becker C, Dam TC, Verdurmen WP, et al. Protein expression from exogenous mRNA: uptake by receptor- mediated endocytosis and trafcking via the lysosomal pathway. RNA Biology 2011;8(4):62736. [38] Scheel B, Teufel R, Probst J, Carralot JP, Geginat J, Radsak M, et al. Toll-like receptor-dependent activationof several humanbloodcell types byprotamine- condensed mRNA. European Journal of Immunology 2005;35(5):155766. [39] Kariko K, Ni H, Capodici J, Lamphier M, Weissman D. mRNA is an endogenous ligand for Toll-like receptor 3. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2004;279(13):1254250. [40] Fotin Mleczek M, Zanzinger K, Heidenreich R, Lorenz C, Thess A, Duchardt KM, et al. Highly potent mRNA based cancer vaccines represent an attractive plat- formfor combinationtherapies supporting animprovedtherapeutic effect. The Journal of Gene Medicine; in press. [41] Fotin-Mleczek M, Duchardt KM, Lorenz C, Pfeiffer R, Ojkic-Zrna S, Probst J, et al. Messenger RNA-based vaccines with dual activity induce balanced TLR-7 dependent adaptive immune responses andprovide antitumor activity. Journal of Immunotherapy 2011;34(1):115. [42] Kreiter S, Diken M, Selmi A, Diekmann J, Attig S, Husemann Y, et al. FLT3 lig- and enhances the cancer therapeutic potency of naked RNA vaccines. Cancer Research 2011;71(19):613242. [43] Hess PR, Boczkowski D, Nair SK, Snyder D, Gilboa E. Vaccination with mRNAs encoding tumor-associated antigens and granulocyte-macrophage colony- stimulating factor efciently primes CTL responses, but is insufcient to overcome tolerance to a model tumor/self antigen. Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy 2006;55(6):67283. [44] Pascolo S. Vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA). Handbook of Experimen- tal Pharmacology 2008;183:22135. [45] Conry RM, LoBuglio AF, Loechel F, Moore SE, Sumerel LA, BarlowDL, et al. Acar- cinoembryonic antigen polynucleotide vaccine for human clinical use. Cancer Gene Therapy 1995;2(1):338. [46] Weide B, Carralot JP, Reese A, Scheel B, Eigentler TK, Hoerr I, et al. Results of the rst phase I/II clinical vaccination trial with direct injection of mRNA. Journal of Immunotherapy 2008;31(2):1808. [47] Yamamoto A, Kormann M, Rosenecker J, Rudolph C. Current prospects for mRNAgenedelivery. EuropeanJournal of Pharmaceutics andBiopharmaceutics 2009;71(3):4849. [48] Jones KL, Drane D, Gowans EJ. Long-term storage of DNA-free RNA for use in vaccine studies. Biotechniques 2007;43(5):67581. [49] Jackson CA, Messinger J, Palmer MT, Peduzzi JD, Morrow CD. Gene expression in the muscle and central nervous system following intramuscular inocu- lation of encapsidated or naked poliovirus replicons. Virology 2003;314(1): 4561. [50] Vignuzzi M, Gerbaud S, van der Werf S, Escriou N. Naked RNA immu- nization with replicons derived from poliovirus and Semliki Forest virus genomes for the generation of a cytotoxic T cell response against the inuenza A virus nucleoprotein. Journal of General Virology 2001;82(Pt 7): 173747. [51] Mandl CW, Aberle JH, Aberle SW, Holzmann H, Allison SL, Heinz FX. In vitro- synthesized infectious RNA as an attenuated live vaccine in a avivirus model. Nature Medicine 1998;4(12):143840. [52] Koer RM, Aberle JH, Aberle SW, Allison SL, Heinz FX, Mandl CW. Mimicking live avivirus immunization with a noninfectious RNA vaccine. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2004;101(7):19516. [53] Harvey TJ, Anraku I, Linedale R, Harrich D, Mackenzie J, Suhrbier A, et al. Kunjin virus replicon vectors for human immunodeciency virus vaccine develop- ment. Journal of Virology 2003;77(14):7796803. [54] Edlich B, Hogdal LJ, Rehermann B, Behrens SE. Dendritic cells transfected with Her2 antigen-encoding RNAreplicons cross-prime CD8 T cells andprotect mice against tumor challenge. Vaccine 2010;28(49):776473. [55] Li HO, Zhu YF, Asakawa M, Kuma H, Hirata T, Ueda Y, et al. A cytoplasmic RNA vector derived fromnontransmissible Sendai virus with efcient gene transfer and expression. Journal of Virology 2000;74(14):65649. [56] Kalhoro NH, Veits J, Rautenschlein S, Zimmer G. A recombinant vesicular stom- atitis virus replicon vaccine protects chickens from highly pathogenic avian inuenza virus (H7N1). Vaccine 2009;27(8):117483. [57] Widman DG, Frolov I, Mason PW. Third-generation avivirus vaccines based on single-cycle, encapsidation-defective viruses. Advances in Virus Research 2008;72:77126. [58] Perri S, Greer CE, Thudium K, Doe B, Legg H, Liu H, et al. An alphavirus repli- con particle chimera derived fromvenezuelan equine encephalitis and sindbis viruses is a potent gene-based vaccine delivery vector. Journal of Virology 2003;77(19):10394403. [59] Caley IJ, Betts MR, Irlbeck DM, Davis NL, Swanstrom R, Frelinger JA, et al. Humoral, mucosal, and cellular immunity in response to a human immunodeciency virus type 1 immunogen expressed by a Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus vaccine vector. Journal of Virology 1997;71(4): 30318. [60] Gehrke R, Heinz FX, Davis NL, Mandl CW. Heterologous gene expression by infectious and replicon vectors derived fromtick-borne encephalitis virus and direct comparison of this avivirus systemwith an alphavirus replicon. Journal of General Virology 2005;86(Pt 4):104553. [61] Wang Y, Swiecki M, McCartney SA, Colonna M. dsRNA sensors and plasmacy- toid dendritic cells in host defense and autoimmunity. Immunological Review 2011;243(1):7490. [62] Piggott JM, Sheahan BJ, Soden DM, OSullivan GC, Atkins GJ. Electroporation of RNA stimulates immunity to an encoded reporter gene in mice. Molecular Medicine Report 2009;2(5):7536. [63] Johansson DX, Ljungberg K, Kakoulidou M, Liljestrom P. Intradermal electro- poration of naked replicon RNA elicits strong immune responses. PLoS One 2012;7(1):e29732. [64] Weide B, Pascolo S, Scheel B, Derhovanessian E, Pugfelder A, Eigentler TK, et al. Direct injection of protamine-protected mRNA: results of a phase 1/2 vaccination trial in metastatic melanoma patients. Journal of Immunotherapy 2009;32(5):498507. [65] Rittig SM, Haentschel M, Weimer KJ, Heine A, Muller MR, Brugger W, et al. Intradermal vaccinations with RNA coding for TAA generate CD8 + and CD4 + immuneresponses andinduceclinical benet invaccinatedpatients. Molecular Therapy 2011;19(5):9909. [66] Bernstein DI, Reap EA, Katen K, Watson A, Smith K, Norberg P, et al. Randomized, double-blind, phase 1 trial of an alphavirus replicon vac- cine for cytomegalovirus in CMV seronegative adult volunteers. Vaccine 2009;28(2):48493.