Liposomes in Biology and Medicine

  • Reto A. Schwendener
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 620)


Drug delivery systems (DDS) have become important tools for the specific delivery of a large number of drug molecules. Since their discovery in the 1960s liposomes were recognized as models to study biological membranes and as versatile DDS of both hydrophilic and lipophilic molecules. Liposomes—nanosized unilamellar phospholipid bilayer vesicles—undoubtedly represent the most extensively studied and advanced drug delivery vehicles. After a long period of research and development efforts, liposome-formulated drugs have now entered the clinics to treat cancer and systemic or local fungal infections, mainly because they are biologically inert and biocompatible and practically do not cause unwanted toxic or antigenic reactions. A novel, up-coming and promising therapy approach for the treatment of solid tumors is the depletion of macrophages, particularly tumor associated macrophages with bisphosphonate-containing liposomes. In the advent of the use of genetic material as therapeutic molecules the development of delivery systems to target such novel drug molecules to cells or to target organs becomes increasingly important. Liposomes, in particular lipid-DNA complexes termed lipoplexes, compete successfully with viral gene transfection systems in this field of application. Future DDS will mostly be based on protein, peptide and DNA therapeutics and their next generation analogs and derivatives. Due to their versatility and vast body of known properties liposome-based formulations will continue to occupy a leading role among the large selection of emerging DDS.


Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Drug Delivery System Liposomal Doxorubicin Cationic Lipid Tumor Associate Macrophage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bangham AD, Standish MM, Watkins JC. Diffusion of univalent ions across the lamellae of swollen phospholipids. J Mol Biol 1965; 13:238–252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sessa G, Weissmann G. Phospholipid spherules (liposomes) as a model for biological membranes. J Lipid Res 1968: 9:310–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bangham A. Liposomes: Realizing their promise. Hosp Pract 1992; 27:51–62.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim S. Liposomes as carriers of cancer chemotherapy. Drugs 1993; 46:618–638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drummond DC, Meyer O, Hong K et al. Optimizing liposomes for delivery of chemotherapeutic agents to solid tumors. Pharmacol Rev 1999; 51:691–743.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ding BS, Dziubla T, Shuvaev VV et al. Advanced drug delivery systems that target the vascular endothelium. Mol Intervent 2006; 6:98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patil SD, Rhodes DG, Burgess DJ. DNA-based therapeutics and DNA delivery systems: A comprehensive review. AAPS J 2006; 7:E61–E77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torchilin VP. Recent approaches to intracellular delivery of drugs and DNA and organelle targeting. Ann Rev Biomed Eng 2006; 8:1.1–1.31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tiera MJ, Winnik FO, Fernandes JC. Synthetic and natural polycations for gene therapy: State of the art and new perspectives. Curr Gene Ther 2006; 6:59–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahoo SK, Labhasetwar V. Nanotech approaches to drug delivery and imaging. Drug Discov Today 2003; 8:1112–1120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torchilin VP. Recent advances with liposomes as pharmaceutical carriers. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005; 4:145–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moses MA, Brem H, Langer R. Advancing the field of drug delivery: Taking aim at cancer. Cancer Cell 2003; 4:337–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gregoriadis G, Wills EJ, Swain CP et al. Drug-carrier potential of liposomes in cancer chemotherapy. Lancet 1974; 1(7870):1313–1316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahman YE, Cerny EA, Tollaksen SL et al. Liposome-encapsulated actinomycin D: Potential in cancer chemotherapy. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1974; 146:1173–1176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Allen TM. Ligund-targeted therapeutics in anticancer therapy. Nat Rev Canc 2002; 2:750–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fenske DB, Cullis PR. Entrapment of small molecules and nucleic acid-based drugs in liposomes. Meth Enzymol 2005; 391:7–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barratt G. Colloidal drug carriers: Achievements and perspectives. CMLS Cell Mol Life Sci 2003; 60:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ramsay EC, Dos Santos N, Dragowska WH et al. The formulation of lipid-based nanotechnologies for the delivery of fixed dose anticancer drug combinations. Curr Drug Deliv 2:341–351.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allen TM. Liposomal drug formulations: Rationale for development and whatA color version of this figure is available online at color version of this figure is available online at; we can expect for the future. Drugs 1998; 56:747–756.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gabizon A, Martin F. P:olyethylene glycol-coated (pegylated) liposomal doxorubicin. Rationale for use in solid tumors. Drugs 1997; 54(S4):15–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coukell AJ, Spencer CM. Polyethylene glycol-liposomal doxorubicin. Drugs 1997; 53:520–538.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hofheinz RD, Gnad-Vogt SU, Beyer U et al. Liposomal encapsulated anti-cancer drugs. Anti-Cancer Drugs 2005; 16:691–707.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moghimi SM, Szebeni J. Stealth liposomes and long circulating nanoparticles: Critical issues in pharmacokinetics, opsonization and protein-binding properties. Prog Lipid Res 2003; 42:463–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sapra P, Allen TM. Ligand-targeted liposomal anticancer drugs. Prog Lipid Res 2003; 42:439–462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harasym TO, Bally MB, Tardi P. Clearance properties of liposomes involving conjugated proteins-for targeting. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998; 32:99–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schwendener RA, Trub T, Schott H et al. Comparative studies of the preparation of immunoliposomes with the use of two bifunctional coupling agents and investigation of in vitro immunoliposome-target cell binding by cytofluorometry and electron microscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta 1990; 1026:69–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Park JW, Hong K, Carter P et al. Development of anti-p185HER2 immunoliposomes for cancer therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1995; 92:1327–1331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kirpotin D, Park JW, Hong K et al. Sterically stabilized anti-HER2 immunoliposomes: Design and targeting to human breast cancer cells in vitro. Biochem 1997; 36:66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Park JW, Benz CC, Martin FJ. Future directions of liposome-and immunoliposome-based cancer therapeutics. Semin Oncol 2004; 6(S13):196–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mamot C, Drummond DC, Greiser U et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted immunoliposomes mediate specific and efficient drug delivery to EGFR-and EGFRvIII-overexpressing tumor cells. Cancer Res 2003; 63:3154–3161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mamot C, Drummond DC, Noble CO et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted immunoliposomes significantly enhance the efficacy of multiple anticancer drugs in vivo. Cancer Res 2005; 65:11631–11638.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mamot C, Ritschard R, Kung W et al. EGFR-targeted immunoliposomes derived from the monoclonal antibody EMD72000 mediate specific and efficient drug delivery to a variety of colorectal cancer cells. J Drug Target 2006; 14:215–223.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hosokawa S, Tagawa T, Niki H et al. Efficacy of immunoliposomes on cancer models in a cell-surface-antigen-density-dependent manner. Br J Canc 2003; 89:1545–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sapra P, Moase EH, Ma J et al. Improved therapeutic responses in a xenograft model of human B lymphoma (Namalwa) for liposomal vincristine versus liposomal doxorubicin targeted via anti-CD19 IgG2a or Fab’ fragments. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:1100–1111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pastorino F, Brignole C, Marimpietri D et al. Doxorubicin-loaded Fab’ fragments of anti-disaloganglioside immunoliposomes selectively inhibit the growth and dissemination of human neuroblastoma in nude mice. Cancer Res 2003; 63:86–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Marty C, Odermatt B, Schott H et al. Cytotoxic targeting of F9 teratocarcinoma tumours with anti-ED-B fibronectin scFv antibody modified liposomes. Br J Canc 2002; 87:106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Marty C, Langer-Machova Z, Sigrist S et al. Isolation and characterization of a scFv antibody specific for tumor endothelial marker 1 (TEM1), a new reagent for targeted tumor therapy. Cancer Lett 2006; 235:298–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rubio Demirovic A, Marty C, Console S et al. Targeting human cancer cells with VEGF receptor-2-directed liposomes. Oncol Rep 2005; 13:319–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gabizon A, Horowitz AT, Goren D et al. In vivo fate of folate-targeted polyethylene glycol liposomes in tumor-bearing mice. Clin Canc Res 2003; 9:6551–6559.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Leamon CP, Cooper SR, Hardee GE. Folate-liposome-mediated antisense oligodeoxynucleotide targeting to cancer cells: Evaluation in vitro and in vivo. Bioconjug Chem 2003; 14:738–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xu L, Huang CC, Huang W et al. Systemic tumor-targeted gene delivery by anti-transferrin receptor scFv-immunoliposomes. Mol Canc Ther 2002; 1:337–346.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pastorino F, Brignole C, Marimpietri D et al. Vascular damage and anti-angiogenic effects of tumor vessel-targeted liposomal chemotherapy. Cancer Res 2003; 63:7400–7409.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schiffelers RM, Fens MH, Janssen AP et al. Liposomal targeting of angiogenic vasculature. Curr Drug Deliv 2005; 2:363–368.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schiffelers RM, Koning GA, Ten Hagen TL et al. Anti-tumor efficacy of tumor vasculature-targeted liposomal doxorubicin. J Control Release 2003; 91:115–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Huth US, Schubert R, Peschka-Suss R. Investigating the uptake and intracellular fate of pH-sensitive liposomes by flow cytometry and spectral bio-imaging. J Control Release 2006; 110:490–504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Järver P, Langel U. Cell-penerating peptides — A brief introduction. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006; 1758:260–263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wagstaff KM, Jans DA. Protein transduction: Cell penetrating peptides and their therapeutic applications. Curr Med Chem 2006; 13:1371–1387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Torchilin VP, Rammohan R, Weissig V et al. TAT peptide on the surface of liposomes affords their efficient intracellular delivery even at low temperature and in the presence of metabolic inhibitors. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:8786–8791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marty C, Meylan C, Schott H et al. Enhanced heparan sulfate proteoglycan-mediated uptake of cell-penetrating peptide-modified liposomes. CMLS Cell Mol Life Sci 2004; 61:1785–1794.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rose PG. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: Optimizing the dosing schedule in ovarian cancer. Oncologist 2005; 10:205–214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schwendener RA, Fiebig HH, Berger MR et al. Evaluation of incorporation characteristics of mitoxantrone into unilamellar liposomes and analysis of their pharmacokinetic properties, acute toxicity, and antitumor efficacy. Canc Chemother Pharmacol 1991; 27:429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pestalozzi B, Schwendener R, Sauter C. Phase I/II study of liposome-complexed mitoxantrone in patients with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1992; 3:419–421.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Liu JJ, Hong RL, Cheng WF et al. Simple and efficient liposomal encapsulation of topotecan by ammonium sulfate gradient: Stability, pharmacokinetic and therapeutic evaluation. Anti-Cancer Drugs 2002; 13:709–717.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Drummond DC, Noble CO, Guo Z et al. Development of a highly active nanoliposomal irinotecan using a novel intraliposomal stabilization strategy. Cancer Res 2006; 66:3271–3277.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rueda Dominguez A, Olmos Hidalgo D, Viciana Garrido R et al. Liposomal cytarabine (DepoCyte) for the treatment of neoplastic meningitis. Clin Transl Oncol 2005; 7:232–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Immordino ML, Brusa P, Rocco F et al. Preparation, characterization, cytotoxicity and pharmacokinetics of liposomes containing lipophilic gemcitabine prodrugs. J Control Release 2004; 100:331–346.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bergman AM, Kuiper, CM, Noordhuis P et al. Antiproliferative activity and mechanism of action of fatty acid derivatives of gemcitabine in leukemia and solid tumor cell lines and in human xenografts. Nucleos Nucleot Nucl Acids 2004; 23:1329–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harrington KJ, Syrigos KN, Uster PS et al. Targeted radiosensitisation by pegylated liposome-encapsulated 3′, 5′-O-dipalmitoyl 5-iodo-2′-deoxyuridine in a head and neck cancer xenograft model. Br J Canc 2004; 91:366–373.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Pignatello R, Puleo A, Puglisi G et al. Effect of liposomal delivery on in vitro antitumor activity of lipophilic conjugates of methotrexate with lipoamino acids. Drug Deliv 2003; 10:95–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Stevens PJ, Sekido M, Lee RJ. A folate receptor-targeted lipid nanoparticle formulation for a lipophilic paclitaxel prodrug. Pharm Res 2004; 21:2153–2157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lundberg BB, Risovic V, Ramaswamy M et al. A lipophilic paclitaxel derivative incorporated in a lipid emulsion for parenteral administration. J Control Release 2003; 86:93–100.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lopez-Barcons LA, Zhang J, Siriwitayawan G et al. The novel highly lipophilic topoisomerase I inhibitor DB67 is effective in the treatment of liver metastases of murine CT-26 colon carcinoma. Neoplasia 2004; 6:457–467.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fahr A, van Hoogevest P, May S et al. Transfer of lipophilic drugs between liposomal membranes and biological interfaces: Consequences for drug delivery. Eur J Pharm Sci 2005; 26:251–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Ten Tije AJ, Verweij J, Loos WJ et al. Pharmacological effects of formulation vehicles: Implications for cancer chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacokinet 2003; 42:665–685.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Strickley RG. Solubilizing excipients in oral and injectable formulations. Pharm Res 2004; 21:201–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hamada A, Kawaguchi T, Nakano M. Clinical pharmacokinetics of cytarabine formulations. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002; 41:705–718.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Schwendener RA, Schott H. Lipophilic 1-β-D-arabinofuranosyl cytosine derivatives in liposomal formulations for oral and parenteral antileukemic therapy in the murine L1210 leukemia model. J Canc Res Clin Oncol 1996; 122:723–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schwendener RA, Friedl K, Depenbrock H et al. In vitro activity of liposomal N4 octadecyl-1-β-D-arabinofuranosyl cytosine (NOAC), a new lipophilic derivative of 1-β-D-arabino-furanosyl cytosine on biopsized clonogenic human tumor cells and hematopoietic precursor cells. Invest New Drugs 2001; 19:203–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schwendener RA, Schott H. Lipophilic arabinofuranosyl cytosine derivatives in liposomes. Meth Enzymol 2005; 391:58–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Cattaneo-Pangrazzi RMC, Schott H, Wunderli-Allenspach H et al. The novel heterodinucleoside dimer 5-FdU-NOAC is a potent cytotoxic drug and a p53-independent inducer of apoptosis in the androgen-independent human prostate cancer cell lines PC-3 and DU-145. Prostate 2000; 45:8–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cattaneo-Pangrazzi RMC, Schott H, Wunderli-Allenspach H et al. New amphiphilic heterodinucleoside phosphate dimers of 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (5FdUrd): Cell cycle dependent cytotoxicity and induction of apoptosis in PC-3 prostate tumor cells. Biochem Pharmacol 2000; 60:1887–1896.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Takatori S, Kanda H, Takenaka K et al. Antitumor mechanisms and metabolism of the novel antitumor nucleoside analogues, 1-(3-C-ethynyl-β-D-ribo-pentofuranosyl)cytosine and 1-(3-C-ethynyl-β-D-ribopento-furanosyl)-uracil. Canc Chemother Pharmacol 1999; 44:97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Krise JP, Stella VJ. Prodrugs of phosphates, phosphonates, and phosphinates. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1996; 19:287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wagner CR, Iyer VV, McIntee EJ. Pronucleotides: Toward the in vivo delivery of antiviral and anticancer nucleotides. Med Res Rev 2000; 20:417–451.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Seiler P, Aichele P, Odermatt B et al. Crucial role of marginal zone macrophages and marginal zone metallophils in the clearance of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus infection. Eur J Immunol 1997; 27:2626–2633.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Roscic-Mrkic B, Schwendener RA, Odermatt B et al. Roles of macrophages in measles virus infection of genetically modified mice. J Virol 2001; 75:3343–3351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Tyner JW, Uchida O, Kajiwara N et al. CCL5/CCR5 interaction provides anti-apoptotic signals for macrophage survival during viral infection. Nat Med 2005; 11:1180–1187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Van Rooijen N, Kors N, Kraal G. Macrophage subset repopulation in the spleen: Differential kinetics after liposome-mediated elimination. J Leukocyte Biol 1989; 45:97–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A. Tumour-associated macrophages as a prototypic type II polarised phagocytic population: Role in tumour progression. Eur J Canc 2004; 40:1660–1667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Joyce JA. Therapeutic targeting of the tumor microenvironment. Canc Cell 2005; 7:513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Balkwill F. Cancer and the chemokine network. Nat Rev Canc 2004; 4:540–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Pollard JW. Tumour-educated macrophages promote tumour progression and metastasis. Nat Rev Canc 2004; 4:71–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Zeisberger SM, Odermatt B, Marty C et al. Clodronate-liposome-mediated depletion of tumour-associated macrophages: A new and highly effective antiangiogenic therapy approach. Br J Canc 2006; 95:272–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ewert K, Evans HM, Ahmad A et al. Lipoplex structures and their distinct cellular pathways. Adv Genet 2005; 53:119–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Spagnou S, Miller AD, Keller M. Lipidic carriers of siRNA: Differences in the formulation, cellular uptake, and delivery with plasmid DNA. Biochemistry 2004; 43:13348–13356.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Shuey DJ, McCallus DE, Giordano T. RNAi: Gene-silencing in therapeutic intervention. Drug Discov Today 2002; 7:1040–1046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    May S, Ben-Shaul A. Modeling of cationic lipid-DNA complexes. Curr Med Chem 2004; 11:151–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Tranchant I, Thompson B, Nicolazzi C et al. Physicochemical optimisation of plasmid delivery by cationic lipids. J Gene Med 2004; 6:S24–S35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zhdanov RI, Podobed OV, Vlassov VV. Cationic lipid-DNA complexes-lipoplexes-for gene transfer and therapy. Bioelectrochem 2002; 58:53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Matsuura M, Yamazaki Y, Sugiyama M et al. Polycation liposome-mediated gene transfer in vivo. Biochim Biophys Acta 2003; 1612:136–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Yu W, Pirollo KF, Rait A et al. A sterically stabilized immunolipoplex for systemic administration of a therapeutic gene. Gene Ther 2004; 11:1434–1440.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Safinya CR. Structures of lipid-DNA complexes: Supramolecular assembly and gene delivery. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2001; 11:440–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Zhang JS, Liu F, Huang L. Implications of pharmacokinetic behavior of lipoplex for its inflammatory toxicity. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2005; 57:689–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Audouy SA, de Leij LF, Hoekstra D et al. In vivo characteristics of cationic liposomes as delivery vectors for gene therapy. Pharm Res 2002; 9:1599–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zhou H, Liu D, Liang C. Challenges and strategies The immune responses in gene therapy. Med Res Rev 2004; 24:748–761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reto A. Schwendener
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Molecular Cancer ResearchUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations