Next Article in Journal
Physiology-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling for Prediction of Gentamicin Plasma Profile in Dogs with Renal Dysfunction
Next Article in Special Issue
Advancing Needle-Free Jet Injectors for Global Vaccine Delivery
Previous Article in Journal
Cyclodextrins as Modulators of Regulated Cell Death: Implications for Immunometabolism and Therapeutic Innovation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Compaction Parameters and Techniques on MUPS Tablets
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Lactococcus lactis as a New Strategy for Oral Vaccination: Current Insights and Future Perspectives

by
Jonnathan Grossolli-Galvez
1,2,
Mónica Imarai
1,
Jorge A. Soto
2,3 and
Abel E. Vasquez
4,5,*
1
Laboratorio de Inmunología, Departamento de Biología, Centro de Biotecnología Acuícola, Facultad de Química y Biología, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Santiago 91700022, Chile
2
Translational Immunology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 8370146, Chile
3
Center for Research on Pandemic Resilience, Faculty of Life Sciences and Institute of Public Health, Universidad Andres Bello, Santiago 8370146, Chile
4
School of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad Mayor, Santiago 8580745, Chile
5
Center for Biomedicine, Universidad Mayor, Santiago 8580745, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmaceutics 2026, 18(3), 307; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics18030307
Submission received: 25 November 2025 / Revised: 16 December 2025 / Accepted: 22 December 2025 / Published: 28 February 2026

Abstract

Lactococcus lactis, a safe food-grade lactic acid bacterium, has attracted increasing attention as a live biotherapeutic platform for mucosal vaccine development. Its genetic simplicity, absence of endotoxins, and availability of well-characterized inducible systems have enabled controlled expression and delivery of heterologous antigens and therapeutic molecules. This review highlights recent advances in the use of genetically modified L. lactis for mucosal immunization, focusing on expression technologies, routes of administration, and immune mechanisms relevant to protection or tolerance. Preclinical studies demonstrate its capacity to induce both mucosal and systemic immune responses against diverse pathogens, underscoring its potential as a safe and versatile vaccine chassis. Remaining challenges include regulatory harmonization, biosafety concerns, and the need for standardized manufacturing and evaluation frameworks. Together, these developments position L. lactis as a promising candidate for next-generation mucosal vaccines and live biotherapeutic products.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The term “probiotic” was first introduced in the 1960s and later formalized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2001. Probiotics are defined as ‘Live microorganisms which, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host” [1,2]. A fundamental requirement for probiotic efficacy is their ability to survive the harsh conditions of the gastrointestinal tract [3,4], particularly the acidic environment of the stomach and the presence of bile salts [5]. Additional characteristics include adhesion to mucosal and epithelial surfaces [6,7], antimicrobial resistance in specific contexts, anti-mutagenic properties, and potential anticancer activities. Notably, probiotics have been associated with immunomodulatory effects, such as the regulation of inflammatory cytokines, stimulation of phagocytic activity, and modulation of both innate and adaptive immune responses [8].
The clinical interest in probiotics has expanded significantly in recent years, driven by the increasing global concern over antibiotic resistance, the demand for more targeted and host-friendly therapies, and the growing understanding of the gut microbiota’s role in human health [9]. One of the most promising applications of probiotics lies in their use as delivery platforms for therapeutic molecules. Through genetic engineering, probiotic strains can be modified to express heterologous genes encoding therapeutic peptides or proteins [10], opening new possibilities in the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, inflammation, and even cancer [11].
However, several limitations hinder their broader therapeutic application. A significant obstacle is the lack of specific regulatory frameworks for genetically modified probiotics, which prevents their official registration as genetically engineered organisms in many countries [12]. Unlike conventional probiotics used in foods or supplements, Live Biotherapeutic Products (LBPs) are defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as biological products that contain live organisms applicable to the prevention, treatment, or cure of a disease but are not vaccines and do not fall under traditional dietary categories. This distinction creates regulatory uncertainty that will be discussed further in subsequent sections [13].
Moreover, challenges persist in the early development stages of LBPs, including ensuring safety, efficacy, and manufacturing quality. In contrast to conventional pharmaceutical products, LBPs currently lack standardized preclinical and clinical guidelines, as well as robust post-marketing surveillance systems [13,14,15]. The absence of established quality controls and biomarkers for efficacy remains a significant hurdle for their widespread clinical adoption. Additionally, safety concerns must be carefully evaluated, including the potential for horizontal gene transfer, unintentional immune activation, or disruption of host microbiota composition.
Physiological barriers also limit the effectiveness of LBPs, as these microorganisms must resist degradation by digestive enzymes and bile fluids to reach their target site [16]. Oral vaccines are considered one of the most promising applications of live biotherapeutic products (LBPs). However, they encounter intrinsic limitations associated with the tolerogenic environment of the gastrointestinal tract, which can attenuate antigen-specific immune activation and reduce overall vaccine efficacy [17]. To generate a protective immune response, these systems must cross the mucosal barrier, activate antigen-presenting cells (APCs), and ensure effective delivery of the antigen to the appropriate intestinal immune compartments [18].
Among the LBPs, Lactococcus lactis, a member of the lactic acid bacteria group, has emerged as a leading candidate. This bacterium has demonstrated considerable potential in oral vaccine development, particularly through modifications that enable the production of immunogenic proteins capable of eliciting measurable immune responses [15]. In addition to L. lactis, various Lactobacillus species have also been explored extensively as live vectors. Both microorganisms have a long history of safe consumption in fermented foods and are classified as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS), making them attractive alternatives to attenuated pathogens for antigen delivery at mucosal surfaces [19]. Lactobacillus spp. Often, they persist longer in the gastrointestinal and mucosal environment, eliciting strong local and systemic immune responses due to prolonged residence and intrinsic probiotic properties that facilitate host immune interaction. In contrast, L. lactis is considered the model LAB vector because of its well-established genetic tools, short residence time in the gut, and versatility for controlled antigen expression, minimizing risks of prolonged colonization and tolerance [20,21]. This review aims to summarize the most recent advancements in the use of genetically modified microorganisms, with a particular focus on L. lactis as a platform for vaccine delivery. We will examine both experimental and clinical research, highlighting opportunities, technological innovations, and regulatory limitations that define the current landscape and future potential of these live biotherapeutic systems.

2. Advantages of Lactococcus lactis for Its Application in LBPs

Lactococcus lactis is a non-pathogenic, Gram-positive bacterium that has been classified as “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Traditionally used in the food industry to produce dairy products, fermented vegetables, and other fermented foods, L. lactis has long been valued for its metabolic simplicity, lack of endotoxins, and extensive history of safe human consumption [22].
The complete genome sequencing of various L. lactis strains [23,24] has facilitated the development of advanced genetic engineering tools, enabling the use of this bacterium as a vehicle for mucosal delivery of bioactive proteins [25]. Three major subspecies have been identified: L. lactis subsp. lactis, subsp. cremoris, and subsp. hordniae. Among these, L. lactis subsp. cremoris MG1363 has become the reference strain for genetic manipulation. This derivative of the ancestral NCDO712 strain (formerly classified as Streptococcus lactis) is plasmid-free, lacks phages, and is devoid of extracellular proteases, making it particularly suitable for laboratory applications [26,27]. In this line, MG1363 has been modified to remove the pLP712 plasmid, which encodes the lac operon and proteases required for casein degradation. As a result, this strain is incapable of growing in milk, which limits its survival and propagation outside controlled laboratory environments [27]. This biosafety feature, along with its genetic tractability, makes L. lactis an attractive chassis for synthetic biology applications.
Although L. lactis does not naturally colonize the gastrointestinal tract of humans or animals, it can transiently survive after oral administration, allowing short-term interaction with intestinal mucosal surfaces. In murine models (BALB/c), viable L. lactis cells have been detected in the small intestine up to 24 h after a single oral dose of 5 × 1010 CFU, with gradual clearance thereafter [28]. Similarly, in human volunteers, the strain MG1363 was detected in ileal effluents up to four hours after ingestion of 3 × 107 CFU, confirming its transient persistence and low colonization potential [29]. This limited residence time is advantageous for biosafety, as it minimizes long-term colonization while permitting sufficient antigen release and interaction with gut-associated lymphoid tissues (GALT).
Beyond its favorable safety profile, L. lactis displays intrinsic immunomodulatory properties relevant to its use as a live vaccine vector. In vitro studies using human intestinal epithelial cell lines (HT-29 and Caco-2) have demonstrated that L. lactis stimulates the production of chemokines, such as IL-8, thereby promoting the recruitment of immune cells to mucosal sites [30]. In murine models, recombinant L. lactis strains expressing immunoregulatory molecules (e.g., IL-10) [31] or pathogen-derived antigens from Helicobacter pylori [32], HPV-16 [33], and Listeria monocytogenes [34] elicited antigen-specific immune responses, cytokine polarization, and protection against infection or tumor challenge. Together, these findings support the potential of L. lactis not only as a safe delivery vehicle but also as a biologically active adjuvant capable of shaping mucosal and systemic immune responses.
In addition, the favorable safety profile of L. lactis exhibits immunomodulatory properties such as an adjuvant by inducing chemokine expression both in vivo and in vitro. In addition, it can promote the maturation of bone marrow-derived dendritic cells [35,36]. These characteristics have positioned L. lactis as a promising platform for the development of mucosal vaccines, particularly for delivering antigens from viral, bacterial, and parasitic pathogens.

3. Conventional Methods and Challenges for Antigen Expression and Secretion in Lactococcus lactis

The unique combination of safety, transient persistence, and immunomodulatory potential has established L. lactis as one of the most versatile bacterial chassis for live biotherapeutic and vaccine applications [22]. However, the success of this platform largely depends on the efficiency and regulation of heterologous gene expression. A range of expression systems has been developed to optimize antigen synthesis, secretion, and surface display in L. lactis, each offering distinct levels of control and applicability for mucosal vaccine design. The following section summarizes the main inducible and physiological systems currently employed for antigen expression in L. lactis, highlighting their mechanisms of regulation, strengths, and limitations (Table 1).

3.1. Nisin-Controlled Gene Expression (NICE)

One of the most widely adopted platforms for heterologous gene expression in L. lactis is the Nisin-Controlled Gene Expression (NICE) system [37]. Initially developed by de Ruyter and collaborators [38]. This system allows for tightly regulated and dose-dependent induction of gene expression in response to nisin, an antibiotic approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1988 and commonly used as a food preservative [39].
The NICE system operates through a two-component signal transduction mechanism, comprising the membrane-bound histidine kinase NisK and the cytoplasmic response regulator NisR (Figure 1) [37]. When nisin is added to the culture medium, it binds to NisK, initiating autophosphorylation. NisK then transfers the phosphate group to NisR, activating it. Phosphorylated NisR subsequently induces transcription from nisin-responsive promoters, primarily the PnisA promoter. Notably, the promoter driving the expression of the nisK and nisR genes remains constitutively active. It is not regulated by nisin, thereby ensuring basal levels of the regulatory proteins regardless of external stimuli [40].
Initially, the NICE system was implemented in L. lactis NZ9700; this strain is a transconjugant from a mating between the nisin-A-producing strain NIZO R5 and the plasmid-free strain MG1614 and contains a single copy of the nisin-sucrose transposon Tn5276 at the same chromosomal site as in L. lactis T165.1 and T165.5 [41]. The system was further optimized in L. lactis subsp. cremoris MG1363 by Kuipers and collaborators, who engineered a strain (NZ9000) by inserting nisK, nisR, the 3′ end of nisP, and the 5′ end of nisF into the chromosome, replacing parts of the pepN and napC genes [42]. This enhanced strain became the standard for NICE-based expression. In L. lactis NZ9000, gene induction is achieved by adding subinhibitory concentrations of nisin, typically ranging from 0.1 to 10 ng/mL [43].

3.2. Xylose Inducible Expression System (XIES)

In addition to the widely used NICE system, L. lactis has also been engineered to utilize the Xylose-Inducible Expression System (XIES), which offers a tightly regulated alternative for heterologous gene expression. This system is based on the PxylT promoter, identified in the xylose utilization operon of L. lactis subsp. lactis NCDO2118, which controls transcription of the xylT gene encoding a xylose permease [44]
Functional characterization of PxylT demonstrated that it contains a conserved catabolite-responsive element (cre) [45]. In the presence of xylose, the transcriptional activator XylR binds to PxylT and strongly induces transcription—up to 10,000-fold during mid-exponential growth (OD600 ≈ 0.4). This promoter can be repeatedly switched on by the addition of xylose and off by washing and resuspending cells in glucose-containing medium, providing precise, reversible, and food-grade control over gene expression [44].
With these findings, Miyoshi and collaborators developed a complete xylose-inducible expression system combining PxylT with the ribosome-binding site and secretion signal peptide (SP) of the Usp45 protein [46], fused to the Staphylococcus aureus nuclease gene (nuc) as a reporter [47]. This configuration allowed targeted expression of heterologous proteins either in the cytoplasm or secreted into the extracellular medium, demonstrating efficient and controllable protein production in the vegetable isolate L. lactis NCDO2118.
Compared with the nisin-inducible NICE system, XIES presents several advantages: it does not require antibiotic or peptide inducers, making it safer and more cost-effective; and its regulatory logic directly couples gene expression to the carbon source, which is advantageous for food-grade applications [48]. Nonetheless, its practical use is restricted to strains that can metabolize xylose; L. lactis NZ9000 lacks the xylose utilization pathway [24]. Comparative analyses revealed that the cytoplasmic and secreted production of the reporter nuclease (Nuc) in L. lactis NCDO2118 was approximately tenfold higher under nisin induction than under xylose induction during exponential growth, although both systems reached similar expression levels in the stationary phase [44], which can affect the timing of protein synthesis. Despite these limitations, the XIES provides a reliable, tunable, and biosafe alternative for regulated protein production in L. lactis, expanding its applicability in mucosal vaccine and biotherapeutic development.

3.3. Zinc-Induced Systems

The PZn–zitR system is a zinc-repressible expression system described by Llull and collaborators [49] derived from the zit operon of L. lactis, which encodes the high-affinity zinc uptake ABC transporter ZitSPQ and its regulator ZitR. The regulatory mechanism is based on the ZitR repressor, a MarR-family metalloregulator that binds to the PZn promoter in the presence of excess zinc, thereby blocking transcription of downstream genes. When extracellular zinc becomes limited, ZitR dissociates from the promoter, allowing transcription to proceed. Consequently, the system is activated under conditions of zinc depletion, either naturally during bacterial growth or through chelation with agents such as EDTA. Thus, the system is activated by zinc depletion and can be induced through natural metal starvation or by adding chelating agents such as EDTA. This system provides tight regulation, gradual induction during bacterial growth, and is compatible with food-grade applications, as it does not rely on synthetic inducers like nisin. However, its limitations include the need for precise control of metal concentrations, possible interference with cell metabolism due to chelation, and lower maximal expression levels compared to the nisin-controlled expression (NICE) system. Despite these constraints, PZn–zitR remains a valuable tool for the controlled production of heterologous proteins in L. lactis, especially in mucosal or physiological environments where environmental cues naturally modulate gene expression [49].
In contrast, Zirex, designed by Mu and collaborators [50], introduced the SczA–PczcD regulatory module from Streptococcus pneumoniae into L. lactis, creating the first zinc-inducible expression system for this species. In Zirex, the transcriptional activator SczA binds to two specific motifs within the PczcD promoter to repress transcription in the absence of zinc and activate it in response to Zn2+ supplementation [50]. Experimental analyses in L. lactis NZ9000 showed that induction with 0.3–0.7 mM ZnSO4 during the exponential phase produced strong green fluorescent protein (GFP) expression, reaching approximately 80% of the levels achieved with the nisin-inducible PnisA promoter, while maintaining negligible basal expression under uninduced conditions. Moreover, Zirex exhibited low toxicity even at 0.5 mM Zn2+ and allowed precise, dose-dependent induction between 0 and 0.3 mM Zn2+. A key advantage of Zirex is its compatibility with other inducible systems: the designers demonstrated a dual-promoter configuration, combining PczcD and PnisA to independently express GFP and mCherry, achieving simultaneous expression with only minor signal interference (~10–20%). These properties make Zirex particularly attractive for the controlled expression of metalloenzymes, zinc-binding antigens, and antibiotic biosynthetic enzymes, where zinc serves both as inducer and cofactor. Although careful optimization of Zn2+ concentrations is required to prevent metal stress, Zirex offers a robust, tunable, and food-grade alternative for controlled heterologous protein production in L. lactis, expanding the available molecular toolbox for mucosal vaccine and biotherapeutic development [50].
More recently, Xu and collaborators reported the ZICE (Zn2+-Controlled Expression) system [51], derived from Streptococcus thermophilus, which was successfully applied in L. lactis NZ9000 [51]. The system is based on the sczAst–PczcDst regulatory module, homologous to that of S. pneumoniae, and provides precise zinc-dependent activation. In L. lactis NZ9000, induction with 0.8 mM ZnSO4 at mid-exponential growth (OD600 ≈ 0.4) resulted in strong expression of GFP and secreted IL-10, reaching approximately 60% of the levels obtained with the NICE system. Notably, the ZICE platform showed no background expression, tight on/off control, and improved expression when yeast extract was removed from the medium, suggesting an interaction between nitrogen availability and metal ion regulation. The stability, low cost, and physiological relevance of zinc as an inducer make ZICE a promising tool for the development of food-grade and probiotic-based expression systems.
Each of the zinc-responsive expression systems developed for Lactococcus spp. presents distinctive strengths and constraints depending on the regulatory mechanism and intended application. The native PZn–zitR system offers exceptional regulatory tightness and food-grade compatibility, as it relies exclusively on intrinsic metabolic control without requiring exogenous inducers. However, its activation depends on zinc depletion, which can be difficult to maintain under standard culture conditions and may alter cell physiology when strong chelating agents are used. The Zirex system, in contrast, provides high-level, zinc-inducible expression that reaches up to 80% of the activity of the nisin-controlled promoter while preserving minimal basal leakage. Its dose-dependent and reversible behavior makes it ideal for fine-tuned laboratory applications. However, the use of regulatory elements derived from S. pneumoniae may limit its classification as fully food-grade. The recently developed ZICE system represents a safe alternative, originating from S. thermophilus, a species with GRAS status. Although ZICE achieves slightly lower maximal expression (45–60% of NICE levels), it combines food-grade safety, low background activity, and simple induction through ZnSO4 supplementation.

3.4. Stress Induces Controlled Expression System (SICE)

The study by Benbouziane and collaborators designed the Stress-Inducible Controlled Expression (SICE) system in L. lactis, aiming to enhance the safety and physiological relevance of mucosal vaccine delivery [52]. This system relies on the groESL promoter, which is activated by host-related stress conditions such as heat, acidity, or bile salts [53,54], allowing in situ production and secretion of the antigen or therapeutic protein only during bacterial transit through the host. Using this approach, L. lactis strains expressing IL-10 or the HPV-16 E7 antigen successfully induced localized immune responses and tumor protection in murine models [52].
Recent studies further support the use of stress-responsive promoters as auto-inducible alternatives. A heat-shock promoter (Phsp) derived from Enterococcus faecium was characterized and shown to drive heterologous gene expression in both L. lactis and Lactobacillus plantarum under heat, salt, and pH stress conditions. Phsp activity is regulated by the class III stress response repressor CtsR, allowing low basal expression under non-stress conditions and strong induction upon exposure to industrially relevant stresses. This promoter was successfully incorporated into the shuttle vector pAR1801, enabling auto-inducible protein expression without the need for external inducers such as nisin, thereby reinforcing the potential of the stress-inducible system for safe, cost-effective, and physiologically relevant expression in LAB [55].
The main advantages of the Stress-Induced Controlled system lie in its auto-regulated expression, which eliminates the need for external inducers like nisin, and its localized activation within mucosal environments, thereby improving biosafety and simplifying vaccine administration. However, limitations include potential variability in expression levels due to fluctuating stress conditions and the episomal nature of the plasmid, which may lead to plasmid instability in the absence of selective pressure.
Overall, the SICE platform represents a promising strategy for mucosal immunization, combining controlled antigen release, host-responsive regulation, and the intrinsic safety of L. lactis as a non-pathogenic live vector for delivery [52,56].

3.5. Low-pH-Inducible Expression Systems

One of the systems used in the expression of recombinant protein in L. lactis is the P170 based on a chromosomal promoter from L. lactis MG1363 that is auto-induced in response to lactic acid accumulation and low pH conditions associated with the transition to the stationary phase [57,58]. Induction of the P170 promoter is mediated by the transcriptional regulator RcfB, a member of the Crp/Fnr family, which interacts with a conserved upstream sequence known as the ACiD box [59,60]. This regulatory mechanism is specifically responsive to lactate, whether produced endogenously during homofermentative growth or added exogenously, and correlates with growth inhibition and adaptation to acid stress [58,59]. Unlike chemically inducible systems, P170 does not require external inducers, thereby simplifying process control and facilitating scalability for industrial fermentations [60].
The performance of the P170 expression system was evaluated in L. lactis strains engineered for hyaluronic acid production and directly compared with the nisin-inducible NICE system. Recombinant strains SJR3 (hasABC) and SJR6 (hasABD) served as NICE-based references, while equivalent gene combinations were expressed under the control of the auto-inducible P170 promoter. In both batch and fed-batch bioreactor cultures, P170-driven expression consistently outperformed the NICE system. Under batch conditions, P170-based strains achieved up to ~50% higher hyaluronic acid titers and significantly increased molecular weight, with HA polymers exceeding 2.5 MDa at higher initial glucose concentrations. In contrast, NICE-based strains produced HA of lower molecular weight under comparable conditions. Similar trends were observed in fed-batch experiments, where P170 strains reached 40–45% higher HA concentrations and consistently higher molecular weights. These results suggest that auto-induction of the P170 promoter during the late-exponential growth phase enables a more favorable temporal separation between biomass formation and HA biosynthesis, resembling the native regulation of the has operon in Streptococcus zooepidemicus and likely reducing competition with central carbon metabolism and cell wall precursor synthesis [61]. Another interesting study that uses this system consists of the one by Cho and collaborators. The expression of the HPV16 L1 antigen under the p170 promoter in L. lactis MG1363 elicited both systemic and mucosal immune responses in mice, with antigen localization influencing the immune profile: intracellular expression favored IgA responses, whereas secreted antigen enhanced serum IgG levels [62].
The P170 expression system offers several advantages, including autoinduction driven by lactate accumulation, elimination of external inducers, and robust performance in batch and fed-batch fermentations [61], which together simplify process control and enhance scalability. Its induction during late-exponential growth enables improved temporal separation between biomass formation and product synthesis, benefiting metabolically demanding pathways. However, P170 activity is tightly coupled to acid stress and growth inhibition, which may limit maximal biomass and require careful process optimization [60,63].

3.6. Agmatine-Controlled Expression System

Another alternative inducible expression strategy in L. lactis is the Agmatine-Controlled Expression (ACE) system, which enables tightly regulated heterologous gene expression in response to extracellular agmatine. This system was developed based on the regulatory elements of the agmatine deiminase (AGDI) gene cluster from L. lactis subsp. cremoris CECT 8666, which is naturally involved in agmatine catabolism and putrescine biosynthesis [64].
ACE relies on the membrane-associated transcriptional regulator AguR, which is constitutively expressed and activates the PaguB promoter upon sensing extracellular agmatine. Unlike the NICE system, ACE operates through a single-component regulatory mechanism, simplifying its genetic architecture. To prevent carbon catabolite repression mediated by Catabolyte control protein A (CcpA), a point mutation was introduced into the cre site of PaguB, allowing efficient induction in glucose-containing media [65].
The resulting pACE vector was validated in L. lactis NZ9000 using reporter and enzymatic proteins, demonstrating strict agmatine-dependent induction with no detectable background expression. Maximal expression was achieved at 0,5 mM agmatine concentrations, and recombinant proteins were predominantly recovered in the soluble fraction. Comparative analyses indicated that expression levels obtained with ACE were comparable to, or higher than, those achieved with the NICE system under similar conditions. Although high agmatine concentrations slightly affected bacterial growth, final cell densities remained suitable for industrial-scale protein production [65].
In summary, the ACE system represents a robust, tightly regulated, and cost-effective alternative for inducible gene expression in L. lactis. Its single-component regulatory mechanism, lack of basal expression, and compatibility with strains lacking nisK/nisR expand the genetic toolbox available for this species. As such, the ACE system complements existing platforms, such as NICE and XIES, and constitutes a valuable option for the controlled production of recombinant proteins, including antigens and biotherapeutics intended for mucosal delivery, when L. lactis NZ9000 is not used.

3.7. Chloride-Inducible Gene Expression

An alternative inducible platform for heterologous gene expression in L. lactis is the chloride-inducible expression system, which is derived from regulatory elements of the gad operon [66,67]. This system was originally described by Sanders and collaborators through the identification of a sodium chloride-inducible promoter using single-copy chromosomal lacZ fusions in L. lactis MG1363 [66]. The use of chloride ions as an inducing signal is particularly attractive for dairy and food-related applications, as salt is a natural and widely accepted component of fermentation processes in adequate amounts [67].
This system relies on the transcriptional activator GadR and the chloride-responsive promoter Pgad, which regulate expression of the gadCB operon involved in acid stress response. GadR is constitutively expressed and activates transcription from Pgad in response to elevated extracellular chloride levels. Promoter activity increases in a dose-dependent manner, with maximal induction typically observed at NaCl concentrations of approximately 0.3–0.5 M, while basal expression in the absence of chloride remains negligible [68].
The gadR–Pgad regulatory module was subsequently adapted as a controllable expression system in L. lactis MG1363, demonstrating tight regulation and high induction ratios exceeding 1000-fold upon supplementation with NaCl. This platform was successfully used to control the expression of reporter proteins and biologically active enzymes, including proteins whose constitutive expression would be detrimental to bacterial viability, highlighting its stringent on/off behavior [66]. The chloride-inducible system has been primarily validated in L. lactis MG1363 and related strains, such as LL108 (Cmr repA+) and LL302 (repA+), in the same study, with gene induction achieved by supplementing the culture medium with food-grade sodium chloride. This suggests that it could also be possible to use this system in L. lactis NZ9000. Although the relatively high salt concentrations required for maximal induction may affect bacterial growth and limit in vivo applications, the simplicity, low cost, and food-grade nature of the inducer make this system a valuable alternative to peptide-based platforms such as NICE, expanding the molecular toolbox for regulated gene expression in L. lactis.

3.8. Phosphate Starvation-Inducible Expression System

The phosphate starvation-inducible expression system in L. lactis is based on transcriptional regulation mediated by the Pho regulon, as described in other bacteria such as Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis [69]. On L. lactis, Sirén and collaborators developed a gene expression system driven by the pstF promoter, which is associated with a high-affinity phosphate transport operon [70]. Under phosphate-replete conditions, promoter activity remains tightly repressed; however, phosphate limitation triggers activation through a conserved two-component regulatory mechanism involving a membrane-associated histidine kinase and a cognate response regulator, leading to strong transcriptional induction [71]. This regulatory logic enables growth-phase-dependent, auto-inducible expression without the need for exogenous inducers [70].
The performance of the system was evaluated using both intracellular and secreted model proteins in L. lactis. Under phosphate-depleted conditions, the pstF promoter supported robust expression of β-galactosidase and efficient secretion of α-amylase, with minimal basal activity observed in phosphate-rich media. Induction occurred when inorganic phosphate concentrations dropped below a defined threshold and could be rapidly reversed by phosphate supplementation, demonstrating tight and reversible control. Importantly, expression levels achieved under phosphate starvation were comparable to those obtained with NICE system under standard induction conditions. Moreover, the system remained functional at bioreactor scale, where induction was driven solely by natural phosphate consumption during growth, without the need for medium manipulation or inducer addition [70].
From an applied perspective, the phosphate starvation-inducible system offers several advantages, including its inducer-free nature, food-grade compatibility, low basal expression, and suitability for large-scale fermentation processes. The absence of a requirement for heterologous regulatory genes further simplifies strain construction and enhances versatility across L. lactis backgrounds. However, the system also presents limitations, notably reduced temporal precision compared to inducible systems and dependence on nutrient depletion, which may vary depending on the medium composition or growth conditions. The authors mentioned that the phosphate levels in the bioreactor fluctuated during the experiment which can complicate the analysis and development for mucosal vaccines. Despite these disadvantages, phosphate starvation responsive expression represents an interest and physiologically relevant alternative for controlled heterologous protein production in L. lactis, particularly for industrial, food-grade, mucosal vaccines and applications where external induction is impractical or when it is necessary to avoid the use of antibiotic resistance gene.

3.9. Strategies to Enhance Secretion of Heterologous Antigens in L. lactis

A major challenge in the development of L. lactis-based vaccines is achieving efficient secretion of heterologous antigenic proteins. Low secretion yields can limit antigen availability at mucosal sites, reducing both immunogenicity and overall vaccine efficacy [72,73]. Several strategies have been developed to optimize secretion in L. lactis, with a primary focus on signal peptide selection, peptide engineering, and protein fusion approaches.
One of the most widely employed strategies involves the use of the native signal peptide (SP) of Usp45, which directs proteins to the Sec-dependent secretion pathway and has been shown to outperform heterologous signal peptides in L. lactis [74]. The insertion of short synthetic pro-peptides, such as LEISSTCDA, between the signal peptide and the mature protein can significantly enhance secretion efficiency and protein yield by improving translocation and folding [75].
Beyond native SPs, heterologous signal peptides can be optimized to surpass Usp45 performance. An interesting study demonstrated that heterologous signal peptides can outperform Usp45 when carefully optimized. The SPK1 from Pediococcus pentosaceus was modified through targeted mutations in its N-, H-, and C-domains, and tested for the secretion of Staphylococcus aureus nuclease (NUC) in L. lactis. Several SPK1 variants enhanced secretion efficiency, with the best mutant, SPKM19, achieving up to a 1.4-fold increase and a 1.7-fold improvement in secretion activity yield compared to the wild-type SPK1. Notably, mutations in the cleavage site C-domain improved secretion, whereas changes in the H-domain were detrimental. These findings highlight the potential of developing heterologous SPs with higher efficacy than Usp45 for enhanced antigen secretion and mucosal delivery applications in L. lactis [76].
Additional approaches to improving secretion include fusion to carrier proteins or stabilizing domains, which protect labile antigens from cytoplasmic degradation and facilitate export [72], as well as co-expression with chaperone-like factors, which can protect labile antigens from cytoplasmic degradation and facilitate export. For example, co-expression of the Bacillus subtilis chaperone-like protein PrsA significantly increased total and secreted yields of heterologous proteins in L. lactis [77]. Similarly, the development of a thioredoxin (TrxA) fusion system in L. lactis, based on strategies previously applied in E. coli, enabled high-level production of soluble heterologous proteins that were previously insoluble or not expressed, while preserving protein integrity and allowing efficient purification and cleavage of the fusion TrxA using enterokinase [78].

3.10. Surface Display of Antigens in L. lactis

In addition to secretion, heterologous antigens can be delivered via cell-surface display in L. lactis. Several anchoring strategies have been developed, including fusion to cell-wall motifs such as the Streptococcus pyogenes M6 protein (CWAM6) [79], the H and W domain of PrtB from Lactobacillus delburueckii subsp. bulgaricus [80], LysM domains [81], among other strategies; these are summarized in the study of Michon and collaborators [82].
Surface display provides several advantages over secretion, including prolonged antigen exposure at mucosal sites, enhanced recognition by antigen-presenting cells, and reduced degradation compared to secreted proteins [83]. However, display efficiency may be limited by antigen size [84] or folding constraints [85], potentially reducing immunogenicity in some cases. Another disadvantage is the capability to express complex eukaryotic antigens that require post-translational modifications to exhibit activity [86].
Notably, some display strategies can be implemented without genetic modification of the host, enhancing biosafety and regulatory acceptance. Examples include non-covalent or covalent anchoring of antigens to the bacterial surface after expression. Ramasamy and collaborators demonstrated that the Plasmodium falciparum merozoite protein MSA2, non-covalently bound to non-genetically modified L. lactis GEM particles, elicited systemic and mucosal antibody responses comparable to those obtained with covalently anchored recombinant L. lactis, highlighting the potential of non-GMO platforms for oral vaccination [87]. Similarly, Varma and collaborators displayed Enterovirus 71 VP1 antigens on L. lactis by docking purified fusion proteins, successfully inducing immune responses in mice [88]. Ribelles and collaborators reported that non-GMO LAB displaying HPV-16 E7 on L. lactis and Lactobacillus casei achieved effective mucosal immunization in murine models [89]. Kalyanasundram and collaborators extended this concept to glycosylated mammalian antigens, demonstrating the successful anchoring of Tyrosinase-related protein 2 to L. lactis cell walls, which opens new avenues for therapeutic vaccine development [81]. Collectively, these studies illustrate that non-genetically modified surface display approaches offer safe, versatile, and effective antigen presentation strategies suitable for clinical translation and food-grade applications. Such non-GMO approaches are particularly attractive for the development of safety mucosal vaccines and food-grade applications, while still providing effective antigen presentation.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of the main antigen expression methods for L. lactis.
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of the main antigen expression methods for L. lactis.
SystemInductorAdvantagesDisadvantagesRefs.
NICENisin
-
Tight, dose-dependent control
-
High expression levels
-
Well-characterized and widely used
-
Suitable for secretion or surface display
-
Requires addition of nisin (non-food-grade inducer in some contexts)
-
Possible background expression
-
Limited in complex media containing nisin inhibitors
[37,38,40,41]
XIESXylose
-
Food-grade, no antibiotics or peptides
-
Cost-effective inducer
-
Direct link between metabolism and expression
-
Requires strains able to metabolize xylose
-
Slower induction during exponential growth
-
Lower maximal expression than NICE
[44,90]
Zinc Repressible SystemZinc depletion or chelation (EDTA)
-
Tight repression and gradual induction
-
Food-grade and environmentally responsive
-
Ideal for metal-dependent regulation studies
-
Requires precise control of Zn2+ concentration
-
Chelation can disturb cell physiology
-
Lower expression yield than NICE
[49]
ZirexZn2+
-
Strong induction (~80% of NICE)
-
Very low basal expression
-
Dual-promoter compatibility (can combine with NICE)
-
Suitable for metalloenzyme production
-
Requires fine-tuning of zinc concentration
-
May vary between strains
-
Still less standardized than NICE
[50]
ZICEZn2+
-
Completely food grade (GRAS)
-
No basal expression
-
Lower expression than NICE (45–60%)
[51]
SICEhost-related stress (heat, acidity, bile salts) through the groESL promoter
-
Auto-regulated and self-limiting
-
Activation during host transit (in situ expression)
-
No external inducer required
-
High biosafety potential
-
Variable induction due to stress conditions
-
Episomal plasmid may be unstable
[52]
P170Lactate accumulation/low pH
-
Auto-induced
-
Robust in batch/fed-batch
-
Activation is linked to acid stress and growth limitation
[57,58,59,60]
ACEAgmatite
-
No basal expression
-
Works in strains lacking NisK/NisR
-
High levels of agmatite can affect growth
[65]
Chloride-inducibleNaCl
-
Low cost
-
Food grade inducer
-
High salt may affect growth
[66,68]
Phosphate starvationPhosphate depletion
-
No inducer needed
-
Low basal expression
-
Less temporal precision
-
Phosphate fluctuations complicate control
[70]

4. Routes of Administration

The mucosal immune system is organized into functionally interconnected compartments called mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT), which includes the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT), nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT), bronchial-associated lymphoid tissue (BALT), skin-associated lymphoid tissues (SALTs), and genital organ-associated lymphoid tissues (GOALTs), among others [91]. Antigen exposure at mucosal sites triggers distinct immune pathways, influencing both the magnitude and quality of the immune response. Selecting the administration route for vaccines based on L. lactis is essential to induce the desired immune response, toward immune tolerance for the treatment of autoimmune and allergic diseases or toward robust protective immunity against pathogens [92]. Typically, the strongest immune response is elicited at the site of immunization and in anatomically adjacent mucosal sites [93].

4.1. Oral Administration

Oral administration is the most common and natural route for delivering L. lactis, especially in vaccine and immunomodulatory therapies [94]. This route is convenient, non-invasive, and advantageous for stimulating mucosal immunity within the gastrointestinal tract, primarily through the gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT) [95]. It can also induce a substantial local secretory IgA (SIgA) antibody response in the proximal part of the small intestine, the ascending colon, the stomach, and in the mammary and salivary glands [96]. Moreover, oral delivery enhances patient compliance and is suitable for both preventive and therapeutic applications [17,18]. However, a critical limitation of oral administration is the induction of oral tolerance, an immunological mechanism that prevents excessive inflammatory responses against dietary antigens and the resident microbiota [97]. Oral tolerance is characterized by local and systemic immune unresponsiveness following antigen exposure via the oral route [98]. This oral tolerance is mainly mediated by CD4+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) expressing the transcription factor FoxP3 [99]. These cells suppress immune responses through multiple mechanisms, including the production of inhibitory cytokines such as transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), interleukin IL-10, and IL-35. Also, they can release cytotoxic enzymes like granzyme and perforin, consume and degrade ATP and IL-2, and express inhibitory surface molecules such as LAG-3 and CTLA-4 [100].
In the mucosal immunity, IL-10, TGF-β, and CTLA-4 play fundamental roles in maintaining homeostasis, preventing excessive inflammation, and preserving epithelial barrier integrity [101,102,103]. Mucosal FoxP3+ Tregs frequently express IL-10 [104], which suppresses activation of myeloid cells [105], gamma delta T cells [106], and conventional CD4+ T cells [107,108]. STAT3 regulates IL-10 expression, crucial for autocrine activation of Tregs and suppression of Th17 responses [109,110]. TGF-β is essential for Treg suppressive function by enhancing effector activity through the SMAD signaling pathway [111,112]. CTLA-4, an inhibitory receptor constitutively expressed under FoxP3 control [113,114], competes with CD28 for CD80/CD86 ligands on dendritic cells (DCs), modulating immune activation [115,116]. Moreover, CTLA-4 expression in Tregs is induced by the microbiota, reinforcing its role in mucosal immune regulation [117]. Tregs also suppress immune responses via competitive and passive mechanisms, including aggregation around DCs mediated by high LFA-1 expression [118] and efficient sequestration of IL-2 from activated T cells due to high IL-2 receptor expression (CD25 and CD122), without producing IL-2 themselves, reinforced by FoxP3-mediated transcriptional repression of IL-2 [119,120,121,122].
In addition to immunological challenges, oral administration exposes L. lactis to harsh physical and chemical barriers, including gastric acidity, digestive enzymes, and competition from resident microbiota, all of which can reduce viability and antigen delivery efficiency [16]. Variability in effective dose delivery also presents challenges to consistent therapeutic outcomes.

4.2. Nasal Administration

Nasal administration offers an alternative route for delivering L. lactis to stimulate mucosal immunity in the respiratory tract. This route bypasses gastrointestinal barriers and can induce both local mucosal and systemic immune responses [123]. The nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) acts as the primary inductive site for immune activation in this route, containing microfold (M) cells, dendritic cells (DCs), and organized lymphoid follicles that facilitate efficient antigen sampling and presentation to naive T and B lymphocytes [91]. Following antigen uptake through microfold (M) cells and presentation by mucosal dendritic cells, B cell activation and class switching to IgA are promoted through cytokines such as IL-5 and IL-6, leading to robust secretory IgA (SIgA) production in the upper respiratory tract [124,125]. In addition, activated lymphocytes from NALT migrate to distant effector sites, including the oral, pulmonary, and genital mucosa, through the common mucosal immune system, generating coordinated humoral and cellular protection [126,127].
Nasal immunization can induce Th1/Th2-balanced or Th17-type immune responses depending on the antigen, adjuvant, or bacterial vector employed, resulting in effective cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) responses and long-term memory formation [128,129,130]. Compared with oral administration, the nasal route avoids enzymatic degradation and first-pass tolerance in the gastrointestinal tract, providing a more efficient and rapid activation of mucosal and systemic immunity [131]. However, limitations include mucociliary clearance, restricted dosing volume, and antigen instability within the nasal environment, which may compromise bacterial viability and immunogenicity. Strategies such as mucoadhesive formulations, nanoparticle encapsulation, or co-delivery with mucosal adjuvants are under development to improve vaccine retention and efficacy via this route [125].

4.3. Other Routes of Administration

Rectal immunization induces a pronounced local SIgA response in the rectum and sigmoid colon, a moderate response in the descending colon, and minimal or no response in the proximal colon or small intestine. In contrast, nasal or tonsillar immunization in humans primarily triggers antibody production in the upper respiratory mucosa and its associated secretions, without activating immune responses in the intestinal tract [132]. Interestingly, nasal administration has also been shown to generate strong IgA and IgG responses in the human cervicovaginal mucosa, achieving levels comparable to those seen with direct vaginal immunization. Although the capacity of nasal immunization to prime CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in the genital tract remains incompletely characterized, evidence from murine models suggests that vaginal vaccination is more effective in inducing strong genital tract T cell-mediated immunity [133]. Sublingual and topical applications have been explored in preclinical settings for L. lactis-based therapies. These methods aim to utilize mucosal immunity in different compartments or to support specific clinical applications; however, evidence remains limited, and additional research is needed to evaluate their feasibility and effectiveness [92].

5. Oral Vaccine Prototypes on L. lactis

Oral vaccines based on genetically modified L. lactis have shown promising results in preclinical models against a variety of infectious agents [134]. These models typically involve the expression of selected antigens chosen for their immunogenicity and role in pathogen virulence or protection, aiming to elicit both mucosal and systemic immune responses. Different vaccination schemes have been explored, often combining mucosal priming with systemic boosting to enhance immune memory and facilitate the effective homing of immune cells to mucosal tissues.

5.1. Viral Vaccines

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is a significant cause of cervical cancer worldwide [92]. Existing prophylactic vaccines, such as Gardasil and Cervarix, use virus-like particles (VLPs) to induce immunity. In contrast, Mohseni et al. employed L. lactis to deliver the E7 oncoprotein of HPV16, a key antigen involved in oncogenesis. This choice targets the therapeutic elimination of infected cells expressing E7. Their studies demonstrated increased E7-specific antibody titers and CD4+ T cell responses, showing promise as a therapeutic vaccine platform [135]. These outcomes were further validated in early-phase clinical trials [136], supporting the translational potential of this approach. A more detailed review was conducted by the same author [33]. These results contribute to reducing cervical cancer.
The absence of a protective prophylactic HIV vaccine has allowed for the exploration of different platforms to control the spread of this virus [137]. L. lactis-based oral vaccines have been developed that express HIV antigens, such as the Gag protein fused to the T3 pilus protein of Streptococcus pyogenes, thereby enhancing mucosal delivery [138]. This strategy elicited increases in Gag-specific IgG and IgA in serum, feces, and vaginal secretions, and activated dendritic cells in Peyer’s patches, although CD8+ T cell responses remained low. Another approach targeted the V2–V4 “loop” of the HIV envelope protein (Env), achieving systemic and mucosal IFN-γ responses with repeated oral dosing every two weeks [139]. Considering the importance of HIV in public health, a mucosal vaccine against this virus represents a valuable contribution to the development of a vaccine against this pathogen.
Influenza A virus subtypes H1N1 and H3N2 cause seasonal epidemics [140]. Oral vaccines using L. lactis have targeted hemaglutinin (HA), the major surface antigen. Lei and collaborators demonstrated that L. lactis expressing HA of the H5N1 subtype elicited significant IgG and mucosal IgA responses, conferring complete protection in mice against lethal viral challenge after multiple immunizations [141,142]. More recently, a recombinant strain expressing the conserved HA stalk domain fused to a bacterial anchoring protein demonstrated cross-protection against H5N1, H3N2, and H1N1 strains, highlighting the potential for developing a universal influenza vaccine [142].
Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) causes chronic liver disease, with existing vaccines available, but a continuous need for novel strategies. Early studies expressed the PreS region of the HBV surface antigen (HBsAg) in L. lactis, inducing intestinal IgA and serum IgG in mice [143]. Co-expression of IFN-γ as an adjuvant further enhanced the IgG response. More recent efforts include the expression of central HBsAg regions from different HBV genotypes; however, preclinical results remain pending [144].
The first L. lactis-based vaccine against the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) utilized the nucleocapsid (N) protein fused to human GST, inducing specific serum IgG responses in mice [145]. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, L. lactis models expressing the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the spike (S) protein or conserved S protein regions have been developed, aiming to stimulate protective mucosal and systemic immunity [146]. Another study utilized the highly conserved region (HCR) of the Spike S2 subunit, driven by the nisin-inducible pNZ8149 vector to express the antigen. Mice immunized through oral or intranasal routes exhibited significantly increased levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA, along with elevated CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses in lymphoid and intestinal tissues. Notably, the intranasal route elicited stronger humoral and cellular responses, consistent with the activation of nasal-associated lymphoid tissue (NALT) and enhanced mucosal immunity [147]. Importantly, the construct was generated under food-grade conditions, employing a lactose-based selection system rather than antibiotics, reinforcing its biosafety profile. These findings demonstrate that L. lactis can serve as an effective mucosal delivery platform for conserved spike protein antigens, offering a non-invasive and broadly protective vaccination strategy against SARS-CoV-2 and potentially other coronaviruses [147]. Further study of the first vaccine could contribute to the pandemic during 2020.

5.2. Bacterial Vaccines

Clostridium difficile infection is a leading cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Vaccines targeting the toxins TcdA and TcdB have been evaluated using L. lactis expressing these antigens. Guo et al. compared oral L. lactis vaccines expressing single or combined toxins with purified recombinant proteins, finding significantly improved survival and reduced pathology in vaccinated animals. All vaccine groups elicited strong IgG and IgA responses with toxin-neutralizing activity, supporting L. lactis as a cost-effective oral vaccine platform against C. difficile infection [148].
Helicobacter pylori is one of the leading causes of gastritis, ulcers, and gastric cancer [149,150]. Initial L. lactis-based vaccines expressed the urease B subunit (UreB), eliciting systemic antibody responses with multi-dose oral regimens [150]. Later studies focused on Th1/Th17 immune induction, using antigens like the neutrophil-activating protein (NapA) and the CagL protein, demonstrating antigen-specific antibodies and cytokine responses linked to protective immunity [32,151].
Streptococcus pneumoniae is one of the leading pathogens responsible for respiratory diseases worldwide [152]. Although polysaccharide-based vaccines are available, they have the limitation of not providing immunity against all serotypes of this bacterium [153,154,155]. On the other hand, conjugate vaccines offer broader protection but are costly, which can limit their accessibility in low-income countries [156,157]. In this context, the use of L. lactis provides a promising alternative to overcome this economic barrier. A study developed a vaccine model using L. lactis engineered to express pneumococcal protective protein A (PppA) on its surface, a protein conserved in serotypes 3, 5, 9, 14, 19, and 23. Different respiratory mucosal immunization protocols were evaluated, including nasal administration of live or inactivated L. lactis expressing PppA, with or without co-administration of a probiotic (L. casei). The mice that received the L. casei both orally and nasally showed the highest levels of anti-PppA IgA and IgG antibodies in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and IgG in serum, respectively, which contributed to protection against infection. However, only the groups that received the live or inactivated vaccine together with oral probiotic administration were able to prevent lung colonization by S. pneumoniae serotypes 3 and 14 in a respiratory infection model. This protection was associated with a preferential stimulation of local and systemic T helper type 1 (Th1) responses, accompanied by moderate Th2 and Th17 activity, as indicated by cytokine profiles in BAL and the IgG1/IgG2a ratio both locally and systemically. Overall, nasal immunization with the inactivated recombinant strain combined with oral probiotic administration effectively stimulated specific cellular and humoral immune responses, protecting against challenge with the two S. pneumoniae serotypes [158].
Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli can cause diarrhea in children, and suitable vaccines are therefore desired [159]. A study evaluated the immune response after the oral and subcutaneous administration of L. lactis capable of expressing a heat-labile toxin (LTB), a virulence factor, and compared it with the recombinant protein in a rabbit animal model. They demonstrated an increase in IgA levels in the intestine. An in vitro neutralization assay showed that the toxin’s effect could be neutralized with 500 µg/mL of IgG isolated from the oral vaccine group. Furthermore, the dose of enterotoxigenic E. coli causing fluid accumulation in the ileal loop test showed a tenfold increase in rabbits immunized with either recombinant L. lactis or LTB protein compared to other groups [160].
Brucella abortus is a facultative intracellular, Gram-negative bacterial pathogen that primarily infects humans and animals through the digestive tract [161]. B. abortus causes abortion in pregnant cattle and undulant fever in humans [162,163]. B. abortus ribosomal antigen L7/L12, a well-characterized immunogenic protein, was expressed under the nisin-inducible PnisA promoter in L. lactis NZ9000. Through a series of genetic constructs, the antigen was successfully targeted to three cellular locations (the cytoplasmic, secreted, and cell wall-anchored) using combinations of secretion signals, fusion partners, and anchoring domains. The fusion of L7/L12 with the Usp45 signal peptide enabled secretion with a sixfold higher yield than cytoplasmic production. At the same time, the addition of the LEISSTCDA synthetic propeptide or staphylococcal nuclease (Nuc) further increased yield and secretion efficiency up to 50%. Additionally, anchoring L7/L12 to the M6 protein cell-wall domain from Streptococcus pyogenes resulted in stable surface localization, making it particularly suitable for mucosal delivery. This work demonstrated that L. lactis can be engineered to produce and export a protective Brucella antigen in different cellular compartments, establishing the conceptual foundation for safe, food-grade, non-pathogenic mucosal vaccines against brucellosis and other intracellular bacterial infections [164]. The same authors observed significant levels of anti-L7/L12-specific IgA in feces, revealing an induced local humoral immune response. However, serum analysis did not reveal any anti-L7/L12 antibodies, suggesting the absence of a systemic response [129].
Streptococcus agalactiae, also known as Group B Streptococcus (GBS), is a leading cause of neonatal sepsis and meningitis, with no licensed vaccine available. The Surface Immunogenic Protein (SIP), conserved across serotypes, is a promising target [165,166,167]. Oral immunization of mice with this recombinant strain elicited strong systemic and mucosal anti-SIP IgG and IgA responses, enhanced CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell activation, and reduced the frequencies of Treg cells (CD4+CD25+FoxP3+), consistent with a Th1/Th17-oriented immune profile. Notably, vaccinated animals showed a significant reduction in vaginal GBS colonization, and passive transfer of serum or T cells conferred protection to naive mice, confirming the involvement of both humoral and cellular mechanisms. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that L. lactis can serve as a safe and effective mucosal delivery platform for the SIP antigen, providing a foundation for non-invasive and broadly protective vaccine strategies against GBS [168]. The same methods were used in a tilapia model with the SIP and a truncated SIP (tSIP). Fish immunized with the tSIP vaccine also showed the highest level of protection compared to other test groups, and the mortality rate was significantly reduced compared to both control groups. The relative percentage of survival (RPS) against S. agalactiae was 50% and 89%, respectively, for both SIP and tSIP-vaccinated groups at 14 days post-challenge. Significant up-regulation of IgM, IL-1β, IL-10, TNF-α, and IFN-γ was observed at day 34 between the vaccinated and control groups. These results indicated that the recombinant lactococcal tSIP vaccine can elicit both cell-mediated and humoral responses and is recommended as a potential oral vaccine against S. agalactiae infection [169].
In summary, L. lactis has been widely used for the development of vaccine prototypes against various viral and bacterial pathogens of public health importance. All key aspects related to antigens, administration routes, and main findings are described in Table 2.

6. Probiotic, Vaccine, or Drug? Regulations, New Technologies, and Solutions

To date, clinical studies using L. lactis as a recombinant bacterial vector have been limited to trials targeting human papillomavirus (HPV), specifically employing the E7 [136] and E6 [171] oncoproteins. Both studies demonstrated the safety profile of the vaccine candidates and their capacity to induce a humoral immune response against the target antigens. These clinical outcomes (IRCT20190504043464N1 and IRCT20190504043464N1, respectively) were supported by prior preclinical evidence from murine models [135,170]. However, both clinical trials utilized L. lactis strains transformed with the plasmid pNZ8123, which harbors a chloramphenicol resistance gene as a selection marker [43]. This raises significant biosafety concerns, as plasmids carrying antibiotic resistance genes pose the risk of horizontal gene transfer to commensal or pathogenic bacteria in the host microbiota or environment. Studies have documented gene transfer events from Lactobacillus spp. to E. coli [172] and other in vivo models [173], underscoring the importance of avoiding antibiotic resistance markers in genetically modified probiotics [174].
The World Health Organization (WHO), in its “Guidelines on Nonclinical Evaluation of Vaccines” (2005), defines vaccines as a heterogeneous class of medicinal products containing immunogenic substances capable of inducing specific, active, and protective host immunity against infectious diseases. When live attenuated vaccines are based on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the guidelines recommend environmental risk assessments during preclinical development. This includes investigating the potential shedding of vaccine strains after administration and evaluating the risk of genetic exchange with non-vaccine strains, a crucial aspect considering evidence of plasmid transfer among related bacteria [175].
In addition, to the general safety concerns associated with the use of antibiotic resistance markers in GMOs, international regulations impose strict guidelines for the clinical and environmental evaluation of recombinant bacteria in the European Union. L. lactis expressing heterologous genes is considered a GMO and is regulated under Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003, requiring a comprehensive environmental risk assessment, traceability, and labeling before approval [176]. The U.S. regulatory framework is divided among the FDA, USDA, and EPA, depending on the nature of the product and its potential environmental or therapeutic impact.
Furthermore, the regulatory classification of L. lactis-based products as probiotics, vaccines, or drugs remains ambiguous. Venugopalan et al. underscore that probiotics may be regulated either as dietary supplements or as drugs, depending on their intended use [177]. The FDA defines a drug as “an article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” [13]. If a product is marketed as a dietary supplement, it falls under food regulations, which are generally less stringent than those for pharmaceuticals or vaccines. Conversely, suppose the probiotic or recombinant microorganism is intended as a drug or vaccine. In that case, it must comply with rigorous regulatory pathways specific to each country, ensuring evidence of safety, efficacy, and quality through preclinical and clinical studies.
A critical consideration for the development or modification of lactic acid bacteria expression systems is compliance with food-grade safety standards. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates microorganisms used in food under the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) framework, whereby a microorganism or its use must be supported by a substantial history of safe use or adequate scientific evidence to be considered safe under the intended conditions of use, either through expert consensus or formal GRAS notification procedures [178]. In the European Union, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) employs the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach as a pre-market safety assessment for microorganisms intentionally added to food or feed; this process evaluates taxonomic identity, body of knowledge, and absence of safety concerns, and QPS status can streamline regulatory review if criteria are met [179]. For genetically modified LAB intended for food-grade applications, additional requirements typically include the absence of transferable antibiotic resistance genes, demonstrable lack of pathogenic traits, and robust strain characterization. Given the evolving landscape of live biotherapeutic products (LBPs) such as genetically engineered L. lactis, there is an urgent need for harmonized regulatory frameworks that address their unique characteristics. This includes establishing standardized guidelines for genetic modification techniques (e.g., marker-free systems), environmental risk assessment, manufacturing quality control, and post-market surveillance. Such regulatory clarity will facilitate the translation of L. lactis-based vaccines and therapeutics from research to clinical use while safeguarding public health and environmental safety.
In recent years, emerging technologies have significantly advanced the development of genetically modified L. lactis-based vaccines. The CRISPR-Cas system enables precise genomic modifications, allowing gene insertion without the use of antibiotic resistance markers or mobile genetic elements, thereby facilitating compliance with biosafety requirements established by national and international regulatory agencies such as the WHO, FDA, and EFSA. Moreover, several studies have already reported the successful application of this technology in L. lactis [180,181,182] In addition, bacterial microencapsulation has been employed as a complementary strategy not only to enhance immune responses and improve cell viability throughout the gastrointestinal tract [183,184] but also as a biocontainment measure to prevent the environmental dissemination of the microorganism [185,186].

7. Learnings and New Perspectives

Over the past decade, numerous reports have highlighted the potential of oral vaccines based on L. lactis, demonstrating both protective efficacy and the induction of humoral and cellular immune responses. However, much of this evidence remains confined to plasmid-based platforms and preclinical stages, limiting scalability and clinical translation despite promising results. We consider it a priority to promote the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) with stable genomic integration as a necessary step to meet regulatory requirements and facilitate the transition to clinical studies. In parallel, we urge regulatory authorities to establish harmonized, step-by-step guidelines for evaluating genetically modified probiotics, encompassing biosafety, environmental risk assessment, traceability, mitigation plans, and requirements for release and monitoring. Given the potential of these platforms not only for vaccine development but also for therapeutic applications in cancer, allergies, and other conditions, the availability of clear and up-to-date regulatory frameworks is essential to accelerate their responsible and safe advancement.

8. Conclusions

Genetically engineered L. lactis has evolved from a safe food-grade bacterium to a versatile live biotherapeutic platform capable of delivering antigens, cytokines, and therapeutic molecules at mucosal surfaces. Its well-characterized genetics, absence of endotoxins, and the availability of finely tunable expression systems such as NICE, XIES, zinc-responsive, and stress-inducible promoters have positioned it as one of the most promising candidates for next-generation mucosal vaccines. Preclinical studies have demonstrated its ability to elicit both mucosal and systemic immune responses. However, the clinical translation of L. lactis-based vaccines remains limited by regulatory uncertainty, concerns regarding biosafety and antibiotic resistance markers, as well as the need for standardized manufacturing and evaluation guidelines. Advances in marker-free genome editing, such as CRISPR-Cas, and biocontainment technologies, including bacterial microencapsulation, offer practical solutions to these challenges, paving the way for the safe and effective deployment of L. lactis as a live vaccine vector. Ultimately, integrating these innovations within harmonized international regulatory frameworks will be essential to fully realizing the potential of L. lactis as a new strategy for mucosal immunization and the design of live biotherapeutics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.G.-G., M.I. and A.E.V.; writing—original draft preparation, J.G.-G.; writing—review and editing, J.G.-G., M.I., J.A.S. and A.E.V.; visualization, J.G.-G. and M.I.; project administration, A.E.V.; funding acquisition, A.E.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Agency for Research and Development (ANID), with grant numbers FONDECYT 1231866 (JAS) and FONDECYT 1240741 (MI). Additionally, it received funding from the National Doctoral Scholarship ANID, grant number 21230817 (JG-G).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Catalina Garrido of LIVA COMPANY SPA (Chile) for technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
APCsAntigen-Presenting Cells
BALTBronchus-Associated Lymphoid Tissue
BALBronchoalveolar Lavage
CDCluster of Differentiation (CD4, CD8, etc.)
CFUColony-Forming Units
CTLCytotoxic T Lymphocyte
CTLA-4Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Antigen 4
DCsDendritic Cells
EPAEnvironmental Protection Agency
FDAFood and Drug Administration
GALTGut-Associated Lymphoid Tissue
GFPGreen Fluorescent Protein
GMOsGenetically Modified Organisms
GOALTsGenital Organ-Associated Lymphoid Tissues
GRASGenerally Recognized As Safe
GSTGlutathione-S-Transferase
HAHemagglutinin
HBVHepatitis B Virus
HBsAgHepatitis B Surface Antigen
HCRHighly Conserved Region
HIVHuman Immunodeficiency Virus
HPVHuman Papillomavirus
ILInterleukin
IRCTIranian Registry of Clinical Trials
LBPsLive Biotherapeutic Products
LPSLipopolysaccharide
LTBHeat-Labile Toxin Subunit B
MALTMucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue
MHCMajor Histocompatibility Complex
NALTNasal-Associated Lymphoid Tissue
NICENisin-Controlled Gene Expression system
ODOptical Density
PnisANisin-Inducible Promoter A
PppAPneumococcal Protective Protein A
PxylTXylose-Inducible Promoter
BDReceptor-Binding Domain
RPSRelative Percent Survival
SALTSkin-Associated Lymphoid Tissue
SARSSevere Acute Respiratory Syndrome
SICEStress-Inducible Controlled Expression system
SIgASecretory Immunoglobulin A
SIPSurface Immunogenic Protein
TcdAClostridioides difficile Toxin A
TcdBClostridioides difficile Toxin B
TregsRegulatory T Cells
Usp45Universal Stress Protein 45 (signal peptide)
VLPsVirus-Like Particles
WHOWorld Health Organization
XIESXylose-Inducible Expression System
ZICEZinc-Controlled Expression system
ZirexZinc-Inducible Regulatory Expression system

References

  1. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health Organization. Probiotics in Food: Health and Nutritional Properties and Guidelines for Evaluation. Rome, 2006. Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/1c836817-9be2-4256-83ae-0b5055039b50 (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  3. da Silva, M.N.; Tagliapietra, B.L.; Flores, V.d.A.; Richards, N.S.P.d.S. In Vitro test to evaluate survival in the gastrointestinal tract of commercial probiotics. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2021, 4, 320–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Marco, M.L.; Heeney, D.; Binda, S.; Cifelli, C.J.; Cotter, P.D.; Foligné, B.; Gänzle, M.; Kort, R.; Pasin, G.; Pihlanto, A.; et al. Health benefits of fermented foods: Microbiota and beyond. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2017, 44, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. de Carvalho Lima, K.G.; Kruger, M.F.; Behrens, J.; Destro, M.T.; Landgraf, M.; de Melo Franco, B.D.G. Evaluation of culture media for enumeration of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium animalis in the presence of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 491–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hynönen, U.; Palva, A. Lactobacillus surface layer proteins: Structure, function and applications. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 5225–5243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Saxelin, M.; Tynkkynen, S.; Mattila-Sandholm, T.; de Vos, W.M. Probiotic and other functional microbes: From markets to mechanisms. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005, 16, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Plaza-Diaz, J.; Ruiz-Ojeda, F.J.; Gil-Campos, M.; Gil, A. Mechanisms of Action of Probiotics. Adv. Nutr. 2019, 10, S49–S66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sanders, M.E.; Merenstein, D.J.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Rastall, R.A. Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: From biology to the clinic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 16, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhou, J.; Li, M.; Chen, Q.; Li, X.; Chen, L.; Dong, Z.; Zhu, W.; Yang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Q. Programmable probiotics modulate inflammation and gut microbiota for inflammatory bowel disease treatment after effective oral delivery. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jin, K.; Huang, Y.; Che, H.; Wu, Y. Engineered Bacteria for Disease Diagnosis and Treatment Using Synthetic Biology. Microb. Biotechnol. 2025, 18, e70080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Langella, P. Use of Traditional and Genetically Modified Probiotics in Human Health: What Does the Future Hold? Microbiol. Spectr. 2017, 5, 10–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Early Clinical Trials with Live Biotherapeutic Products: Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Control Information. Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring, MD, September 2003. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/early-clinical-trials-live-biotherapeutic-products-chemistry-manufacturing-and-control-information (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  14. Barberio, D. Navigating regulatory and analytical challenges in live biotherapeutic product development and manufacturing. Front. Microbiomes 2024, 3, 1441290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pan, S.; Hsu, J.-C.; Hung, K.-T.; Ho, C.-J. Regulatory framework and challenges for live biotherapeutic products in Taiwan. J. Food Drug Anal. 2025, 33, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Charbonneau, M.R.; Isabella, V.M.; Li, N.; Kurtz, C.B. Developing a new class of engineered live bacterial therapeutics to treat human diseases. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Owen, J.L.; Sahay, B.; Mohamadzadeh, M. New generation of oral mucosal vaccines targeting dendritic cells. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2013, 17, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramirez, J.E.V.; Sharpe, L.A.; Peppas, N.A. Current state and challenges in developing oral vaccines. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2017, 114, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dempsey, E.; Corr, S.C. Lactobacillus spp. for Gastrointestinal Health: Current and Future Perspectives. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 840245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Kharrat, P.; Chatel, J.-M.; Langella, P. Lactococci and lactobacilli as mucosal delivery vectors for therapeutic proteins and DNA vaccines. Microb. Cell Factories 2011, 10, S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mercenier, A.; Müller-Alouf, H.; Grangette, C. Lactic acid bacteria as live vaccines. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2000, 2, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Song, A.A.L.; In, L.L.A.; Lim, S.H.E.; Rahim, R.A. A review on Lactococcus lactis: From food to factory. Microb. Cell Fact. 2017, 16, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bolotin, A.; Wincker, P.; Mauger, S.; Jaillon, O.; Malarme, K.; Weissenbach, J.; Ehrlich, S.D.; Sorokin, A. The Complete Genome Sequence of the Lactic Acid Bacterium Lactococcus lactis ssp. lactis IL1403. Genome Res. 2001, 11, 731–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Linares, D.M.; Kok, J.; Poolman, B. Genome Sequences of Lactococcus lactis MG1363 (Revised) and NZ9000 and Comparative Physiological Studies. J. Bacteriol. 2010, 192, 5806–5812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. Lactococcus lactis as a live vector for mucosal delivery of therapeutic proteins. Hum. Vaccin. 2009, 5, 264–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Schleifer, K.H.; Kraus, J.; Dvorak, C.; Kilpper-Bälz, R.; Collins, M.D.; Fischer, W. Transfer of Streptococcus lactis and Related Streptococci to the Genus Lactococcus gen. nov. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 1985, 6, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gasson, M.J. Plasmid complements of Streptococcus lactis NCDO 712 and other lactic streptococci after protoplast-induced curing. J. Bacteriol. 1983, 154, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Daniel, C.; Poiret, S.; Dennin, V.; Boutillier, D.; Pot, B. Bioluminescence imaging study of spatial and temporal persistence of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactococcus lactis in living mice. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 1086–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vesa, T.; Pochart, P.; Marteau, P. Pharmacokinetics of Lactobacillus plantarum NCIMB 8826, Lactobacillus fermentum KLD, and Lactococcus lactis MG 1363 in the human gastrointestinal tract. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2000, 14, 823–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wallace, T.D.; Bradley, S.; Buckley, N.D.; Green-Johnson, J.M. Interactions of Lactic Acid Bacteria with Human Intestinal Epithelial Cells: Effects on Cytokine Production. J. Food Prot. 2003, 66, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Frossard, C.P.; Steidler, L.; Eigenmann, P.A. Oral administration of an IL-10–secreting Lactococcus lactis strain prevents food-induced IgE sensitization. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2007, 119, 952–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Peng, X.; Zhang, R.; Duan, G.; Wang, C.; Sun, N.; Zhang, L.; Chen, S.; Fan, Q.; Xi, Y. Production and delivery of Helicobacter pylori NapA in Lactococcus lactis and its protective efficacy and immune modulatory activity. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Taghinezhad, S.S.; Keyvani, H.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Donders, G.G.G.; Fu, X.; Mohseni, A.H. Twenty years of research on HPV vaccines based on genetically modified lactic acid bacteria: An overview on the gut-vagina axis. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2021, 78, 1191–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bahey-El-Din, M.; Casey, P.G.; Griffin, B.T.; Gahan, C.G.M. Lactococcus lactis-expressing listeriolysin O (LLO) provides protection and specific CD8+ T cells against Listeria monocytogenes in the murine infection model. Vaccine 2008, 26, 5304–5314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yam, K.K.; Pouliot, P.; N’diaye, M.M.; Fournier, S.; Olivier, M.; Cousineau, B. Innate inflammatory responses to the Gram-positive bacterium Lactococcus lactis. Vaccine 2008, 26, 2689–2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Medina, M.; Vintiñi, E.; Villena, J.; Raya, R.; Alvarez, S. Lactococcus lactis as an adjuvant and delivery vehicle of antigens against pneumococcal respiratory infections. Bioeng. Bugs 2010, 1, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Mierau, I.; Kleerebezem, M. 10 years of the nisin-controlled gene expression system (NICE) in Lactococcus lactis. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 68, 705–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Ruyter, P.G.; Kuipers, O.P.; Beerthuyzen, M.M.; van Alen-Boerrigter, I.; de Vos, W.M. Functional analysis of promoters in the nisin gene cluster of Lactococcus lactis. J. Bacteriol. 1996, 178, 3434–3439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Food and Drug Administration. Nisin Preparation; Affirmation of GRAS Status as a Direct Human Food Ingredient. Washington, DC, April 1988. Available online: https://hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=FinalRules&id=53FR11247 (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  40. Mierau, I.; Olieman, K.; Mond, J.; Smid, E.J. Optimization of the Lactococcus lactis nisin-controlled gene expression system NICE for industrial applications. Microb. Cell Fact. 2005, 4, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kuipers, O.P.; Beerthuyzen, M.M.; Siezen, R.J.; Vos, W.M.D.E. Characterization of the nisin gene cluster nisABTCIPR of Lactococcus lactis. Eur. J. Biochem. 1993, 216, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kuipers, O.P.; de Ruyter, P.G.G.A.; Kleerebezem, M.; de Vos, W.M. Quorum sensing-controlled gene expression in lactic acid bacteria. J. Biotechnol. 1998, 64, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. MoBiTec GmbH. NICE Expression System: Handbook for Lactococcus Lactis Expression System. Goettingen, March 2015. Available online: https://www.mobitec.com/media/mobitec/old_content/NICE_Expression_System-Handbook.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  44. Miyoshi, A.; Jamet, E.; Commissaire, J.; Renault, P.; Langella, P.; Azevedo, V. A xylose-inducible expression system for Lactococcus lactis. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004, 239, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Miwa, Y. Evaluation and characterization of catabolite-responsive elements (cre) of Bacillus subtilis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 1206–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. van Asseldonk, M.; de Vos, W.M.; Simons, G. Functional analysis of the Lactococcus lactis usp45 secretion signal in the secretion of a homologous proteinase and a heterologous α-amylase. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1993, 240, 428–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Poquet, I.; Ehrlich, S.D.; Gruss, A. An Export-Specific Reporter Designed for Gram-Positive Bacteria: Application to Lactococcus lactis. J. Bacteriol. 1998, 180, 1904–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. de Castro, C.P.; Drumond, M.M.; Batista, V.L.; Nunes, A.; Mancha-Agresti, P.; Azevedo, V. Vector Development Timeline for Mucosal Vaccination and Treatment of Disease Using Lactococcus lactis and Design Approaches of Next Generation Food Grade Plasmids. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Llull, D.; Poquet, I. New Expression System Tightly Controlled by Zinc Availability in Lactococcus lactis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5398–5406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mu, D.; Montalbán-López, M.; Masuda, Y.; Kuipers, O.P. Zirex: A Novel Zinc-Regulated Expression System for Lactococcus lactis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 4503–4508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Xu, X.; Zhang, L.; Cui, Y.; Kong, J.; Guo, T. Development of Zn2+-controlled expression system for lactic acid bacteria and its application in engineered probiotics. Synth. Syst. Biotechnol. 2024, 9, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Benbouziane, B.; Ribelles, P.; Aubry, C.; Martin, R.; Kharrat, P.; Riazi, A.; Langella, P.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. Development of a Stress-Inducible Controlled Expression (SICE) system in Lactococcus lactis for the production and delivery of therapeutic molecules at mucosal surfaces. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 168, 120–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fischer, H.M.; Babst, M.; Kaspar, T.; Acuña, G.; Arigoni, F.; Hennecke, H. One member of a gro-ESL-like chaperonin multigene family in Bradyrhizobium japonicum is co-regulated with symbiotic nitrogen fixation genes. EMBO J. 1993, 12, 2901–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kristoffersen, S.M.; Ravnum, S.; Tourasse, N.J.; Økstad, O.A.; Kolstø, A.-B.; Davies, W. Low Concentrations of Bile Salts Induce Stress Responses and Reduce Motility in Bacillus cereus ATCC 14570. J. Bacteriol. 2007, 189, 5302–5313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Maidin, M.S.T.; Song, A.A.-L.; Jalilsood, T.; Sieo, C.C.; Yusoff, K.; Rahim, R.A. Construction of a novel inducible expression vector for Lactococcus lactis M4 and Lactobacillus plantarum Pa21. Plasmid 2014, 74, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jacouton, E.; Torres Maravilla, E.; Boucard, A.S.; Pouderous, N.; Pessoa Vilela, A.P.; Naas, I.; Chain, F.; Azevedo, V.; Langella, P.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. Anti-tumoral Effects of Recombinant Lactococcus lactis Strain Secreting IL-17A Cytokine. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 9, 3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Israelsen, H.; Hansen, E.B. Insertion of Transposon Tn 917 Derivatives into the Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis Chromosome. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Madsen, S.M.; Arnau, J.; Vrang, A.; Givskov, M.; Israelsen, H. Molecular characterization of the pH-inducible and growth phase-dependent promoter P170 of Lactococcus lactis. Mol. Microbiol. 1999, 32, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Madsen, S.M.; Hindré, T.; Le Pennec, J.; Israelsen, H.; Dufour, A. Two acid-inducible promoters from Lactococcus lactis require the cis -acting ACiD-box and the transcription regulator RcfB. Mol. Microbiol. 2005, 56, 735–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Jørgensen, C.M.; Vrang, A.; Madsen, S.M. Recombinant protein expression in Lactococcus lactis using the P170 expression system. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2014, 351, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chauhan, A.S.; Badle, S.S.; Ramachandran, K.B.; Jayaraman, G. The P170 expression system enhances hyaluronan molecular weight and production in metabolically-engineered Lactococcus lactis. Biochem. Eng. J. 2014, 90, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cho, H.J.; Shin, H.J.; Han, I.K.; Jung, W.W.; Kim, Y.B.; Sul, D.; Oh, Y.K. Induction of mucosal and systemic immune responses following oral immunization of mice with Lactococcus lactis expressing human papillomavirus type 16 L1. Vaccine 2007, 25, 8049–8057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rallu, F.; Gruss, A.; Maguin, E. Lactococcus lactis and stress. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 1996, 70, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ladero, V.; Del Rio, B.; Linares, D.M.; Fernandez, M.; Mayo, B.; Martin, M.C.; Alvarez, M.A. Genome Sequence Analysis of the Biogenic Amine-Producing Strain Lactococcus lactis subsp. cremoris CECT 8666 (Formerly GE2-14). Genome Announc. 2014, 2, e01088-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Linares, D.M.; Alvarez-Sieiro, P.; del Rio, B.; Ladero, V.; Redruello, B.; Martin, M.C.; Fernandez, M.; Alvarez, M.A. Implementation of the agmatine-controlled expression system for inducible gene expression in Lactococcus lactis. Microb. Cell Fact. 2015, 14, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sanders, J.W.; Leenhouts, K.; Burghoorn, J.; Brands, J.R.; Venema, G.; Kok, J. A chloride-inducible acid resistance mechanism in Lactococcus lactis and its regulation. Mol. Microbiol. 1998, 27, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yang, X.; Hu, W.; Xiu, Z.; Jiang, A.; Yang, X.; Saren, G.; Ji, Y.; Guan, Y.; Feng, K. Effect of salt concentration on microbial communities, physicochemical properties and metabolite profile during spontaneous fermentation of Chinese northeast sauerkraut. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 129, 1458–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sanders, J.W.; Venema, G.; Kok, J.; Leenhouts, K. Identification of a sodium chloride-regulated promoter in Lactococcus lactis by single-copy chromosomal fusion with a reporter gene. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1998, 257, 681–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  69. Vershinina, O.A.; Znamenskaya, L.V. The Pho Regulons of Bacteria. Microbiology 2002, 71, 497–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sirén, N.; Salonen, K.; Leisola, M.; Nyyssölä, A. A new and efficient phosphate starvation inducible expression system for Lactococcus lactis. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 79, 803–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Santos-Beneit, F. The Pho regulon: A huge regulatory network in bacteria. Front Microbiol 2015, 6, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Le Loir, Y.; Azevedo, V.; Oliveira, S.C.; Freitas, D.A.; Miyoshi, A.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Nouaille, S.; Ribeiro, L.A.; Leclercq, S.; Gabriel, J.E.; et al. Protein secretion in Lactococcus lactis: An efficient way to increase the overall heterologous protein production. Microb. Cell Fact. 2005, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alias, N.A.R.; Hoo, W.P.Y.; Siak, P.Y.; Othman, S.S.; Mohammed Alitheen, N.B.; In, L.L.A.; Abdul Rahim, R.; Song, A.A. Effect of Secretion Efficiency of Mutant KRAS Neoantigen by Lactococcus lactis on the Immune Response of a Mucosal Vaccine Delivery Vehicle Targeting Colorectal Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 8928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Le Loir, Y.; Nouaille, S.; Commissaire, J.; Bre, L.; Gruss, A.; Langella, P. Signal Peptide and Propeptide Optimization for Heterologous Protein Secretion in Lactococcus lactis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 4119–4127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Le Loir, Y.; Gruss, A.; Ehrlich, S.D.; Langella, P. A Nine-Residue Synthetic Propeptide Enhances Secretion Efficiency of Heterologous Proteins in Lactococcus lactis. J. Bacteriol. 1998, 180, 1895–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Alias, N.A.R.; Song, A.A.; Alitheen, N.B.; Rahim, R.A.; Othman, S.S.; In, L.L.A. Optimization of Signal Peptide via Site-Directed Mutagenesis for Enhanced Secretion of Heterologous Proteins in Lactococcus lactis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 10044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lindholm, A.; Ellmén, U.; Tolonen-Martikainen, M.; Palva, A. Heterologous protein secretion in Lactococcus lactis is enhanced by the Bacillus subtilis chaperone-like protein PrsA. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 73, 904–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Douillard, F.P.; O’Connell-Motherway, M.; Cambillau, C.; van Sinderen, D. Expanding the molecular toolbox for Lactococcus lactis: Construction of an inducible thioredoxin gene fusion expression system. Microb. Cell Fact. 2011, 10, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cortes-Perez, N.G.; Azevedo, V.; Alcocer-González, J.M.; Rodriguez-Padilla, C.; Tamez-Guerra, R.S.; Corthier, G.; Gruss, A.; Langella, P.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. Cell-surface display of E7 antigen from human papillomavirus type-16 in Lactococcus lactis and in Lactobacillus plantarum using a new cell-wall anchor from lactobacilli. J. Drug Target. 2005, 13, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kim, T.W.; Igimi, S.; Kajikawa, A.; Kim, H.Y. Display of heterologous proteins on the surface of Lactococcus lactis using the H and W domain of PrtB from Lactobacillus delburueckii subsp. bulgaricus as an anchoring matrix. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 1636–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kalyanasundram, J.; Chia, S.L.; Song, A.A.-L.; Raha, A.R.; Young, H.A.; Yusoff, K. Surface display of glycosylated Tyrosinase related protein-2 (TRP-2) tumour antigen on Lactococcus lactis. BMC Biotechnol. 2015, 15, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Michon, C.; Langella, P.; Eijsink, V.G.H.; Mathiesen, G.; Chatel, J.M. Display of recombinant proteins at the surface of lactic acid bacteria: Strategies and applications. Microb. Cell Fact. 2016, 15, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Raha, A.R.; Varma, N.R.S.; Yusoff, K.; Ross, E.; Foo, H.L. Cell surface display system for Lactococcus lactis: A novel development for oral vaccine. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 68, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Jaroszewicz, W.; Morcinek-Orłowska, J.; Pierzynowska, K.; Gaffke, L.; Węgrzyn, G. Phage display and other peptide display technologies. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2022, 46, fuab052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sun, F.; Pang, X.; Xie, T.; Zhai, Y.; Wang, G.; Sun, F. BrkAutoDisplay: Functional display of multiple exogenous proteins on the surface of Escherichia coli by using BrkA autotransporter. Microb. Cell Fact. 2015, 14, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cid, R.; Bolívar, J. Platforms for Production of Protein-Based Vaccines: From Classical to Next-Generation Strategies. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ramasamy, R.; Yasawardena, S.; Zomer, A.; Venema, G.; Kok, J.; Leenhouts, K. Immunogenicity of a malaria parasite antigen displayed by Lactococcus lactis in oral immunisations. Vaccine 2006, 24, 3900–3908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Varma, N.R.; Toosa, H.; Foo, H.L.; Alitheen, N.B.; Nor Shamsudin, M.; Arbab, A.S.; Yusoff, K.; Abdul Rahim, R. Display of the Viral Epitopes on Lactococcus lactis: A Model for Food Grade Vaccine against EV71. Biotechnol. Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 431315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  89. Ribelles, P.; Benbouziane, B.; Langella, P.; Suárez, J.E.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Riazi, A. Protection against human papillomavirus type 16-induced tumors in mice using non-genetically modified lactic acid bacteria displaying E7 antigen at its surface. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Müh, U.; Pannullo, A.G.; Weiss, D.S.; Ellermeier, C.D. A Xylose-Inducible Expression System and a CRISPR Interference Plasmid for Targeted Knockdown of Gene Expression in Clostridioides difficile. J. Bacteriol. 2019, 201, e00711-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kiyono, H.; Fukuyama, S. NALT-versus PEYER’S-patch-mediated mucosal immunity. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2004, 4, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Holmgren, J.; Czerkinsky, C. Mucosal immunity and vaccines. Nat. Med. 2005, S11, S45–S53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Anggraeni, R.; Ana, I.D.; Wihadmadyatami, H. Development of mucosal vaccine delivery: An overview on the mucosal vaccines and their adjuvants. Clin. Exp. Vaccine Res. 2022, 11, 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Qiao, N.; Du, G.; Zhong, X.; Sun, X. Recombinant lactic acid bacteria as promising vectors for mucosal vaccination. Exploration 2021, 1, 20210026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kwong, K.W.; Xin, Y.; Lai, N.C.; Sung, J.C.; Wu, K.C.; Hamied, Y.K.; Sze, E.T.; Lam, D.M. Oral Vaccines: A Better Future of Immunization. Vaccines 2023, 11, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Challacombe, S.J.; Rahman, D.; O’Hagan, D.T. Salivary, gut, vaginal and nasal antibody responses after oral immunization with biodegradable microparticles. Vaccine 1997, 15, 169–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Szatraj, K.; Szczepankowska, A.K.; Chmielewska-Jeznach, M. Lactic acid bacteria—Promising vaccine vectors: Possibilities, limitations, doubts. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 123, 325–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wambre, E.; Jeong, D. Oral Tolerance Development and Maintenance. Immunol. Allergy Clin. N. Am. 2018, 38, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chen, Z.; Lin, F.; Gao, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J.; Xing, Y.; Deng, Z.; Yao, Z.; Tsun, A.; Li, B.; et al. FOXP3 and RORγt: Transcriptional regulation of Treg and Th17. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2011, 11, 536–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Vignali, D.A.A.; Collison, L.W.; Workman, C.J. How regulatory T cells work. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2008, 8, 523–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Qin, L.; Hu, C.; Zhao, Q.; Wang, Y.; Fan, D.; Lin, A.; Xiang, L.; Chen, Y.; Shao, J. Unraveling the role of Ctla-4 in intestinal immune homeostasis through a novel Zebrafish model of inflammatory bowel disease. Elife 2025, 13, RP101932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Jutel, M.; Akdis, M.; Budak, F.; Aebischer-Casaulta, C.; Wrzyszcz, M.; Blaser, K.; Akdis, C.A. IL-10 and TGF-β cooperate in the regulatory T cell response to mucosal allergens in normal immunity and specific immunotherapy. Eur. J. Immunol. 2003, 33, 1205–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Taylor, A.; Verhagen, J.; Blaser, K.; Akdis, M.; Akdis, C.A. Mechanisms of immune suppression by interleukin-10 and transforming growth factor-β: The role of T regulatory cells. Immunology 2006, 117, 433–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Uhlig, H.H.; Coombes, J.; Mottet, C.; Izcue, A.; Thompson, C.; Fanger, A.; Tannapfel, A.; Fontenot, J.D.; Ramsdell, F.; Powrie, F. Characterization of Foxp3+CD4+CD25+ and IL-10-Secreting CD4+CD25+ T Cells during Cure of Colitis. J. Immunol. 2006, 177, 5852–5860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Williams, L.M.; Ricchetti, G.; Sarma, U.; Smallie, T.; Foxwell, B.M.J. Interleukin-10 suppression of myeloid cell activation—A continuing puzzle. Immunology 2004, 113, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Park, S.G.; Mathur, R.; Long, M.; Hosh, N.; Hao, L.; Hayden, M.S.; Ghosh, S.T. Regulatory Cells Maintain Intestinal Homeostasis by Suppressing γδ T Cells. Immunity 2010, 33, 791–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Heo, Y.J.; Joo, Y.B.; Oh, H.J.; Park, M.K.; Heo, Y.M.; Cho, M.L.; Kwok, S.K.; Ju, J.H.; Park, K.S.; Cho, S.G.; et al. IL-10 suppresses Th17 cells and promotes regulatory T cells in the CD4+ T cell population of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Immunol. Lett. 2010, 127, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Jankovic, D.; Kugler, D.G.; Sher, A. IL-10 production by CD4+ effector T cells: A mechanism for self-regulation. Mucosal Immunol. 2010, 3, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Schmetterer, K.G.; Pickl, W.F. The IL–10/STAT3 axis: Contributions to immune tolerance by thymus and peripherally derived regulatory T-cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 2017, 47, 1256–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Chaudhry, A.; Rudra, D.; Treuting, P.; Samstein, R.M.; Liang, Y.; Kas, A.; Rudensky, A.Y. CD4 + Regulatory T Cells Control TH17 Responses in a Stat3-dependent manner. Science 2009, 326, 986–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Konkel, J.E.; Chen, W. Balancing acts: The role of TGF-β in the mucosal immune system. Trends Mol. Med. 2011, 17, 668–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Massagué, J. TGFβ signalling in context. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012, 13, 616–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Barnes, M.J.; Griseri, T.; Johnson, A.M.F.; Young, W.; Powrie, F.; Izcue, A. CTLA-4 promotes Foxp3 induction and regulatory T cell accumulation in the intestinal lamina propria. Mucosal Immunol. 2013, 6, 324–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Walker, L.S.K. Treg and CTLA-4: Two intertwining pathways to immune tolerance. J. Autoimmun. 2013, 45, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Rudd, C.E.; Taylor, A.; Schneider, H. CD28 and CTLA-4 coreceptor expression and signal transduction. Immunol. Rev. 2009, 229, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Van Coillie, S.; Wiernicki, B.; Xu, J. Molecular and Cellular Functions of CTLA-4. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2020, 1248, 7–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Lo, B.C.; Kryczek, I.; Yu, J.; Vatan, L.; Caruso, R.; Matsumoto, M.; Sato, Y.; Shaw, M.H.; Inohara, N.; Xie, Y.; et al. Microbiota-dependent activation of CD4 + T cells induces CTLA-4 blockade–associated colitis via Fcγ receptors. Science 2024, 383, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Onishi, Y.; Fehervari, Z.; Yamaguchi, T.; Sakaguchi, S. Foxp3 + natural regulatory T cells preferentially form aggregates on dendritic cells in vitro and actively inhibit their maturation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 10113–10118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Fontenot, J.D.; Gavin, M.A.; Rudensky, A.Y. Foxp3 programs the development and function of CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells. Nat. Immunol. 2003, 4, 330–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Hench, V.K.; Su, L. Regulation of IL-2 gene expression by Siva and FOXP3 in human T cells. BMC Immunol. 2011, 12, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  121. Wang, Y.; Nag, M.; Tuohy, J.L.; De Paris, K.; Fogle, J.E. T Regulatory Cell Induced Foxp3 Binds the IL2, IFN γ, and TNF α Promoters in Virus-Specific CD8 + T Cells from Feline Immunodeficiency Virus Infected Cats. AIDS Res. Hum. Retroviruses 2018, 34, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Wu, Y.; Borde, M.; Heissmeyer, V.; Feuerer, M.; Lapan, A.D.; Stroud, J.C.; Bates, D.L.; Guo, L.; Han, A.; Ziegler, S.F.; et al. FOXP3 Controls Regulatory T Cell Function through Cooperation with NFAT. Cell 2006, 126, 375–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lycke, N. Recent progress in mucosal vaccine development: Potential and limitations. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012, 12, 592–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ramvikas, M.; Arumugam, M.; Chakrabarti, S.R.; Jaganathan, K.S. Nasal Vaccine Delivery. In Micro and Nanotechnology in Vaccine Development; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 279–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Neutra, M.R.; Kozlowski, P.A. Mucosal vaccines: The promise and the challenge. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2006, 6, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Persson, J.; Zhang, Y.; Olafsdottir, T.A.; Thörn, K.; Cairns, T.M.; Wegmann, F.; Sattentau, Q.J.; Eisenberg, R.J.; Cohen, G.H.; Harandi, A.M. Nasal Immunization Confers High Avidity Neutralizing Antibody Response and Immunity to Primary and Recurrent Genital Herpes in Guinea Pigs. Front. Immunol. 2016, 7, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Johansson, E.-L.; Wasse, L.; Holmgren, J.; Jertborn, M.; Rudin, A. Nasal and Vaginal Vaccinations Have Differential Effects on Antibody Responses in Vaginal and Cervical Secretions in Humans. Infect. Immun. 2001, 69, 7481–7486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Li, Y.; Li, X.; Liu, H.; Zhuang, S.; Yang, J.; Zhang, F. Intranasal immunization with recombinant Lactococci carrying human papillomavirus E7 protein and mouse interleukin-12 DNA induces E7-specific antitumor effects in C57BL/6 mice. Oncol. Lett. 2014, 7, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Pacini, M.F.; González, F.B.; Dinatale, B.; Bulfoni Balbi, C.; Villar, S.R.; Farré, C.; Lupi, G.; Espariz, M.; Blancato, V.S.; Magni, C.; et al. Nasal immunization with a L. lactis-derived trans-sialidase antigen plus c-di-AMP protects against acute oral T. cruzi infection. Vaccine 2022, 40, 2311–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Ebensen, T.; Libanova, R.; Schulze, K.; Yevsa, T.; Morr, M.; Guzmán, C.A. Bis-(3′,5′)-cyclic dimeric adenosine monophosphate: Strong Th1/Th2/Th17 promoting mucosal adjuvant. Vaccine 2011, 29, 5210–5220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Tai, J.; Han, M.; Lee, D.; Park, I.-H.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, T.H. Different Methods and Formulations of Drugs and Vaccines for Nasal Administration. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Kleanthous, H.; Myers, G.A.; Georgakopoulos, K.M.; Tibbitts, T.J.; Ingrassia, J.W.; Gray, H.L.; Ding, R.; Zhang, Z.Z.; Lei, W.; Nichols, R.; et al. Rectal and Intranasal Immunizations with Recombinant Urease Induce Distinct Local and Serum Immune Responses in Mice and Protect against Helicobacter pylori Infection. Infect. Immun. 1998, 66, 2879–2886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. VanBenschoten, H.M.; Woodrow, K.A. Vaginal delivery of vaccines. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2021, 178, 113956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Levit, R.; Cortes-Perez, N.G.; de Moreno de Leblanc, A.; Loiseau, J.; Aucouturier, A.; Langella, P.; LeBlanc, J.G.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G. Use of genetically modified lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria as live delivery vectors for human and animal health. Gut Microbes 2022, 14, 2110821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mohseni, A.H.; Razavilar, V.; Keyvani, H.; Razavi, M.R.; Khavari-Nejad, R.A. Oral immunization with recombinant Lactococcus lactis NZ9000 expressing human papillomavirus type 16 E7 antigen and evaluation of its immune effects in female C57BL/6 mice. J. Med. Virol. 2019, 91, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mohseni, A.H.; Taghinezhad, S.S.; Keyvani, H. The First Clinical Use of a Recombinant Lactococcus lactis Expressing Human Papillomavirus Type 16 E7 Oncogene Oral Vaccine: A phase I safety and immunogenicity trial in healthy women volunteers. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2020, 19, 717–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Prudden, H.; Tatoud, R.; Slack, C.; Shattock, R.; Anklesaria, P.; Bekker, L.G.; Buchbinder, S. Experimental Medicine for HIV Vaccine Research and Development. Vaccines 2023, 11, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Chamcha, V.; Jones, A.; Quigley, B.R.; Scott, J.R.; Amara, R.R. Oral Immunization with a Recombinant Lactococcus lactis–Expressing HIV-1 Antigen on Group A Streptococcus Pilus Induces Strong Mucosal Immunity in the Gut. J. Immunol. 2015, 195, 5025–5034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Xin, K.Q.; Hoshino, Y.; Toda, Y.; Igimi, S.; Kojima, Y.; Jounai, N.; Ohba, K.; Kushiro, A.; Kiwaki, M.; Hamajima, K.; et al. Immunogenicity and protective efficacy of orally administered recombinant Lactococcus lactis expressing surface-bound HIV Env. Blood 2003, 102, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. World Health Organization. Influenza Update n° 509. World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/influenza-update-n--509 (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  141. Lei, H.; Xu, Y.; Chen, J.; Wei, X.; Lam, D.M.-K. Immunoprotection against influenza H5N1 virus by oral administration of enteric-coated recombinant Lactococcus lactis mini-capsules. Virology 2010, 407, 319–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Lei, H.; Gao, T.; Cen, Q. Cross-protective immunity of the haemagglutinin stalk domain presented on the surface of Lactococcus lactis against divergent influenza viruses in mice. Virulence 2020, 12, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhang, Q.; Zhong, J.; Huan, L. Expression of hepatitis B virus surface antigen determinants in Lactococcus lactis for oral vaccination. Microbiol. Res. 2010, 166, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Umami, R.N.; Anwar, R.I.; Murtiyaningsih, H.; Mustopa, A.Z. Cloning and Expression of HBcAg Using Food Grade Vector pNZ8149 in Lactococcus Lactis for the Development of HBV Therapeutic Vaccine. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference for Health Research—BRIN (ICHR 2022), Jakarta, Indonesia, 23–24 November 2022; Atlantis Press International BV: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 833–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Pei, H.; Liu, J.; Cheng, Y.; Sun, C.; Wang, C.; Lu, Y.; Ding, J.; Zhou, J.; Xiang, H. Expression of SARS-coronavirus nucleocapsid protein in Escherichia coli and Lactococcus lactis for serodiagnosis and mucosal vaccination. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 68, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Xuan, B.; Park, J.; Yoo, J.H.; Kim, E.B. Oral Immunization of Mice with Cell Extracts from Recombinant Lactococcus lactis Expressing SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Yurina, V.; Adianingsih, O.R.; Widodo, N. Oral and intranasal immunization with food-grade recombinant Lactococcus lactis expressing high conserved region of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein triggers mice’s immunity responses. Vaccine 2023, 13, 100265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Guo, S.; Yan, W.; McDonough, S.P.; Lin, N.J.; Wu, K.J.; He, H.; Xiang, H.; Yang, M.; Moreira, M.A.S.; Chang, Y.-F. The recombinant Lactococcus lactis oral vaccine induces protection against C. difficile spore challenge in a mouse model. Vaccine 2015, 33, 1586–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Lee, Y.-C.; Dore, M.P.; Graham, D.Y. Diagnosis and Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection. Annu. Rev. Med. 2022, 73, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lee, M.H.; Roussel, Y.; Wilks, M.; Tabaqchali, S. Expression of Helicobacter pylori urease subunit B gene in Lactococcus lactis MG1363 and its use as a vaccine delivery system against H. pylori infection in mice. Vaccine 2001, 19, 3927–3935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Aliramaei, M.R.; Khorasgani, M.R.; Rahmani, M.R.; Esfahani, S.H.Z.; Emamzadeh, R. Expression of Helicobacter pylori CagL gene in Lactococcus lactis MG1363 and evaluation of its immunogenicity as an oral vaccine in mice. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 142, 103926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Narciso, A.R.; Dookie, R.; Nannapaneni, P.; Normark, S.; Henriques-Normark, B. Streptococcus pneumoniae epidemiology, pathogenesis and control. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2025, 23, 256–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Thong, B.Y.-H.; Pawankar, R.; Park, H.-S.; Latiff, A.H.A. Evaluating immune responses to pneumococcal vaccines. Asia Pac. Allergy 2023, 13, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. El Hussein, M.T.; Saleh, H. Pneumonia Vaccines in Primary Care: Evidence-Based Recommendations for Clinical Practice. J. Nurse Pract. 2025, 21, 105510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Chandler, T.; Furmanek, S.; Carrico, R.; Balcom, D.; Arnold, F.; Ramirez, J. 23-Valent Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccination Does Not Prevent Community-Acquired Pneumonia Hospitalizations Due to Vaccine-Type Streptococcus pneumoniae. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Chen, C.; Cervero Liceras, F.; Flasche, S.; Sidharta, S.; Yoong, J.; Sundaram, N.; Jit, M. Effect and cost-effectiveness of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination: A global modelling analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2019, 7, e58–e67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Current CDC Vaccine Price List; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  158. Vintiñi, E.; Villena, J.; Alvarez, S.; Medina, M. Administration of a probiotic associated with nasal vaccination with inactivated Lactococcus lactis-PppA induces effective protection against pneumoccocal infection in young mice. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2010, 159, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. World Health Organization. WHO Preferred Product Characteristics for Vaccines Against Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC). Geneva, June 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/who-preferred-product-characteristics-for-vaccines-against-enterotoxigenic-escherichia-coli (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  160. Rouzbahani, H.A.; Gargari, S.L.M.; Nazarian, S.; Abdollahi, S. Protective Immunity Against Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli by Oral Vaccination of Engineered Lactococcus lactis. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 3464–3473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Qureshi, K.A.; Parvez, A.; Fahmy, N.A.; Abdel Hady, B.H.; Kumar, S.; Ganguly, A.; Atiya, A.; Elhassan, G.O.; Alfadly, S.O.; Parkkila, S.; et al. Brucellosis: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment—A comprehensive review. Ann. Med. 2023, 55, 2295398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Samartino, L.E.; Enright, F.M. Pathogenesis of abortion of bovine brucellosis. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 1993, 16, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Jamil, T.; Melzer, F.; Njeru, J.; El-Adawy, H.; Neubauer, H.; Wareth, G. Brucella abortus: Current Research and Future Trends. Curr. Clin. Microbiol. Rep. 2017, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ribeiro, L.A.; Azevedo, V.; Le Loir, Y.; Oliveira, S.C.; Dieye, Y.; Piard, J.C.; Gruss, A.; Langella, P. Production and Targeting of the Brucella abortus Antigen L7/L12 in Lactococcus lactis: A First Step towards Food-Grade Live Vaccines against Brucellosis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 910–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Rioux, S.; Martin, D.; Ackermann, H.W.; Dumont, J.; Hamel, J.; Brodeur, B.R. Localization of surface immunogenic protein on group B streptococcus. Infect. Immun. 2001, 69, 5162–5165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Martin, D.; Rioux, S.; Gagnon, E.; Boyer, M.; Hamel, J.; Charland, N.; Brodeur, B.R. Protection from group B streptococcal infection in neonatal mice by maternal immunization with recombinant Sip protein. Infect. Immun. 2002, 70, 4897–4901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Brodeur, B.R.; Boyer, M.; Charlebois, I.; Hamel, J.; Couture, F.; Rioux, C.R.; Martin, D. Identification of group B streptococcal sip protein, which elicits cross-protective immunity. Infect. Immun. 2000, 68, 5610–5618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Diaz-Dinamarca, D.A.; Hernandez, C.; Escobar, D.F.; Soto, D.A.; Muñoz, G.A.; Badilla, J.F.; Manzo, R.A.; Carrión, F.; Kalergis, A.M.; Vasquez, A.E. Mucosal vaccination with Lactococcus lactis-secreting surface immunological protein induces humoral and cellular immune protection against group b Streptococcus in a murine model. Vaccines 2020, 8, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Wong, K.Y.; Megat Mazhar Khair, M.H.; Song, A.A.L.; Masarudin, M.J.; Loh, J.Y.; Chong, C.M.; Beardall, J.; Teo, M.Y.M.; In, L.L.A. Recombinant lactococcal-based oral vaccine for protection against Streptococcus agalactiae infections in tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Shellfish. Immunol. 2024, 149, 109572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Taghinezhad, S.S.; Mohseni, A.H.; Keyvani, H.; Razavilar, V. Protection against human papillomavirus type 16-induced tumors in C57BL/6 mice by mucosal vaccination with Lactococcus lactis NZ9000 expressing E6 oncoprotein. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 126, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Taghinezhad, S.S.; Mohseni, A.H.; Keyvani, H.; Razavi, M.R. Phase 1 Safety and Immunogenicity Trial of Recombinant Lactococcus lactis Expressing Human Papillomavirus Type 16 E6 Oncoprotein Vaccine. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 2019, 15, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Rokon-Uz-Zaman, M.; Bushra, A.; Pospo, T.A.; Runa, M.A.; Tasnuva, S.; Parvin, M.S.; Islam, M.T. Detection of antimicrobial resistance genes in Lactobacillus spp. from poultry probiotic products and their horizontal transfer among Escherichia coli. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2023, 20, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Tao, S.; Chen, H.; Li, N.; Wang, T.; Liang, W. The Spread of Antibiotic Resistance Genes In Vivo Model. Can. J. Infect. Dis. Med. Microbiol. 2022, 2022, 3348695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Bahey-El-Din, M. Lactococcus lactis-based vaccines from laboratory bench to human use: An overview. Vaccine 2012, 30, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. World Health Organization. Annex 1 WHO Guidelines on Nonclinical. no. 927, 2005. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/annex1-nonclinical.p31-63 (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  176. European Parliament; Council of the European Union. Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on Genetically Modified Food and Feed; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 1–23. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2003/1829/oj/eng (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  177. Venugopalan, V.; Shriner, K.A.; Wong-Beringer, A. Regulatory Oversight and Safety of Probiotic Use. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2010, 16, 1661–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Food and Drug Administration. Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  179. European Food Safe Authority (EFSA). Qualified presumption of safety (QPS). Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/applications/qps-assessment (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  180. Guo, T.; Xin, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Gu, X.; Kong, J. A rapid and versatile tool for genomic engineering in Lactococcus lactis. Microb. Cell Fact. 2019, 18, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Song, X.; Liu, L.; Liu, X.X.; Xiong, Z.Q.; Xie, C.L.; Wang, S.J.; Ai, L.Z. Single-plasmid systems based on CRISPR-Cas9 for gene editing in Lactococcus lactis. J. Dairy. Sci. 2021, 104, 10576–10585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Zhou, Y.; Song, F.; Yang, H.; Li, D.; Zhang, N.; Huang, K.; He, X.; Wang, M.; Tian, H.; Li, C. Construction of a food-grade gene editing system based on CRISPR-Cas9 and its application in Lactococcus lactis NZ9000. Biotechnol. Lett. 2023, 45, 955–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Divya, J.B.; Nampoothiri, K.M. Encapsulated Lactococcus lactis with enhanced gastrointestinal survival for the development of folate enriched functional foods. Bioresour. Technol. 2015, 188, 226–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Dusso, D.; Salomon, C.J. Solving the delivery of Lactococcus lactis: Improved survival and storage stability through the bioencapsulation with different carriers. J. Food Sci. 2023, 88, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Dey, S.; Sankaran, S. Engineered bacterial therapeutics with material solutions. Trends Biotechnol. 2024, 42, 1663–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Lee, P. Biocontainment strategies for live lactic acid bacteria vaccine vectors. Bioeng. Bugs 2010, 1, 75–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Upon external addition of nisin, it binds to the membrane-bound histidine kinase NisK, triggering its autophosphorylation. NisK then transfers the phosphate group to the response regulator NisR. Phosphorylated NisR activates transcription from the PnisA promoter, leading to the expression of the gene of interest. The expressed protein can then be directed for secretion, remain soluble in the cytoplasm, or be anchored to the bacterial membrane, depending on its signal peptide or fusion tags. Based on [36] and created in BioRender. Soto, J. (2025) https://BioRender.com/pibhxg1.
Figure 1. Upon external addition of nisin, it binds to the membrane-bound histidine kinase NisK, triggering its autophosphorylation. NisK then transfers the phosphate group to the response regulator NisR. Phosphorylated NisR activates transcription from the PnisA promoter, leading to the expression of the gene of interest. The expressed protein can then be directed for secretion, remain soluble in the cytoplasm, or be anchored to the bacterial membrane, depending on its signal peptide or fusion tags. Based on [36] and created in BioRender. Soto, J. (2025) https://BioRender.com/pibhxg1.
Pharmaceutics 18 00307 g001
Table 2. Mucosal Vaccines based on L. lactis expressing heterologous antigens.
Table 2. Mucosal Vaccines based on L. lactis expressing heterologous antigens.
PathogenAntigenRoute of AdministrationResponseReferences
HPVE7 OncoproteinOralInduced E7-specific IgG antibodies and activation of CD4+ T cells; demonstrated therapeutic potential confirmed in early-phase clinical trials[135,136,170]
HIVGag–T3 pilus fusion; V2–V4 Env loopOralIncreased Gag-specific IgG and IgA in serum, feces, and vaginal secretions; activation of dendritic cells in Peyer’s patches; limited CD8+ T-cell response[137,138,139]
Influenza AHemagglutinin (HA) and HA-stalk fusionOralInduced strong serum IgG and mucosal IgA responses; conferred complete protection in mice and cross-protection among influenza subtypes[141,142]
HBVPreS region or central HBsAg fragments ± IFN-γOralElicited serum IgG and intestinal IgA; co-expression of IFN-γ enhanced the humoral response[143,144]
SARSNucleocapsid (N) protein; RBD; HCR (S2 subunit)Oral/IntranasalInduced anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA responses; activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells; stronger NALT response via intranasal route; developed under food-grade conditions[145,146,147]
C. difficileToxin fragments TcdA, TcdBOralElicited high IgG and IgA levels with toxin-neutralizing activity; improved animal survival and reduced intestinal pathology[148]
H. pyloriUreB; NapA; CagLOralInduced antigen-specific IgG and mucosal IgA; promoted a Th1/Th17 cytokine profile associated with protection[32,150,151]
S. pneumoniaePneumococcal protective protein A (PppA)Oral/intranasalIncreased IgA and IgG in bronchoalveolar lavage and serum; conferred protection against serotypes 3 and 14; promoted Th1-dominant response with moderate Th2/Th17 activity[158]
E. coliHeat-labile toxin subunit B (LTB)Oral/subcutaneousInduced intestinal IgA and serum IgG; demonstrated in vitro toxin neutralization; provided protection in the rabbit ileal loop assay[160]
Brucella abortusRibosomal protein L7/L12OralInduced fecal IgA indicating local response; no systemic IgG detected; secretion improved with Usp45 and LEISS pro-peptide; anchored form enhanced mucosal delivery[164]
C. difficileToxin fragments TcdA, TcdBOralElicited high IgG and IgA levels with toxin-neutralizing activity; improved animal survival and reduced intestinal pathology[148]
S. agalactiaeSIPOralStrong systemic and mucosal anti-SIP IgG and IgA responses; enhanced CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell activation[168]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Grossolli-Galvez, J.; Imarai, M.; Soto, J.A.; Vasquez, A.E. Lactococcus lactis as a New Strategy for Oral Vaccination: Current Insights and Future Perspectives. Pharmaceutics 2026, 18, 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics18030307

AMA Style

Grossolli-Galvez J, Imarai M, Soto JA, Vasquez AE. Lactococcus lactis as a New Strategy for Oral Vaccination: Current Insights and Future Perspectives. Pharmaceutics. 2026; 18(3):307. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics18030307

Chicago/Turabian Style

Grossolli-Galvez, Jonnathan, Mónica Imarai, Jorge A. Soto, and Abel E. Vasquez. 2026. "Lactococcus lactis as a New Strategy for Oral Vaccination: Current Insights and Future Perspectives" Pharmaceutics 18, no. 3: 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics18030307

APA Style

Grossolli-Galvez, J., Imarai, M., Soto, J. A., & Vasquez, A. E. (2026). Lactococcus lactis as a New Strategy for Oral Vaccination: Current Insights and Future Perspectives. Pharmaceutics, 18(3), 307. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics18030307

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop