Open Access

Nanotechnology, bionanotechnology and microbial cell factories

Microbial Cell Factories20109:53

https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2859-9-53

Received: 27 June 2010

Accepted: 5 July 2010

Published: 5 July 2010

Abstract

Nanotechnology is increasingly using both materials and nano-objects synthesized by living beings, most of them produced by microbial cells. Emerging technologies and highly integrative approaches (such as 'omics and systems biology), that have been largely proven successful for the production of proteins and secondary metabolites are now expected to become fully adapted for the improved biological production of nanostructured materials with tailored properties. The so far underestimated potential of microbial cell factories in nanotechnology and nanomedicine is expected to emerge, in the next years, in the context of novel needs envisaged in the nanoscience universe. This should prompt a careful revisiting of the microbial cell factories as the most versatile biological platforms to supply functional materials for nanotechnological applications.

Generally speaking, Nanotechnology refers to the fabrication, manipulation and utilization of submicron objects, particularly those between 1 and 100 nm. Physical and chemical sciences have developed tools and procedures to fabricate nanoscale entities with intriguing applications in electronics, material sciences and medicine. In the biomedical context, the relevance of Nanotechnology relies on the particular biophysical properties of nanoscale objects and their particular interaction with living beings such as high diffusion in organs and tissues, high surface-volume ratio, efficient uptake by mammalian cells and high biological impact in biological interfaces through mecano-transduction signaling [1] and a spectrum of alternative cell activities and responses [2]. The extraordinary bio-effectiveness of nanoparticles has in turn derived into a strong debate about their potential toxicity, when directly exposed to the human body or released to the environment [3], which is still unsolved. The biological impact of these manmade nanoscale entities and their suitability to be functionalized for specific binding or to act as carriers for therapeutics empowers a spectrum of specific applications in diagnosis and therapy, including imaging, biosensing, regenerative medicine, drug delivery and gene therapy. The clinically-oriented fabrication, tailoring and application of bio-active nanoparticles conceptually sustains the Nanomedicine framework.

Bionanotechnology (as well as Nanobiotechnolgy) are rather fuzzy terms whose overlapping meanings are under continuous refining, as their associated technologies and applications keep evolving. They are often understood as the generation of hybrid materials (deriving from chemical and biological synthesis), or bio-inspired materials [4]. In a different reading frame, Bionanotechnology can be observed as "Nanotechnology through Biotechnology" [5], that is, the bio-fabrication of nano-objects, or bi-functional macromolecules usable as tools to construct or manipulate nano-objects. Because of their wide physiological diversity, small size, genetic manipulability and controlled culturability, microbial cells are ideal producers of a diversity of nanostructures, materials and instruments for Nanosciences, ranging from fully natural products such as viruses, polymers and magnetosomes, to engineered proteins or protein constructs such as virus-like particles (VLPs), and peptide-displaying phages or cells and tailored metal particles (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Biosynthetic potential of Microbial Cell Factories in Nanosciences. Bacteria and other microbes are good producers of particulate entities with values in Nanotechnology in general and in Nanomedicine in particular. From top left, clockwise: First, cells themselves and their infecting viruses are used for peptide display (cell surface display or phage display technologies, respectively). Among other applications including selecting ligands for receptor mediated drug delivery, biosensing or imaging [2731], peptide display show important promises in molecular biomimetics, to generate molecular links between synthetic and biological components of hybrid materials [32, 33]. Also, animal, plant and bacterial viruses, being manageable at the nanoscale, are used as scaffolds for nanofabrication of electronic components [34] and as building blocks for functionalized surfaces [35, 36], apart from their more conventional application as vehicles for the delivery of nucleic acids in gene therapy [37, 38]. Interestingly, viral components as the DNA-packaging motor of phi29 bacteriophage [39] have been explored as vehicles in drug delivery. VLPs, produced in both eukaryotic microbes and in bacteria, apart from their conventional application in vaccination show promising potential as nano-containers for drug delivery[40]. Other protein self assembling complexes produced in bacteria such as flagella, explored to generate nanomotors or as templates for nanofabrication [4143], or inclusion bodies, used as soft-matter scaffolds in tissue engineering [4446] or as functional materials [47] are under deep exploration and further development. Magnetosomes from magnetotactic bacterial have shown exciting potentials in drug delivery, imaging and tissue engineering [4853], while a diversity of metal nanoparticles produced in bacteria, whose properties can be tuned during production, are in use or under development for nano-electronics, therapy and imaging [5460]. Main microbial polymers including polysaccharides, polyesters and polyamides can be nanostructured upon isolation from producing cells for uses in material sciences, while others, such as gellan, dextran, PHA and HA, are naturally produced as nanoparticulate materials [6165], than can be further functionalized in vivo by the genetic engineering of producing cells [66, 67].

In summary, microbial cells are natural producers of (or they can be easily adapted to synthesize) nano-sized entities with relevant biomedical applications, being the cell factories themselves promising tools for the emerging technologies and biomedical applications related with the use of nanosized entities. Microbial Call Factories, the journal, has addressed some of these relevant topics through primary research papers and reviews. For instance, Chen and coauthors [6] have recently shown how polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) nanosized granules are convenient instruments for protein purification, while other authors [7] have improved the production of clinically relevant microbial materials suitable for nanoparticle in vitro fabrication including alginate, hyaluronic acid (HA) and PHA [8, 9].

Moreover, cell surface display technologies [10, 11] as well as the engineering of bacterial particulate materials (such as spores) for peptide display [12] have been represented in our article list. Furthermore, the journal has often addressed protein quality issues [1319], that are highly relevant to the design and production of protein complexes and protein nanoparticles, among which virus like particles (VLPs) [20], self-assembling silk-like proteins [21] and bacterial inclusion bodies [2226] have been particularly studied.

However, the number of submissions dealing with Nanotechnological applications or instruments deriving from microbial cells and the spectrum of coverage of Nanoscience-related topics are still low. Therefore, the editorial board of Microbial Cell Factories is pleased to encourage all the authors working in microbiology, biomedicine and biomaterial sciences to consider the potential of the Cell Factory platforms and to submit their primary research data and reviews to the journal. As a fully settled but highly dynamic journal, Microbial Cell Factories is committed to fully cover emerging technologies and scientific areas of hot interest from which microbial products are relevant, provided the biological aspects of the production (the Cell Factory concept) of the model particles, structures or materials are conveniently stressed.

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute for Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
(2)
Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
(3)
CIBER de Bioingeniería, Biomateriales y Nanomedicina (CIBER-BBN)

References

  1. Curtis AS, Dalby M, Gadegaard N: Cell signaling arising from nanotopography: implications for nanomedical devices. Nanomed. 2006, 1: 67-72. 10.2217/17435889.1.1.67.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Jiang W, Kim BY, Rutka JT, Chan WC: Nanoparticle-mediated cellular response is size-dependent. Nat Nanotechnol. 2008, 3: 145-150. 10.1038/nnano.2008.30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Sanvicens N, Marco MP: Multifunctional nanoparticles--properties and prospects for their use in human medicine. Trends Biotechnol. 2008, 26: 425-433. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2008.04.005.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Taylor PM: Biological matrices and bionanotechnology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007, 362: 1313-1320. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2117.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Sarikaya M, Tamerler C, Jen AK, Schulten K, Baneyx F: Molecular biomimetics: nanotechnology through biology. Nat Mater. 2003, 2: 577-585. 10.1038/nmat964.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhang S, Wang ZH, Chen GQ: Microbial polyhydroxyalkanote synthesis repression protein PhaR as an affinity tag for recombinant protein purification. Microb Cell Fact. 2010, 9: 28- 10.1186/1475-2859-9-28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Vazquez JA, Montemayor MI, Fraguas J, Murado MA: Hyaluronic acid production by Streptococcus zooepidemicus in marine by-products media from mussel processing wastewaters and tuna peptone viscera. Microb Cell Fact. 2010, 9: 46- 10.1186/1475-2859-9-46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Singh M, Patel SK, Kalia VC: Bacillus subtilis as potential producer for polyhydroxyalkanoates. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 38- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-38.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Galindo E, Pena C, Nunez C, Segura D, Espin G: Molecular and bioengineering strategies to improve alginate and polydydroxyalkanoate production by Azotobacter vinelandii. Microb Cell Fact. 2007, 6: 7- 10.1186/1475-2859-6-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Shao X, Jiang M, Yu Z, Cai H, Li L: Surface display of heterologous proteins in Bacillus thuringiensis using a peptidoglycan hydrolase anchor. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 48- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Rutherford N, Mourez M: Surface display of proteins by gram-negative bacterial autotransporters. Microb Cell Fact. 2006, 5: 22- 10.1186/1475-2859-5-22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Hinc K, Isticato R, Dembek M, Karczewska J, Iwanicki A, Peszynska-Sularz G, et al.: Expression and display of UreA of Helicobacter acinonychis on the surface of Bacillus subtilis spores. Microb Cell Fact. 2010, 9: 2- 10.1186/1475-2859-9-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Martinez-Alonso M, Gonzalez-Montalban N, Garcia-Fruitos E, Villaverde A: Learning about protein solubility from bacterial inclusion bodies. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 4- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia-Fruitos E, Gonzalez-Montalban N, Morell M, Vera A, Ferraz RM, Aris A, et al.: Aggregation as bacterial inclusion bodies does not imply inactivation of enzymes and fluorescent proteins. Microb Cell Fact. 2005, 4: 27- 10.1186/1475-2859-4-27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. de Marco A: Strategies for successful recombinant expression of disulfide bond-dependent proteins in Escherichia coli. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 26- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Kolaj O, Spada S, Robin S, Wall JG: Use of folding modulators to improve heterologous protein production in Escherichia coli. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 9- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Sorensen HP, Mortensen KK: Soluble expression of recombinant proteins in the cytoplasm of Escherichia coli. Microb Cell Fact. 2005, 4: 1- 10.1186/1475-2859-4-1.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrer-Miralles N, Domingo-Espin J, Corchero JL, Vazquez E, Villaverde A: Microbial factories for recombinant pharmaceuticals. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 17- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-17.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Gasser B, Saloheimo M, Rinas U, Dragosits M, Rodriguez-Carmona E, Baumann K, et al.: Protein folding and conformational stress in microbial cells producing recombinant proteins: a host comparative overview. Microb Cell Fact. 2008, 7: 11- 10.1186/1475-2859-7-11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Gurramkonda C, Adnan A, Gabel T, Lunsdorf H, Ross A, Nemani SK, et al.: Simple high-cell density fed-batch technique for high-level recombinant protein production with Pichia pastoris: Application to intracellular production of Hepatitis B surface antigen. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 13- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Scheibel T: Spider silks: recombinant synthesis, assembly, spinning, and engineering of synthetic proteins. Microb Cell Fact. 2004, 3: 14- 10.1186/1475-2859-3-14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Peternel S, Grdadolnik J, Gaberc-Porekar V, Komel R: Engineering inclusion bodies for non denaturing extraction of functional proteins. Microb Cell Fact. 2008, 7: 34- 10.1186/1475-2859-7-34.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Sabate R, Espargaro A, Saupe SJ, Ventura S: Characterization of the amyloid bacterial inclusion bodies of the HET-s fungal prion. Microb Cell Fact. 2009, 8: 56- 10.1186/1475-2859-8-56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Parrilli E, Giuliani M, Marino G, Tutino ML: Influence of production process design on inclusion bodies protein: the case of an Antarctic flavohemoglobin. Microb Cell Fact. 2010, 9: 19- 10.1186/1475-2859-9-19.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Jurgen B, Breitenstein A, Urlacher V, Buttner K, Lin H, Hecker M, et al.: Quality control of inclusion bodies in Escherichia coli. Microb Cell Fact. 2010, 9: 41- 10.1186/1475-2859-9-41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Lethanh H, Neubauer P, Hoffmann F: The small heat-shock proteins IbpA and IbpB reduce the stress load of recombinant Escherichia coli and delay degradation of inclusion bodies. Microb Cell Fact. 2005, 4: 6- 10.1186/1475-2859-4-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Petty NK, Evans TJ, Fineran PC, Salmond GP: Biotechnological exploitation of bacteriophage research. Trends Biotechnol. 2007, 25: 7-15. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.11.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Deutscher SL: Phage display in molecular imaging and diagnosis of cancer. Chem Rev. 2010, 110: 3196-3211. 10.1021/cr900317f.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Balestrieri ML, Napoli C: Novel challenges in exploring peptide ligands and corresponding tissue-specific endothelial receptors. Eur J Cancer. 2007, 43: 1242-1250. 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.02.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Aina OH, Liu R, Sutcliffe JL, Marik J, Pan CX, Lam KS: From combinatorial chemistry to cancer-targeting peptides. Mol Pharm. 2007, 4: 631-651. 10.1021/mp700073y.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Sidhu SS: Phage display in pharmaceutical biotechnology. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2000, 11: 610-616. 10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00152-X.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarikaya M, Tamerler C, Jen AK, Schulten K, Baneyx F: Molecular biomimetics: nanotechnology through biology. Nat Mater. 2003, 2: 577-585. 10.1038/nmat964.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Tamerler C, Sarikaya M: Molecular biomimetics: nanotechnology and bionanotechnology using genetically engineered peptides. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences. 2009, 367: 1705-1726. 10.1098/rsta.2009.0018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Mao C, Solis DJ, Reiss BD, Kottmann ST, Sweeney RY, Hayhurst A, et al.: Virus-based toolkit for the directed synthesis of magnetic and semiconducting nanowires. Science. 2004, 303: 213-217. 10.1126/science.1092740.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinmetz NF, Bize A, Findlay KC, Lomonossoff GP, Manchester M, Evans DJ, et al.: Site-specific and Spatially Controlled Addressability of a New Viral Nanobuilding Block: Sulfolobus islandicus Rod-shaped Virus 2. Advanced Functional Materials. 2008, 18: 3478-3486. 10.1002/adfm.200800711.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Steinmetz NF, Shah SN, Barclay JE, Rallapalli G, Lomonossoff GP, Evans DJ: Virus-templated silica nanoparticles. Small. 2009, 5: 813-816. 10.1002/smll.200801348.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Edelstein ML, Abedi MR, Wixon J: Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2007--an update. J Gene Med. 2007, 9: 833-842. 10.1002/jgm.1100.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Evans DJ: Exploitation of plant and archaeal viruses in bionanotechnology. Biochem Soc Trans. 2009, 37: 665-670. 10.1042/BST0370665.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee TJ, Schwartz C, Guo P: Construction of bacteriophage phi29 DNA packaging motor and its applications in nanotechnology and therapy. Ann Biomed Eng. 2009, 37: 2064-2081. 10.1007/s10439-009-9723-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Bundy BC, Franciszkowicz MJ, Swartz JR: Escherichia coli-based cell-free synthesis of virus-like particles. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008, 100: 28-37. 10.1002/bit.21716.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Martel S, Felfoul O, Mohammadi M, Mathieu JB: Interventional procedure based on nanorobots propelled and steered by flagellated magnetotactic bacteria for direct targeting of tumors in the human body. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2008, 2008: 2497-2500.Google Scholar
  42. Deplanche K, Woods RD, Mikheenko IP, Sockett RE, Macaskie LE: Manufacture of stable palladium and gold nanoparticles on native and genetically engineered flagella scaffolds. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008, 101: 873-880. 10.1002/bit.21966.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. van den Heuvel MG, Dekker C: Motor proteins at work for nanotechnology. Science. 2007, 317: 333-336. 10.1126/science.1139570.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Garcia-Fruitos E, Seras-Franzoso J, Vazquez E, Villaverde A: Tunable geometry of bacterial inclusion bodies as substrate materials for tissue engineering. Nanotechnology. 2010, 21: 205101- 10.1088/0957-4484/21/20/205101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Diez-Gil C, Krabbenborg S, Garcia-Fruitos E, Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Carmona E, Ratera I, et al.: The nanoscale properties of bacterial inclusion bodies and their effect on mammalian cell proliferation. Biomaterials. 2010, 31: 5805-5812. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Garcia-Fruitos E, Rodriguez-Carmona E, Diez-Gil C, Ferraz RM, Vazquez E, Corchero JL, et al.: Surface Cell Growth Engineering Assisted by a Novel Bacterial Nanomaterial. Advanced Materials. 2009, 21: 4249-4253. 10.1002/adma.200900283.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Garcia-Fruitos E, Villaverde A: Friendly production of bacterial inclusion bodies. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering. 2010, 27: 385-389.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Corchero JL, Villaverde A: Biomedical applications of distally controlled magnetic nanoparticles. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27: 468-476. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2009.04.003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Ding Y, Li J, Liu J, Yang J, Jiang W, Tian J, et al.: Deletion of the ftsZ-like gene results in the production of superparamagnetic magnetite magnetosomes in Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense. J Bacteriol. 2010, 192: 1097-1105. 10.1128/JB.01292-09.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Ohuchi S, Schuler D: In vivo display of a multisubunit enzyme complex on biogenic magnetic nanoparticles. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009, 75: 7734-7738. 10.1128/AEM.01640-09.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Sun JB, Duan JH, Dai SL, Ren J, Guo L, Jiang W, et al.: Preparation and anti-tumor efficiency evaluation of doxorubicin-loaded bacterial magnetosomes: magnetic nanoparticles as drug carriers isolated from Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008, 101: 1313-1320. 10.1002/bit.22011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Sun JB, Zhao F, Tang T, Jiang W, Tian JS, Li Y, et al.: High-yield growth and magnetosome formation by Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense MSR-1 in an oxygen-controlled fermentor supplied solely with air. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2008, 79: 389-397. 10.1007/s00253-008-1453-y.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Lang C, Schuler D, Faivre D: Synthesis of Magnetite Nanoparticles for Bio- and Nanotechnology: Genetic Engineering and Biomimetics of Bacterial Magnetosomes. Macromol Biosci. 2007, 7: 144-151. 10.1002/mabi.200600235.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  54. Vaidyanathan R, Gopalram S, Kalishwaralal K, Deepak V, Pandian SR, Gurunathan S: Enhanced silver nanoparticle synthesis by optimization of nitrate reductase activity. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2010, 75: 335-341. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.09.006.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  55. Gurunathan S, Kalishwaralal K, Vaidyanathan R, Venkataraman D, Pandian SR, Muniyandi J, et al.: Biosynthesis, purification and characterization of silver nanoparticles using Escherichia coli. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2009, 74: 328-335. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2009.07.048.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Chen YL, Tuan HY, Tien CW, Lo WH, Liang HC, Hu YC: Augmented biosynthesis of cadmium sulfide nanoparticles by genetically engineered Escherichia coli. Biotechnol Prog. 2009, 25: 1260-1266. 10.1002/btpr.199.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Kalishwaralal K, Deepak V, Pandian SRK, Gurunathan S: Biological synthesis of gold nanocubes from Bacillus licheniformis. Bioresource Technology. 2009, 100: 5356-5358. 10.1016/j.biortech.2009.05.051.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Kalimuthu K, Suresh BR, Venkataraman D, Bilal M, Gurunathan S: Biosynthesis of silver nanocrystals by Bacillus licheniformis. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2008, 65: 150-153. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.02.018.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  59. Husseiny MI, El-Aziz MA, Badr Y, Mahmoud MA: Biosynthesis of gold nanoparticles using Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc. 2007, 67: 1003-1006. 10.1016/j.saa.2006.09.028.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Gericke M, Pinches A: Microbial production of gold nanoparticles. Gold Bulletin. 2006, 39: 22-28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Chen CQ: A microbial polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) based bio- and materials industry. Chem Soc Rev. 2009, 38 (8): 2434-2446. Ref Type: Generic 10.1039/b812677c.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  62. Atwood JA, Rehm BH: Protein engineering towards biotechnological production of bifunctional polyester beads. Biotechnol Lett. 2009, 31: 131-137. 10.1007/s10529-008-9836-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  63. Ossipov DA: Nanostructured hyaluronic acid-based materials for active delivery to cancer. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2010, 7 (6): 681-703. 10.1517/17425241003730399.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  64. Ibrahim HK, El-Leithy IS, Makky AA: Mucoadhesive Nanoparticles as Carrier Systems for Prolonged Ocular Delivery of Gatifloxacin/Prednisolone Bitherapy. Mol Pharm. 2010, 7: 576-585. 10.1021/mp900279c.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  65. Mellors R, Benzeval I, Eisenthal R, Hubble J: Preparation of self-assembled microspheres and their potential for drug delivery. Pharmaceutical Development and Technology. 2010, 15: 105-111. 10.3109/10837450903036163.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Yao YC, Zhan XY, Zhang J, Zou XH, Wang ZH, Xiong YC, et al.: A specific drug targeting system based on polyhydroxyalkanoate granule binding protein PhaP fused with targeted cell ligands. Biomaterials. 2008, 29: 4823-4830. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.09.008.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Grage K, Jahns AC, Parlane N, Palanisamy R, Rasiah IA, Atwood JA, et al.: Bacterial Polyhydroxyalkanoate Granules: Biogenesis, Structure, and Potential Use as Nano-/Micro-Beads in Biotechnological and Biomedical Applications. Biomacromolecules. 2009, 10: 660-669. 10.1021/bm801394s.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Villaverde; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement