Response to “Systemic Adenovirus Delivery”
Authors: MALCOLM K. BRENNER
Journal: Molecular Therapy (2002)

To the editor:I read with interest Barbara Nasto's Issue “Questions about Systemic Adenovirus Delivery” (Molecular Therapy 5: 652–653, 2002).In the first half of her report, she quotes Drs. Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova, Savio Woo, and myself providing critical comments about the activity of adenovirus administered systemically, including my comment that adenoviral vectors are “inappropriate for systemic replacement of protein.” She then states that “Brenner, Woo, Aguilar-Cordova, and others would at least like to see systemic delivery of any adenovirus put on hold until more is known about its interaction with human immune system.”I cannot speak for Drs. Woo, Aguilar-Cordova, or “others,” but I know that for myself, the article inverts my beliefs and my statements. In fact, I said that while there are significant concerns about the first generation adenoviruses, later iterations of this vector might be fine for systemic replacement of protein. Even current vectors can be suitable for certain systemic applications, particularly in cancer. I believe it would be quite wrong to suggest a blanket “hold” on systemic application of adenovectors, and indeed, provided a commentary making precisely this point for Molecular Therapy (“Reports of Adenovector Death Greatly Exaggerated” Molecular Therapy 1: 205, 2001). The ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time is said to be the mark of a truly first-rate mind. Unfortunately, I lack that distinction and have consistently believed, stated, and written that the value of adenoviruses for systemic delivery should be determined on an application-by-application basis.Sincerely, To the editor: I read with interest Barbara Nasto's Issue “Questions about Systemic Adenovirus Delivery” (Molecular Therapy 5: 652–653, 2002). In the first half of her report, she quotes Drs. Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova, Savio Woo, and myself providing critical comments about the activity of adenovirus administered systemically, including my comment that adenoviral vectors are “inappropriate for systemic replacement of protein.” She then states that “Brenner, Woo, Aguilar-Cordova, and others would at least like to see systemic delivery of any adenovirus put on hold until more is known about its interaction with human immune system.” I cannot speak for Drs. Woo, Aguilar-Cordova, or “others,” but I know that for myself, the article inverts my beliefs and my statements. In fact, I said that while there are significant concerns about the first generation adenoviruses, later iterations of this vector might be fine for systemic replacement of protein. Even current vectors can be suitable for certain systemic applications, particularly in cancer. I believe it would be quite wrong to suggest a blanket “hold” on systemic application of adenovectors, and indeed, provided a commentary making precisely this point for Molecular Therapy (“Reports of Adenovector Death Greatly Exaggerated” Molecular Therapy 1: 205, 2001). The ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time is said to be the mark of a truly first-rate mind. Unfortunately, I lack that distinction and have consistently believed, stated, and written that the value of adenoviruses for systemic delivery should be determined on an application-by-application basis. Sincerely,