Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethics of Cancer Gene Transfer Clinical Research

  • Protocol
  • First Online:
Gene Therapy of Cancer

Part of the book series: Methods in Molecular Biology™ ((MIMB,volume 542))

Summary

Cancer gene transfer is a relatively novel intervention strategy. In part because of this novelty, trials often present greater uncertainties than those investigating more conventional approaches. In the following review, I examine how this greater uncertainty might affect how clinical studies are designed, when they are initiated, their degree of risk, and whether such risk can be justified in terms of therapeutic benefit. The review also discusses two other ethical issues presented by gene transfer clinical research: fairness in subject selection and communications with the public. I conclude with a series of recommendations directed toward researchers, policymakers, and ethics committee members.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Protocol
USD 49.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research (1979) The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, ed).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Medical Research Council of Canada (2003) Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans.

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Medical Association (1964) Declaration of Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rainsbury, J. M. (2000) Biotechnology on the RAC--FDA/NIH regulation of human gene therapy. Food Drug Law J. 55, 575–600.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. King, N. M. (2002) RAC oversight of gene transfer research: a model worth extending? J. Law. Med. Ethics 30, 381–389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cornetta, K., and Smith, F.O. (2002) Regulatory issues for clinical gene therapy trials. Hum. Gene Ther. 13, 1143–1149.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Holzen, U. W., and Swisher, S.G. (2007) In Cancer Drug Discovery and Development: Gene Therapy for Cancer (Hunt, K.K., et al., eds), Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wallace, J. (2000) Humane endpoints and cancer research. ILAR J. 41, 87–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Klein, H. J., and Bayne, K. A. (2007) Establishing a culture of care, conscience, and responsibility: addressing the improvement of scientific discovery and animal welfare through science-based performance standards. ILAR J. 48, 3–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) (1998) Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia (Second Edition). Br. J. Cancer 77, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  11. DeGrazia, D. (1996) Taking Animanls Seriously: Mental Life and Moral Status. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Daugherty, C. K. (1999) Ethical issues in the development of new agents. Invest. New Drugs 17, 145–153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Daugherty, C. K., et al. (2000) Quantitative analysis of ethical issues in phase I trials: a survey interview of 144 advanced cancer patients. IRB. 22, 6–14.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jayson, G., and Harris, J. (2006) How participants in cancer trials are chosen: ethics and conflicting interests. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6, 330–336.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Daugherty, C. K. (2000) Informed consent, the cancer patient, and phase I clinical trials. Cancer Treat. Res. 102, 77–89.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Grunwald, H. W. (2007) Ethical and Design Issues of Phase I Clinical Trials in Cancer Patients. Cancer Invest. 25, 124–126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Djulbegovic, B. (2007) Articulating and responding to uncertainties in clinical research. J. Med. Philos. 32, 79–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kimmelman, J. (2005) Recent developments in gene transfer: risk and ethics. BMJ 330, 79–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Morral, N., et al. (2002) Lethal toxicity, severe endothelial injury, and a threshold effect with high doses of an adenoviral vector in baboons. Hum. Gene Ther. 13, 143–154.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Halpern, S. D., et al. (2002) The continuing unethical conduct of underpowered clinical trials. JAMA 288, 358–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2007) Drugs for Human Use: Investigational New Drug Application 21CFR312.21(a). (Department of Health and Human Services, ed).

    Google Scholar 

  22. DiMasi, J.A., and Grabowski, H.G. (2007) Economics of new oncology drug development. J. Clin. Oncol. 25, 209–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Search GEMCRIS using Medical condition “cancer”; December 5, 2007. Note that GEMCRIS is not a complete listing of all GT cancer studies (protocols of studies pursued outside of institutions receiving NIH funds are not always submitted to OBA); note also that not all studies registered with OBA are actually initiated or completed.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wiley. Searched December 5, 2007. For purposes of calculation, phase 1–2 studies were counted as phase 1; phase 2–3 studies were counted as phase 2.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Orkin, S.H., and Motulsky, A.G. (1995) Report and Recommendations of the Panel to Asses the NIH Investment in Research on Gene Therapy. (National Institutes of Health - Office of Biotechnology Activities, ed).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Albelda, S.M., and Sterman, D.H. (2004) TNFerade to the rescue? Guidelines for evaluating phase I cancer gene transfer trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 577–579.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Freedman, B. (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 141–145.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. London, A.J. (2007) Clinical Equipoise: Foundational Requirement or Fundamental Error? In The Oxford Handbook of Bioethics (Steinbock, B., ed), Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schou, K. C., and Hewison, J. (1999) Experiencing Cancer: Quality of Life in Treatment. Open University Press, Buckingham.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dirnagl, U. (2006) Bench to bedside: the quest for quality in experimental stroke research. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 26, 1465–1478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, D. S., et al. (2003) Meta-analysis of the effects of endothelin receptor blockade on survival in experimental heart failure. J. Card. Fail. 9, 368–374.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bebarta, V., et al. (2003) Emergency medicine animal research: does use of randomization and blinding affect the results? Acad. Emerg. Med. 10, 684–687.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Australian Government (2004) Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 7th Edition. (7 edn) (National Health and Medical Research Council, ed).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2000) Guidance Document on the Recognition, Assessment and Use of Clinical Signs as Humane Endpoints. Series on Testing and Assessment Volume, 20.

    Google Scholar 

  35. UK Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research (1997) UKCCCR Guidelines for the Welfare of Animals in Experimental Neoplasia (2nd Edition).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kamb, A. (2005) What's wrong with our cancer models? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 161–165.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Sharpless, N. E., and DePinho, R. A. (2006) The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 741–754.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Hansen, K., and Khanna, C. (2004) Spontaneous and genetically engineered animal models; use in preclinical cancer drug development. Eur. J. Cancer 40, 858–880.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Knapp, D. W., and Waters, D. J. (1997) Naturally occurring cancer in pet dogs: important models for developing improved cancer therapy for humans. Mol. Med. Today 3, 8–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Khanna, C., et al. (2006) The dog as a cancer model. Nat. Biotech. 24, 1065–1066.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pet Food Institute (2006) Pet Dog & Cat Population. Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Kimmelman, J., and Nalbantoglu, J. (2007) Faithful companions: a proposal for neurooncology trials in pet dogs. Cancer Res. 67, 4541–4544.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Tjin Tham Sjin, R. M., et al. (2006) Endostatin therapy reveals a U-shaped curve for antitumor activity. Cancer Gene Ther. 13, 619–627.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kamstock, D., et al. (2006) Liposome-DNA complexes infused intravenously inhibit tumor angiogenesis and elicit antitumor activity in dogs with soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer Gene Ther. 13, 306–317.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dow, S., et al. (2005) Phase I study of liposome-DNA complexes encoding the interleukin-2 gene in dogs with osteosarcoma lung metastases. Hum. Gene Ther. 16, 937–946.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research (2006) Comparative Oncology Program. http://ccr.nci.nih.gov/resources/cop/.

  47. Zabner, J., et al. (1993) Adenovirus-mediated gene transfer transiently corrects the chloride transport defect in nasal epithelia of patients with cystic fibrosis. Cell 75, 207–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Zabner, J., et al. (1996) Repeat administration of an adenovirus vector encoding cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator to the nasal epithelium of patients with cystic fibrosis. J. Clin. Invest. 97, 1504–1511.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Mendell, J. R., et al. (1995) Myoblast transfer in the treatment of Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. N. Engl. J. Med. 333, 832–838.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Kimmelman, J. (2007) Ethics at phase 0: clarifying the issues. J. Law. Med. Ethics 35, 727–733.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Agulnik, M., et al. (2006) Impact and perceptions of mandatory tumor biopsies for correlative studies in clinical trials of novel anticancer agents. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 4801–4807.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Harrington, K. J., et al. (2005) Gene therapy for head and neck cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 24, 147–164.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Penuelas, I., et al. (2005) Gene therapy imaging in patients for oncological applications. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 32(Suppl 2), S384–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Iyer, M., et al. (2005) Applications of molecular imaging in cancer gene therapy. Curr. Gene Ther. 5, 607–618.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kristian Raty, J., et al. (2007) Non-invasive Imaging in Gene Therapy. Mol. Ther. 15, 1579–1586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) (1998) Minutes of Meeting September 24–25. (Department of Health and Human Services, ed), 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Prados, M. D., et al. (2003) Treatment of progressive or recurrent glioblastoma multiforme in adults with herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase gene vector-producer cells followed by intravenous ganciclovir administration: a phase I/II multi-institutional trial. J. Neurooncol. 65, 269–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Of course, there are likely to be exceptions. Cancer vaccines studies, for example, will have a different risk profile than those using oncolytic vectors.

    Google Scholar 

  59. US Food and Drug Administration, and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2005) Guidance for Industry on Estimating the Maximum Safe Starting Dose in Initial Clinical Trials for Therapeutics in Adult Healthy Volunteers. (Department of Health and Human Services, ed).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Liu, T. -C., and Kirn, D. H. (2007) Problems, Side Effects, and Disappointments in Clinical Cancer Gene Therapy. In Gene Therapy for Cancer (Cancer Drug Discovery and Development) (1st edn) (Hunt, K.K., et al., eds), 351–386, Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kimmelman, J. (2005) Medical research, risk, and bystanders. IRB. 27, 1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Liu, S.C., et al. (2002) Anticancer efficacy of systemically delivered anaerobic bacteria as gene therapy vectors targeting tumor hypoxia/necrosis. Gene Ther. 9, 291–296.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Sasaki, T., et al. (2006) Genetically engineered Bifidobacterium longum for tumor-targeting enzyme-prodrug therapy of autochthonous mammary tumors in rats. Cancer Sci. 97, 649–657.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Lichtenstein, D. L., and Wold, W. S. (2004) Experimental infections of humans with wild-type adenoviruses and with replication-competent adenovirus vectors: replication, safety, and transmission. Cancer Gene Ther. 11, 819–829.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kimmelman, J. (2007) Missing the forest: further thoughts on the ethics of bystander risk in medical research. Camb. Q. Healthcare Ethics 16, 483–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Joffe, S., and Miller, F.G. (2006) Rethinking risk-benefit assessment for phase I cancer trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 24, 2987–2990.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Agrawal, M., and Emanuel, E. J. (2003) Ethics of phase 1 oncology studies: reexamining the arguments and data. JAMA 290, 1075–1082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Markman, M. (2006) "Therapeutic intent" in phase 1 oncology trials: a justifiable objective. Arch. Intern. Med. 166, 1446–1448.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Lidz, C. W., and Appelbaum, P. S. (2002) The therapeutic misconception: problems and solutions. Med. Care 40, V55–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Penman, D. T., et al. (1984) Informed consent for investigational chemotherapy: patients' and physicians' perceptions. J. Clin. Oncol. 2, 849–855.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Lipsett, M. B. (1982) On the nature and ethics of phase I clinical trials of cancer chemotherapies. JAMA 248, 941–942.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Sixty-four percent expect some sort of benefit. Weinfurt, K. P., et al. (2003) The correlation between patient characteristics and expectations of benefit from Phase I clinical trials. Cancer 98, 166–75.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Horng, S., and Grady, C. (2003) Misunderstanding in clinical research: distinguishing therapeutic misconception, therapeutic misestimation, and therapeutic optimism. IRB. 25, 11–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Cheng, J. D., et al. (2000) Impact of quality of life on patient expectations regarding phase I clinical trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 18, 421–428.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Kimmelman, J. (2007) The therapeutic misconception at 25: treatment, research, and confusion. Hastings Cent. Rep. 37, 36–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Koyfman, S. A., et al. (2007) Risks and benefits associated with novel phase 1 oncology trial designs. Cancer 110, 1115–1124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. The figure of 1% is controversial. Schneiderman L. J., Jecker N. S., and Jonsen A. R. (1990) Medical Futility: Its Meaning and Ethical Implications. Ann. Intern. Med. 112: 949–954.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Schneiderman, L. J., and Jecker, N. S. (1995) Wrong Medicine: Doctors, Patients, and Futile Treatment. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Atkins, M. B., et al. (2004) Update on the role of interleukin 2 and other cytokines in the treatment of patients with stage IV renal carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 6342S–6346S.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Perhaps one way of summarizing the foregoing discussion is as follows: from an individual patient perspective, discussion of therapeutic benefits is not without a basis. However, from a public policy perspective, it is. Since study protocols and informed consent practices are reviewed at a policy level, it makes more sense for the policy framework to prevail in this context.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Kimmelman, J., and Palmour, N. (2005) Therapeutic optimism in the consent forms of phase 1 gene transfer trials: an empirical analysis. J. Med. Ethics 31, 209–214.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Henderson, G. E., et al. (2004) Uncertain benefit: investigators' views and communications in early phase gene transfer trials. Mol. Ther. 10, 225–231.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Sankar, P. (2004) Communication and miscommunication in informed consent to research. Med. Anthropol. Q. 18, 429–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Khuri, F. R., et al. (2000) a controlled trial of intratumoral ONYX-015, a selectively-replicating adenovirus, in combination with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer. Nat. Med. 6, 879–885.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Sherwin, S. (2005) Belmont Revisited through a Feminist Lens. In Belmont Revisited: Ethical Principles for Research with Human Subjects (Childress, J.F., et-al., eds), 148–164, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Kelly, E., and Russell, S.J. (2007) History of oncolytic viruses: Genesis to genetic engineering. Mol. Ther. 15, 651–659.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Lerner, B.H. (2004) Sins of omission--cancer research without informed consent. N. Engl. J. Med. 351, 628–630.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Kahn, J. P., et al. (1998) Changing Claims About Justice in Research: An Introduction and Overview. In Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research (Kahn, J. P., et-al, eds), Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  89. The patient’s husband was chairman of the board of the San Diego Regional Cancer Center, and he prevailed on Iowa’s Senator Tom Harkin to persuade NIH to grant exemption to their usual review procedures.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Jenks, S. (1993) RAC approves policy for single-patient use of gene therapy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 85, 266–267.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Lysaught, M. T. (1998) Commentary: reconstruing genetic research as research. J. Law. Med. Ethics 26, 48–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Einhorn, B., et al. (2006) A cancer treatment you can’t get here: China, with lower regulatory hurdles, is racing to a lead in gene therapy. In Bus. Week. March 6, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Jia, H., and Kling, J. (2006) China offers alternative gateway for experimental drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 117–118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2002) International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  95. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2001) Ethical and Policy Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries. In Volume I: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002) The Ethics of Research Related to Healthcare in Developing Countries.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) (2002) International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Bull. Med. Ethics 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  98. London, A. J. (2005) Justice and the human development approach to international research. Hastings Cent. Rep. 35, 24–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Which is approximately $2700.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Jia, H. (2006) Controversial Chinese gene-therapy drug entering unfamiliar territory. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 269–270.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Staff (2006) China’s War on Cancer. In Red Herring: The Business of Technology April 29, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (1995) Final Report.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Kolata, G. (1998) Hope in the Lab: A Special Report; A Cautious Awe Greets Drugs that Eradicate Tumors in Mice. In The New York Times, May 3, 1998; p 1.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Bogler, O., and Mikkelsen, T. (2003) Angiogenesis in glioma: molecular mechanisms and roadblocks to translation. Cancer J. 9, 205–213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Ryan, D. P., et al. (1999) Reality testing in cancer treatment: the phase I trial of endostatin. Oncologist 4, 501–508.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Snyder, L., and Leffler, C. (2005) Ethics manual: fifth edition. Ann. Intern. Med. 142, 560–582.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Indian Council of Medical Research (2006) Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Guidelines on Good Research Practice. The Association of Medical Research Charities.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Kimmelman, J. ((expected publication date) 2009) Gene Transfer and the Ethics of First in Human Experiments: Lost in Translation. Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Studies of Medicine, Biomedical Ethics Unit/McGill University, 3647 Peel Street/Montreal, QB H3A 1X1/, Canada

    Jonathan Kimmelman

Authors
  1. Jonathan Kimmelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Kimmelman .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Molecular Medicine (MDC), Max Delbrück Center for, Robert-Rössle-Str. 10, Berlin, 13125, Germany

    Wolfgang Walther

  2. Molecular Medicine (MDC), Max Delbrück Center for, Robert-Rössle-Str. 10, Berlin, 13125, Germany

    Ulrike S. Stein

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this protocol

Cite this protocol

Kimmelman, J. (2009). Ethics of Cancer Gene Transfer Clinical Research. In: Walther, W., Stein, U. (eds) Gene Therapy of Cancer. Methods in Molecular Biology™, vol 542. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-561-9_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-561-9_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-934115-85-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-561-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Protocols

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation