You will be shown a paragraph from a biomedical research paper, followed by a question about the paper. Please extract text from the paragraph to answer the question. Do not include any text in your repsonse other than the answer.

Paragraph: Listeria species are Gram-positive intracellular food-borne pathogens. The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells  (Cossart & Mengaud, 1989; Kaufmann, 1993; Pamer et al., 1997) . Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and ease of using Listeria monocytogenes to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens and DNA vaccines Jensen et al., 1997; Johnson et al., 2011; Peters et al., 2003; Shen et al., 1995; Yin et al., 2011) . Similarly, various viral vectors have been successfully tested for their capability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigens, and this generally results in the induction of strong CTL immune responses. In the veterinary field, there are numerous viral vector vaccines that are currently licensed for use in livestock and domesticated animals. These recombinant vaccines are based on both DNA viruses (such as fowlpox virus-based vaccines which target avian influenza virus and fowlpox virus, or vaccinia virusbased vectors against the rabies virus in wildlife) and RNA viruses [such as Newcastle disease virus-based vaccines to be used in poultry or yellow fever virus (YFV)-based vaccines to be used in horses against West Nile virus] (Draper & Heeney, 2010) . Based on the safety record in the veterinary field, many viruses have been studied for human use as a vector in vaccine development (Beukema et al., 2006; Esteban, 2009; Schirrmacher & Fournier, 2009; Stoyanov et al., 2010; Weli & Tryland, 2011) . Amongst them, YFV (YF-17D strain) was the first to be licensed for use in humans, where the cDNAs encoding the envelope proteins of YFV were replaced with the corresponding genes of an attenuated Japanese encephalitis virus strain, SA14-14-2 (Appaiahgari & Vrati, 2010; Rollier et al., 2011) . Poxviruses are also studied extensively as candidate vectors for human use, among which attenuated derivatives of vaccinia virus [such as modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) and New York attenuated vaccinia virus NYVAC strains] are the most promising vectors (Esteban, 2009; Gó mez et al., 2008; Rimmelzwaan & Sutter, 2009 ). They are ideal candidate vectors due to their large DNA-packing capacity and their thermal and genetic stability (Minke et al., 2004) . The NYVAC vector has been shown to induce CD4 + T cell-dominant responses, and MVA induces both CD4 + and CD8 + T cell responses (Mooij et al., 2008) . The adenovirus (Ad) vector is another of the most widely evaluated vectors to date to express heterologous antigens, due to ease of production, safety profile, genetic stability, the ease of DNA genome manipulation, and the ability to stimulate both innate and adaptive immune responses and induce both T and B cell responses (Alexander et al., 2012; Fitzgerald et al., 2003; Gabitzsch & Jones, 2011; Lasaro & Ertl, 2009; Vemula & Mittal, 2010; Weyer et al., 2009) . They have been extensively examined as a delivery vector in several preclinical and clinical studies for infectious diseases such as anthrax, hepatitis B, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1, influenza, measles, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), malaria and tuberculosis M. Saxena and others (Chengalvala et al., 1994; Gao et al., 2006; Hashimoto et al., 2005; Hsu et al., 1992; Limbach & Richie, 2009; Radosevic et al., 2007; Shiver et al., 2002) . However, before vectored vaccines can be used in the human population they need to satisfy several important criteria. Safety is a major concern, as even a low level of toxicity is unacceptable (of course the minor discomfort that accompanies many vaccinations is normal). Secondly, a vaccine should be inexpensive, so that it can be administered to a large population at minimal cost, and this is particularly important in resource-poor countries (Killeen & DiRita, 2000) . Similar constraints apply to veterinary vaccines, with cost often an even more important consideration. Finally, long-lasting cellular and (where appropriate) humoral immune responses to the vectored antigen must be induced following administration of these vaccines, preferably with a single dose (Atkins et al., 2006) . As some of the vectors in use will have been seen by the host immune system prior to vaccination, whether the presence of pre-existing immune responses is detrimental for the further development of a vector-based vaccine scheme, or can augment responses to the vectored antigen, needs to be considered in detail. This is the subject of this review. In discussing the possible effects on pre-existing immunity, the natural immunity to the vector needs to be considered. Therefore, considering a vector such as Salmonella, if a host has previously been infected there will exist robust B and T memory responses, and as such, when a vaccination is delivered, an anamnestic response to the Salmonella antigens will be induced (while the response to the vectored antigen will be a primary response). This will theoretically reduce the exposure of the heterologous antigen to the immune system, as the vector is rapidly cleared. Surprisingly, as will be seen in some of the examples given below, this can have results that differ depending on the magnitude of the response to the vectored antigen. Similarly, for virally vectored antigens, the existence of pre-existing immunity to the vector (particularly neutralizing antibody) will restrict delivery of the virus into cells, thereby effectively reducing the dose of the vectored antigen. Again, this might be expected to result in a reduction in the antigenicity of the vectored antigen. In the case of bacterial vectors, the effect of pre-existing immune responses has only been tested using Salmonella serovars and Listeria spp. Concern that prior immunological experience of the host with either the homologous Salmonella vector strain or a related strain might compromise its ability to deliver heterologous vaccine antigen was first raised in 1987 (Dougan et al., 1987) . Bao and Clements subsequently reported experimental evidence of the consequences of prior exposure of animals to the vector strain (Bao & Clements, 1991) . This work showed that both serum and mucosal antibody responses against the foreign antigen were in fact upregulated in animals with prior exposure to the vector strain. Whittle & Verma (1997) reported similar findings. Mice immunized via the intra-peritoneal route with a Salmonella dublin aroA mutant expressing heterologous antigen after being exposed to the same vector showed a higher immune response to the vectored antigen in comparison to mice without any immunological memory against the vector. Subsequently, several studies have been conducted to examine the effect of pre-existing immunity in the host against Salmonella. These results are summarized in Table 1 . The various reports are contradictory in their findings and seem to paint a rather confusing picture. Some studies concluded that pre-existing immunity against the Salmonella vector leads to stronger immune responses against the delivered antigen (Bao & Clements, 1991; Jespersgaard et al., 2001; Kohler et al., 2000a, b; Metzger et al., 2004; Saxena et al., 2009; Sevil Domènech et al., 2008; Whittle & Verma, 1997) , with others considering pre-existing immunity to be a limiting factor in the long-term use of Salmonella as an efficient vector for antigen delivery (Attridge et al., 1997; Gahan et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 1999; Sevil Domènech et al., 2007; Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003a, b) . A slight majority of the studies listed in Table 1 (10 versus eight) indicate the upregulation of immune responses after animals have been exposed to either homologous or related strains before the delivery of heterologous antigen using a Salmonella vector. A study by Metzger and co-workers on human volunteers using Salmonella Typhi as a vector suggested that there was no change in the T cell immune response against the heterologous antigen in human volunteers who were exposed to empty vector in comparison with volunteers who were immunologically naive of the vector strain (Metzger et al., 2004) . In these subjects, humoral responses were moderately elevated in preexposed individuals. Similarly, Saxena et al. (2009) indicated higher humoral and T cell responses in mice pre-exposed to homologous or heterologous Salmonella strains. The interleukin 4 (IL4) response was significantly higher when the animal host was exposed to the homologous strain, whereas pre-exposure to a related species did not have such an impact on IL4 responses. Conversely interferon (IFN)-c responses were higher, irrespective of the strain to which mice were pre-exposed. This study also indicated that the presence of homologous or heterologous opsonizing antibodies leads to a higher uptake of Salmonella by macrophages in vitro, which may explain the higher immune responses in exposed mice. As may be expected, uptake was higher when homologous sera were used as the opsonin rather than heterologous sera. This is depicted in Fig. 2 . Conversely, there are reports that indicate that pre-existing immunity against the bacterial vector downregulates immune responses against the delivered heterologous antigen using similar or related vectors. Attridge and coworkers reported that the presence of immunity against the bacterial vector prior to the delivery of vectored antigenic 

Microbiology 159 protein can downregulate immune responses in mice against the delivered antigen (Attridge et al., 1997) . Similar results were reported by Roberts et al. (1999) and Vindurampulle & Attridge (2003a, b) . However, the latter authors found that the hypo-responsiveness could be largely eliminated by exposing animals to the foreign antigen prior to vectorpriming (Vindurampulle & Attridge, 2003b) . Unfortunately, this would appear to be impractical for an immunization regimen! A study presented by Gahan et al. (2008) immunized mice with S. Typhimurium expressing C fragment of tetanus toxin antigen from an expression plasmid or as a DNA vaccine. Vaccinated mice developed humoral responses to LPS and tetC (for the plasmid-bearing vaccines). Animals from all groups (including a previously unvaccinated group) were immunized on day 182 with Salmonella expressing tetC. At this time, the anti-LPS and tetC titres were beginning to wane. Fourteen days after the second immunization, the colonization of various mouse organs was assessed. The ability to colonize was found to be significantly reduced in groups that had been previously vaccinated with Salmonella. In view of this finding, it was perhaps not surprising that at day 210 the LPS titres were not significantly different between groups receiving one or two vaccinations. More interestingly, mice that had been primed with Salmonella alone, and then boosted with Salmonella expressing tetC, induced much lower anti-tetC responses than mice that had not been primed. This argues strongly that prior immunological immunity to the vector can seriously dampen subsequent antigen-specific humoral responses. Whether the same is true for cellular responses was not evaluated. Other studies have evaluated cellular responses. A study by Sevil Domènech and colleagues reported that pre-existing anti-vector immunity seriously compromises CD8 + responses in mice when exposed to a similar strain used as vector (Sevil Domènech et al., 2007) . In contrast, another study by the same authors reported that animals exposed to related vectors induce much higher CD8 + responses when compared with animals which do not have any pre-existing Salmonella immunity (Sevil Domènech et al., 2008) . The difference between these two studies was that in the first, the prime and boost were with identical serovars, while in the second study, different serovars were used. This may point to a way of avoiding downregulation of CD8 responses by pre-existing immunity. This is important, as one of the advantages of using Salmonella (an intracellular pathogen) is that strong cellular immune responses can be induced. It must be noted that in the case of Salmonella vaccines, effects other than strictly immunological responses (particularly adaptive responses) should be considered. In the context of innate immunity, it was shown that administration of non-virulent Salmonella to gnobiotic pigs eliminated disease following challenge with a virulent strain (Foster et al., 2003) . Interestingly, protection was not by competitive exclusion, as the virulent strain was in high numbers in the gut but did not distribute systemically. The protection was proposed to be mediated by the infiltration of a large number of polymorphonuclear leukocytes into the gut, and although perhaps impractical as a general prophylactic (as the time between vaccination and infection is short), this may be an option for short-term or perhaps therapeutic vaccination (as reviewed by Foster et al., 2012) . Chickens (Gallus gallus) are a natural animal reservoir for Salmonella, which makes them an important source of Salmonella-associated gastroenteritis in humans. The ability to use oral Salmonella vaccines to immunize against heterologous pathogens would be of enormous benefit to Uptake of STM-1 by J774 macrophages, relative to the highest uptake percentage. X, Opsonized with naive sera; m, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to Salmonella enteriditis; &, opsonized with serum from mice exposed to STM-1. Pre-existing immunity against vaccine vectors the poultry industry in both broiler and layer flocks. Both vertical and horizontal transmission is associated with Salmonella in chickens (Liljebjelke et al., 2005) . Vertical transmission via in ovo transmission is particularly important, because if there is prior exposure to the vaccine strain, subsequent vaccination using an oral Salmonella vector could be severely compromised. A considerable number of studies on cross-protective immunity and competitive exclusion have been undertaken in chickens.

Question: What is the advantage of Listeria as a  delivery vector for vaccines?
The advantages of Listeria are that it can invade a variety of cells, including antigen presenting cells (APCs). After invading the host cell, Listeria resides inside the phagosome; however, it can escape the phagosome with the help of listeriolysin O (LLO; Hly) and reside in the cytoplasm of the cells, thereby efficiently presenting antigen to both CD8 and CD4 T cells