Literature DB >> 24498567

Rewiring cancer cell death to enhance oncolytic viro-immunotherapy.

Samuel T Workenhe1, Karen L Mossman1.   

Abstract

Oncolytic viruses are novel immunotherapeutic agents that appear to mediate potent antineoplastic effects in both preclinical and clinical settings. Recent studies demonstrate that manipulating the mechanisms whereby cancer cells die in the course of oncolytic virotherapy has potential to boost anticancer immune responses.

Entities:  

Keywords:  chemotherapy; danger-associated molecular patterns; immunogenic cell death; mitoxantrone; oncolytic virus

Year:  2013        PMID: 24498567      PMCID: PMC3912054          DOI: 10.4161/onci.27138

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncoimmunology        ISSN: 2162-4011            Impact factor:   8.110


Conventional anticancer therapies are invasive, generally associated with severe side effects, and offer a limited impact on the survival of patients bearing disseminated tumors. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) are a novel class of multimodal biological therapies that selectively kill cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells unaffected. Moreover, OVs are advantageous over conventional forms of anticancer therapy as they target cancer stem cells, can replicate in hypoxic environments, and display and excellent clinical tolerability, even when used at high doses. Accordingly, OVs are showing encouraging results in clinical trials., The anticancer activity of OVs is mediated by their ability to directly kill malignant cells, to interfere with the tumor vasculature, and to activate the immune system against cancer. The replication of OVs leads to the lysis of neoplastic cells coupled to the release of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) such as viral proteins and nucleic acids. PAMPs attract immune cells to neoplastic lesions, and these cells can take up tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) released along with the cytopathic effects for priming anticancer immune responses. In addition, OVs can trigger the release of cytokines that stimulate the differentiation and maturation of antigen-presenting cells, also favoring the elicitation of T-cell responses. Traditionally, most of the effort to potentiate OVs for cancer therapy have been focused on increasing the viral replication rate within tumors, to increase the amounts of dying tumor cells. However, we have recently learned from the field of anticancer chemotherapy that the mechanisms whereby cancer cells die are essential for the elicitation of durable anticancer immune responses as they shape the early stages of tumor-associated antigen presentation. Kroemer and Zitvogel have elegantly showed that specific chemotherapeutics (including anthracyclines and oxaliplatin) as well as UV radiation potently induce a state of pre-mortem cellular stress that translates into the emission of immunomodulatory molecules known as danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). In the context of immunogenic cell death (ICD), it has been shown that the exposure of calreticulin on the surface of dying cancer cells serves as an “eat-me” signal for antigen-presenting cells, while the release of ATP and high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) enhances the infiltration and activation of immune cells, overall resulting in the priming of potent tumor-specific immune responses. The list of agents that induce ICD is expanding and we are starting to appreciate the diversity of the stress responses and immunological pathways activated by these agents. OVs inherently exacerbate the antigenicity of dying cancer cells as well as their ability to release of DAMPs. In fact, a few classes of OVs including Coxsackievirus, measles virus and adenovirus expressing CD40 ligand (CD40L) kill cancer cells in vitro while stimulating the emission of the main signals associated with ICD. To understand which features of an oncolytic strain of Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) are essential for its antineoplastic activity, we discovered that the initial stages of viral replication as well as the ability of the virus to trigger ICD are determinants of its therapeutic success. Indeed, oncolytic HSV-1 applied to subcutaneous tumors activates an immunogenic form of apoptosis characterized by the activating cleavage of caspase-3, the upregulation of heat shock 70 kDa protein (HSP70) and elevated serum levels of HMGB1. Moreover, the OV-induced death of cancer cells is accompanied by an influx of antigen-presenting cells into neoplastic lesions, which is essential for the generation of TAA-specific CD8+ T cells. The establishment of such an immunological milieu correlated with the survival of tumor-bearing mice subjected to HSV-1-based oncolytic virotherapy. In a related study, we combined oncolytic HSV-1 with the ICD-inducing agent mitoxantrone and found that this combinatorial approach has synergistic therapeutic effects. Thus, the co-administration of mitoxantrone did not enhance the cytotoxic effects of HSV-1 or the type of cell death induced by HSV-1 in vitro. However, such an immunochemotherapeutic regimen resulted in changes in the dynamics of recruitment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in vivo. More specifically, the combination of oncolytic HSV-1 and mitoxantrone increased the intratumoral levels of Ly6G+ neutrophils and antigen-specific CD8+ T cells, and the depletion of these immune cells abrogated the therapeutic effects of immunochemotherapy. In a clinically relevant tolerized system based on v-erb-b2 avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 (ERBB2, a prominent TAA best known as HER2) we demonstrated that this combinatorial regimens is able to break the immunological tolerance that is generally established with respect to TAAs. We are studying in detail the immunological mechanisms by which oncolytic HSV-1 and mitoxantrone exert a synergistic immunochemotherapeutic effect. At this stage, it is tempting to speculate that chemotherapy and OVs may use different but synergistic pathways to promote the emission of DAMPs and the elicitation of anticancer immune responses. In addition, OVs release PAMPs in the tumor microenvironment, leading to secretion of type I interferons and other pro-inflammatory cytokines. These distinct features of the combinatorial immunochemotherapeutic regimen that we tested may allow for the activation of robust anticancer immune responses that also eliminate cancer cell variants that would escape chemotherapy and oncolytic virotherapy employed as standalone interventions (Fig. 1). Our preclinical results suggest that engaging the immune system is one promising mechanisms for which oncolytic virotherapy can be harnessed in the fight against cancer. In fact, there are several ways in which OVs are being modified or combined with other therapeutic regimens for enhancing their efficacy. These include: (1) the use of OVs as anticancer vaccines, upon the genetic engineering of OVs to express cytokines or TAAs (2) the co-administration of OVs with immunological checkpoint blockers, and (3) the combination of OVs and adoptive cell therapy.

Figure 1. Combinatorial immunochemotherapy based on immunogenic cell death inducers and oncolytic viruses exerts synergistic anticancer activity. Conventional immunogenic cell death (ICD) inducers such as anthracyclines and UV radiation indirectly provoke an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, leading to the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) within the tumor microenvironment. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) overload the protein translation machinery of malignant cells to directly cause an ER stress and potentially release DAMPs. In addition, the replication of OVs within neoplastic lesions leads to release of foreign viral proteins and nucleic acids that activate immune cells to release cytokines. At least theoretically, the combined administration of ICD inducers and OVs might activate synergistic immunological cascades culminating in improved anticancer immune responses.

Figure 1. Combinatorial immunochemotherapy based on immunogenic cell death inducers and oncolytic viruses exerts synergistic anticancer activity. Conventional immunogenic cell death (ICD) inducers such as anthracyclines and UV radiation indirectly provoke an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, leading to the release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) within the tumor microenvironment. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) overload the protein translation machinery of malignant cells to directly cause an ER stress and potentially release DAMPs. In addition, the replication of OVs within neoplastic lesions leads to release of foreign viral proteins and nucleic acids that activate immune cells to release cytokines. At least theoretically, the combined administration of ICD inducers and OVs might activate synergistic immunological cascades culminating in improved anticancer immune responses.
  9 in total

1.  Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death.

Authors:  Michel Obeid; Antoine Tesniere; François Ghiringhelli; Gian Maria Fimia; Lionel Apetoh; Jean-Luc Perfettini; Maria Castedo; Grégoire Mignot; Theoharis Panaretakis; Noelia Casares; Didier Métivier; Nathanael Larochette; Peter van Endert; Fabiola Ciccosanti; Mauro Piacentini; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2006-12-24       Impact factor: 53.440

2.  Autophagy-dependent anticancer immune responses induced by chemotherapeutic agents in mice.

Authors:  Mickaël Michaud; Isabelle Martins; Abdul Qader Sukkurwala; Sandy Adjemian; Yuting Ma; Patrizia Pellegatti; Shensi Shen; Oliver Kepp; Marie Scoazec; Grégoire Mignot; Santiago Rello-Varona; Maximilien Tailler; Laurie Menger; Erika Vacchelli; Lorenzo Galluzzi; François Ghiringhelli; Francesco di Virgilio; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Science       Date:  2011-12-16       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Combining oncolytic HSV-1 with immunogenic cell death-inducing drug mitoxantrone breaks cancer immune tolerance and improves therapeutic efficacy.

Authors:  Samuel T Workenhe; Jonathan G Pol; Brian D Lichty; Derek T Cummings; Karen L Mossman
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Res       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 11.151

Review 4.  Oncolytic virotherapy and immunogenic cancer cell death: sharpening the sword for improved cancer treatment strategies.

Authors:  Samuel T Workenhe; Karen L Mossman
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 5.  Immunogenic cell death and DAMPs in cancer therapy.

Authors:  Dmitri V Krysko; Abhishek D Garg; Agnieszka Kaczmarek; Olga Krysko; Patrizia Agostinis; Peter Vandenabeele
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 60.716

6.  Randomized dose-finding clinical trial of oncolytic immunotherapeutic vaccinia JX-594 in liver cancer.

Authors:  Jeong Heo; Tony Reid; Leyo Ruo; Caroline J Breitbach; Steven Rose; Mark Bloomston; Mong Cho; Ho Yeong Lim; Hyun Cheol Chung; Chang Won Kim; James Burke; Riccardo Lencioni; Theresa Hickman; Anne Moon; Yeon Sook Lee; Mi Kyeong Kim; Manijeh Daneshmand; Kara Dubois; Lara Longpre; Minhtran Ngo; Cliona Rooney; John C Bell; Byung-Geon Rhee; Richard Patt; Tae-Ho Hwang; David H Kirn
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2013-02-10       Impact factor: 53.440

7.  Anticancer chemotherapy-induced intratumoral recruitment and differentiation of antigen-presenting cells.

Authors:  Yuting Ma; Sandy Adjemian; Stephen R Mattarollo; Takahiro Yamazaki; Laetitia Aymeric; Heng Yang; João Paulo Portela Catani; Dalil Hannani; Helene Duret; Kim Steegh; Isabelle Martins; Frederic Schlemmer; Mickaël Michaud; Oliver Kepp; Abdul Qader Sukkurwala; Laurie Menger; Erika Vacchelli; Nathalie Droin; Lorenzo Galluzzi; Roman Krzysiek; Siamon Gordon; Philip R Taylor; Peter Van Endert; Eric Solary; Mark J Smyth; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Immunity       Date:  2013-04-04       Impact factor: 31.745

8.  Caspase-dependent immunogenicity of doxorubicin-induced tumor cell death.

Authors:  Noelia Casares; Marie O Pequignot; Antoine Tesniere; François Ghiringhelli; Stéphan Roux; Nathalie Chaput; Elise Schmitt; Ahmed Hamai; Sandra Hervas-Stubbs; Michel Obeid; Frédéric Coutant; Didier Métivier; Evelyne Pichard; Pierre Aucouturier; Gérard Pierron; Carmen Garrido; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  2005-12-19       Impact factor: 14.307

Review 9.  Oncolytic virotherapy.

Authors:  Stephen J Russell; Kah-Whye Peng; John C Bell
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2012-07-10       Impact factor: 54.908

  9 in total
  18 in total

Review 1.  Please stand by: how oncolytic viruses impact bystander cells.

Authors:  Leslee Sprague; Lynne Braidwood; Joe Conner; Kevin A Cassady; Fabian Benencia; Timothy P Cripe
Journal:  Future Virol       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 1.831

Review 2.  Regulated cell death and adaptive stress responses.

Authors:  Lorenzo Galluzzi; José Manuel Bravo-San Pedro; Oliver Kepp; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2016-04-05       Impact factor: 9.261

3.  First oncolytic virus approved for melanoma immunotherapy.

Authors:  Jonathan Pol; Guido Kroemer; Lorenzo Galluzzi
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 8.110

4.  Intratumoral oncolytic adenoviral treatment modulates the glioma microenvironment and facilitates systemic tumor-antigen-specific T cell therapy.

Authors:  Jian Qiao; Mahua Dey; Alan L Chang; Julius W Kim; Jason Miska; Alex Ling; Dirk M Nettlebeck; Yu Han; Lingjiao Zhang; Maciej S Lesniak
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 8.110

5.  Phase 1 study of intratumoral Pexa-Vec (JX-594), an oncolytic and immunotherapeutic vaccinia virus, in pediatric cancer patients.

Authors:  Timothy P Cripe; Minhtran C Ngo; James I Geller; Chrystal U Louis; Mark A Currier; John M Racadio; Alexander J Towbin; Cliona M Rooney; Adina Pelusio; Anne Moon; Tae-Ho Hwang; James M Burke; John C Bell; David H Kirn; Caroline J Breitbach
Journal:  Mol Ther       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 11.454

Review 6.  Consensus guidelines for the detection of immunogenic cell death.

Authors:  Oliver Kepp; Laura Senovilla; Ilio Vitale; Erika Vacchelli; Sandy Adjemian; Patrizia Agostinis; Lionel Apetoh; Fernando Aranda; Vincenzo Barnaba; Norma Bloy; Laura Bracci; Karine Breckpot; David Brough; Aitziber Buqué; Maria G Castro; Mara Cirone; Maria I Colombo; Isabelle Cremer; Sandra Demaria; Luciana Dini; Aristides G Eliopoulos; Alberto Faggioni; Silvia C Formenti; Jitka Fučíková; Lucia Gabriele; Udo S Gaipl; Jérôme Galon; Abhishek Garg; François Ghiringhelli; Nathalia A Giese; Zong Sheng Guo; Akseli Hemminki; Martin Herrmann; James W Hodge; Stefan Holdenrieder; Jamie Honeychurch; Hong-Min Hu; Xing Huang; Tim M Illidge; Koji Kono; Mladen Korbelik; Dmitri V Krysko; Sherene Loi; Pedro R Lowenstein; Enrico Lugli; Yuting Ma; Frank Madeo; Angelo A Manfredi; Isabelle Martins; Domenico Mavilio; Laurie Menger; Nicolò Merendino; Michael Michaud; Gregoire Mignot; Karen L Mossman; Gabriele Multhoff; Rudolf Oehler; Fabio Palombo; Theocharis Panaretakis; Jonathan Pol; Enrico Proietti; Jean-Ehrland Ricci; Chiara Riganti; Patrizia Rovere-Querini; Anna Rubartelli; Antonella Sistigu; Mark J Smyth; Juergen Sonnemann; Radek Spisek; John Stagg; Abdul Qader Sukkurwala; Eric Tartour; Andrew Thorburn; Stephen H Thorne; Peter Vandenabeele; Francesca Velotti; Samuel T Workenhe; Haining Yang; Wei-Xing Zong; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer; Lorenzo Galluzzi
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2014-12-13       Impact factor: 8.110

Review 7.  Combinatorial strategies for the induction of immunogenic cell death.

Authors:  Lucillia Bezu; Ligia C Gomes-de-Silva; Heleen Dewitte; Karine Breckpot; Jitka Fucikova; Radek Spisek; Lorenzo Galluzzi; Oliver Kepp; Guido Kroemer
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 7.561

8.  Local treatment of a pleural mesothelioma tumor with ONCOS-102 induces a systemic antitumor CD8+ T-cell response, prominent infiltration of CD8+ lymphocytes and Th1 type polarization.

Authors:  Tuuli Ranki; Timo Joensuu; Elke Jäger; Julia Karbach; Claudia Wahle; Kalevi Kairemo; Tuomo Alanko; Kaarina Partanen; Riku Turkki; Nina Linder; Johan Lundin; Ari Ristimäki; Matti Kankainen; Akseli Hemminki; Charlotta Backman; Kasper Dienel; Mikael von Euler; Elina Haavisto; Tiina Hakonen; Juuso Juhila; Magnus Jaderberg; Petri Priha; Lotta Vassilev; Antti Vuolanto; Sari Pesonen
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 8.110

9.  Phase I study with ONCOS-102 for the treatment of solid tumors - an evaluation of clinical response and exploratory analyses of immune markers.

Authors:  Tuuli Ranki; Sari Pesonen; Akseli Hemminki; Kaarina Partanen; Kalevi Kairemo; Tuomo Alanko; Johan Lundin; Nina Linder; Riku Turkki; Ari Ristimäki; Elke Jäger; Julia Karbach; Claudia Wahle; Matti Kankainen; Charlotta Backman; Mikael von Euler; Elina Haavisto; Tiina Hakonen; Raita Heiskanen; Magnus Jaderberg; Juuso Juhila; Petri Priha; Laura Suoranta; Lotta Vassilev; Antti Vuolanto; Timo Joensuu
Journal:  J Immunother Cancer       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 13.751

Review 10.  Trial Watch:: Oncolytic viruses for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Jonathan Pol; Norma Bloy; Florine Obrist; Alexander Eggermont; Jérôme Galon; Isabelle Cremer; Philippe Erbs; Jean-Marc Limacher; Xavier Preville; Laurence Zitvogel; Guido Kroemer; Lorenzo Galluzzi
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 8.110

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.