Maria Gonzalez-Cao1, Niki Karachaliou2, Mariacarmela Santarpia3, Santiago Viteri4, Andreas Meyerhans5, Rafael Rosell6. 1. Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Dexeus University Hospital, Quironsalud Group, C/ Sabino Arana, 5, Barcelona 08028, Spain. 2. Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Sagrat Cor University Hospital, Quironsalud Group, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Medical Oncology Unit, Department of Human Pathology 'G. Barresi', University of Messina, Messina, Italy. 4. Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Dexeus University Hospital, Quironsalud Group, Barcelona, Spain Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Teknon Medical Center, Quironsalud Group, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Infection Biology Laboratory, Department of Experimental and Health Sciences (DCEXS), Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain. 6. Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Dexeus University Hospital, Quironsalud Group, Barcelona, Spain Rosell Oncology Institute (IOR), Sagrat Cor University Hospital, Quironsalud Group, Barcelona, Spain Catalan Institute of Oncology, Germans Trias I Pujol University Hospital, Badalona, Spain.
Abstract
A coordinated action of innate and adaptive immune responses is required to efficiently combat a microbial infection. It has now become clear that cancer therapies also largely benefit when both arms of the immune response are engaged. In this review, we will briefly describe the current knowledge of innate immunity and how this can be utilized to prime tumors for a better response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Comments on compounds in development and ongoing clinical trials will be provided.
A coordinated action of innate and adaptive immune responses is required to efficiently combat a microbial infection. It has now become clear that cancer therapies also largely benefit when both arms of the immune response are engaged. In this review, we will briefly describe the current knowledge of innate immunity and how this can be utilized to prime tumors for a better response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Comments on compounds in development and ongoing clinical trials will be provided.
Entities:
Keywords:
TLRs; cancer immunotherapy; innate immunity; viral defense signaling
Recent advances in cancer immunotherapy have been achieved with antibodies that
inhibit immune checkpoint receptors on immune cells and tumor cells, mainly
programmed-cell death 1 (PD-1), its ligand PD-L1 and cytotoxic T
lymphocyte-associated molecule-4 (CTLA-4).[1] However, most cancerpatients do not respond to single checkpoint
inhibition.[2-4] Among the
reasons is the lack of tumor infiltration by cytotoxic CD8+ T-cells.[5] Non-T-cell-infiltrated tumors (‘cold tumors’) probably require the
combination of checkpoint inhibitors with other therapies designed to attract these
effector cells into the tumor microenvironment.The immune system has two arms, (i) the innate immune arm that is rapidly activated
after an appropriate stimulus but lacks antigen-specificity and memory, and (ii) the
adaptive immune response that requires time to appear but is antigen-specific and long-lasting.[6] Both arms of the immune system are intimately linked such that the innate arm
provides the conditions for an efficient activation of the adaptive response (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
From stimulating innate immune responses to an adaptive antitumor response. A
schematic view is given. In the tumor microenvironment, activation of PRRs
is achieved by the recognition of DAMPs released by dying tumor cells and by
drugs such as TLR agonists, STING agonists, DNA demethylating agents and
treatments based on the use of modified oncolytic viruses. The activation of
the innate immune response leads to an efficient priming by dendritic cells
of T-cells in lymph nodes and to the infiltration by tumor-specific T-cells
into the tumor. Details are described in the text.
From stimulating innate immune responses to an adaptive antitumor response. A
schematic view is given. In the tumor microenvironment, activation of PRRs
is achieved by the recognition of DAMPs released by dying tumor cells and by
drugs such as TLR agonists, STING agonists, DNA demethylating agents and
treatments based on the use of modified oncolytic viruses. The activation of
the innate immune response leads to an efficient priming by dendritic cells
of T-cells in lymph nodes and to the infiltration by tumor-specific T-cells
into the tumor. Details are described in the text.DAMP, danger-associated molecular pattern; ISG, interferon-stimulated gene;
PRR, pattern recognition receptor; TLR, Toll-like receptor; STING,
stimulator of interferon genes complex.Elements of the innate defense system are physical barriers, soluble factors such as
complement proteins, interferons (IFNs) and IFN-stimulated proteins, and immune
cells such as dendritic cells, macrophages, neutrophils and natural killer (NK)
cells. The adaptive arm of the immune system comprises T and B lymphocyte
subpopulations that recognize pathogens in an antigen-specific way
via divergent T-cell receptors and B-cell receptors,
respectively. Among the latter are CD4+ T-helper and T-regulatory cells (Tregs),
cytotoxic CD8+ T-cells, B-cells and antibody-producing plasma cells.[6]Several virus infections including Papilloma viruses, Merkel cell
polyomavirus, and hepatitis B and C viruses can induce tumors in humans.
Interestingly, such tumors that are linked to virus infections seem to respond
better to checkpoint inhibitors than tumors that are not virus-linked.[7,8] The reason for this seems
related to a more activated innate immune response.[9-16] Thus, like in virus
infections, the innate immune system probably provides a better microenvironment for
the development of a potent specific antitumor response.[17,18]Type I IFNs are key regulatory elements in this aspect. They are produced for example
when virus components or cell-derived damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs)
bind and activate pattern recognition receptors (PRRs).[19] The secreted IFNs can then activate dendritic cells (DCs) in tumor-draining
lymph nodes and enhance the cross-presentation of tumor-associated antigens to CD8+ T-cells,[20] which subsequently may lead to tumor-specific CD8+ T-cell expansion and tumor
destruction.A detailed understanding of the innate immune response against viruses may provide
opportunities for developing more efficient treatments in the field of cancer
immunotherapy. Indeed, the combination of checkpoint inhibitors with agents that
trigger the innate immune response enhances their antitumor effect. Here, we will
review the recently described means of activating innate immune responses to improve
immunotherapy for cancerpatients. Novel strategies that activate directly or
indirectly PRRs will be commented on.
Pathogen recognition receptors (PRRs)
The innate immune response initiates with the recognition of foreign nucleic acids or
other molecules in host cells by PRRs. PRRs recognize molecules derived from
pathogen-associated molecular patterns, as well as DAMPs released from endogenous
tissues that have suffered some damage.[21] The understanding of the immunostimulatory as well as pro- or antitumoral
function of PRRs is necessary to exploit them for enhancing cancer
immunotherapy.Several different subtypes of PRRs are described today: Toll-like receptors (TLRs),
NOD-like receptors (NLRs), c-type lectin receptors (CLRs), cytosol dsDNA sensors
(CDSs) and retinol acid inducible gene 1 (RIG-1)-like receptors (RLRs).[22,23] PRRs are
classified according to their cellular location. They are located in cell membranes,
such as TLRs, or in the cytoplasm like NLRs, CLRs, CDSs and RIG-1-like receptors (RLRs).[21] PRR activation induces the production of type I IFNs (mainly IFN-α proteins
and IFN-β).[22] Subsequently, type I IFNs control the transcription of genes that are
restricting viral infections (so-called ‘virus restriction factors’). In addition,
type I IFNs activate NK cells, promote antigen presentation[24] and participate in the differentiation of specific CD8+ cytotoxic T
lymphocytes (CTLs). Finally, type I IFNs have antiproliferative functions that are
through TP53 gene induction.[25,26]TLRs constitute a receptor family that is mainly expressed on macrophages and DCs. In
humans, the family has 11 members[27] located on the extracellular membrane (TLR 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 11) or in the
intracellular counterpart of endosomes (TLR 2, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10). Cell
membrane-bound TLRs recognize glycoproteins, while endosome-placed TLRs respond to
nucleic acid molecules, in particular viral RNA.[27-29]TLR4 was the first TLR identified. Activation of TLR4 signaling is preceded by
binding of lipopolysaccharides produced by Gram-negative bacteria.[30,31] In cancer,
TLR4 activation has a dual role. Although its upregulation is associated with chemoresistance,[32] metastasis and immunosuppression[33] in several tumor types, TLR4 activation has also an anticancer effect. While
TLR4 antagonists could help reduce metastasis, TLR4 agonists have been shown to
induce antitumor immunity in patients and models of cancer. Several TLR4 agonists,
such as OM-174,[34] or the Streptococcus-derived agent OK-432,[35,36] Coley toxin (a
mixture of killed Streptococcus pyogenes and
Serratiamarcescens bacteria) and Bacillus
Calmette-Guerin, have antitumoral effects.[36-38]Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) is detected via TLR3 and RLRs (RIG1 and
MDA5). Among immune cells, myeloid DCs and macrophages express TLR3. TLR3 is also
expressed in fibroblasts and hepatocytes. When activated, TLR3, through
TIR-domain-containing adapter-inducing interferon-β (TRIF), tumor necrosis factor
(TNF) receptor-associated factor 6 (TRAF6) and tankyrase 1 (TANK1), activates the
transcription factors interferon response factor 3 (IRF-3) and nuclear factor kappa
B (NF-κB). This then leads to the expression of type I IFNs, mainly IFN-β[39] (Figure 2). RLRs use
protein adaptor mitochondrial antiviral signaling to activate IRF-3, IRF-7 and NF-κB[40] (Figure 2). RLRs are
expressed in many tissues and play a prominent role in myeloid cells, fibroblasts,
hepatocytes and central nervous system cells. While highly expressed in plasmacytoid
DCs, RLRs are not essential for IFN type I production by these cells.[41]
Figure 2.
Main subtypes of PRRs as targets for cancer treatment: Toll-like receptors
(TLR3, TLR7/8, TLR9), cytosol dsDNA sensors (cGAS/IFI that activate STING)
and the retinol acid inducible gene RIG-1 like receptors (RIG1 and MDA5).
Activation of these receptors, following detection of nucleic acids from
virus, induces production of type I IFNs (IFN-α and IFN-β). dsRNA (from
HERVs re-expressed after treatment with azacytidine or from exogenous
infection) activates TLR3, MDA5 and RIG1; ssRNA activates TLR7/8; DNA (from
pathogens or from tumor cells) activates STING.
Main subtypes of PRRs as targets for cancer treatment: Toll-like receptors
(TLR3, TLR7/8, TLR9), cytosol dsDNA sensors (cGAS/IFI that activate STING)
and the retinol acid inducible gene RIG-1 like receptors (RIG1 and MDA5).
Activation of these receptors, following detection of nucleic acids from
virus, induces production of type I IFNs (IFN-α and IFN-β). dsRNA (from
HERVs re-expressed after treatment with azacytidine or from exogenous
infection) activates TLR3, MDA5 and RIG1; ssRNA activates TLR7/8; DNA (from
pathogens or from tumor cells) activates STING.HERV, human endogenous retrovirus; IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; IRF-3,
IFN-regulatory factor-3; NFκB, nuclear factor kappa B; PRR, pathogen
recognition receptor; ssRNA, single stranded RNA; STING, stimulator of
interferon genes complex; TBK1, TANK-binding kinase 1; TNF, tumor necrosis
factor; TRAF6, TNF receptor-associated factor 6; TRIF, Toll/IL-1 receptor
domain-containing adaptor inducing IFN-β.The synthetic dsRNA BO-112 that activates melanoma differentiation-associated protein
5 (MDA5) demonstrated tumor-specific immune responses with a good toxicity profile
in a first in-human trial.[42] A phase I clinical trial testing the combination of BO-112 with anti-PD-1
antibodies is ongoing in several centers of Spain (Table 1). Other interesting antitumoral
compounds in development are the synthetic analogs of dsRNA
polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid (poly I:C) that activate TLR3[37,43-45] and RIG1/MDA5[46] and 5′ triphosphate small interfering RNA (ppp-siRNA) that activates RIG1 and
silences specific oncogenes like BCL-2 via RNA-interference. Both
types of compounds have demonstrated antitumor activities in vivo.[47]
Table 1.
Cancer clinical trials in progress with drugs targeting innate immune
response.
CTLA-4, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule-4; DNMT, DNA
methyltransferase; HDAC, histone deacetylase; MDA, melanoma
differentiation-associated protein; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; NCT,
National Clinical Trials; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD-1,
programmed-cell death 1; PRR, pathogen recognition receptor; SCLC, small
cell lung cancer; STING, stimulator of interferon genes complex; TLR,
Toll-like receptor.
Cancer clinical trials in progress with drugs targeting innate immune
response.CTLA-4, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule-4; DNMT, DNA
methyltransferase; HDAC, histone deacetylase; MDA, melanoma
differentiation-associated protein; MDS, myelodysplastic syndromes; NCT,
National Clinical Trials; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD-1,
programmed-cell death 1; PRR, pathogen recognition receptor; SCLC, small
cell lung cancer; STING, stimulator of interferon genes complex; TLR,
Toll-like receptor.The detection of single stranded RNA (ssRNA) is due to TLR7 and TLR8 which activate
NF-κB, IRF-3 and IRF-7, and lead to the expression of type I IFN, TNF-α, interleukin
(IL)-1 and IL-12[48] (Figure 2). TLR7 is
mainly expressed in plasmacytoid DCs and B-cells, while TLR8 is expressed in myeloid
DCs and Tregs. Imidazoquinolinamin derivates, such as imiquimod, approved for the
treatment of basal cell carcinoma, show antitumoral effects through TLR7 and TLR8 activation.[49] Intratumoral resiquimod (R848), a ligand of TLR7 and TLR8, in combination
with anti-OX40 in animal models induces a systemic antitumor effect.[50] MEDI9197 (formerly 3M-052), is a novel TLR7/8 dual agonist formulated for
intratumoral injection that has been studied in patients with cutaneous tumors,
demonstrating safety and immunogenicity.[51]TLR9 recognizes unmethylated CpG motifs from bacteria and viruses[52] and RNA:DNA hybrids.[53] Its triggering activates plasmacytoid DCs and B-cells.[54] Several synthetic CpG oligonucleotides have been developed as TLR9 agonists
mimicking natural CpG motifs (Table 1). The combination of intratumoral CpG SD-101 with anti-OX40,
which triggers a T-cell immune response, demonstrated complete responses and
long-term survival in animal models.[50] Similarly, data from a phase I clinical trial in advanced melanoma showed
objective responses in four of the five patients treated with the combination of
intratumoral CpG SD-101 and the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab.[55]The CDSs cGAS and IFI16 operate via stimulator of interferon genes
complex (STING) to detect free DNA in the cytosol. When cytosolic DNA is detected by
cGAS it catalyzes the STING ligand cGAMP.[56] STING is then activated, translocates to perinuclear endosomes and recruits
TBK1 and IRF3. These molecules are phosphorylated and translocate to the nucleus
with subsequent transcription of type I IFNs[56] (Figure 2). STING is
essential for the production of type I IFN signaling in DCs which enables them to
present tumor antigens and prime CD8+ T lymphocytes leading to T-cell infiltration
into the tumor.[18,57] STING is located at the cytosolic site of the endoplasmic
reticulum membrane[56] and is activated by DNA from damaged tumor cells that reach the cytosol of DCs.[58] Some intratumoral-injected compounds can activate STING in mice, like
5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid (DMXAA).[59] In humans, the STING agonist ML RR-S2 CDA (MIW815, ADU-S100) is in clinical development[60] (Table 1).
Interferons
IFNs were discovered in the late 1950s during replication studies of influenza virus.[61] They are cytokines that play a critical role in innate immune responses
against viral infections and participate in the activation of the adaptive immune response.[26] Several types of IFNs have been described including type I IFNs (various
IFN-α, IFN-β, and others), the type II IFNγ, and the more recently classified type
III IFNs (IFN-λ). Type I IFNs are produced by most cell types: fibroblasts, DCs and
hepatocytes (through RIG-1), plasmacytoid DCs (through TLR9 and TLR7/8) and
macrophages and hepatocytes (through TLR3 and TLR4). Type II IFNs are mainly
secreted by T-helper-1 (Th-1) lymphocytes, CD8+ lymphocytes, NK and NK T-cells.[62]All the different types of IFNs signal through IFN receptors that are differently
distributed among cell types. IFN-β binds to the IFN-α/β receptor (IFNAR) to further
activate production of more type I IFN[63] (Figure 3). IFNAR
activates janus kinase (JAK) family members JAK1 and Tyk-2, and subsequently signal
transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) and 2 (STAT2). STAT1/2 bind to
IRF9 (p48) and form the IFN-stimulated gene factor 3 (ISGF3; Figure 3). ISGF3 initiates the transcription
of several interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) by binding to the promoter region of
IFN-stimulated response elements (ISRE; Figure 3). ISGs include PKR, IRF-1 and IRF7.
When activated by TBK-1/IKKe, ISGs regulate IFNα gene transcription.[64] ISGs activate antimicrobial programs that both degrade viral proteins and
inhibit cancer cell proliferation[65] (Figure 3). Type I
IFNs also stimulate the adaptive immune response. Specifically, they promote major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II expression on antigen-presenting
cells like DCs that is required for efficient T-cell stimulation. Mature DCs are
then able to initiate the adaptive immune response by activating antigen-specific
naïve T-cells to proliferate and produce type II IFN.[66,67] The type II IFN receptor is
called IFNGR. It activates genes containing a gamma-activated sequence (GAS) through
JAK1/2 and STAT1 signaling (Figure
3). Type II IFNs stimulate the adaptive immune response and activate
macrophages and NK cells.
Figure 3.
Interferon pathway. Type I IFN binds to the IFNAR. IFNAR activates the JAK
family members JAK1 and Tyk-2, with subsequent phosphorylation of signal
transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) and 2 (STAT2) proteins.
These proteins form the complex called ISGF3 when they bind to IRF9 (p48).
ISGF3 initiates transcription of several ISGs by binding to ISREs in their
promoter regions. The receptor of type II IFN is called IFNGR and also
initiates induction of JAK1 and JAK2 recruitment with STAT1 homodimers that
activate genes containing a GAS.
Interferon pathway. Type I IFN binds to the IFNAR. IFNAR activates the JAK
family members JAK1 and Tyk-2, with subsequent phosphorylation of signal
transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1) and 2 (STAT2) proteins.
These proteins form the complex called ISGF3 when they bind to IRF9 (p48).
ISGF3 initiates transcription of several ISGs by binding to ISREs in their
promoter regions. The receptor of type II IFN is called IFNGR and also
initiates induction of JAK1 and JAK2 recruitment with STAT1 homodimers that
activate genes containing a GAS.GAS, gamma-activated sequence; IFN, interferon; IFNAR, IFN-α/β receptor; ISG,
interferon-stimulated gene; ISGF3, IFN-stimulated gene factor 3; ISRE,
IFN-stimulated response element; JAK, Janus kinase.The expression levels of ISGs are predictive of the response to immune checkpoint
inhibitors in melanomapatients treated with anti-CTLA-4 antibodies.[68] Likewise, tumor samples from melanoma, ovarian, lung, breast or colorectal
cancer can be classified according to high or low expression levels of
IFN-stimulated viral defense genes for example IRF7, RIG1STAT1, IFNB1, IFI6 induced
by the hypomethylating agent (HMA) 5-aza-cytidine (5-aza).[69] Our own work shows that lung cancer and melanomapatients with high tumoral
expression of IFN-γ have a better outcome with immunotherapy compared with patients
with low IFN-γ expression.[70]
The role of DNA methylation in innate immune responses
Epigenetic modulator drugs can restore immunogenicity and immune recognition of
tumors. Therefore, there is an increasing interest in combined epigenetic therapy
and immunotherapy.[71]DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) are important players in epigenetic modulation of the
innate immune response. In non-small cell lung cancer with mesenchymal phenotype,
STAT3 activates DNMT1, which methylates the promoter regions of RIG1 as well as
IRF1, immunoproteasomes (PSMB8, PSMB9) and HLA molecules leading to the reduction of
their expression.[72] STAT3 also inhibits STAT1 expression, a key regulator of the
antigen-presentation machinery in epithelial cells.[70,72]HMAs such as the nucleoside analogs of cytidine,5-aza and 5-aza-2-deoxycytidine (5-
aza-2dc or decitabine) inhibit DNMTs and are currently approved for the treatment of
hematologic malignancies.[73,74] HMAs activate the innate immune response through PRRs, but they
also have several other activities that make them a good partner to combine with
immune checkpoint inhibitors. For instance, HMAs reactivate silenced tumor
suppressor genes that encode proteins which limit the proliferative and survival
capacity of a cell.[75,76] HMAs induce T-cell responses by stimulating HLA I expression.
For example, in brain tumors, decitabine promotes the surface presentation of
tumor-associated peptides in the context of HLA I and is thus a good candidate to be
combined with other immunotherapeutic regimen.[77] Furthermore, treatment of tumor cell lines with the DNA methyltransferase
inhibitor 5-azacytidine (AZA) enrich tumors in genes involved in immunomodulatory
pathways, defining an ‘AZA IMmune gene set (AIMs)’ that can classify primary tumors
into ‘high’ and ‘low’ AIM gene expression subsets (see Table 1, in Li and colleagues[78]). HMAs induce the expression of chemokines that ultimately re-educate tumor
cells to become more immunogenic.[71,79]Last but not least, HMAs have antitumor activities by causing the re-expression of
endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) in preclinical cancer models. Human ERVs (HERVs) are
retroviral elements that have been fixed within the human genome through evolution.
About 8% of the human genome is composed of these HERVs, most of which are
non-functional due to the accumulation of mutations and epigenetic control.
Chiappinelli and colleagues showed in preclinical models that HMAs through ERV
expression induce viral mimicry and IFN signaling to increase tumor immunogenicity
and recognition.[13] Other investigators have reported similar findings in colon cancer,
demonstrating an IFN response through activation of MDA5 by dsRNA.[80] This effect, through induction of HERVs, was synergistic with the effect of
anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies.[79,13,81] One way to activate TLRs is
through induction of dsRNA from HERVs using low doses of HMAs. HERV-derived viral
transcripts then increase within the cytosol leading to RIG1, MDA5 and TLR3
activation and subsequently type I IFN production.[82] The HMA-induced upregulation of HERVs is synergistic with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies[80] and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies.[82,83]In a subset of non-small cell lung cancerpatients, 20% of durable responses were
observed when the anti-PD-1 antibody was given after tumor progression under low
dose of HMAs, indicating that HMAs may prime tumors for a subsequent response to
immunotherapy.[79,84] Based on the above and other evidences, there is currently a
long list of clinical trials in several types of tumors combining immune checkpoint
inhibitors with epigenetic drugs (Table 1 and Table 1 in Dunn and colleagues[71]).Interestingly, apart from HMAs, cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors also
suppress DNMT1 and induce viral mimicry. The combination of immune checkpoint
inhibitors with CDK4/6 inhibitors was found to be synergistic in
vitro and in vivo[85,86] and clinical trials are now
ongoing with this combination [ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02791334,
NCT02079636, and NCT02779751].
Other factors in the innate immune response and antitumor therapy
NK cells play an important role against tumor cells. Cells infected by viruses, as
well as cancer cells, may downregulate surface MHC class I molecules in order to
avoid recognition by CD8+ T-cells.[87] Paradoxically, this phenomenon makes them susceptible to NK cells, that are
activated when their membrane receptors, killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors
(KIRs), are not bound to MHC class I molecules. Some cancer cells bypass NK control
because they downregulate specific MHC class I molecules, that are needed to present
peptides to CD8+ T-cells, while they still express MHC class I peptides
that serve as KIR ligands.[88]Viral restriction factors comprise a group of several proteins expressed by cells to
suppress viral replication. These restriction factors constitute an early defense
against viral infections, and are partly induced by IFNs.[89] The best characterized restriction factors are: apolipoprotein B messenger
RNA editing enzyme catalytic polypeptide-like3 (APOBEC3) proteins,
tripartite-motif-containing 5a (TRIM5a), SAM domain and HD domain-containing protein
1 (SAMHD1), Schlafen 11 (SLFN11) and Tetherin.[89] Their role in the immune response to cancer cells has not been studied,
however it is known that some of them are involved in the process of somatic
mutagenesis during tumor development[90,91] APOBEC3 alterations (mutations
or overexpression) in cancer cells have been linked to a specific hypermutation
status named ‘kataegis’ that correlates with responsiveness to immunotherapy.[92] Finally, a strong correlation has been reported among APOBEC3 proteins, IFNγ
and PD-L1 expression in cancer cells.[92]There are several compounds in development with the aim to activate an innate immune
response and direct CD8+ T-cells into tumors (Table 1). Such strategies include the
combination of anti-PD-1 antibodies with oncolytic virotherapy which has shown
impressive results in early clinical trials.[93] Melanomapatients treated with the combination of the anti-PD-1 antibody
pembrolizumab plus talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) had an objective response rate
of 62% with 32% of complete responses.[10] Although the exact mechanism by which oncolytic viruses increase the activity
of immune checkpoint blockade is unknown, biopsies taken from patients before
treatment and after 6 weeks, demonstrated an increase in CD8+ T-cell infiltration as
well as increased expression of IFN-γ suggesting a role of innate immune response
activation by T-VEC.[10] Similarly, a hybrid of an oncolytic, nonpathogenic poliovirus (PV) and a
human rhinovirus (PVSRIPO) demonstrated an increased release of DAMPs through tumor
lysis activating a type I IFN response in DCs in different cancer models.[9]
Conclusions and future perspectives
Innate immune responses in the form of IFN production and their subsequent effects
provide the appropriate microenvironment for the efficient stimulation of adaptive
responses that are key in fighting microbial infections. As tumors are derived from
tissue cells that carry mainly self-antigens, they are expected to be purely
immunogenic, and may lack innate immune activation, at least initially.
Subsequently, the growing tumor can exploit all of the immune suppressive mechanisms
that are well described in chronic infections.Recent clinical trials and preclinical cancer models now impressively demonstrate
that stimuli of innate immunity in combination with other immunotherapeutic regimens
can significantly augment tumor-specific responses that translate into increased
response and cure rates (Figure
1). Thus, suppressive mechanisms and low immunogenicity may be overcome
at least when sufficient numbers of tumor neoantigens are present in the tissue.While presently the PRRs agonists and HMAs stand out, other drugs and drug
combinations are under study in numerous trials (Table 1). Furthermore, there are now
ongoing trials that include cancerpatients with persistent virus infections that
have previously been excluded. For example, we are currently exploring several
above-mentioned factors and their relationship with innate immune responses in a
phase II Spanish Lung Cancer Group clinical trial. The anti-PD-L1 inhibitor
durvalumab is given to HIV-1-infectedpatients with solid tumors [ClinicalTrials.gov
identifier: NCT03094286]. The trial enables us to investigate the effect of immune
checkpoint inhibition in reversing cancer pathways and to characterize HIV-specific
T-cell functions during persistent HIV infection. The study results of this trial
and of others are eagerly awaited.It seems that after many years of stagnation, we finally face most fruitful and
exciting times in tumor immunology.
Authors: T Akeda; K Yamanaka; H Kitagawa; E Kawabata; K Tsuda; M Kakeda; Y Omoto; K Habe; K Isoda; I Kurokawa; H Mizutani Journal: Clin Exp Dermatol Date: 2011-08-25 Impact factor: 3.470
Authors: Timothy J Ley; Li Ding; Matthew J Walter; Michael D McLellan; Tamara Lamprecht; David E Larson; Cyriac Kandoth; Jacqueline E Payton; Jack Baty; John Welch; Christopher C Harris; Cheryl F Lichti; R Reid Townsend; Robert S Fulton; David J Dooling; Daniel C Koboldt; Heather Schmidt; Qunyuan Zhang; John R Osborne; Ling Lin; Michelle O'Laughlin; Joshua F McMichael; Kim D Delehaunty; Sean D McGrath; Lucinda A Fulton; Vincent J Magrini; Tammi L Vickery; Jasreet Hundal; Lisa L Cook; Joshua J Conyers; Gary W Swift; Jerry P Reed; Patricia A Alldredge; Todd Wylie; Jason Walker; Joelle Kalicki; Mark A Watson; Sharon Heath; William D Shannon; Nobish Varghese; Rakesh Nagarajan; Peter Westervelt; Michael H Tomasson; Daniel C Link; Timothy A Graubert; John F DiPersio; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Minmin Liu; Hitoshi Ohtani; Wanding Zhou; Andreas Due Ørskov; Jessica Charlet; Yang W Zhang; Hui Shen; Stephen B Baylin; Gangning Liang; Kirsten Grønbæk; Peter A Jones Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: A Poltorak; X He; I Smirnova; M Y Liu; C Van Huffel; X Du; D Birdwell; E Alejos; M Silva; C Galanos; M Freudenberg; P Ricciardi-Castagnoli; B Layton; B Beutler Journal: Science Date: 1998-12-11 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Tatiana Cunha Pereira; Paulo Rodrigues-Santos; Jani Sofia Almeida; Fábio Rêgo Salgueiro; Ana Raquel Monteiro; Filipa Macedo; Rita Félix Soares; Isabel Domingues; Paula Jacinto; Gabriela Sousa Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.064