| Literature DB >> 34671362 |
Yuxiang Fan1, Yubo Wang1, Jian Zhang1, Xuechao Dong1, Pu Gao1, Kai Liu1, Chengyuan Ma1, Gang Zhao1.
Abstract
Though significant strides in tumorigenic comprehension and therapy modality have been witnessed over the past decades, glioma remains one of the most common and malignant brain tumors characterized by recurrence, dismal prognosis, and therapy resistance. Immunotherapy advance holds promise in glioma recently. However, the efficacy of immunotherapy varies among individuals with glioma, which drives researchers to consider the modest levels of immunity in the central nervous system, as well as the immunosuppressive tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). Considering the highly conserved property for sustaining energy homeostasis in mammalian cells and repeatedly reported links in malignancy and drug resistance, autophagy is determined as a cutting angle to elucidate the relations between glioma and the TIME. In this review, heterogeneity of TIME in glioma is outlined along with the reciprocal impacts between them. In addition, controversies on whether autophagy behaves cytoprotectively or cytotoxically in cancers are covered. How autophagy collapses from its homeostasis and aids glioma malignancy, which may depend on the cell type and the cellular context such as reactive oxygen species (ROS) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) level, are briefly discussed. The consecutive application of autophagy inducers and inhibitors may improve the drug resistance in glioma after overtreatments. It also highlights that autophagy plays a pivotal part in modulating glioma and the TIME, respectively, and the intricate interactions among them. Specifically, autophagy is manipulated by either glioma or tumor-associated macrophages to conform one side to the other through exosomal microRNAs and thereby adjust the interactions. Given that some of the crosstalk between glioma and the TIME highly depend on the autophagy process or autophagic components, there are interconnections influenced by the status and well-being of cells presumably associated with autophagic flux. By updating the most recent knowledge concerning glioma and the TIME from an autophagic perspective enhances comprehension and inspires more applicable and effective strategies targeting TIME while harnessing autophagy collaboratively against cancer.Entities:
Keywords: MDSC; autophagy; glioma; neutrophil; tumor immune microenvironment; tumor-associated macrophage
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34671362 PMCID: PMC8521049 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.746621
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1The interconnections between glioma and its immune microenvironment. Both innate and adaptive immune systems contribute to the suppressive immune microenvironment in glioma. The intricate interconnections among the members of the glioma immune microenvironment work synergistically to facilitate tumor progression without disturbance, especially from anti-tumor immunity.
Figure 2Autophagy involvement in the regulation of the glioma immune microenvironment. As one of the evolutionarily conserved processes, autophagy keeps cellular homeostasis not only for immunocytes but also for tumor cells. It may be manipulated by conflicting sides in favor of their profits. However, it seems that autophagy somehow is not capable of either ensuring the physiological function of immune cells or restraining glioma growth in the glioma immune microenvironment. The interconnections between the cells in the TIME are colored if autophagy is involved, where red indicates protumor effects and blue indicates antitumor effects.
Autophagy-related therapy against glioma.
| Autophagy-Related Therapy | Mechanism | Effects on Autophagy | Autophagy Type | Experiment Setting | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMZ | ROS induction | Activation | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| TMZ + CQ | PARP cleavage, apoptosis induction | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| ROS induction | Inhibition | Protective autophagy | In vitro: U87 and C6 | ( | |
| Induction of p53-dependent apoptosis and cell cycle arrest | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( | |
| Induction of toxicity | Inhibition | Protective autophagy | Clinical trial Phase I | ( | |
| TMZ + HCQ | Induction of toxicity | Inhibition | Protective autophagy | Clinical trial Phase I/II | ( |
| TMZ + SAHA + CQ | Induction of apoptosis, H3 and H4 histone acetylation | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| TMZ + Curcumin + CQ | Induction of DNA damage, inhibition of PI3K/AKT ERK1/2 | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| TMZ + Irradiation | Increase of Beclin-1, ATG5 | Activation | Lethal autophagy |
| ( |
| TMZ + THC + CBD | Induction of autophagy-associated apoptosis and toxicity | Activation | Lethal autophagy |
| ( |
| TMZ + CA | Induction cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, inhibition of p-AKT | Activation | – |
| ( |
| TMZ + GDC-0941 | Induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, inhibition of p-AKT and MGMT | Activation | – |
| ( |
| TMZ + MTB | Induction of apoptosis, inhibition of JAK2/STAT3 | Activation | – | In vivo: U251 | ( |
| CQ + Galunisertib | Inhibition of TGF-β2-induced autophagy | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| CQ + BAFA1 | ROS induction | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| 2DG + CP | ER stress induction, induction of apoptosis | Inhibition | Protective autophagy |
| ( |
| IM + TIC | Induction of non-apoptosis cell death | Activation | Lethal autophagy |
| ( |
| Erlotinib + Sorafenib | Inhibition AKT and ERK signaling | Activation | Lethal autophagy |
| ( |
TMZ, temozolomide; CQ, chloroquine; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; SAHA, suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid; THC, delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol; CBD, cannabidiol; CA, carnosic acid; MTB, momelotinib; BAFA1, bafilomycin A1; 2DG, 2-deoxy-D-glucose; CP, cisplatin; IM, imipramine; TIC, ticlopidin.