| Literature DB >> 35183252 |
Nisha Kumari1, Seung Hong Choi2,3,4.
Abstract
Cancer immunotherapy has emerged as a novel cancer treatment, although recent immunotherapy trials have produced suboptimal outcomes, with durable responses seen only in a small number of patients. The tumor microenvironment (TME) has been shown to be responsible for tumor immune escape and therapy failure. The vital component of the TME is tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), which are usually associated with poor prognosis and drug resistance, including immunotherapies, and have emerged as promising targets for cancer immunotherapy. Recently, nanoparticles, because of their unique physicochemical characteristics, have emerged as crucial translational moieties in tackling tumor-promoting TAMs that amplify immune responses and sensitize tumors to immunotherapies in a safe and effective manner. In this review, we mainly described the current potential nanomaterial-based therapeutic strategies that target TAMs, including restricting TAMs survival, inhibiting TAMs recruitment to tumors and functionally repolarizing tumor-supportive TAMs to antitumor type. The current understanding of the origin and polarization of TAMs, their crucial role in cancer progression and prognostic significance was also discussed in this review. We also highlighted the recent evolution of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-macrophage cell therapy.Entities:
Keywords: Carcinogenesis; Macrophage repolarization; Nanoimmunotherapies; Nanomaterials; Tumor microenvironment; Tumor-associated macrophages
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35183252 PMCID: PMC8857848 DOI: 10.1186/s13046-022-02272-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Fig. 1Role of TAMs in tumor development
Fig. 2Schematic representation of TAMs-signaling pathways targeted by nanomaterial, results in inhibition of macrophages recruitment, blocking of macrophages survival and macrophage repolarization
Nanomaterials developed for termination of macrophage recruitment, TAMs depletion, and TAMs repolarization
| Cancers/cell lines | Strategy | Active target | Nanomaterial type | Drug | Diameter (nm) | Zeta Potential (mV) | Combination partner(s) | Outcome | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | Termination of macrophage recruitment | CCR2 | Cationic nanoparticle (CNP) | CNP-siCCR2 | 120.9 ± 12.2–128.3 ± 18.1 | 2.7–25.2 | – | Blocking CCL2-CCR2 axis inhibited tumor growth and metastasis | [ |
| Melanoma cell line (B16F10) | KLAK-MCP-1 micelles | KLAKLAK peptides | 11.9 ± 2.3 | 7.2 ± 1.1 | – | Inhibited the tumor growth via inhibiting the infiltration of TAMs and increasing the number of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte | [ | ||
| Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (THP1) | Copper nanoparticles Cu@CuO | Gemcitabine | 4.9 ± 0.3 | −4.8 ± 2.4 | – | Induced tumor necrosis, and ultimately suppressed the tumor growth and prolong the survival in PDAC tumors | [ | ||
| Colon cancer (SL4) | CX3CL1 | 7C1 nanoparticles | DC101/ anti-Ly6G antibody | – | – | 7C1-Axo-siCX3CL1 | Reduced the expression of CX3CL1 and prevent the recruitment of macrophages in the tumor region | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1)/ Colon cancer (CT26)/Melanoma (B16) | TAM depletion | CSF-1R | Sensitive cluster nanoparticles (BLZ-945SCNs/Pt) | BLZ-945 | – | – | Platinum (Pt)- | Depleted TAMs, inhibited tumor growth and metastasis by increasing the infiltration of CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells | [ |
| Melanoma cell line (B16) | M2NPs | CSF-1R siRNA | – | – | M2 macrophage binding peptide | Depleted M2-like TAMs which restored the function of T-cells and inhibit the tumor growth | [ | ||
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | Dextran-grafted-copolymer (DH@ECm) | BLZ945 | ~ 190 | − 20.3 | – | Depleted TAMs which reverse the TME with increased infiltration of CD8+ cells and inhibit the tumor growth | [ | ||
| Bone marrow derived macrophages (BMDMs) | – | CA4 nanoparticles (A15-BLZ-NP) | 163.4 | −20.3 | Activated anti-tumor immune response which results in improved inhibition of tumor growth | [ | |||
| Breast cancer cell lines (4 T1, CT26, 3 T3, and RAW264.7) | Hypoxia | Calcium bisphosphonate derived nanoparticles (CaBP-PEG-NP) | – | 50 | −0.5 | – | Deplete TAMs, normalize vascular system, reduce angiogenesis, which leads to reduction in hypoxia and inhibition of tumor growth | [ | |
| Sarcoma cell line (S180) | – | Lipid-coated calcium zoledronate nanoparticles (CaZol@pMNP) | – | 85 | Neutral | – | TAMs depletion, reduce angiogenesis and inhibit immune suppression to inhibit tumor growth | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | – | Mannosylated mixed micelles (DAS-MMic) | Dasatinib | 21.55 ± 0.85 | – | TAMs depletion, decreased angiogenesis, remodel immunosuppressive TME and inhibit tumor growth | [ | ||
| Melanoma cell line (B16F10) | MMP-2 | Phosphatidylserine nanoparticles (PS-NP) | 130–230 | Negative | – | TAMs depletion | [ | ||
| Murine breast cancer cell line 4 T1 | PEG liposomes (PEG-FA-Lip) | Doxorubicin | 138.5 ± 6.8 | −9.3 ± 0.8 | – | Decreased infiltration of Treg cells to tumor sites, deplete the M2-like TAMs | [ | ||
| Melanoma cell line (B16F10) | Hyaluronic acid-gold Nanorods (HA-AuNR/M2pep-NP) | – | 42.93–64.6 | – | Photothermal therapy | Eliminated M2-like TAMs, induce ICD to efficiently suppresses the tumor growth and prolongs the survival | [ | ||
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | IL-10/TGF-β/VEGF | Zoledronic acid nanorods (ZGd-NRs) | Zoledronic acid, | 100–200 | 15.43 | Radiotherapy | Improved dendritic cell maturation, promoted CD8+ T cell infiltration, and boosted the immune responses | [ | |
| Lung cancer (SCLC, KP1) | Repolarization of M2 to M1 | – | Iron oxide nanoparticles (Ferumoxytol) | – | 15–40 | – | – | Prevented development of liver metastasis polarize M2-type to M1-type macrophages, | [ |
| Melanoma cell lines(B16-F10) | Membrane-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticle (MNP@MDSC) | – | 85–100 | −18 − − 13 | Photothermal therapy | Reprograming M2-like to M1-like macrophages, reduced tumor’s metabolic activity and induce immunologic cell death | [ | ||
| Colorectal cancer cell line (CT26)/ Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | Iron-chelated melanin-like nanoparticles Fe@PDA-PEG) | ~ 150 | – | – | Recruitment of M1 macrophages and attracting T-helper cells and effector cells to the tumor site to inhibit the tumor growth | [ | |||
| Colorectal cancer cell line (MC38) | TLRs | Cyclodextrin nanoparticles (CDNP) | R848 | 30 | 0.90 ± 1.90 | anti-PD-1 | Shifted toward M1 phenotype and inhibit tumor growth and potentiate the efficacy of anti-tumor immune response of anti-PD-1 | [ | |
| 39 ± 1.8 | 6.61 ± 1.03 | – | Reprogramming of TAMs towards anti-tumor M1 phenotype | [ | |||||
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | CpG- oligodeoxynucleotides ferritin Nano-cages (CpG-ODNs) | – | 20.24 ± 0.29 | − 11.77 ± 0.40 | – | Repolarized TAMs to the M1-like in vitro and in vivo, and reduced tumor development in 4 T1 tumor-bearing animal model | [ | ||
| Murine Melanoma B16 OVA | PLGA nanoparticles (PNP@R@M-T-NP) | R848 | 188 | −9.7 | – | Repolarize M2 to M1-type, reduce tumor size and prolong animal survival | [ | ||
| LLC Ova cell line | Nanobodies | Imidazoquinoline | – | – | anti-PD1 | Reduced the tumor growth and increased anti-tumor T-cell response by repolarizing TAMs towards pro-inflammatory phenotype | [ | ||
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | IRF5 and NF-κB signaling | Polymer magnetic nanocarrier (PLGA-ION-R837@M) | R837 | 166.2 ± 1.8 | −19.1 ± 0.1. | – | enhanced TAMs repolarization which relieve immunosuppressive TME to activate the anti-tumor immune response | [ | |
| lymphoma cell lines (Raji) epidermoid carcinoma cell line (A-431) and breast cancer cell line (SKBR3) | Phagocytosis | Liposome (R848-LPs) | R848 | 141.9 ± 57.7 | −23.9 ± 6.0 | Rituximab/ Trastuzumab/ anti-EGFR mouse monoclonal antibody | Reprogram TAMs to M1-type macrophages | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | CD47-SIRPα | Exosome nano bioconjugates | aCD47 & aSIRPα | 20 | – | – | Repolarize pro-tumor M2 to anti-tumor M1 macrophages, block SIRPα & CD47, improve phagocytosis | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | Cell membrane-coated magnetic nanoparticles (gCM-MNs) | – | 100 | −19 | – | Repolarization of M2-type to M1-type macrophages | [ | ||
| Melanoma cell line (B16F10) | Calcium carbonate nanoparticles (CaCO3) | CD47 antibody | 100 | – | – | Activation of M1-type macrophages, inhibit local tumor recurrence and metastasis post-surgery | [ | ||
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | NF-κβ signaling pathway | Hyaluronic acid- superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (HIONs) | – | – | – | – | Reprogram M2-TAMs to antitumor M1 | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (MDA-MB-231) | PI3K signaling pathway | Porous hollow iron oxide nanoparticles (PHNPs@DPA-S-S-BSA-MA@3MA) | 3-methyladenine | 20 | −14.8 − 19.7 | – | Repolarization of M2-type to M1-type macrophages and activate the immune cell population of CD8+ and CD4+ T-cells, B-cell, NK cells and Treg cells | [ | |
| Cervical cancer cell line (Hela) Lung carcinoma (LLC) | Lactate oxidase and glycolysis pathway | Hollow MnO2 | lactate oxidase and glycolysis inhibitor | 3.4 | −20 | Anti-PD-L1 | Reduced lactic acid production and reduced population of M2-type macrophages | [ | |
| Hepato cellular carcinoma (JHH-7/HCA-1) | Angiogenesis | Nanocarrier (NanoMnSor) | Sorafenib | 136.2 ± 1.0 | −30 | Anti-PD-1 antibody | Macrophage towards immunostimulatory M1 macrophages and increases the CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells in tumors | [ | |
| Melanoma (B16F10) | NF-κβ signaling pathway | Copper sulfide nanoparticles (CuS-NP) | – | 17 | – | – | Direct BMDM polarization towards anti-tumor M1-phenotype, remodels TME, prolong median survival | [ | |
| Hepatocellular carcinoma cell line (Hepa1–6 cells) | Repolarization of M2 to M1 | – | Lipid nanoparticles (M1/SLNPs) | Sorafenib | – | – | – | Increased ratio of M1-type macrophages as compared to M2-type and inhibit the tumor growth | [ |
| Hepatocellular carcinoma cells (HepG2) | NKG2D activation | Selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs) | Cytokine-induced killer cell immunotherapy | 102 ± 9.6 | 153.4 | – | Promoting M2 to anti-tumor M1 macrophages and increase the infiltration of natural killer cells to tumors | [ | |
| Renal cell carcinoma cell line (OS-RC-2) | STAT3/hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1α) | Lipid nanoparticles formulations (LNPs) | siRNA STAT3/ HIF-1 α | 90–100 | 0.21 ± 0.63 | – | Increased infiltration of Mφ (CD11b + cells) into the TME and increased level of M1-type macrophages, | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (PyMT-Bo1, MFI 17)/ melanoma (MDA.MB.435, MFI 27) and endothelial (HUVEC, MFI 42) cell lines | MYC pathway | Perfluorocarbon nanoparticles | MI3-PD | 262 | −20 | αvβ3 antagonist | Decreased M2 macrophages in the TME without sparing M1-type | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1)/Melanoma cell lines (B16/F10) | CSF-1R and Src homology-region 2 (SHP-2) | Supramolecular nanoparticles | BLZ-945 | 143 ± 34 | 7.9 | SHP099/ DNT206 | Reprogramming of M2-type macrophages to anti-tumor M1-type | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | CSF-1R and MAPK pathways | 190.1 ± 27 | −17.1 ± 7.3 | Selumetinib | Repolarize M2 macrophages to an anti-tumorigenic M1 phenotype | [ | |||
| Hepatocellular carcinoma (Hepa1–6)/Pancreatic cancer (KPC) | CCL2/5 signaling pathways | BisCCL2/5i mRNA | 100–120 | – | PD-L1 | TAMs polarization towards the anti-tumoral M1 phenotype and long-term survival | [ | ||
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | Macrophage Inflammatory Protein 3 Beta (MIP-3β) | Nanoparticles (3-trimethylammonium-propane (DOTAP), Methoxy poly (ethylene glycol)-poly(lactide) (MPEG-PLA), and folic acid modified poly (ethylene glycol)-poly(ε-caprolactone) | – | 90 | −2.1 | – | Polarization of macrophages towards M1 polarization, inhibit the tumor growth and metastasis | [ | |
| Melanoma cell lines(B16/F10) | Repolarization of M2 to M1 | – | ZnO and gold nanoparticles (AuNP@mSiO2@Dox-ZnO) | Doxorubicin | 27–72 | – | Photothermal treatment | Toxicity to cancer cells and contribute in immunogenic cell death, prevent tumor growth and metastasis | [ |
| - (RAW 264.7 cells) | – | Gold nanoparticles encapsulated CaCO3 (Au@CaCO3-NP) | – | 32 | – | – | Direct repolarization of M2 macrophages towards M1-type | [ | |
| Osteosarcoma (MG63)/Colorectal carcinoma (HCT116)/Breast cancer (MCF7) cell lines | – | Hyaluronic acid-dexamethasone micelles (HA-DEX-DOX) | Dexmethasone & Doxorubicin | ~ 252 | −23 − − 26 | – | M2-macrophages towards pro-inflammatory M1-type phenotype, encourage Dox-mediated apoptosis | [ | |
| Melanoma cell line (B16) | – | PLGA nanoparticles | Baicalin | 97.2–123.6 | −43.1 ± 0.4/ -17.8 ± 0.3 | Hgp | Transformation of M2-like TAMs to M1-like, suppress tumor angiogenesis, inhibited metastasis, stimulate NK cell infiltration | [ | |
| Colorectal cancer (CT26-FL3), Pancreatic (PDAC) and breast cancer (4 T1) cell lines | – | Lipid calcium phosphate nanoparticles (LCP) | – | 189.5 | −6.82 | PD-L1 | Inhibited the metastasis and shifted the immunosuppressive TME towards immunostimulatory stage with better cytotoxic T-cell infiltration, which results in prolong animal survival | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) | – | Polymer nanoparticles (P-NPs) | – | 45 | −25 | Photodynamic Therapy | Shifts macrophages towards anti-tumorous phenotype, reverse TME and inhibit the tumor growth | [ | |
| Breast cancer cell line (4 T1) or human pulmonary carcinoma cell line (A549) | NF-κB and IRF5 pathways | Gadofullerene nanoparticles (Gd@C82) | – | ~ 55 | −37.7 ± − 0.3 | PD-L1 | Reprogram M2 to M1, induce infiltration of cytotoxic T-lymphocytes and inhibit the tumor growth, promotes efficacy of PD-L1 | [ | |
| Desmoplastic Melanoma (BPD6). | Liposomes | Hydralazine Doxorubicin | 88 ± 4 | −1.8 | – | Repolarize the TAMs by normalizing tumor blood vessels, effectively inhibit melanoma growth | [ | ||
| Melanoma cell line (A375) | Mitochondrial-mediated apoptosis pathway | Tellurium Nano stars (GTE-RGD) | – | 170 | 19.9 to + 19.6 | PD-1 & Radiotherapy | Increase M1 macrophages, potentiated radiotherapy, eradicate tumor, enhance cytotoxic T-lymphocytes | [ | |
| Breast cancer (MCF-7) Renal cell carcinoma (A498)/Lung adenocarcinoma cell line (A549) | NF-κB and STAT3 pathways | TCCP-loaded mPEG-PLGA polymeric nanoparticles | – | 80 ± 1.5 | −11.8 ± − 0.8 | Photodynamic Therapy | Enhance polarization to M1 macrophages, induced immunogenic cell death, increase anti-tumor immunity of NK cells | [ |
Fig. 3A Schematic diagram of the synthesis of Cu@CuOx-ECL1i, Cu@CuOx-ECL1i-Gem, and 64Cu-radiolabeled nanoparticles. B STEM of Cu@CuOx-ECL1i. C Number-average hydrodynamic diameter of Cu@CuOx-ECL1i. D In vitro TA-PEG-Gem release profiles of Cu@CuOx-ECL1i-Gem under physiological and acidic conditions. E Tumor growth (F) and mouse survival, curves of KI-implanted mice after being treated with Cu@CuOx-ECL1i-Gem, Cu@CuOx-ECL1i, Cu@CuOx-Gem, gemcitabine (7 mg/kg body weight, IV), gemcitabine (100 mg/kg body weight, IP), and saline. First treatment with Cu@CuOx-ECL1i-Gem started at 10 days’ post-tumor implantation. The Cu@CuOx-Gem and second treatment began at 7 days’ post-tumor implantation. G H&E staining of the tumor slices from mice treated with Cu@CuOx-ECL1i-Gem, H gemcitabine (100 mg/kg body weight), and (I) saline [129]
Fig. 4A Mechanism of ZGd-NR-sensitized radiation for ICD induction and TAM depletion to synergistically boost antitumor immunity. B-K Immunogenic cell death induction and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment reprogramming. B Immunofluorescence of CT26 cells stained with anti-CRT antibody, scale bar = 20 μm. C Quantification of relative CRT mean fluorescence intensity (n = 5 biologically independent cells). D Detection of cytoplasmic HMGB1 by ELISA kit (n = 5 biologically independent cells). E Detection of ATP secretion by luciferin-based ATP assay kit (n = 5 biologically independent cells). F Regulation of tumor immunity by TAMs. G Flow cytometry analysis of TAMs (F4/80+ and CD11b+) in tumor tissues (n = 10 biologically independent animals). H Quantification of the levels of TGF-β1 (I), IL-10 (J), and VEGF-A in tumor tissues by ELISA kit, the tumor tissues were harvested 48 h after radiotherapy (0 or 6 Gy × 1, n = 8 biologically independent animals). K Flow cytometry analysis of DCs maturation (CD80+ and CD86+ gated on CD11c+) in tumor-draining lymph nodes; the TDLNs were harvested 5 days after radiotherapy (0 or 6 Gy × 1, n = 8). All data were shown as mean ± SD. N.S. represented non-significance, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 [141]
Fig. 5A Schematic illustration of PNP@R@M-T developed for efficient and selective reprogramming of M2-like macrophages and enhanced cancer immunotherapy via M2pep-mediated endocytosis. B-F Inhibitory effects of PNP@R@M-T on tumor growth in vivo. B Schematic illustration of induction and treatment of B16-OVA tumors in C57BL/6 mice. C Body weights of mice treated with PBS, R848, PNP@R, PNP@R@M-S, and PNP@R@M-T. D The survival rate was analyzed by the log-rank test (n = 10 mice). E B16-OVA tumor growth. n = 6 mice. F Macroscopic images of tumors taken 18 days after the initiation of treatment. Representative images from 6 mice per group are shown [28]
Fig. 6A A well-defined protein-drug conjugate of anti-MMR nanobody with TLR 7/8 agonist IMDQ. The anti-MMR Nb-IMDQ conjugate allows triggering of TLR7/8 specifically of MMR high macrophages, with aim to repolarize these cells into a pro-inflammatory anti-tumoral state, resulting in reduced tumor growth. B-G Anti (α)-MMR Nb-IMDQ therapy delays tumor progression and reprograms TAMs to more M1 phenotype. B LLC-OVA-bearing C57BL/6 mice were injected on day 5, 8, and 11 after cancer cell inoculation with appropriate treatment and mice were sacrificed on day 13. C LLC-OVA bearing mice received α-MMR Nb-IMDQ or HBSS, co-injected with fivefold molar excess of bivalent α-MMR Nb (Biv.MMR) and tumor volumes were measured on day 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 13 after cancer cell inoculation. D LLC-OVA bearing mice received α-MMR Nb-IMDQ or BCII10 Nb-IMDQ, co-injected with fivefold molar excess of Biv.MMR, tumor volumes were measured on day 6, 8, 11, 12, and 13 after cancer cell inoculation. p-values are calculated using a two-way ANOVA and significant differences are marked by *: p ≤ 0.05. E The percentage of MHC-II high and MHC-II low TAMs within hematopoietic (CD45+) cells of LLC-OVA tumors is shown as mean ± SEM of n = 4. MHC-II low TAMs were sorted from pools of tumor cell suspensions of each individual experimental group and qRT-PCR analysis was performed for technical triplicates to quantify expression of several M1 and M2-associated genes normalized to ribosomal protein S12 expression. F Percentage of CD4+ T cells, B cells, NK cells, NKT cells, and CD8+ T cells within the hematopoietic (CD45+) cells is shown as mean ± SEM of n = 4, p ≤ 0.05. G Percentage of effector (CD44 + CD62L−) cells within CD4+ T cells and Gzmb+ cells within CD8+ T cells is shown as mean ± SEM. p ≤ 0.05; **: p ≤ 0.01 [147]
Fig. 7A Schematic illustration depicting that the artificially reprogrammed HION@Macs target tumors through active chemotaxis and magnet guidance, produce inflammatory factors (such as TNF-α, NO and ROS) to suppress tumor, re-educate in situ M2 macrophages into pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype for synergistic cancer-specific therapy. B-E In vivo tumor targeting and anticancer effect of HION@Macs in BALB/c mice bearing subcutaneously inoculated 4 T1 breast tumor. B Representing IVIS images depicting bio distribution of Møs, M1 Møs, ION@Macs, HION@Macs, HION@Macs plus magnet guidance. The tumor site was designated by white dotted circle. C Tumor growth profiles recorded during 21 days. Tumor bearing BALB/c mice received a total of three injections on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th day (designated by red arrow) since tumor volume reached ≈80 mm3. The asterisks indicate the difference between the HION@Macs + magnet group, the HION@Macs group, and the PBS group. **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001. D Relative body weight of mice from different groups after treatments. E Representative image of tumor tissues harvested from different groups on the 21st day. Group a) HION@Macs + magnet; b) HION@Macs; c) ION@Macs; d) Mø; e) HION; f) PBS (Scale bar: 1 cm). Error bars represent mean ± S.D. (n = 6) [153]
Fig. 8A Schematic representation of mechanism by which NanoMnSor can serve as theranostic anticancer agent. Oxygen generated from NanoMnSor alleviates tumor hypoxia and modulates TME. (1) NanoMnSor treatment overcomes hypoxia-driven resistance to sorafenib and reduces cell proliferation in HCC. (2) NanoMnSor ameliorates immunosuppressive TME by reducing hypoxia-induced tumor infiltration of TAMs, promoting macrophage polarization toward immunostimulatory M1, increasing CD8+ cells, leading to improving efficacy of anti-PD-1 and whole-cell cancer vaccine. (3) NanoMnSor suppresses metastasis in HCC by attenuating hypoxia induced EMT. (4) NanoMnSor treatment enhances antiangiogenic effect of sorafenib via hypoxia alleviation. (5) NanoMnSor potentially serves as CA for tumor imaging because of acidic and redox-active TME-induced decomposition of MnO2 core into Mn2+ ions that enhances tumor contrast in T1-weighted MRI. (B-J) NanoMnSor ameliorates immunosuppression in TME and exerts synergistic anticancer effects when combined with immunotherapy in orthotopic HCC models. B Quantification of mean vessel density in tumors, determined by CD31 and quantitated as percentage of total tumor area at right (n = 6–9). CD31-positive ECs were stained red (C) Hypoxic tumor areas in orthotopic HCA-1 tumor models after different treatments (n = 5–7) are indicated by PIMO-positive staining (green). D Treatment with NanoMnSor decreased CD45+ F4/80+ TAMs in tumors (E) BMDMs were cultured under normoxic conditions for 24 h with or without NanoMn. Quantitative measures of hydroxyl radicals generated by macrophages after exposure to NanoMn at different doses, (n = 3–6). F NanoMn increased expression of M1-like genes and decreased M2- like genes in BMDMs (G) Treatment of NanoMn and NanoMnSor primed macrophages exhibit M1-like phenotype (n = 8–10) and increased cytotoxic CD8+ T cells (H) in tumors, as measured by flow cytometry (n = 9–17). I Increased apoptosis in tumors, indicated by TUNEL staining (green) at 24 days after NanoMnSor treatment. J Sizes of orthotopic HCA-1 tumors [156]
Fig. 9A Schematic illustration of redirecting macrophages by CuS NPs for adoptive transfer therapy of solid tumor. B-I Adoptive transfer of CuS-MΦ for enhanced activity against murine melanoma. B Treatment regimen. i.t., Intratumoral injection. C Individual B16F10 tumor growth curves following the treatment with Un-MΦ, PLGA-MΦ, Au-MΦ, CuS-MΦ, CuS NPs alone, or Un-MΦ plus CuS NPs (n = 10). Control, mice without treatment. For CuS NPs alone group or Un-MΦ plus CuS NPs group, injection dose of CuS NPs was 0.3 μg of Cu, which was equivalent to that of 2 × 106 of CuS-MΦ. D-F Kaplan-Meier survival curves of selected compared groups, log-rank analysis (n = 10). G Quantitative analysis of classic macrophages (M1, CD11b + F4/80 + CD206–) versus alternative macrophages (M2, CD11b + F4/80 + CD206+) in tumor on day 20. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test (n = 5). H The expression of CD206 in either the transferred (F4/80 + DiD+) or tumor-associated (F4/80 + DiD–) macrophages analyzed on the 3rd day after i.t. transfer of the DiD-labeled CuS-MΦ or Un-MΦ to mice bearing B16F10 tumor, normalized by Control group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test (n = 5–6). I The population of immune cells in the tumor at day 20 including CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, granzyme B-positive CD8+ T cells (CD8 + GranB+), CTLs (CD8 + IFN-γ+), activated DCs (CD11c + CD86+), Treg cells (CD4 + CD25 + Foxp3+), as well as CD11b + Gr-1+ myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) subsets including CD11b + Gr-1high granulocytic MDSCs (G-MDSCs) and CD11b + Gr-1int monocytic MDSCs (M-MDSCs). One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test (n = 5). Data are expressed as mean ± s.e.m. [157]
Fig. 10A Scheme 1 a Preparation of M1/SLNP. b Schematic illustration of M1/SLNP for tumor targeting delivery to enhance the therapeutic efficiency of HCC, in which dual functional M1-type macrophages as targeting delivery vessel and therapeutic tool. (B-H) M1/SLNP enhanced antitumor efficacy in vitro and in vivo. B Cell viability of M1/SLNP in Hepa1–6 cells in vitro. C in vivo tumor volume changes. D Photographs of tumors. E Tumor weights (F) Body weight changes from Hepa1–6-bearing mice treated with NS, M, M1, free SF, SLNP, M/SLNP, and M1/SLNP via the tail vein. H H&E and Ki67 results of tumor tissues. Magnification: H&E 200×, Ki67 200×. +++p [158].
Fig. 11Dual blockade of CCL2 and CCL5 via LNP-mediated mRNA delivery of BisCCL2/5i polarizes macrophage M1 phenotype and reduces the immunosuppression in the TME. A Schematic of the mRNA-loaded LNPs. B In vivo transfection of Luc mRNA-LNPs after repeated administration (i.v., every 4 days, in total 3 doses). The luciferase was injected into mice 6 h post administration of Luc mRNA-LNPs, followed by measuring luc bioluminescence signal using IVIS imaging, n = 3. C The quantification of mCherry-positive cells expressed in murine orthotopic HCC tumor tissue 6 h after injection of mCherry mRNA-LNPs (mCherry mRNA: 0.5 mg kg − 1). mRNA is mainly expressed in monocytes (CD45 + CD11b+) and tumor cells (Hepa1–6-GFP+) (n = 8). D BisCCL2/5i expression in different organs 6 h after each administration of BisCCL2/5i mRNA-LNPs (mRNA: 1 mg kg − 1, i.v., 3 days apart), n = 6. The BisCCL2/5i mRNA was mainly expressed in liver tissue and repeated administration resulted in comparable protein level. E, F mRNA expression of classic M1 (E) and M2 (F) markers in HCC tumor tissues 48 h after systemic administration of formulated LNPs as a dose corresponding to 1 mg kg − 1 mRNA (Mock, HcRed mRNA). Each data point is an individual sample (n = 9); one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. Change of the immunocellular composition in HCC TME 48 h following Mock mRNA-LNPs and BisCCL2/5i mRNA-LNPs treatments (mRNA: 1 mg kg − 1), measured by flow cytometry (n = 4; unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test). G, H The percentage and cell counts of macrophages (G) and their M2 subtype (H) in total immune cells. I, J Representative flow dots of M1- and M2-phenotype macrophages (I) and ratio of M1/M2 (J). MΦ, macrophages (CD45 + CD11b + CD11c − Ly6C − Ly6G − F4/80+); M2, M2-phenotype macrophages (CD206+). Data are represented as the mean ± s.d. [164]
Fig. 12Effective anti-tumor and tumor microenvironment remodeling after treatment with different nano-complexes in the B16 tumor model. A Schematic illustration of the time sequence of administration of nano-complex to tumor-bearing mice. B Tumor volume from mice that received iv infusion containing different nano-complexes. C Tumor inhibition fractions after receiving iv infusion of various nano-complexes formulations. D Evidence of necrosis in tumors after treatment with different nano-complexes by hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. E Caspase-3 analysis of tumor tissue indicating apoptotic cells by immunofluorescence in frozen tumor sections. F The number of vessels per image field is identified by CD31 label after treatment with different nano-complexes. G VEGF labeled by immunofluorescence indicates the quality of pro-angiogenesis secretion per image field after treatment with different nano-complexes. The data were analyzed by automatic multispectral imaging system (PerkinElmer Vectra II). Scale bar: 100 μm. Three mice were analyzed in every group (n = 3), and one representative image per group is displayed. Data are the mean ± SEM and representative of three independent experiments. Differences between two groups were tested using an unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t-test. Differences among multiple groups were tested with one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison. Significant differences between groups are expressed as follows: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, or ***P < 0.001 [169]
Fig. 13A Schematic illustration of the preparation of P-NPs and TAM repolarization effect of P-NPs for immune induced anticancer therapy. B Tumor volume in different groups of 4 T1 tumor-bearing mice within 14 days. **p < 0.01. C Representative images of tumor tissues were collected from different groups on the 14th day. D Body weights of mice after different treatments. E Cell viabilities of 4 T1 cancer cells treated with different concentrations of PPV-PSMA-NPs with or without irradiation (30 min, 25 mM cm− 2). F Representative immunofluorescence staining images for CD80 (red), iNOS (red), TNFα (red), CD206 (green) and CD163 (green), as well as immunofluorescence staining observation of TUNEL staining (green) of tumor sections from different groups [172]
Fig. 14A Schematic diagram shows the facile synthesis of triangle-shaped Te nanostar (GTe-RGD) and its combination with checkpoint blocking as an excellent radio sensitizer for boosting immunotherapy, which may provide reasonable evidence of the synergistic effect of RT and immunotherapy. (B-S) In Vivo GTe-RGD-Enhanced RT for Boosting Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapy. B Schematic diagram of our experiments and the overall survival curves of mice with different treatments (experimental design to evaluate the enhanced cancer RT combined with anti-PD-1 using a bilateral subcutaneous 4 T1 tumor model). Tumors on the right legs were referred to as “primary tumors” and received X-ray treatment, while left tumors were called “distant tumors” and did not undergo RT. Average growth of (C) primary tumors and (D) distant tumors in mice receiving various treatments. E and F Body weight and overall Kaplan-Meier survival curves of 4 T1 tumor-bearing mice in different groups after various treatments. G and H–N Flow-cytometry analysis of immune cells including CD8+ T cells, CD4+ T cells, DCs, and M2 phenotype macrophages in tumor and spleen tissues (n = 5 per group). S Immunofluorescence analysis of CD8 antibody (green, CD8+ T cells) and DAPI (blue, cell nuclei) in primary and distant tumor tissues. (O) Mechanism of anticancer immune responses induced by GTe-RGD-based RT in combination with checkpoint blockade. P and Q Levels of IL-2 and IFN-g secreted by T lymphocytes stimulated with different proportions of dead cancer cells in different treatment groups. R Serum cytokine concentrations in mice after different treatments. All data are presented as mean G SD (n = 5). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 [174]
Fig. 15A Schematic illustration of the tumor-associated-macrophage-membrane-coated up conversion nanoparticles for improved photodynamic immunotherapy. B-J In vivo antitumor therapeutic effects. B Schematic illustration of 4 T1 tumor model establishment and the therapeutic regimen. C Tumor growth curves for primary tumor and distant tumor. D Tumor weight for primary tumor. E Tumor weight for distant tumor. F Histological analysis of H&E staining for primary and distant tumor. G Photographs show representative external views of lung with the histological analysis of H&E staining. Arrows indicate focal tumor nodules on lung surfaces. Scale bar = 100 μm. (H, I) Graphs show the quantification of metastatic foci (H) and lesion area (I) in the different treatment groups from part f. J The survival curve of tumor-bearing mice calculated by Kaplan−Meier estimate. Data are means ± SD. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. NS, no significance. n = 6/group [203]