Lin Tian1,2, Anhua Lei1,2, Tianyu Tan1,2, Mengmeng Zhu1,2, Li Zhang1,2, Haibo Mou3, Jin Zhang1,2,4. 1. Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China. 2. Institute of Hematology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Shulan (Hangzhou) Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang Shuren University, Shulan International Medical College, Hangzhou, China. 4. Zhejiang Laboratory for Systems & Precision Medicine, Zhejiang University Medical Center, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cells of the immune system can inhibit tumor growth and progression; however, immune cells can also promote tumor cell growth, survival, and angiogenesis as a result of the immunosuppressive microenvironments. In the last decade, a growing number of new therapeutic strategies focused on reversing the immunosuppressive status of tumor microenvironments (TMEs), to reprogram the TME to be normal, and to further activate the antitumor functions of immune cells. Most of the "hot tumors" are encompassed with M2 macrophages promoting tumor growth, and the accumulation of M2 macrophages into tumor islets leads to poor prognosis in a wide variety of tumors. SUMMARY: Therefore, how to uncover more immunosuppressive signals and to reverse the M2 tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) to M1-type macrophages is essential for reversing the immunosuppressive state. Except for reeducation of TAMs in the cancer immunotherapy, macrophages as central effectors and regulators of the innate immune system have the capacity of phagocytosis and immune modulation in macrophage-based cell therapies. KEY MESSAGES: We review the current macrophage-based cell therapies that use genetic engineering to augment macrophage functionalities with antitumor activity for the application of novel genetically engineered immune cell therapeutics. A combination of TAM reeducation and macrophage-based cell strategy may bring us closer to achieving the original goals of curing cancer. In this review, we describe the characteristics, immune status, and tumor immunotherapy strategies of macrophages to provide clues and evidences for future macrophage-based immune cell therapies.
BACKGROUND: Cells of the immune system can inhibit tumor growth and progression; however, immune cells can also promote tumor cell growth, survival, and angiogenesis as a result of the immunosuppressive microenvironments. In the last decade, a growing number of new therapeutic strategies focused on reversing the immunosuppressive status of tumor microenvironments (TMEs), to reprogram the TME to be normal, and to further activate the antitumor functions of immune cells. Most of the "hot tumors" are encompassed with M2 macrophages promoting tumor growth, and the accumulation of M2 macrophages into tumor islets leads to poor prognosis in a wide variety of tumors. SUMMARY: Therefore, how to uncover more immunosuppressive signals and to reverse the M2 tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) to M1-type macrophages is essential for reversing the immunosuppressive state. Except for reeducation of TAMs in the cancer immunotherapy, macrophages as central effectors and regulators of the innate immune system have the capacity of phagocytosis and immune modulation in macrophage-based cell therapies. KEY MESSAGES: We review the current macrophage-based cell therapies that use genetic engineering to augment macrophage functionalities with antitumor activity for the application of novel genetically engineered immune cell therapeutics. A combination of TAM reeducation and macrophage-based cell strategy may bring us closer to achieving the original goals of curing cancer. In this review, we describe the characteristics, immune status, and tumor immunotherapy strategies of macrophages to provide clues and evidences for future macrophage-based immune cell therapies.
Authors: Tessa Gargett; Wenbo Yu; Gianpietro Dotti; Eric S Yvon; Susan N Christo; John D Hayball; Ian D Lewis; Malcolm K Brenner; Michael P Brown Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 11.454
Authors: R Andreesen; C Scheibenbogen; W Brugger; S Krause; H G Meerpohl; H G Leser; H Engler; G W Löhr Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1990-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Ruth A Franklin; Will Liao; Abira Sarkar; Myoungjoo V Kim; Michael R Bivona; Kang Liu; Eric G Pamer; Ming O Li Journal: Science Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: G Comito; E Giannoni; C P Segura; P Barcellos-de-Souza; M R Raspollini; G Baroni; M Lanciotti; S Serni; P Chiarugi Journal: Oncogene Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: D G Maloney; T M Liles; D K Czerwinski; C Waldichuk; J Rosenberg; A Grillo-Lopez; R Levy Journal: Blood Date: 1994-10-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Roberta Mazzieri; Ferdinando Pucci; Davide Moi; Erika Zonari; Anna Ranghetti; Alvise Berti; Letterio S Politi; Bernhard Gentner; Jeffrey L Brown; Luigi Naldini; Michele De Palma Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Peter J Murray; Judith E Allen; Subhra K Biswas; Edward A Fisher; Derek W Gilroy; Sergij Goerdt; Siamon Gordon; John A Hamilton; Lionel B Ivashkiv; Toby Lawrence; Massimo Locati; Alberto Mantovani; Fernando O Martinez; Jean-Louis Mege; David M Mosser; Gioacchino Natoli; Jeroen P Saeij; Joachim L Schultze; Kari Ann Shirey; Antonio Sica; Jill Suttles; Irina Udalova; Jo A van Ginderachter; Stefanie N Vogel; Thomas A Wynn Journal: Immunity Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Won Chan Hwang; Doona Song; Hyesung Lee; Changmok Oh; Seong Hun Lim; Hyeon Jeong Bae; Nam Doo Kim; Gyoonhee Han; Do Sik Min Journal: Exp Mol Med Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 12.153
Authors: Chilam Chan; Marta Lustig; Niklas Baumann; Thomas Valerius; Geert van Tetering; Jeanette H W Leusen Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-07-05 Impact factor: 8.786