Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Pyroptosis, metabolism, and tumor immune microenvironment

Tiantian Du, Jie Gao, Peilong Li and 6 more

Clinical and Translational Medicine · 2021 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1002/ctm2.492

Abstract

In response to a wide range of stimulations, host cells activate pyroptosis, a kind of inflammatory cell death which is provoked by the cytosolic sensing of danger signals and pathogen infection. In manipulating the cleavage of gasdermins (GSDMs), researchers have found that GSDM proteins serve as the real executors and the deterministic players in fate decisions of pyroptotic cells. Whether inflammatory characteristics induced by pyroptosis could cause damage the host or improve immune activity is largely dependent on the context, timing, and response degree. Here, we systematically review current points involved in regulatory mechanisms and the multidimensional roles of pyroptosis in several metabolic diseases and the tumor microenvironment. Targeting pyroptosis may reveal potential therapeutic avenues.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

protein kinase B

auditory neuropath spectrum disorder

apoptosis‐associated speck‐like protein containing a CARD

adenosine triphosphate

chimeric antigen receptor

Cathepsin G

extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

cyclic GMP‐AMP synthase

colorectal cancer

cytokine‐release syndrome

C‐terminal

decitabine

diacylglycerol

damage‐associated molecular patterns

dendritic cells

docosahexaenoic acid

diabetic nephropathy

double‐stranded DNA

endothelial cells

neutrophil elastase

endoplasmic reticulum

extracellular signal‐regulated kinase

endosomal sorting complexes required for transport

geranylgeranoic acid

gasdemin D

gasdemin E

gsdermins

granzyme A

granzyme B

Homocysteine

human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

high‐fat diet

high‐glucose

high‐mobility group box 1

human umbilical vein endothelial cells

inflammatory cell death

immune checkpoint inhibitor

interferon‐gamma

IFN regulatory transcription factor‐2

c‐Jun N‐terminal kinase

loss‐of‐function

lysophosphatidylcholine

lipopolysaccharide

lung adenocarcinoma

monocyte‐derived macrophages

melanoma‐derived leucine zipper extranuclear factor

mitochondrial DNA

sodium butyrate

non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease

nuclear factor of activated T‑cells, cytoplasmic 1

nuclear factor kappa B

natural killer

N‐terminal domain

oleic acid

oxidized low‐density lipoprotein

P2 × 7 receptor

palmitic acid

programmed death‐ligand 1

prostaglandin E2

pattern recognition receptors

receptor‐interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1

reactive oxygen species

sphingosine‐1‐phosphate

S1P receptor 2

spiral ganglion neurons

Sirtuin1

sphingomyelin

sphingomyelin synthases

systemic sclerosis

signal transducer and activator of transcription 3

Type 1 and 2 diabetes

type‐3 secretion system

Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) toxin B

tet methylcytosine dioxygenase

tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes

toll‐like receptor 4

trimethylamine N‐oxide

tumor microenvironment

tumor necrosis factor alpha

ubiquinol cytochrome c reductase core protein I

vascular smooth muscle cells

yes‐associated protein

INTRODUCTION

In 1992, the initial phenomenon of pyroptosis was first discovered; this is a novel type of suicide in macrophages infected by Shigella flexneri, a type of gram‐negative bacterial pathogen. Then, in 2001, pro‐inflammatory programmed cell death termed “pyroptosis” was defined, which distinguishes it from apoptosis. However, the molecular mechanism of pyroptosis is still not clear; caspase‐1 was considered the critical player for a long time until the cleavage of GSDMD was found. Since then, pyroptosis has been characterized by GSDM‐mediated membrane pore‐formation and cytokine release. Surprisingly, pyroptosis does not always lead to lytic cell death; in some contexts, there is a damage impair system named endosomal sorting complexes required for transport (ESCRT), which could eliminate the pores of gasdermins (GSDMs) and protect the plasma membrane from rupture. The repair system develops a new understanding for the mechanism of pyroptosis. With further research into inflammatory cell death (ICD), pyroptosis was shown to be a two‐sided sword in different contexts. On the one hand, moderate pyroptosis facilitates cells to maintain homeostasis, improve immune activity, and effectively clear damage and pathogens to protect the host,,,, which benefits antitumor immunotherapy and nanodrug researches., On the other hand, excessive inflammation caused by pyroptosis is unfavorable to the host and may aggravate disease development, especially tumor progression, which releases various inflammatory factors and forms an inflammatory immune microenvironment, (Table 1).

THE MECHANISM OF THE PYROPTOSIS PATHWAY

Cell death is a complex and important regulatory network, which involves the immune system. The pyroptosis pathway is linked to both the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system, which contains varieties of molecules. Generally, gasdemin family members are core among the pyroptosis pathway, which can be cleaved and activated by inflammatory caspases (caspase‐1, caspase‐4, caspase‐5, caspase‐11), apoptosis‐related caspases (caspase‐3, caspase‐6, caspase‐8), and granzymes, especially granzyme A (GZMA) and granzyme B (GZMB).,,,,,,,,, Then, large amounts of cytokines and alarmins are released from the formed pores which exert effects on the downstream pathway., Another important player is the inflammasome, although this is not the essential member in the pyroptosis pathway.,, Except for the above major components, there are also a lot of regulators working on each node of the pathway.,, (Figure 1)

Inflammasomes and caspase‐1

The inflammasomes are large multiprotein complexes which usually consist of pattern recognition receptors (PRRs), inflammatory caspases (caspase‐1) and sometimes an adaptor protein, like apoptosis‐associated speck‐like protein containing a CARD (ASC).,, Pyroptosis mediated by the inflammasomes is commonly categorized as the canonical caspase‐1‐dependent inflammasome pathway. Generally, as sensors to various dangers, the PRRs (NLRP1, NLRP3, NLRC4, NLRP6, NLRP7, NLRP9b, NLRP12, pyrin, and AIM2) first recognize a variety of stimulates, then activate pro‐caspase‐1 cleavage and ASC recruitment to assemble inflammasomes.,, Activated caspase‐1 can cleave pyroptosis executor gasdemin D (GSDMD) proteins (Asp275 site) to free the N‐terminal (NT) domain and generate nonselective pores on the cell membrane.,,, At the same time, caspase‐1 cleaves and activates the precursors of IL‐1β and IL‐18 to become mature IL‐1β and IL‐18. The latter together with other cellular contents then is released from the pores, leading to cell pyroptosis.,, In the case of NLRP3, the most common PRRs can be activated by a wide range of factors, including viruses, bacterial toxins, fungi, parasite, nucleic acids, crystalline substrates, some drugs, silica particles, long‐chain saturated fatty acids, reactive oxygen species (ROS) and various endogenous damage signals.,,, Notably, there is a two‐step procedure for NLRP3 inflammasome activation, including the priming step by various activators and the activating step through K+/Ca2+ efflux, mitochondria and lysosome‐related damages and etc. Also, NLRP1 responds to the Bacillus anthracis lethal toxin, Toxoplasma gondii, which activates assembly of the NLRP1 inflammasome and induces pyroptosis.,, Various NLR family apoptosis inhibitory protein (NAIP) proteins are essential for activation of the NLRC4 inflammasome, and human NAIPs directly link with flagellin and the type‐3 secretion system (T3SS) proteins. Comparably, NAIPs in mice can recognize the needle and inner rods of T3SS and flagellin.,,, Then, NAIPs recruit NLRC4 and induce its oligomerization to form the NLRC4 inflammasome., Non‐NLRs, like AIM2, are activated by cytosolic double‐stranded DNA.,,,, Normally, pyrin is stimulated by the inactivation of small GTPase in the Rho family. For the Rho‐glucosylation activity of Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) toxin B (TcdB), Clostridium botulinum ADP‐ribosylating C3 toxin, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus VopS, some specific mutations like S208A and S242R, as well as the Yersinia pestis GTPase‐activating protein (YopE) and cysteine protease (YopT) can all activate the pyrin inflammasome.,,,, Other inflammasomes have been reviewed by others and not listed here.

Caspase‐4/5/11

In contrast, the non‐canonical inflammasome pathway is independent of inflammasomes and directly activated by bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to cleave precursors of human caspase‐4, caspase‐5, and mouse caspase‐11.,,,, Then, the activated caspases can cleave GSDMs to rupture the plasma membrane, promote K+ efflux, and induce pyroptosis., Sometimes, the procedure is also linked to activation of the NLRP3/caspase‐1 pathway, which ultimately promotes the maturation and release of IL‐1β and IL‐18, other than caspase‐4/5/11.,,, Besides, the pore formation does not always target the cytoplasmic membrane, and other membranes inside the cell, especially the mitochondrial membrane, are also involved. During inflammatory lung injury, the LPS‐mediated capspase‐11/GSDMD‐NT pathway can induce the formation of mitochondrial pores and the release of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) into endothelial cells (ECs). Then, the mtDNA activates the cyclic GMP‐AMP synthase/yes‐associated protein signaling pathway to damage endothelial regeneration.

Apoptotic caspases

In addition to inflammatory caspases (caspase‐1, caspase‐4, caspase‐5, caspase‐11), apoptosis‐related caspases (caspase‐3, caspase‐6, caspase‐8) are also involved in pyroptosis. Caspase‐3 can trigger gasdemin E (GSDME)‐dependent pyroptosis with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF‐α) treatment, chemotherapy drugs, and the high‐expression of GSDME., The effector protein YopJ from Yersinia can activate the RIPK1/caspase‐8‐dependent GSDMD cleavage, resulting in pyroptotic cell death.,,, Under hypoxia, macrophage‐derived TNF‐α can induce pyroptosis through the caspase‐8/ gasdemin C (GSDMC) pathway, in a process which requires nuclear programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1). Furthermore, it is reported that antibiotic chemotherapy drugs also induce caspase‐8/GSDMC‐mediated pyroptosis in breast cancer. Generally, LPS usually induces caspase‐4/5/11‐related pyroptosis; however, a recent report has shown caspase‐8‐mediated pyroptosis in LPS‐activated macrophages. The process could be blocked by long isoform cFLIPL via promoting complex II formation. Recently, another apoptotic caspase, caspase‐6, was found to regulate the pyroptosis pathway by enhancing the interaction between receptor‐interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 3 and Z‐DNA‐binding protein 1, therefore, activating NLRP3/caspase‐1‐mediated pyroptotic signaling. Although there is no direct evidence that caspase‐9 can cleave GSDMs, it can cleave and activate caspase‐3, thus linking with GSDME indirectly. The roles of other caspases in pyroptosis pathway may be revealed by further and more in‐depth studies.

Other enzymes

Moreover, GSDMs are cleaved beyond different caspases. Granzyme family members including GZMA and GZMB are also proved to activate GSDM B (GSDMB) and GSDME, respectively., Then, in neutrophils and monocytes, neutrophil elastase (ELANE) and Cathepsin G (CatG) cleave GSDMD to generate active GSDMD‐NT fragments and induce pyroptosis.,

GSDM: The executors of pyroptosis

GSDMs have been identified as the executors of pyroptosis, which are protein families encoded by six paralogous genes in humans: GSDM A (GSDMA), GSDM B (GSDMB), GSDMC, GSDMD, GSDME (also known as DFNA5), and DFNB59 (also known as PJVK). As for mice, they have three Gsdma genes (Gsdma1, Gsdma2, and Gsdma3), four Gsdmc genes (Gsdmc1, Gsdmc2, Gsdmc3, and Gsdmc4), one Gsdmd gene, and one Gsdme gene; however, they lack a Gsdmb gene. Their sequences share about 45% homology, with the exception of DFNB59. GSMDs A‐E all have two domains, an NT and a C‐terminal (CT) domain, which are capable of binding with each other by a flexible linker, while DFNB59 only possesses the NT domain. The CT domain restricts activation of the NT domain to maintain an auto‐inhibition status when the GSDM A‐E proteins keep the full‐length form. The NT domains will be activated after being separated from the CT domains; they polymerize and bind to acidic phospholipids in the inner membranes of the cells, form pores which serve as channels, releasing cytokines (e.g., IL‐1β, IL‐18), alarmins (e.g., adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and high‐mobility group box 1 (HMGB1)). Chemokines are released from pyroptotic cells into the extracellular space, damaging cell membrane integrity, leading to pyroptotic cell death and inducing inflammation in the tissues, after which innate or adaptive immune responses are activated to handle the emergencies (infection or damage). A pore formation model of the GSDM family was constructed using the crystal structure analysis for full‐length of mouse GSDMA3 and cryo‐electron microscopy structure analysis of the GSDMA3‐NT pore, as the function of GSDM proteins generally depends on their structural conformation.

Lytic cell death does not always occur after pore formation caused by GSDMs, and cell membrane repair can also be initiated in some surviving cells by recruiting the ESCRT complex to the damaged membrane region. The ESCRT‐III system negatively regulates the pyroptosis signaling pathway and may provide new insights into the general cellular survival and self‐repair mechanisms during ICD., (Figure 2) (Table 2).

GSDMA

GSDMA is the first GSDM family member, which was originally named GSDM1; its gene is located on human chromosome 17q21.1, while the Gsdma1, Gsdma2, and Gsdma3 genes are clustered on mouse chromosome 11D. GSDMA is primarily detected in the upper gastrointestinal tract, epithelium of the skin, and the lung,, while it is generally silenced in gastric cancer cells. GSDMA is upregulated by transforming growth factor‐beta to induce apoptosis in pit cells of the gastric epithelium.

The molecular mechanism of GSDMA is not well known until now. It may play roles in stress responses due to its expression in the suprabasal layer, differentiating cells and the epidermis outside the tumor. Asthma‐associated polymorphisms at the locus 17q12‐21 mediate the expression and methylation of the GSDMA gene in CD4+ T cells. In turn, the GSDMA polymorphism (rs3859192 on chr17q21) is strongly linked with asthma susceptibility and intermediate phenotypes in asthma., Also, the GSDMA variant (rs3894194) also modulates systemic sclerosis (SSc) susceptibility in monocyte‐derived macrophages (MDMs).

Among the three Gsdma genes in mice, mutations of Gsdma3 are hotspots, which not only cause alopecia during the formation of hair follicle‐associated sebaceous glands, as well as the transition from catagen to telogen at the final period of hair follicle morphogenesis, but display obvious phenotypes in epidermal hyperplasia and progressive hair loss. Gain‐of‐function mutations in the CT domains of GSDMA3 reveal the function of its NT fragments. The GSDMA3 Y344H mutant protein and NT domain induce autophagy with mitochondria and ROS generation., GSDMA3 regulates mitochondrial homeostasis by impinging on the mitochondria via heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), inducing oxidative stress and mitochondrial permeability transition.

GSDMB

GSDMB is found on human chromosome 17q21.1, while no Gsdmb gene has been identified in mice. Human GSDMB has six isoforms (Q8TAX9, UniProt). There are differences in the length and sequence of the linkers between the CT and NT domains of isoforms 1–4 and isoform 6, whereas there is no NT domain in isoform 5. GSDMB is increasingly expressed in multiple tissues, especially the upper gastrointestinal epithelium, liver and colon epithelium, airway epithelial cells, neuroendocrine cells, and immune cells (T cells).,,

Highly expressed GSDMB is also linked to tumor aggressiveness in several types of cancers, such as gastric, hepatic, colon, and cervical cancer,,, as well human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)‐positive breast cancer with poor prognosis,,,, and pancreatic cancer susceptibility (false discovery rate ≤ 0.05), implying the role of GSDMB as an oncogene and potential attractive therapeutic target in metastasis, poor prognosis, and drug resistance to anti‐HER2 therapy.

Interferon‐gamma (IFN‐γ) upregulates the expression of GSDMB, lymphocyte‐derived GZMA cleave GSDMB between the CT and NT linkers at the Lys244 site, leading to pyroptosis in GSDMB‐positive cells. Caspase‐1 cleaves GSDMB at the aspartate 236 (D236) position, inducing pyroptosis in airway epithelial cells. Like GSDMD, GSDMB also could be cleaved by apoptotic caspase‐3, 6, 7 within the NT domain, therefore, losing pyroptotic ability, indicating the dependence of GSDM function on specific structural forms.

Genome‐wide sequencing and functional genes indicate that single nucleotide polymorphisms of GSDMB are related to the increased susceptibility of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, as well as asthma exacerbations and antiviral pathways.,, Analogous to GSDMA, GSDMB is also linked to childhood‐onset asthma, while GSDMB (rs9303277) in CD4+ T cells is an SSc‐associated susceptibility locus. In addition, GSDMB is included in the Type 1 and 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D) islet expression quantitative trait loci interaction network.

GSDMC

GSDMC is originally isolated from melanoma cells, so it is known as a melanoma‐derived leucine zipper extranuclear factor (MLZE), whose gene is located on human chromosome 8q24.21. The homolog of GSDMC in mice is composed of four members, Gsdmc 1, Gsdmc 2, Gsdmc 3, and Gsdmc 4, which are clustered on mouse chromosome 15 (15D1). The GSDMC is preferentially found in the epithelium of the gastrointestinal tract and skin, spleen, and metastatic melanoma cells, as well as lung and colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues.,

Ultraviolet irradiation can induce the expression of GSDMC mediated by the calcium/calcineurin/nuclear factor of activated T‐cells, the cytoplasmic 1 (NFATc1) pathway and the extracellular signal‐regulated kinase (ERK)/c‐Jun N‐terminal kinase (JNK)/matrix metalloproteinase 1 pathway in human skin keratinocytes., Genome‐wide association studies show that GSDMC is associated with chronic back pain, Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae (M. hyo) Ab variations in pigs, lumbar spinal stenosis, multi‐type methylation in subchondral bone cartilage and osteoarthritis‐related cartilage,, sciatica derived from lumbar disc herniation, and monocyte counts.

GSDMC functions as an oncogene, mediating varieties of progressive processes involving types of tumors. GSDMC may serve as a significant therapeutic target in CRC patients as it promotes tumor cell proliferation in CRC by reducing activation of the transforming growth factor β receptor type II. GSDMC is hypomethylated in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) cells, and its upregulation implies poor prognosis in LUAD patients. Also, GSDMC is linked to metastasis in malignant melanoma,, and the high expression of GSDMC is related to the poor survival of breast cancer. Upon hypoxia, the GSDMC gene is transcriptionally activated for nPD‐L1/p‐Y705‐signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) complex binding to the STAT3‐binding site in the promoter region of GSDMC. Experiments in vivo have shown that GSDMC, along with nuclear PD‐L1 and caspase‐8, is required in the tumor necrosis induced by TNF‐α which are derived from macrophages. GSDMC variants at the chromosome 8q24 locus also modulate genetic risk to several cancers, including prostate cancer., However, GSDMC, whose expression is suppressed, can inhibit the proliferation of gastric and esophageal cancer cells. It is suggested that GSDMC has the potential to serve as a tumor suppressor. Therefore, the roles of GSDMC might serve as an organ‐specific feature, and its function in carcinogenesis is not very clear, virtually.

GSDMD

GSDMD is located on human chromosome 8q24.3, while Gsdmd is found on mouse chromosome 15D3‐E1. GSDMD is first identified as the efficient substrate of inflammatory caspases among the GSDM family members. In 2015, GSDMD was shown to be the real executor of inflammasome‐induced pyroptosis., Since the key turning point, the functional role and molecular features have been gradually revealed. GSDMD is expressed in various cells, including the gastrointestinal epithelium, placenta, and immune cells, especially macrophages and dendritic cells (DCs), as well as cancers, such as esophageal and gastric cancer, melanoma, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, salivary gland tumor, and Jurkat T, and Ramos B cancer cell lines.,,,

Although GSDMD is the first effector protein to be found in pyroptosis and has been studied the most frequently, the perspicuous regulatory mechanism is not well known. IFN regulatory transcription factor‐2 (IRF2) is found to transcriptionally regulate GSDMD expression. Given that IRF2 is reported as a transcription factor which regulates IFN and IFN‐inducible genes, and the down‐regulation of IRF2 in CRC cells is associated with immune suppression and immunotherapy resistance, the IRF2‐GSDMD regulatory axis may link GSDMD to immune activity in the tumor microenvironment (TME).

GSDMD is found to be cleaved by inflammasome‐activated caspase‐1 and LPS‐activated caspase‐4/5/11. However, the way in which GSDMD is recognized specifically by these caspases is not clear. Until recently, crystal structural analysis of caspase‐1‐GSDMD‐C complex and caspase‐4/11‐GSDMD‐C complex has revealed the specific recognition mode. In contrast to other GSDM members, there have been no specific disease‐related mutants of GSDMD reported, which implies that GSDMD plays a broad‐spectrum role in hosts.

The pyroptosis pathway mediated by GSDMD can also be limited in different ways. For example, disulfiram is reported to specifically inhibit pore formation by modification at the Cys191/Cys192 sites of GSDMD in human/mouse, but this does not disturb the processing of IL‐1β and GSDMD, thereby blocking IL‐1β release and GSDMD‐mediated pyroptosis. In contrast, mafenide is reported to prevent the cleavage of GSDMD by binding to the Asp275 site of GSDMD directly, reducing NT fragments and weakening pyroptosis. Mouse models have showed that GSDMD exerts the effect in many inflammatory disorders, such as endotoxemia and sepsis, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, Familial Mediterranean Fever, and macular degeneration and neonatal onset multisystem inflammatory disease.,,,,

GSDME/DFNA5

GSDME, also known as DFNA5, is located on human chromosome 7p15.3, while Gsdme, also known as Dfna5, is found on mouse chromosome 6B2.3. GSDME mutation was first identified to cause an autosomal dominant hearing impairment.,, GSDME is mostly expressed in the cochlea, placenta, brain, female reproductive tract (especially the placenta), kidney, heart, and muscle. In contrast to non‐tumoral tissues, expression of GSDME is limited in most cancers including gastric cancer, melanoma, CRC, invasive breast cancer, and other human cancers., GSDME suppression in cancer cells is most dependent on the DNA methylation of the GSDME promoter.,, The inactivation of GSDME conforms to the clinical and animal results that lower the expression of GSDME and is associated with a poor 5‐year survival and enhanced metastases in breast cancer.,, All of this suggests that GSDME might be a tumor suppressor and worth in‐depth exploration. However, there are also various loss‐of‐function (LOF) mutations of GSDMD in different cancers, although this is less common than the epigenetic suppression of GSDME. Thus, LOF mutations together with the epigenetic suppression of GSDME might be two arch strategies developed by cancer cells to escape GSDME‐mediated tumor suppression.,, The transcription of GSDME may be regulated by p53, which is also inactivated in many cancer cells, as virtually nothing is known about the exact regulatory details. Generally, caspase‐3 is reported to specifically cleave GSDME, leading to GSDME‐mediated pyroptotic cell death when viral infection or chemotherapy drugs are used. Given that GSDME is also expressed in normal cells and tissues, chemotherapy drug‐induced pyroptosis might also cause damage to the host,,, while 2‐bromopalmitate might inhibit chemotherapy‐induced pyroptosis.

DFNB59/PJVK

DFNB59, also known as Pejvakin (PJVK), is located on human chromosome 2q31.2 and comprises seven exons, while Dfnb59, also known as Pjvk is found on mouse chromosome 2C3. PJVK encoded by DFNB59, is a protein (352 residues) which is distantly related to other GSDM protein family members., PJVK expression has been found in outer hair cells, as well as supporting cells, hair cells, and cell bodies of spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs) in the inner ear., PJVK is also critical for protection of the architecture of stereocilia and the function of hair cells and SGNs.,,,,,

DFNB59, the same as its paralog DFNA5, is also reported to be associated with progressive hearing loss. DFNB59 is first identified as the causal gene of autosomal recessive deafness, which also plays key role during the signal transmit of auditory nerve. As a hearing‐loss gene, variants of DFNB59 are linked with non‐syndromic hearing loss.,,,, In addition, case reports have reported that PJVK also plays a role in other hearing‐related syndromes like auditory neuropathic spectrum disorder (ANSD) and poor cochlear implants performance.,

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PYROPTOSIS AND METABOLISM

Pyroptosis is accompanied by inflammasome activation, GSDM and caspase cleavage, and cytokine releases, leading to inflammatory death in cells and expending inflammation in multi‐tissues; all of these processes have impacts on a variety of metabolic disorders in different organs, including the liver, cardiovascular system, allergic and autoimmune diseases, diabetes, obesity, and others. In the case of the most studied NLRP3 inflammasome, which is a critical sensor of nutrient overload, this can be activated by various metabolic danger signals, such as uric acid crystals in gout,,, cholesterol crystals and oxidized low‐density lipoprotein (ox‐LDL) in atherogenesis,,,, and glucose, fatty acids and islet amyloid polypeptide in T2D.,,,

In response to infective pathogens and dangerous signaling molecules, profound metabolic fluctuation normally appears in immune cells.,,, Beyond supplying energy, various nutrients can generally activate immune cells by serving as signaling molecules. For instance, fluctuating concentrations of glucose as an energy supplement stimulate insulin secretion from islet cells and the release of IL‐1β from macrophages. In turn, both insulin and IL‐1β can regulate glucose concentrations by stimulating glucose uptake in fat and muscle. Meanwhile, they activate the immune system via accelerating the absorption of glucose into immune cells. In addition, the deletion of macrophages could damage the IL‐1β‐mediated consumption of glucose in T‐cell‐ and B‐cell‐deficient Rag2−/− mice. Besides, there is a protein kinase B (AKT)‐dependent glycolytic potential for CD8+ memory T cells, which is responsible for rapid IFN‐γ recall responses (Figure 3).

Liver diseases

Sulfatide is a type of 3‐O‐sulfogalactosylceramide, whose production is dependent on cerebroside sulfotransferase and ceramide galactosyltransferase. As this has a multifunctional role in diverse biological fields, abnormal expression or metabolic changes to sulfatide correlate with many different types of diseases including cancer. Abnormal lipid accumulation in hepatocytes is a feature of non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Long‐term high‐fat diet (HFD) and palmitic acid (PA) significantly upregulate the expression of pyroptosis‐related molecules including NLRP3, GSDMD, GSDMD‐NT, caspase‐1, cleaved caspase‐1 (p20), IL‐1β, and IL‐18 in NAFLD. In addition, as one of the free fatty acids, PA also has a strong stimulatory effect on apoptosis, while oleic acid (OA) absorbs the accumulation of triglycerides, inducing abundant lipid accumulation. Both OA and PA can activate caspase‐1‐mediated pyroptosis in steatotic hepatocytes. The process could also be accompanied by P2 × 7 receptor (P2 × 7R) activation. A possible explanation is that PA‐related pyroptosis may contribute to endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress in HepG2 cells, and OA is capable of improving hepatocellular lipotoxicity both in vitro and in vivo. Sphingomyelin synthases (SMSs) could generate sphingomyelin (SM) and diacylglycerol (DAG), while free cholesterol and SMSs in hepatocytes are found to mediate hepatocyte pyroptotic injury through DAG‐PKCδ‐NLRC4 axis. It has been reported that geranylgeranoic acid (GGA) (C20:4) could induce pyroptotic cell death in human hepatoma‐derived HuH‐7 via toll‐like receptor 4 (TLR4) signaling pathway. In fact, GGA is a branched‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acid, an endogenous metabolite derived from the mevalonate pathway in mammals.

Cardiovascular diseases

Pyroptosis is activated by various pathological conditions, which are known risk factors of atherosclerosis, including oxidative stress, hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, and inflammation.,, It is the first time that pyroptosis in vascular ECs has been reported to correlate with atherosclerotic progression, which can be partly attributed to ox‐LDL. It has been found that ox‐LDL could induce pyroptosis via the ROS‐dependent pathway in ECs. Then, fibroblast growth factor 21 is reported to inhibit ox‐LDL‐induced pyroptosis and related molecules in human umbilical vein ECs (HUVECs) through the Tet methylcytosine dioxygenase (TET2)/ubiquinol cytochrome c reductase core protein I (UQCRC1)/ROS pathway., Ox‐LDL also induces pyroptosis in vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) through activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. VX‐765 can significantly reduce ox‐LDL‐induced pyroptosis and IL‐1β processing in VSMCs. Like ox‐LDL, the saturated fatty acid PA also triggers pyroptosis in an ROS‐dependent manner in HUVECs, and the PA‐induced pyroptosis can be limited by dihydromyricetin, which is inseparable from activation of the nuclear factor E2‐related factor 2 (NRF2)‐antioxidant response element signaling pathway.

It is known that pyroptotic cell numbers decrease following pretreatment with colchicine and cholesterol crystals in HUVECs, and the limitation to cholesterol crystals by colchicine can function through AMP‐dependent kinase (AMPK)/ Sirtuin1 (SIRT1) signaling. Caspase‐1 activation by hyperlipidemia promotes EC activation and monocyte recruitment into the arterial intima, resulting in the upregulation of NLRP3, caspase‐1, and IL‐1β, and leads to pyroptosis in ECs., It is suggested that pyroptosis induced by the NLRP3 inflammasome also participates in the accumulation of atherosclerotic plaques. Thus, in mice, hyperlipidemia aggravates ECs accompanied with aortic atherosclerosis.,,

Apolipoprotein‐M and sphingosine‐1‐phosphate (S1P) can restrain TNF‐α‐induced pyroptosis by binding to S1P receptor 2 (S1PR2), thereby attenuating atherosclerosis. As for estrogen, it inhibits pyroptosis in vascular ECs mainly through the estrogen receptor alpha (ER‐α)‐mediated activation of autophagy. The reaction can ameliorate atherosclerosis as early as possible, usually before the menopausal stage. Trimethylamine N‐oxide (TMAO) is usually generated from the phosphatidylcholine metabolism of gut flora, which also presents as a danger signal for cardiovascular diseases. TMAO promotes ROS‐induced pyroptosis in vascular ECs through the upregulation of the succinate dehydrogenase complex subunit B (SDHB), thereby contributing to the progression of atherosclerotic lesions. Homocysteine (Hcy) as an independent risk factor of atherosclerosis can facilitate IL‐1β and IL‐18 secretion, breaking the endothelial barrier at early stages. The amount of Hcy, NLRP3, cleaved caspase‐1, GSDMD, IL‐1β, and IL‐18 in the vascular endothelium of the ascending aorta are significantly upregulated in postmenopausal females in comparison with pre‐menopausal ones., Hcy, together with LPS, could activate pyroptosis in ECs by stimulating the caspase‐1‐dependent inflammasome. Lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), one of the key lipid components composed of ox‐LDL and the cell membrane, plays a key role in atherosclerosis with an extensively pro‐inflammatory activity. LPC promotes the formation of foam cells, among others, which is dependent on the NLRP3 inflammasome to increase the biogenesis of lipid droplets. Furthermore, pyroptosis, inflammasome activation, and IL‐1β secretion induced by LPC in both cells are largely inseparable from potassium efflux as well as lysosomal damage in human monocytes.

Diabetes

Hyperglycemia is the obvious feature of diabetes, which is a complex metabolic syndrome. Hyperglycemia induces pyroptosis in diabetic cardiomyopathy by upregulating miR‐30d. Beyond inflammation, the NLRP3 inflammasome is also linked to the regulation of glucose homeostasis. Sodium butyrate (NaB) could ameliorate damage to renal glomerular ECs induced by high‐glucose (HG) through the caspase1/GSDMD pathway. Besides, it is NaB, rather than LPS, which triggers gingival epithelial cell pyroptosis, a form of pro‐ICD, and caspase‐3/GSDME contributes to this effect. Pyroptotic cell death upregulates IL‐8 and monocyte chemotactic protein‐1, provoking inflammatory responses by releasing intracellular contents into the extracellular microenvironment.

HG insult causes damage to adipose function. Metformin and resveratrol could suppress dynamin‐related protein 1 activity and prevent activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by limiting ER stress to reverse the damage process and protect mitochondrial integrity. The cause of hyperglycemia associated with diabetic nephropathy (DN) is insufficient insulin secretion or insulin resistance, resulting in hypoxia and the excessive production of inflammatory cytokines. HG conditions in diabetic kidney disease could induce the increased expression of TLR4, cleaved caspase‐1, GSDMD‐NT and secretion of IL‐1β, and IL‐18; pyroptosis in these HG conditions could be partly reversed by TLR4 inhibitors (TAK‐242) and NF‐κB inhibitors (parthenolide). Inflammation, oxidative stress and pyroptosis induced by HG in HK‐2 cells could be inhibited by the long noncoding RNA KCNQ1OT1/miR‐506‐3p pathway, regulating the progression of DN. Moreover, in HG‐induced renal tubular cells, inflammation, oxidative stress and pyroptosis are limited by the overexpression of long noncoding RNA GAS5 and the down‐regulation of miR‐452‐5p. In HG‐stimulated podocytes, the release of pro‐inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including intracellular ROS, IL‐6, and IL‐1β, is increased through the activation of TLR4/NF‐κB signaling.,

Obesity

Obesity is strongly associated with low‐grade inflammation in whole bodies and adipose tissue, with adipocyte death in both mice and human subjects reported to be at a 30‐fold increased level. This cell death is partly due to the pyroptosis of adipocytes caused by macrophages. Obesity itself also facilitates assembly of the NLRP3 inflammasome in adipose tissue macrophages, which could induce macrophage‐mediated T cell activation and IFN‐γ release. Adiposity and insulin sensitivity could be regulated by the NLRP3 inflammasome during obesity, demonstrating improved glucose homeostasis in mice lacking Nlrp3 under HFD. Hypertrophic adipocytes likely induce obese adipocyte death by pyroptosis mediated by NLRP3‐dependent caspase‐1 activation in leptin‐deficient ob/ob mice and obese humans, as active caspase‐1 is detected in the cytoplasm of some hypertrophic adipocytes. Also, adipose tissue inflammation is linked to the death of hypertrophic adipocytes., Obesity is normally linked to the metabolic infiltration of MDMs in multiple tissues, and monocytes from obese individuals usually present with the elevated activity of inflammatory caspases. The saturated fatty acid palmitate, but not palmitoleate, can activate the pyroptotic death of monocytes through caspase‐4/5, causing inflammatory mediators release and inflammasome activation.

Others

Non‐esterified fatty acids are reported to induce pyroptosis and inflammation via the NLRP3 inflammasome and TLR4/NF‐κB pathway, which can be alleviated by N‐acetylcysteine. Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a type of Omega‐3 fatty acid, can modulate inflammation and present anticancer effects. DHA has been reported to activate the caspase‐1/GSDMD/IL‐1β pathway to induce pyroptosis in triple‐negative breast cancer. Recently, it has been found that dimethyl fumarate or endogenous fumarate could modify GSDMD and GSDME at critical residues, which will prevent the interaction between GSDMD and caspases, limit its processing, oligomerization, and the ability of pore formation and inducing pyroptotic cell death. The finding provides the possibility of fumarate‐based therapeutics in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. The excessive deposition of uric acid crystals is usually associated with gout and accompanied by the obvious activation of NLRP3 inflammasomes in the inflammatory disease., Uric acid crystals (monosodium urate)‐induced pyroptosis functions in the acute gouty arthritis, possibly through regulating the NF‐κB/NLRP3/GSDMD signaling pathway. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) can inhibit caspase‐11‐dependent pyroptosis in murine and human macrophages, implicating PGE2 as a negative regulator of caspase‐4/11‐driven pyroptosis to contribute to allergic airway inflammation.

PYROPTOSIS AND TUMOR IMMUNE MICROENVIRONMENT

Pyroptosis is a double‐edged sword and plays an important role both in tumorigenesis and antitumor immunity at all stages of tumor development, which shows tumor promoting or tumor suppressive effects in this context, mainly relying on types of tumor, host inflammatory status and immunity, and the involved effector molecules. Long‐term chronic inflammation in TMEs has a great impact on progression and immunity activity of tumors, representing a major factor in the response of antitumor therapies. As for the double roles of pyroptosis, what can be explained is that, on the one hand, long‐term chronic inflammation could facilitate tumor development, as inflammation caused by pyroptosis facilitates the generation and maintenance of an inflammatory microenvironment surrounding cancer cells. On the other hand, the acute activation of pyroptosis leads to the infiltration of various immune cells, thus repressing tumor development. In general, the induction of pyroptosis inside tumors might be considered a potential strategy in various cancer treatments.,, (Figure 4)

Inflammatory mediators

The inflammatory state of the TME has implications for the response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. By triggering pyroptosis, a form of ICD, converting these immune “cold” tumors to “hot” tumors may alter the TME and the influx of tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). Pyroptotic immune response involves a long process which goes from the release of damage‐associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) (e.g. HMGB1, ATP, etc.) and inflammatory cytokines, directly modulating the innate immune response, to enhancing the recruitment of adaptive immune cells along with increased antigen presentation and TLR activation, leading to broader immune activation., Understanding the complex mechanisms of pyroptosis and how the process alters the TME may have profound effects on future therapeutic strategies in both the up‐front and salvage treatment settings.

Which features of pyroptotic tumor cells contribute to activating antitumor immunity is not currently clear. Inflammatory cytokines and immunostimulatory alarmins released during pyroptosis, including IL‐1β, IL‐18, ATP, and HMGB1, could be prime suspects. During pyroptosis, IL‐1β is activated and released from the GSDM pores to exert an influence on the TME. IL‐1β signaling could induce DC maturation and monocyte differentiation into DCs and inflammatory macrophages. Then, antigens will be represented to T cells to elicit immune killing. In addition, IL‐1β can directly act on cells in the lymphoid compartment to drive antigen‐specific cytotoxic CD8+ T cell responses, increase Th1 CD4+ T cell numbers, and inhibit the differentiation of immunosuppressive T regulatory cells., Indeed, it has been shown that IL‐1β by intra‐tumoral injections is sufficient to cause CD8+ T cell‐mediated tumor regression in models of adenocarcinoma, melanoma, and sarcoma.

IL‐18 can strongly induce γ‐IFN when it combines with IL‐12 or IL‐15, which both upregulate the IL‐18 receptor levels. Thus, IL‐18 exerts an important effect on natural killer (NK) cell recruitment and activation, as well as Th‐1 polarization.

In addition to IL‐1β and IL‐18, other types of cytokines such as IL‐6, are also released from pyroptotic cells. Accumulating evidence shows that IL6 has a profound impact on the adaptive immune response. For instance, IL‐6 signaling can increase T cell immune response to an actively responsive state from a suppressive state, thereby effectively fighting against tumors. Also, IL‐6 is also important for enhancing T cell trafficking to lymph nodes and the tumor sites. Then, they have chances to be activated and further execute their cytotoxic effector functions. Additionally, IL6 exerts an influence on increasing antibody production, increasing cytotoxic CD8+ T cell differentiation and decreasing regulatory T cell differentiation.,

As a type of alarmins, extracellular ATP reinforces pyroptosis by triggering of purinergic P2 × 7R signaling in infiltrating immune cells or cancer cells. Like apoptosis, pyroptotic cells could release macrophage attractants, “find‐me” and “eat‐me” signals, the main component of which is ATP. Phagocytosis induction of pyroptotic cells by macrophages using the two signals will ultimately promote CD8+ T‐cell activation and IFN‐γ production. For the positive aspects, the release of HMGB1 from dying tumor cells could force host DCs to process and present tumor antigens. Also, HMGB1 signaling can interact with TLR2 and TLR4 receptors on the surface of neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, DCs, and lymphocytes, leading to the activation of transcription factors NF‐κB and AP1, the production of inflammatory cytokines such as IL‐6, TNF α, IL‐8, and IL‐1, and an increase in co‐stimulatory molecules required for the cross‐priming of antitumor T lymphocytes.,

Lymphocyte cytotoxicity

Pyroptosis is essential for lymphocyte cytotoxicity against tumor cells, and pyroptotic tumor cells induce the TME toward an immunostimulatory state. To some extent, a positive feedback loop is formed in anticancer immunity as for the promotion between pyroptosis and cytotoxic lymphocytes. In the case of GSDME, a tumor suppressor which activates pyroptosis, this enhances antitumor immunity. It is well known that caspase‐3 cleaves GSDME to activate pyroptosis, and the cell killer GZMB has also been reported to activate caspase‐independent pyroptosis in target cells by directly cleaving GSDME (after D270) at the same site as caspase‐3. Indeed, non‐cleavable or non‐pore‐forming GSDME is unable to perform its tumor‐suppressive ability. Interestingly, on the one hand, the antitumor ability of GSDME mainly depends on the killing ability of CD8+ T cells, NK cells, granzymes, and perforin. On the other hand, given that immunotherapeutic strategies often aim to improve T cell responses to cancer, the overexpression of GSDME in cancer cells significantly increases the number and function of infiltrating NK cells and antigen‐specific CD8+ T lymphocytes inside tumors, as well as the expression of effective molecules including GZMB, perforin, IFN‐γ, and TNF‐α in TILs, together with the phagocytosis of tumor‐associated macrophages (TAMs)., GSDME converts more moderate and non‐inflammatory apoptotic death into more rapid and inflammatory pyroptotic death that can stimulate an effective antitumor immune response. It is also reported that GSDMD participates in cell death mediated by cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) in lung squamous cell carcinoma and LUAD.

Phagocytosis by macrophages

As for GSDMC, it has been shown that the expression of GSDMC under hypoxia is transcriptionally enhanced by p‐STAT3 and is physically correlated with PD‐L1 and its nuclear translocation. Then, after treatment with TNF‐α derived from macrophages, GSDMC is specifically cleaved by caspase‐8, liberating the NT domain to form pores on the plasma membrane, thereby inducing pyroptosis. The high expression of GSDMCs is also associated with poor patient survival. Pyroptosis in macrophages induced by sorafenib could trigger NK cell‐mediated cytotoxicity against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Then, pyroptotic macrophages release IL‐18 and CCL5 to enhance the chemotaxis and cytotoxicity of NK cells and eliminate HCC by activating antitumor immunity.

Pyroptosis in other immune cells

In cellular immunity, CTLs and NK cells kill target cells via the delivery of serine protease granzymes by perforin. Notably, lymphocyte‐derived GZMA could cleave GSDMB between CT and NT linker at Lys244 site, resulting in pyroptotic cell death in GSDMB‐positive cells killed by NK cells and CTLs.

Tumor cells undergoing pyroptosis release IL‐1β, IL‐18, and various DAMPs, which are signals used to activate and recruit DCs or macrophages to phagocytose the pyroptotic cells and promote their maturation. Then, mature DCs present tumoral antigens to tumor‐specific CTLs, killing pyroptotic tumor cells., Melanoma is known as a “cold” tumor due to the poor responses to ICI therapy; the combination of B‐Raf Proto‐Oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) and Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) inhibitors (BRAFi + MEKi) is an FDA‐approved approach to therapy BRAF V600E/K‐mutant melanoma. However, the efficacy of the BRAFi + MEKi approach is correlated with immune responses in the TME. Given that pyroptosis could elicit antitumor immunity in the tumor immune microenvironment, the involvement of pyroptosis in ICI treatment is being investigated in new researches. They have found that the treatment of BRAF‐mutant melanoma cells with BRAFi + MEKi inhibitors promotes the cleavage of GSDME and the release of HMGB1, all of which are markers of pyroptotic cell death. Interestingly, GSDME‐deficient melanoma represents defective HMGB1 release, the reduced infiltration of tumor‐associated T cells and activated DCs in response to BRAFi + MEKi treatment, and the more frequent tumor regrowth after drug removal. Importantly, BRAFi + MEKi‐resistant diseases show the decreased infiltration of intra‐tumoral T cells and the lack of pyroptosis‐related markers but still retain sensitivity to pyroptosis‐induced chemotherapy. The data imply that pyroptosis could as an adjunctive therapy to ignite antitumor immune responses for resistant melanoma. In addition, in KRAS‐, EGFR‐, or ALK‐driven lung cancer, upon treatment of diverse small‐molecule inhibitors, robust pyroptotic cell death, associated with GSDME cleavage, and the mitochondrial intrinsic apoptotic pathway are elicited and spread in lung cancer cells uniformly, making concession under genotype‐specific regimens.

New application of pyroptosis in antitumor approaches

As tumor treatment is obstructive and complex, the effect of immunotherapy is gaining increasing prominence. However, the immune checkpoint blockade often responds ineffectively to some tumor treatments as for the low inflammatory response among the TME. Thus, the development of new approaches to boost antitumor immunity is critical. Recently, the Phe‐BF3 desilylation bio‐orthogonal system applied efficiently has been shown to transport desilylation catalyzed by Phe‐BF3 with the NP‐GSDMA3‐mediated delivery into specific mammary tumor cells in mice. The novel technique leads to T cell‐dependent tumor progression along with increasing numbers and the function of CD4+, CD8+, NK cell, and M1 macrophage populations, while decreasing regulatory T cell, M2 macrophage, monocyte, neutrophil, and myeloid‐derived suppressor cell (MDSC) populations. As a new application, the system uncovers the antitumor immune potential of pyroptosis, suggesting that a GSDM agonist may improve the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy.

Pyroptosis also functions in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Tumor‐cell‐derived microvesicles whose plasma membranes are infused with methotrexate could induce pyroptosis in CCA cells through a GSDME‐dependent pathway. Then, intracellular contents released from pyroptotic CCA cells activate patient‐derived macrophages to produce pro‐inflammatory cytokines, which attract the secondary accumulation of neutrophils to the tumor site. The procedure is relevant to the upregulation of uridine diphosphate glucose and complement C5, leading to degradation of the stromal barrier in the CCA TME. The approach has been proved to relieve biliary obstruction in nearly 25% of CCA patients.

Another application of pyroptosis is that of a commonly used tumor‐targeting nanoliposome loaded with cisplatin, which is applied in drug delivery and administration. Combining decitabine (DAC) with chemotherapy nanodrugs to manage drugs to activate and upregulate the caspase‐3/GSDME signal, further triggers pyroptosis in tumor cells, therefore strengthening the immunological effect of chemotherapy with cisplatin in a mouse triple‐negative breast cancer model. Also, DAC can demethylate the GSDME gene in tumor cells with specific tumor‐bearing mice.

The chimeric co‐stimulatory converting receptor is designed to disturb the PD‐1 pathway which enhances the activity of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)‐NK cells to fight solid tumors. Then, the antitumor activity of NK92 cells was enhanced by the neo‐complex PD1‐NKG2D‐41BB receptor, which is mainly dependent on pyroptosis activation.

The pro‐tumor effects of pyroptosis

In certain contexts, ICD caused by pyroptosis may also be pro‐tumorigenic. This is consistent with the complicated roles of inflammation in both enhancing and inhibiting tumor growth, thus suggesting that the timing, levels, and components of pyroptosis induction need to be closely controlled. It is MDSCs which are substantial contributors to the immunosuppressive TME and are closely associated with tumor progression.

The main alarmin, HMGB1, released by pyroptotic cells, could promote tumor cell survival, which largely suggests that HMGB1 drives the accumulation of MDSCs by inducing autophagy, thereby maintaining MDSC viability.,, In addition, HMGB1 also enhances the immune suppression of MDSCs by promoting their differentiation from bone marrow progenitor cells and the suppressive activity on antigen‐driven activation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Moreover, HMGB1 also increases MDSC‐mediated IL‐10 production, enhancing crosstalk between MDSCs and macrophages, and down‐regulating L‐selection on T cells to perturb their location to lymph nodes.

Besides, IL‐18 exerts antitumor activity when it combines with other inflammatory cytokines, paradoxically, IL‐18 can promote Th2 responses and angiogenesis, which leads to increased migration and invasion in tumors in the absence of other cytokines. Thus, IL‐18 may have a differential impact on tumor progression, which partly depends on the makeup of cytokine types. In addition to the main contents of pyroptotic production, intrinsically, another member, IL‐6, is found to play a role in tumor cells by supporting malignant progression including proliferation, metastatic dissemination, and survival by connecting with numerous downstream mediators. Furthermore, IL‐6 can exert an impact on other cells within the TME to maintain a favorable growth ambience of tumor cells for the ease of angiogenesis and tumor evasion from immune surveillance. In turn, tumor cells can also express or respond to IL‐6, leading to increased proliferation and invasion.

Moreover, TAMs also contribute to the immunosuppressive microenvironment, which display an upregulated NLRP3 inflammasome activity, thereby significantly promoting the expression of IL‐1β and thus aggravating inflammation and favoring the progression of CRC.

CONCLUSION

Cell death is a complex regulatory net which decides cell fate. Among the forms of programed cell death, pyroptosis and necroptosis all are ICD, while apoptosis is non‐inflammatory. In some contexts, they all contribute to the homeostasis of the host by different molecular pathways. However, given that (1) caspase‐8 involves both the pyroptosis, necroptosis and apoptosis pathways,; (2) activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome can trigger both pyroptosis and necroptosis; (3) GSDME‐mediated pore formation on the mitochondrial membrane is favorable for the release of cytochrome c and activation of apoptosome, augmenting apoptosis, it has been reported that pyroptosis induced by TNF‐α+CHX and navitoclax in cancer cells could function through the BAK/BAX‐caspase‐3‐GSDME signaling pathway. Thus, the crosstalk between the three types of programmed cell death suggests that they do not function independently and connect, even affecting each other under certain conditions. Although they could be distinguished by the cell nucleus, cytoplasmic membrane, morphological characteristics and cell staining, the detailed regulatory mechanism and crosstalk require more attention (Table 3).

Metabolic nutrients play a central role in monitoring the immune cell fate, and tumors, especially solid tumors, likely produce an immunosuppressive TME which is deprived of metabolic nutrients including glucose and free fatty acids; in contrast, this is rich in metabolic wastes, such as hypoxic and lactic acid., A feature of TME is the more favorable of rapid proliferation of tumors, since tumors could increase metabolic substrate flexibility and resist mitochondrial oxidative metabolism, just like the Warburg effect., However, the metabolic demands of tumors lead to severe dysfunction and abnormal differentiation in cytotoxic immune cells, including T cells and NK cells, which principally use glucose by glycolysis and mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation.,,,, Besides, elevated lipid metabolism and glucose/amino acid dearth also increase the production of reactive ROS and suppressive epigenetic modifications in T cells., The metabolic characteristics of TME could further damage antitumor immunity and accelerate malignant progression. Moreover, obesity and other diseases caused by metabolism dysregulation are accompanied by inflammation to different degrees, which may induce a tendency toward tumor development if the inflammation exists for a long time.,, Thus, on the one hand, fatty acids, HG levels, and other metabolic signals could activate inflammasomes and pyroptosis, producing various inflammatory factors.,,, On the other hand, the metabolism statue also regulates the battle between immune cells and tumor cells (Figure 5).

The success of immunotherapy is largely dependent on the high activity of intratumoral CD8+ T cells, and the therapeutic effect has been shown in some solid tumors such as melanoma and lung cancer.,,,, However, the ineffective ICI is in part caused by the absence or poor response of effector immune cells.,, To some extent, cytokines, chemokines, and other inflammatory factors, which could recruit immune cells including toxic T cells, NK cells, and TAMs, may also contribute to the effect of immunotherapy. Thus, ICIs may be more effective if combined with other therapies that can improve the number and function of infiltrating T cells, NK cells, and inflammatory macrophages.,, Interestingly, preclinical models have suggested that ICD‐inducing therapy through pyroptosis could recruit CD8+ T cells and other lymphocytes as well as myeloid cells to the surrounding tumor lesions in the TME. In the case of melanomas, inducing pyroptosis with the DNA topoisomerase inhibitor etoposide could reduce tumor growth in BRAF inhibitor‐ and MEK inhibitor‐resistant melanomas.

However, ICIs, like CAR‐T cell therapy, have also been reported to induce cytokine‐release syndrome (CRS), which may counteract the effectiveness of CAR‐T cell therapy partly as a severe consequence of extensive pyroptosis. It is shown that CAR‐T cells could rapidly activate caspase‐3 in target cells through the release of GZMB. Then, the latter cleaves GSDME, causing extensive pyroptosis. Consequently, other pyroptotic factors are triggered and further activate the caspase‐1/GSDMD pathway in macrophages, which results in the increased release of cytokines and more serious CRS. Thus, the combination of ICIs and pyroptosis‐inducing therapies may further increase the risk.,

Fortunately, the research has shown that nanodrugs potentially reduce the side effect of ICIs, as the application of nanoparticles could promote the more appropriate distribution of pyroptosis inducers in target cells other than the adjacent tissues. Thus, the new utilization of pyroptosis will improve therapeutic effects.,,

Although the molecular features of GSDM family members, especially GSDMD, are gradually revealed in pyroptosis, the exact regulatory mechanisms of other GSDMs are not very clear. In addition, large inflammatory factors are found to be released from immune cells but not cancer cells, although they exert an important impact on the latter. Also, they have the opposite impact in different regions and evolving periods of TME. In summary, more in‐depth and innovative exploration into the roles of pyroptosis in metabolism and the TME are required in the future.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Lutao Du, Chuanxin Wang, and Juan Li designed the manuscript. Tiantian Du, Jie Gao, and Peilong Li searched the literature and wrote the manuscript. Lutao Du, Chuanxin Wang, Juan Li, Jie Gao, and Peilong Li provided the funding. Xiaoyan Liu, Qiuchen Qi, and Yunshan Wang provided the conception, edited, and polished the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References 298

  1. 1.

    Zychlinsky A, Prevost MC, Sansonetti PJ. Shigella flexneri induces apoptosis in infected macrophages. Nature. 1992;358:167–169.

    Not in our library10.1038/358167a0

  2. 2.

    Cookson BT, Brennan MA. Pro‐inflammatory programmed cell death. Trends Microbiol. 2001;9:113–114.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0966-842x(00)01936-3

  3. 3.

    Shi J, Zhao Y, Wang K, et al. Cleavage of GSDMD by inflammatory caspases determines pyroptotic cell death. Nature 2015;526: 660‐665.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature15514

  4. 4.

    Rühl S, Shkarina K, Demarco B, Heilig R, Santos JC, Broz P. ESCRT‐dependent membrane repair negatively regulates pyroptosis downstream of GSDMD activation. Science. 2018;362:956–960.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aar7607

  5. 5.

    Vietri M, Radulovic M, Stenmark H. The many functions of ESCRTs. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21:25–42.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41580-019-0177-4

  6. 6.

    Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Xia S, et al. Gasdermin E suppresses tumour growth by activating anti‐tumour immunity. Nature. 2020;579:415–420.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-2071-9

  7. 7.

    Man SM, Karki R, Kanneganti TD. Molecular mechanisms and functions of pyroptosis, inflammatory caspases and inflammasomes in infectious diseases. Immunol Rev. 2017;277:61–75.

    Not in our library10.1111/imr.12534

  8. 8.

    Rosenbaum SR, Wilski NA, Aplin AE. Fueling the fire: inflammatory forms of cell death and implications for cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:266–281.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-0805

  9. 9.
  10. 10.

    Wang Q, Wang Y, Ding J, et al. A bioorthogonal system reveals antitumour immune function of pyroptosis. Nature. 2020;579:421–426.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-2079-1

  11. 11.

    Fang Y, Tian S, Pan Y, et al. Pyroptosis: a new frontier in cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;121:109595.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2019.109595

  12. 12.

    Ahechu P, Zozaya G, Martí P, et al. NLRP3 inflammasome: a possible link between obesity‐associated low‐grade chronic inflammation and colorectal cancer development. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2918.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2018.02918

  13. 13.

    Friedlander AM. Macrophages are sensitive to anthrax lethal toxin through an acid‐dependent process. J Biol Chem. 1986;261:7123–7126.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Black RA, Kronheim SR, Merriam JE, March CJ, Hopp TP. A pre‐aspartate‐specific protease from human leukocytes that cleaves pro‐interleukin‐1 beta. J Biol Chem. 1989;264:5323–5326.

    Not in our library

  15. 15.

    Thornberry NA, Bull HG, Calaycay JR, et al. A novel heterodimeric cysteine protease is required for interleukin‐1 beta processing in monocytes. Nature. 1992;356:768–774.

    Not in our library10.1038/356768a0

  16. 16.

    Cerretti DP, Kozlosky CJ, Mosley B, et al. Molecular cloning of the interleukin‐1 beta converting enzyme. Science. 1992;256:97–100.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1373520

  17. 17.

    Chen Y, Smith MR, Thirumalai K, Zychlinsky A. A bacterial invasin induces macrophage apoptosis by binding directly to ICE. EMBO J. 1996;15:3853–3860.

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    Van Laer L, Huizing EH, Verstreken M, et al. Nonsyndromic hearing impairment is associated with a mutation in DFNA5. Nat Genet. 1998;20:194–197.

    Not in our library10.1038/2503

  19. 19.

    Saeki N, Kuwahara Y, Sasaki H, Satoh H, Shiroishi T. Gasdermin (Gsdm) localizing to mouse chromosome 11 is predominantly expressed in upper gastrointestinal tract but significantly suppressed in human gastric cancer cells. Mamm Genome. 2000;11:718–724.

    Not in our library10.1007/s003350010138

  20. 20.

    Watabe K, Ito A, Asada H, et al. Structure, expression and chromosome mapping of MLZE, a novel gene which is preferentially expressed in metastatic melanoma cells. Japn Cancer Res. 2001;92:140–151.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1349-7006.2001.tb01076.x

  21. 21.

    Martinon F, Burns K, Tschopp J. The inflammasome: a molecular platform triggering activation of inflammatory caspases and processing of proIL‐beta. Mol Cell. 2002;10:417–426.

    Not in our library10.1016/s1097-2765(02)00599-3

  22. 22.

    Katoh M, Katoh M. Evolutionary recombination hotspot around GSDML‐GSDM locus is closely linked to the oncogenomic recombination hotspot around the PPP1R1B‐ERBB2‐GRB7 amplicon. Int J Oncol. 2004;24:757–763.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Runkel F, Marquardt A, Stoeger C, et al. The dominant alopecia phenotypes Bareskin, Rex‐denuded, and Reduced Coat 2 are caused by mutations in gasdermin 3. Genomics. 2004;84:824–835.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygeno.2004.07.003

  24. 24.

    Katoh M, Katoh M. Identification and characterization of human DFNA5L, mouse Dfna5l, and rat Dfna5l genes in silico. Int J Oncol. 2004;25:765–770.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Delmaghani S, del Castillo FJ, Michel V, et al. Mutations in the gene encoding pejvakin, a newly identified protein of the afferent auditory pathway, cause DFNB59 auditory neuropathy. Nat Genet. 2006;38:770–778.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1829

  26. 26.

    Schwander M, Sczaniecka A, Grillet N, et al. A forward genetics screen in mice identifies recessive deafness traits and reveals that pejvakin is essential for outer hair cell function. J Neurosci. 2007;27:2163–2175.

    Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.4975-06.2007

  27. 27.

    Verlaan DJ, Berlivet S, Hunninghake GM, et al. Allele‐specific chromatin remodeling in the ZPBP2/GSDMB/ORMDL3 locus associated with the risk of asthma and autoimmune disease. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85:377–393.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.08.007

  28. 28.

    Agard NJ, Maltby D, Wells JA. Inflammatory stimuli regulate caspase substrate profiles. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2010;9:880–893.

    Not in our library10.1074/mcp.m900528-mcp200

  29. 29.

    Lei M, Bai X, Yang T, et al. Gsdma3 is a new factor needed for TNF‐α‐mediated apoptosis signal pathway in mouse skin keratinocytes. Histochem Cell Biol. 2012;138:385–396.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00418-012-0960-1

  30. 30.

    Broz P, Ruby T, Belhocine K, et al. Caspase‐11 increases susceptibility to Salmonella infection in the absence of caspase‐1. Nature. 2012;490:288–291.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11419

  31. 31.

    Shi J, Zhao Y, Wang Y, et al. Inflammatory caspases are innate immune receptors for intracellular LPS. Nature. 2014;514:187–192.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13683

  32. 32.

    Kayagaki N, Stowe IB, Lee BL, et al. Caspase‐11 cleaves gasdermin D for non‐canonical inflammasome signalling. Nature. 2015;526:666–671.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature15541

  33. 33.

    Man SM, Kanneganti TD. Gasdermin D: the long‐awaited executioner of pyroptosis. Cell Res. 2015;25:1183–1184.

    Not in our library10.1038/cr.2015.124

  34. 34.

    Delmaghani S, Defourny J, Aghaie A, et al. Hypervulnerability to sound exposure through impaired adaptive proliferation of peroxisomes. Cell. 2015;163:894–906.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.023

  35. 35.

    Ding J, Wang K, Liu W, et al. Pore‐forming activity and structural autoinhibition of the gasdermin family. Nature. 2016;535:111–116.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature18590

  36. 36.

    Wang Y, Gao W, Shi X, et al. Chemotherapy drugs induce pyroptosis through caspase‐3 cleavage of a gasdermin. Nature. 2017;547:99–103.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature22393

  37. 37.

    Rathkey JK, Zhao J, Liu Z, et al. Chemical disruption of the pyroptotic pore‐forming protein gasdermin D inhibits inflammatory cell death and sepsis. Sci Immunol. 2018;3:eaat2738.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciimmunol.aat2738

  38. 38.

    Sollberger G, Choidas A, Burn GL, et al. Gasdermin D plays a vital role in the generation of neutrophil extracellular traps. Sci Immunol. 2018;3:eaar6689.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciimmunol.aar6689

  39. 39.

    Chen KW, Monteleone M, Boucher D, et al. Noncanonical inflammasome signaling elicits gasdermin D‐dependent neutrophil extracellular traps. Sci Immunol. 2018;3:eaar6676.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciimmunol.aar6676

  40. 40.

    Kambara H, Liu F, Zhang X, et al. Gasdermin D exerts anti‐inflammatory effects by promoting neutrophil death. Cell Rep. 2018;22:2924–2936.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.067

  41. 41.

    Ruan J, Xia S, Liu X, Lieberman J, Wu H. Cryo‐EM structure of the gasdermin A3 membrane pore. Nature. 2018;557:62–67.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-018-0058-6

  42. 42.

    Sarhan J, Liu BC, Muendlein HI, et al. Caspase‐8 induces cleavage of gasdermin D to elicit pyroptosis during Yersinia infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:E10888–e10897.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1809548115

  43. 43.

    Chen KW, Demarco B, Heilig R, et al. Extrinsic and intrinsic apoptosis activate pannexin‐1 to drive NLRP3 inflammasome assembly. EMBO J. 2019;38:e101638.

    Not in our library10.15252/embj.2019101638

  44. 44.

    Burgener SS, Leborgne NGF, Snipas SJ, et al. Cathepsin G inhibition by serpinb1 and serpinb6 prevents programmed necrosis in neutrophils and monocytes and reduces GSDMD‐driven inflammation. Cell Rep. 2019;27:3646–3656.e3645.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2019.05.065

  45. 45.

    Zhou Z, He H, Wang K, et al. Granzyme A from cytotoxic lymphocytes cleaves GSDMB to trigger pyroptosis in target cells. Science. 2020;368:eaaz7548.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aaz7548

  46. 46.

    Hou J, Zhao R, Xia W, et al. PD‐L1‐mediated gasdermin C expression switches apoptosis to pyroptosis in cancer cells and facilitates tumour necrosis. Nat Cell Biol. 2020;22:1264–1275.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41556-020-0575-z

  47. 47.

    Erkes DA, Cai W, Sanchez IM, et al. Mutant BRAF and MEK inhibitors regulate the tumor immune microenvironment via pyroptosis. Cancer Discov. 2020;10:254–269.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-19-0672

  48. 48.

    Humphries F, Shmuel‐Galia L, Ketelut‐Carneiro N, et al. Succination inactivates gasdermin D and blocks pyroptosis. Science. 2020;369:1633–1637.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.abb9818

  49. 49.

    Hu JJ, Liu X, Xia S, et al. FDA‐approved disulfiram inhibits pyroptosis by blocking gasdermin D pore formation. Nat Immunol. 2020;21:736–745.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41590-020-0669-6

  50. 50.

    Zheng M, Karki R, Vogel P, Kanneganti TD. Caspase‐6 is a key regulator of innate immunity, inflammasome activation, and host defense. Cell. 2020;181:674–687.e613.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.040

  51. 51.

    Wang K, Sun Q, Zhong X, et al. Structural mechanism for GSDMD targeting by autoprocessed caspases in pyroptosis. Cell. 2020;180:941–955.e920.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.002

  52. 52.

    Xia S, Zhang Z, Magupalli VG, et al. Gasdermin D pore structure reveals preferential release of mature interleukin‐1. Nature. 2021;593:607–611.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-021-03478-3

  53. 53.

    Pentimalli F, Grelli S, Di Daniele N, Melino G, Amelio I. Cell death pathologies: targeting death pathways and the immune system for cancer therapy. Genes Immun. 2019;20:539–554.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41435-018-0052-x

  54. 54.

    Hachim MY, Khalil BA, Elemam NM, Maghazachi AA. Pyroptosis: the missing puzzle among innate and adaptive immunity crosstalk. J Leukoc Biol. 2020;108:323–338.

    Not in our library10.1002/jlb.3mir0120-625r

  55. 55.

    He WT, Wan H, Hu L, et al. Gasdermin D is an executor of pyroptosis and required for interleukin‐1β secretion. Cell Res. 2015;25:1285–1298.

    Not in our library10.1038/cr.2015.139

  56. 56.

    Kayagaki N, Warming S, Lamkanfi M, et al. Non‐canonical inflammasome activation targets caspase‐11. Nature. 2011;479:117–121.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10558

  57. 57.

    Schmid‐Burgk JL, Gaidt MM, Schmidt T, Ebert TS, Bartok E, Hornung V. Caspase‐4 mediates non‐canonical activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome in human myeloid cells. Eur J Immunol. 2015;45:2911–2917.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.201545523

  58. 58.

    Baker PJ, Boucher D, Bierschenk D, et al. NLRP3 inflammasome activation downstream of cytoplasmic LPS recognition by both caspase‐4 and caspase‐5. Eur J Immunol. 2015;45:2918–2926.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.201545655

  59. 59.

    Ruan J, Wang S, Wang J. Mechanism and regulation of pyroptosis‐mediated in cancer cell death. Chem Biol Interact. 2020;323:109052.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cbi.2020.109052

  60. 60.

    Liu X, Zhang Z, Ruan J, et al. Inflammasome‐activated gasdermin D causes pyroptosis by forming membrane pores. Nature. 2016;535:153–158.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature18629

  61. 61.

    Lamkanfi M, Dixit VM. Mechanisms and functions of inflammasomes. Cell. 2014;157:1013–1022.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.007

  62. 62.

    Broz P, Dixit VM. Inflammasomes: mechanism of assembly, regulation and signalling. Nat Rev Immunol. 2016;16:407–420.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri.2016.58

  63. 63.

    Sollberger G, Strittmatter GE, Garstkiewicz M, Sand J, Beer HD. Caspase‐1: the inflammasome and beyond. Innate Immunity 2014;20:115–125.

    Not in our library10.1177/1753425913484374

  64. 64.

    Yin Q, Fu TM, Li J, Wu H. Structural biology of innate immunity. Annu Rev Immunol. 2015;33:393–416.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-032414-112258

  65. 65.

    Schroder K, Tschopp J. The inflammasomes. Cell. 2010;140:821–832.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.01.040

  66. 66.

    Chen X, He WT, Hu L, et al. Pyroptosis is driven by non‐selective gasdermin‐D pore and its morphology is different from MLKL channel‐mediated necroptosis. Cell Res. 2016;26:1007–1020.

    Not in our library10.1038/cr.2016.100

  67. 67.

    Sborgi L, Rühl S, Mulvihill E, et al. GSDMD membrane pore formation constitutes the mechanism of pyroptotic cell death. EMBO J. 2016;35:1766–1778.

    Not in our library10.15252/embj.201694696

  68. 68.

    Kuriakose T, Kanneganti TD. Gasdermin D flashes an exit signal for IL‐1. Immunity. 2018;48:1–3.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2018.01.003

  69. 69.

    Swanson KV, Deng M, Ting JP. The NLRP3 inflammasome: molecular activation and regulation to therapeutics. Nat Rev Immunol. 2019;19:477–489.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41577-019-0165-0

  70. 70.
  71. 71.

    Zhou R, Yazdi AS, Menu P, Tschopp J. A role for mitochondria in NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Nature. 2011;469:221–225.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature09663

  72. 72.

    Shirasuna K, Karasawa T, Takahashi M. Exogenous nanoparticles and endogenous crystalline molecules as danger signals for the NLRP3 inflammasomes. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234:5436–5450.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.27475

  73. 73.

    He Y, Hara H, Núñez G. Mechanism and regulation of NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41:1012–1021.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2016.09.002

  74. 74.
  75. 75.
  76. 76.

    Ewald SE, Chavarria‐Smith J, Boothroyd JC. NLRP1 is an inflammasome sensor for Toxoplasma gondii. Infect Immun. 2014;82:460–468.

    Not in our library10.1128/iai.01170-13

  77. 77.

    Franchi L, Amer A, Body‐Malapel M, et al. Cytosolic flagellin requires Ipaf for activation of caspase‐1 and interleukin 1beta in salmonella‐infected macrophages. Nat Immunol. 2006;7:576–582.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni1346

  78. 78.

    Lightfield KL, Persson J, Brubaker SW, et al. Critical function for Naip5 in inflammasome activation by a conserved carboxy‐terminal domain of flagellin. Nat Immunol. 2008;9:1171–1178.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.1646

  79. 79.

    Kofoed EM, Vance RE. Innate immune recognition of bacterial ligands by NAIPs determines inflammasome specificity. Nature. 2011;477:592–595.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10394

  80. 80.

    Zhao Y, Yang J, Shi J, et al. The NLRC4 inflammasome receptors for bacterial flagellin and type III secretion apparatus. Nature. 2011;477:596–600.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10510

  81. 81.

    Zhang L, Chen S, Ruan J, et al. Cryo‐EM structure of the activated NAIP2‐NLRC4 inflammasome reveals nucleated polymerization. Science. 2015;350:404–409.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aac5789

  82. 82.

    Duncan JA, Canna SW. The NLRC4 inflammasome. Immunol Rev. 2018;281:115–123.

    Not in our library10.1111/imr.12607

  83. 83.

    Hornung V, Ablasser A, Charrel‐Dennis M, et al. AIM2 recognizes cytosolic dsDNA and forms a caspase‐1‐activating inflammasome with ASC. Nature. 2009;458:514–518.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature07725

  84. 84.

    Roberts TL, Idris A, Dunn JA, et al. HIN‐200 proteins regulate caspase activation in response to foreign cytoplasmic DNA. Science. 2009;323:1057–1060.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1169841

  85. 85.

    Rathinam VA, Jiang Z, Waggoner SN, et al. The AIM2 inflammasome is essential for host defense against cytosolic bacteria and DNA viruses. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:395–402.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.1864

  86. 86.

    Jin T, Perry A, Jiang J, et al. Structures of the HIN domain:dNA complexes reveal ligand binding and activation mechanisms of the AIM2 inflammasome and IFI16 receptor. Immunity. 2012;36:561–571.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2012.02.014

  87. 87.

    Matyszewski M, Morrone SR, Sohn J. Digital signaling network drives the assembly of the AIM2‐ASC inflammasome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115:E1963–e1972.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1712860115

  88. 88.

    Rathinam VA, Vanaja SK, Fitzgerald KA. Regulation of inflammasome signaling. Nat Immunol. 2012;13:333–342.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.2237

  89. 89.

    Xu H, Yang J, Gao W, et al. Innate immune sensing of bacterial modifications of Rho GTPases by the Pyrin inflammasome. Nature. 2014;513:237–241.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13449

  90. 90.

    Chung LK, Park YH, Zheng Y, et al. The Yersinia virulence factor YopM hijacks host kinases to inhibit type III effector‐triggered activation of the pyrin inflammasome. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;20:296–306.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chom.2016.07.018

  91. 91.

    Park YH, Wood G, Kastner DL, Chae JJ. Pyrin inflammasome activation and RhoA signaling in the autoinflammatory diseases FMF and HIDS. Nat Immunol. 2016;17:914–921.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.3457

  92. 92.

    Gao W, Yang J, Liu W, Wang Y, Shao F. Site‐specific phosphorylation and microtubule dynamics control pyrin inflammasome activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:E4857–4866.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1601700113

  93. 93.

    Aglietti RA, Estevez A, Gupta A, et al. GsdmD p30 elicited by caspase‐11 during pyroptosis forms pores in membranes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:7858–7863.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1607769113

  94. 94.

    Yang D, He Y, Muñoz‐Planillo R, Liu Q, Núñez G. Caspase‐11 requires the pannexin‐1 channel and the purinergic P2X7 pore to mediate pyroptosis and endotoxic shock. Immunity. 2015;43:923–932.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2015.10.009

  95. 95.

    Rühl S, Broz P. Caspase‐11 activates a canonical NLRP3 inflammasome by promoting K(+) efflux. Eur J Immunol. 2015;45:2927–2936.

    Not in our library10.1002/eji.201545772

  96. 96.

    Shi J, Gao W, Shao F. Pyroptosis: gasdermin‐mediated programmed necrotic cell death. Trends Biochem Sci. 2017;42:245–254.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2016.10.004

  97. 97.
  98. 98.

    Huang LS, Hong Z, Wu W, et al. mtDNA activates cGAS signaling and suppresses the YAP‐mediated endothelial cell proliferation program to promote inflammatory injury. Immunity. 2020;52:475–486.e475.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2020.02.002

  99. 99.

    Schwarzer R, Jiao H, Wachsmuth L, Tresch A. Pasparakis M FADD and caspase‐8 regulate gut homeostasis and inflammation by controlling MLKL‐ and GSDMD‐mediated death of intestinal epithelial cells. Immunity. 2020;52:978–993.e976.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.002

  100. 100.

    Orning P, Weng D, Starheim K, et al. Pathogen blockade of TAK1 triggers caspase‐8‐dependent cleavage of gasdermin D and cell death. Science. 2018;362:1064–1069.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aau2818

  101. 101.

    Newton K, Wickliffe KE, Maltzman A, et al. Activity of caspase‐8 determines plasticity between cell death pathways. Nature. 2019;575:679–682.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1752-8

  102. 102.

    Muendlein HI, Jetton D, Connolly WM, et al. cFLIP(L) protects macrophages from LPS‐induced pyroptosis via inhibition of complex II formation. Science. 2020;367:1379–1384.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aay3878

  103. 103.
  104. 104.

    de Vasconcelos NM, Van Opdenbosch N, Van Gorp H, et al. An apoptotic caspase network safeguards cell death induction in pyroptotic macrophages. Cell Rep. 2020;32:107959.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107959

  105. 105.

    Li L, Li Y, Bai Y. Role of GSDMB in pyroptosis and cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:3033–3043.

    Not in our library10.2147/cmar.s246948

  106. 106.

    Chao KL, Kulakova L, Herzberg O. Gene polymorphism linked to increased asthma and IBD risk alters gasdermin‐B structure, a sulfatide and phosphoinositide binding protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114:E1128–e1137.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1616783114

  107. 107.

    Evavold CL, Ruan J, Tan Y, Xia S, Wu H, Kagan JC, The pore‐forming protein gasdermin D regulates interleukin‐1 secretion from living macrophages. Immunity. 2018;48:35–44.e36.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2017.11.013

  108. 108.

    Madore AM, Pain L, Boucher‐Lafleur AM, et al. Asthma‐associated polymorphisms in 17q12‐21 locus modulate methylation and gene expression of GSDMA in naïve CD4(+) T cells. J Genet Genomics. 2020;47:171–174.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jgg.2020.03.002

  109. 109.

    Moreno‐Moral A, Bagnati M, Koturan S, et al. Changes in macrophage transcriptome associate with systemic sclerosis and mediate GSDMA contribution to disease risk. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:596–601.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212454

  110. 110.

    Lin PH, Lin HY, Kuo CC, Yang LT. N‐terminal functional domain of Gasdermin A3 regulates mitochondrial homeostasis via mitochondrial targeting. J Biomed Sci. 2015;22:44.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12929-015-0152-0

  111. 111.

    Saeki N, Kim DH, Usui T, et al. GASDERMIN, suppressed frequently in gastric cancer, is a target of LMO1 in TGF‐beta‐dependent apoptotic signalling. Oncogene. 2007;26:6488–6498.

    Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1210475

  112. 112.

    Li X, Christenson SA, Modena B, et al. Genetic analyses identify GSDMB associated with asthma severity, exacerbations, and antiviral pathways. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2021;147:894–909.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaci.2020.07.030

  113. 113.

    Saleh NM, Raj SM, Smyth DJ, et al. Genetic association analyses of atopic illness and proinflammatory cytokine genes with type 1 diabetes. Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2011;27:838–843.

    Not in our library10.1002/dmrr.1259

  114. 114.

    Kaur S, Mirza AH, Overgaard AJ, Pociot F, Størling J, A dual systems genetics approach identifies common genes, networks, and pathways for type 1 and 2 diabetes in human islets. Front Genet. 2021;12:630109.

    Not in our library10.3389/fgene.2021.630109

  115. 115.

    Li T, Ortiz‐Fernández L, Andrés‐León E, et al. Epigenomics and transcriptomics of systemic sclerosis CD4+ T cells reveal long‐range dysregulation of key inflammatory pathways mediated by disease‐associated susceptibility loci. Genome Med. 2020;12:81.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13073-020-00779-6

  116. 116.

    Gui H, Levin AM, Hu D, et al. Mapping the 17q12‐21.1 locus for variants associated with early‐onset asthma in African Americans. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021;203:424–436.

    Not in our library10.1164/rccm.202006-2623oc

  117. 117.

    Liu D, Zhou D, Sun Y, et al. A transcriptome‐wide association study identifies candidate susceptibility genes for pancreatic cancer risk. Cancer Res. 2020;80:4346–4354.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-20-1353

  118. 118.

    Molina‐Crespo Á, Cadete A, Sarrio D, et al. Intracellular delivery of an antibody targeting gasdermin‐B reduces HER2 breast cancer aggressiveness. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:4846–4858.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-2381

  119. 119.

    Hu Y, Jin S, Cheng L, Liu G, Jiang Q. Autoimmune disease variants regulate GSDMB gene expression in human immune cells and whole blood. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.. 2017;114:E7860–E7862.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1712127114

  120. 120.

    Calışkan M, Bochkov YA, Kreiner‐Møller E, et al. Rhinovirus wheezing illness and genetic risk of childhood‐onset asthma. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1398–1407.

    Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1211592

  121. 121.

    Christodoulou K, Wiskin AE, Gibson J, et al. Next generation exome sequencing of paediatric inflammatory bowel disease patients identifies rare and novel variants in candidate genes. Gut. 2013;62:977–984.

    Not in our library10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301833

  122. 122.

    Jiang H, Moro A, Liu Y, et al. Two GWAS‐identified variants are associated with lumbar spinal stenosis and Gasdermin‐C expression in Chinese population. Sci Rep. 2020;10:21069.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-020-78249-7

  123. 123.
  124. 124.

    Saeki N, Usui T, Aoyagi K, et al. Distinctive expression and function of four GSDM family genes (GSDMA‐D) in normal and malignant upper gastrointestinal epithelium. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009;48:261–271.

    Not in our library10.1002/gcc.20636

  125. 125.
  126. 126.

    Tamura M, Tanaka S, Fujii T, et al. Members of a novel gene family, Gsdm, are expressed exclusively in the epithelium of the skin and gastrointestinal tract in a highly tissue‐specific manner. Genomics. 2007;89:618–629.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygeno.2007.01.003

  127. 127.

    Russo AJ, Vasudevan SO, Méndez‐Huergo SP, et al. Intracellular immune sensing promotes inflammation via gasdermin D‐driven release of a lectin alarmin. Nat Immunol. 2021;22:154–165.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41590-020-00844-7

  128. 128.

    Kiss M, Vande Walle L, Saavedra PHV, et al. IL1β promotes immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment independent of the inflammasome and gasdermin D. Cancer Immunol Res. 2021;9:309–323.

    Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-20-0431

  129. 129.

    Gaul S, Leszczynska A, Alegre F, et al. Hepatocyte pyroptosis and release of inflammasome particles induce stellate cell activation and liver fibrosis. J Hepatol. 2021;74:156–167.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jhep.2020.07.041

  130. 130.

    Zhang H, Zeng L, Xie M, et al. TMEM173 drives lethal coagulation in sepsis. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;27:556–570.e556.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chom.2020.02.004

  131. 131.

    Yang M, So KF, Lo ACY, Lam WC. The effect of lycium barbarum polysaccharides on pyroptosis‐associated amyloid β(1‐40) oligomers‐induced adult retinal pigment epithelium 19 cell damage. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:4658.

    Not in our library10.3390/ijms21134658

  132. 132.
  133. 133.
  134. 134.
  135. 135.

    Li Y, Yuan Y, Huang ZX, et al. GSDME‐mediated pyroptosis promotes inflammation and fibrosis in obstructive nephropathy. Cell Death Differ. 2021..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41418-021-00755-6

  136. 136.
  137. 137.
  138. 138.

    Ibrahim J, De Schutter E, Op de Beeck K. GSDME: a potential ally in cancer detection and treatment. Trends Cancer. 2021;7:392–394.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.trecan.2020.12.002

  139. 139.
  140. 140.

    Kazmierczak M, Kazmierczak P, Peng AW, et al. Pejvakin, a candidate stereociliary rootlet protein, regulates hair cell function in a cell‐autonomous manner. J Neurosci. 2017;37:3447–3464.

    Not in our library10.1523/jneurosci.2711-16.2017

  141. 141.

    Collin RW, Kalay E, Oostrik J, et al. Involvement of DFNB59 mutations in autosomal recessive nonsyndromic hearing impairment. Hum Mutat. 2007;28:718–723.

    Not in our library10.1002/humu.20510

  142. 142.
  143. 143.

    Lunny DP, Weed E, Nolan PM, Marquardt A, Augustin M, Porter RM. Mutations in gasdermin 3 cause aberrant differentiation of the hair follicle and sebaceous gland. J Invest Dermatol. 2005;124:615–621.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0022-202x.2005.23623.x

  144. 144.

    Yu J, Kang MJ, Kim BJ, et al. Polymorphisms in GSDMA and GSDMB are associated with asthma susceptibility, atopy and BHR. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2011;46:701–708.

    Not in our library10.1002/ppul.21424

  145. 145.

    Kumar S, Rathkolb B, Budde BS, et al. Gsdma3(I359N) is a novel ENU‐induced mutant mouse line for studying the function of Gasdermin A3 in the hair follicle and epidermis. J Dermatol Sci. 2012;67:190–192.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jdermsci.2012.05.001

  146. 146.

    Tamura M, Shiroishi T. GSDM family genes meet autophagy. Biochem J. 2015;469:e5–e7.

    Not in our library10.1042/bj20150558

  147. 147.

    Shi P, Tang A, Xian L, et al. Loss of conserved Gsdma3 self‐regulation causes autophagy and cell death. Biochem J. 2015;468:325–336.

    Not in our library10.1042/bj20150204

  148. 148.

    Carl‐McGrath S, Schneider‐Stock R, Ebert M, Röcken C. Differential expression and localisation of gasdermin‐like (GSDML), a novel member of the cancer‐associated GSDMDC protein family, in neoplastic and non‐neoplastic gastric, hepatic, and colon tissues. Pathology. 2008;40:13–24.

    Not in our library10.1080/00313020701716250

  149. 149.

    Panganiban RA, Sun M, Dahlin A, et al. A functional splice variant associated with decreased asthma risk abolishes the ability of gasdermin B to induce epithelial cell pyroptosis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2018;142:1469–1478.e1462.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaci.2017.11.040

  150. 150.

    Clark AD, Nair N, Anderson AE, et al. Lymphocyte DNA methylation mediates genetic risk at shared immune‐mediated disease loci. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2020;145:1438–1451.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jaci.2019.12.910

  151. 151.

    Sun Q, Yang J, Xing G, Sun Q, Zhang L, He F. Expression of GSDML associates with tumor progression in uterine cervix cancer. Transl Oncol. 2008;1:73–83.

    Not in our library10.1593/tlo.08112

  152. 152.

    Hergueta‐Redondo M, Sarrio D, Molina‐Crespo Á, et al. Gasdermin B expression predicts poor clinical outcome in HER2‐positive breast cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:56295–56308.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.10787

  153. 153.
  154. 154.
  155. 155.

    Wei J, Xu Z, Chen X, et al. Overexpression of GSDMC is a prognostic factor for predicting a poor outcome in lung adenocarcinoma. Mol Med Rep. 2020;21:360–370.

    Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2019.10837

  156. 156.

    Kusumaningrum N, Lee DH, Yoon HS, Park CH, Chung JH. Ultraviolet light‐induced gasdermin C expression is mediated via TRPV1/calcium/calcineurin/NFATc1 signaling. Int J Mol Med. 2018;42:2859–2866.

    Not in our library10.3892/ijmm.2018.3839

  157. 157.

    Kusumaningrum N, Lee DH, Yoon HS, Kim YK, Park CH, Chung JH. Gasdermin C is induced by ultraviolet light and contributes to MMP‐1 expression via activation of ERK and JNK pathways. J Dermatol Sci. 2018;90:180–189.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jdermsci.2018.01.015

  158. 158.
  159. 159.

    Blanc F, Maroilley T, Revilla M, et al. Influence of genetics and the pre‐vaccination blood transcriptome on the variability of antibody levels after vaccination against Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae in pigs. Genet Sel Evol. 2021;53:24.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12711-021-00614-5

  160. 160.

    Zhang Y, Fukui N, Yahata M, et al. Genome‐wide DNA methylation profile implicates potential cartilage regeneration at the late stage of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24:835–843.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.joca.2015.12.013

  161. 161.

    Zhang Y, Fukui N, Yahata M, et al. Identification of DNA methylation changes associated with disease progression in subchondral bone with site‐matched cartilage in knee osteoarthritis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:34460.

    Not in our library10.1038/srep34460

  162. 162.
  163. 163.

    Crosslin DR, McDavid A, Weston N, et al. Genetic variation associated with circulating monocyte count in the eMERGE Network. Hum Mol Genet. 2013;22:2119–2127.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddt010

  164. 164.
  165. 165.

    Du M, Yuan T, Schilter KF, et al. Prostate cancer risk locus at 8q24 as a regulatory hub by physical interactions with multiple genomic loci across the genome. Hum Mol Genet. 2015;24:154–166.

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddu426

  166. 166.

    Tseng YY, Moriarity BS, Gong W, et al. PVT1 dependence in cancer with MYC copy‐number increase. Nature. 2014;512:82–86.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature13311

  167. 167.

    Liu X, Lieberman J. Knocking 'em dead: pore‐forming proteins in immune defense. Annu Rev Immunol. 2020;38:455–485.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-111319-023800

  168. 168.

    Fujii T, Tamura M, Tanaka S, et al. Gasdermin D (Gsdmd) is dispensable for mouse intestinal epithelium development. Genesis. 2008;46:418–423.

    Not in our library10.1002/dvg.20412

  169. 169.

    Kayagaki N, Lee BL, Stowe IB, et al. IRF2 transcriptionally induces GSDMD expression for pyroptosis. Sci Signal. 2019;12:eaax4917.

    Not in our library10.1126/scisignal.aax4917

  170. 170.

    Liao W, Overman MJ, Boutin AT, et al. KRAS‐IRF2 axis drives immune suppression and immune therapy resistance in colorectal cancer. Cancer Cell. 2019;35:559–572.e557.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2019.02.008

  171. 171.

    Han C, Yang Y, Yu A, et al. Investigation on the mechanism of mafenide in inhibiting pyroptosis and the release of inflammatory factors. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2020;147:105303.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ejps.2020.105303

  172. 172.

    Qiu X, Cheng X, Zhang J, Yuan C, Zhao M, Yang X. Ethyl pyruvate confers protection against endotoxemia and sepsis by inhibiting caspase‐11‐dependent cell pyroptosis. Int Immunopharmacol. 2020;78:106016.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.intimp.2019.106016

  173. 173.

    Kanneganti A, Malireddi RKS, Saavedra PHV, et al. GSDMD is critical for autoinflammatory pathology in a mouse model of Familial Mediterranean Fever. J Exp Med. 2018;215:1519–1529.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20172060

  174. 174.

    De Schutter E, Croes L, Ibrahim J, et al. GSDME and its role in cancer: from behind the scenes to the front of the stage. Int J Cancer. 2021;148:2872–2883.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.33390

  175. 175.

    de Beeck KO, Van Laer L, Van Camp G. DFNA5, a gene involved in hearing loss and cancer: a review. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121:197–207.

    Not in our library10.1177/000348941212100310

  176. 176.

    Masuda Y, Futamura M, Kamino H, et al. The potential role of DFNA5, a hearing impairment gene, in p53‐mediated cellular response to DNA damage. J Hum Genet. 2006;51:652–664.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10038-006-0004-6

  177. 177.
  178. 178.
  179. 179.

    Salime S, Charif M, Bousfiha A, et al. Homozygous mutations in PJVK and MYO15A genes associated with non‐syndromic hearing loss in Moroccan families. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2017;101:25–29.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.07.024

  180. 180.

    Defourny J, Aghaie A, Perfettini I, Avan P, Delmaghani S, Petit C. Pejvakin‐mediated pexophagy protects auditory hair cells against noise‐induced damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:8010–8017.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1821844116

  181. 181.

    Mujtaba G, Bukhari I, Fatima A, Naz S. A p.C343S missense mutation in PJVK causes progressive hearing loss. Gene. 2012;504:98–101.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.gene.2012.05.013

  182. 182.

    Cheng YF, Tsai YH, Huang CY, et al. Generation and pathological characterization of a transgenic mouse model carrying a missense PJVK mutation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2020;532:675–681.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2020.07.101

  183. 183.

    Harris SL, Kazmierczak M, Pangršič T, et al. Conditional deletion of pejvakin in adult outer hair cells causes progressive hearing loss in mice. Neuroscience. 2017;344:380–393.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.12.055

  184. 184.

    Zhou Y, Tariq M, He S, Abdullah U, Zhang J, Baig SM. Whole exome sequencing identified mutations causing hearing loss in five consanguineous Pakistani families. BMC Med Genet. 2020;21:151.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12881-020-01087-x

  185. 185.

    Khan A, Han S, Wang R, Ansar M, Ahmad W, Zhang X. Sequence variants in genes causing nonsyndromic hearing loss in a Pakistani cohort. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019;7:e917.

    Not in our library10.1002/mgg3.917

  186. 186.

    Carvalho GM, Ramos PZ, Castilho AM, Guimarães AC, Sartorato EL. Molecular study of patients with auditory neuropathy. Mol Med Rep. 2016;14:481–490.

    Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2016.5226

  187. 187.

    Borck G, Rainshtein L, Hellman‐Aharony S, et al. High frequency of autosomal‐recessive DFNB59 hearing loss in an isolated Arab population in Israel. Clin Genet. 2012;82:271–276.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1399-0004.2011.01741.x

  188. 188.

    Wu CC, Lin YH, Liu TC, et al. Identifying children with poor cochlear implantation outcomes using massively parallel sequencing. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015;94:e1073.

    Not in our library10.1097/md.0000000000001073

  189. 189.

    Martinon F, Pétrilli V, Mayor A, Tardivel A, Tschopp J. Gout‐associated uric acid crystals activate the NALP3 inflammasome. Nature. 2006;440:237–241.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature04516

  190. 190.

    Renaudin F, Orliaguet L, Castelli F, et al. Gout and pseudo‐gout‐related crystals promote GLUT1‐mediated glycolysis that governs NLRP3 and interleukin‐1β activation on macrophages. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79:1506–1514.

    Not in our library10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-217342

  191. 191.

    Hao K, Jiang W, Zhou M, et al. Targeting BRD4 prevents acute gouty arthritis by regulating pyroptosis. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16:3163–3173.

    Not in our library10.7150/ijbs.46153

  192. 192.

    He X, Fan X, Bai B, Lu N, Zhang S, Zhang L, Pyroptosis is a critical immune‐inflammatory response involved in atherosclerosis. Pharmacol Res. 2021;165:105447.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105447

  193. 193.

    Yang M, Lv H, Liu Q, et al. Colchicine alleviates cholesterol crystal‐induced endothelial cell pyroptosis through activating AMPK/SIRT1 pathway. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2020;2020:9173530.

    Not in our library10.1155/2020/9173530

  194. 194.

    Chen JJ, Tao J, Zhang XL, et al. Inhibition of the ox‐LDL‐induced pyroptosis by FGF21 of human umbilical vein endothelial cells through the TET2‐UQCRC1‐ROS pathway. DNA Cell Biol. 2020;39:661–670.

    Not in our library10.1089/dna.2019.5151

  195. 195.

    Zhaolin Z, Jiaojiao C, Peng W, et al. OxLDL induces vascular endothelial cell pyroptosis through miR‐125a‐5p/TET2 pathway. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234:7475–7491.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.27509

  196. 196.

    Zhou R, Tardivel A, Thorens B, Choi I, Tschopp J, Thioredoxin‐interacting protein links oxidative stress to inflammasome activation. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:136–140.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.1831

  197. 197.

    Reynolds CM, McGillicuddy FC, Harford KA, Finucane OM, Mills KH, Roche HM. Dietary saturated fatty acids prime the NLRP3 inflammasome via TLR4 in dendritic cells‐implications for diet‐induced insulin resistance. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2012;56:1212–1222.

    Not in our library10.1002/mnfr.201200058

  198. 198.
  199. 199.

    Gu J, Huang W, Zhang W, et al. Sodium butyrate alleviates high‐glucose‐induced renal glomerular endothelial cells damage via inhibiting pyroptosis. Int Immunopharmacol. 2019;75:105832.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.intimp.2019.105832

  200. 200.

    Gubser PM, Bantug GR, Razik L, et al. Rapid effector function of memory CD8+ T cells requires an immediate‐early glycolytic switch. Nat Immunol. 2013;14:1064–1072.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.2687

  201. 201.

    Fox CJ, Hammerman PS, Thompson CB. Fuel feeds function: energy metabolism and the T‐cell response. Nat Rev Immunol. 2005;5:844–852.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri1710

  202. 202.

    Macintyre AN, Gerriets VA, Nichols AG, et al. The glucose transporter Glut1 is selectively essential for CD4 T cell activation and effector function. Cell Metab. 2014;20:61–72.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2014.05.004

  203. 203.

    Freemerman AJ, Johnson AR, Sacks GN, et al. Metabolic reprogramming of macrophages: glucose transporter 1 (GLUT1)‐mediated glucose metabolism drives a proinflammatory phenotype. J Biol Chem. 2014;289:7884–7896.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m113.522037

  204. 204.

    Tannahill GM, Curtis AM, Adamik J, et al. Succinate is an inflammatory signal that induces IL‐1β through HIF‐1α. Nature. 2013;496:238–242.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11986

  205. 205.

    Dror E, Dalmas E, Meier DT, et al. Postprandial macrophage‐derived IL‐1β stimulates insulin, and both synergistically promote glucose disposal and inflammation. Nat Immunol. 2017;18:283–292.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.3659

  206. 206.

    Takahashi T, Suzuki T. Role of sulfatide in normal and pathological cells and tissues. J Lipid Res. 2012;53:1437–1450.

    Not in our library10.1194/jlr.r026682

  207. 207.

    Ricchi M, Odoardi MR, Carulli L, et al. Differential effect of oleic and palmitic acid on lipid accumulation and apoptosis in cultured hepatocytes. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:830–840.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1440-1746.2008.05733.x

  208. 208.

    Cnop M, Hannaert JC, Hoorens A, Eizirik DL, Pipeleers DG. Inverse relationship between cytotoxicity of free fatty acids in pancreatic islet cells and cellular triglyceride accumulation. Diabetes. 2001;50:1771–1777.

    Not in our library10.2337/diabetes.50.8.1771

  209. 209.

    Zhan ZY, Wu M, Shang Y, et al. Taxifolin ameliorate high‐fat‐diet feeding plus acute ethanol binge‐induced steatohepatitis through inhibiting inflammatory caspase‐1‐dependent pyroptosis. Food Funct. 2021;12:362–372.

    Not in our library10.1039/d0fo02653k

  210. 210.
  211. 211.

    Koh EH, Yoon JE, Ko MS, et al. Sphingomyelin synthase 1 mediates hepatocyte pyroptosis to trigger non‐alcoholic steatohepatitis. Gut. 2020..

    Not in our library10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322509

  212. 212.

    Yabuta S, Shidoji Y. TLR4‐mediated pyroptosis in human hepatoma‐derived HuH‐7 cells induced by a branched‐chain polyunsaturated fatty acid, geranylgeranoic acid. Biosci Rep. 2020;40:BSR20194118.

    Not in our library10.1042/bsr20194118

  213. 213.
  214. 214.

    Yin Y, Li X, Sha X, et al. Early hyperlipidemia promotes endothelial activation via a caspase‐1‐sirtuin 1 pathway. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2015;35:804–816.

    Not in our library10.1161/atvbaha.115.305282

  215. 215.

    Zeng Z, Zheng Q, Chen J, et al. FGF21 mitigates atherosclerosis via inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome‐mediated vascular endothelial cells pyroptosis. Exp Cell Res. 2020;393:112108.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.yexcr.2020.112108

  216. 216.

    Li Y, Niu X, Xu H, et al. VX‐765 attenuates atherosclerosis in ApoE deficient mice by modulating VSMCs pyroptosis. Exp Cell Res. 2020;389:111847.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.yexcr.2020.111847

  217. 217.

    Hu Q, Zhang T, Yi L, Zhou X, Mi M, Dihydromyricetin inhibits NLRP3 inflammasome‐dependent pyroptosis by activating the Nrf2 signaling pathway in vascular endothelial cells. Biofactors. 2018;44:123–136.

    Not in our library10.1002/biof.1395

  218. 218.

    Lopez‐Pastrana J, Ferrer LM, Li YF, et al. Inhibition of caspase‐1 activation in endothelial cells improves angiogenesis: a novel therapeutic potential for ischemia. J Biol Chem. 2015;290:17485–17494.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m115.641191

  219. 219.

    An N, Gao Y, Si Z, et al. Regulatory mechanisms of the NLRP3 inflammasome, a novel immune‐inflammatory marker in cardiovascular diseases. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1592.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2019.01592

  220. 220.

    Ozaki E, Campbell M, Doyle SL. Targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome in chronic inflammatory diseases: current perspectives. J Inflamm Res. 2015;8:15–27.

    Not in our library10.2147/jir.s51250

  221. 221.

    Xiao H, Lu M, Lin TY, et al. Sterol regulatory element binding protein 2 activation of NLRP3 inflammasome in endothelium mediates hemodynamic‐induced atherosclerosis susceptibility. Circulation. 2013;128:632–642.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.113.002714

  222. 222.

    Duewell P, Kono H, Rayner KJ, et al. NLRP3 inflammasomes are required for atherogenesis and activated by cholesterol crystals. Nature. 2010;464:1357–1361.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature08938

  223. 223.

    Liu Y, Tie L. Apolipoprotein M and sphingosine‐1‐phosphate complex alleviates TNF‐α‐induced endothelial cell injury and inflammation through PI3K/AKT signaling pathway. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2019;19:279.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12872-019-1263-4

  224. 224.
  225. 225.

    Wu P, Chen J, Chen J, et al. Trimethylamine N‐oxide promotes apoE(‐/‐) mice atherosclerosis by inducing vascular endothelial cell pyroptosis via the SDHB/ROS pathway. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235:6582–6591.

    Not in our library10.1002/jcp.29518

  226. 226.

    McCully KS. Homocysteine metabolism, atherosclerosis, and diseases of aging. Compr Physiol. 2015;6:471–505.

    Not in our library10.1002/cphy.c150021

  227. 227.

    Geovanini GR, Libby P. Atherosclerosis and inflammation: overview and updates. Clin Sci (Lond). 2018;132:1243–1252.

    Not in our library10.1042/cs20180306

  228. 228.

    Xi H, Zhang Y, Xu Y, et al. Caspase‐1 inflammasome activation mediates homocysteine‐induced pyrop‐apoptosis in endothelial cells. Circ Res. 2016;118:1525–1539.

    Not in our library10.1161/circresaha.116.308501

  229. 229.
  230. 230.
  231. 231.

    Stienstra R, Joosten LA, Koenen T, et al. The inflammasome‐mediated caspase‐1 activation controls adipocyte differentiation and insulin sensitivity. Cell Metab. 2010;12:593–605.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2010.11.011

  232. 232.

    Liu J, Wang Y, Meng H, et al. Butyrate rather than LPS subverts gingival epithelial homeostasis by downregulation of intercellular junctions and triggering pyroptosis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46:894–907.

    Not in our library10.1111/jcpe.13162

  233. 233.

    Li A, Zhang S, Li J, Liu K, Huang F, Liu B, Metformin and resveratrol inhibit Drp1‐mediated mitochondrial fission and prevent ER stress‐associated NLRP3 inflammasome activation in the adipose tissue of diabetic mice. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2016;434:36–47.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.mce.2016.06.008

  234. 234.
  235. 235.

    Zhu B, Cheng X, Jiang Y, et al. Silencing of KCNQ1OT1 decreases oxidative stress and pyroptosis of renal tubular epithelial cells. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2020;13:365–375.

    Not in our library10.2147/dmso.s225791

  236. 236.

    Xie C, Guo ZX, Qiu T, Tuo X. lncRNA GAS5/miR‐452‐5p reduces oxidative stress and pyroptosis of high‐glucose‐stimulated renal tubular cells. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes. 2019;12:2609–2617.

    Not in our library10.2147/dmso.s228654

  237. 237.

    Wei M, Li Z, Xiao L, Yang Z. Effects of ROS‐relative NF‐κB signaling on high glucose‐induced TLR4 and MCP‐1 expression in podocyte injury. Mol Immunol. 2015;68:261–271.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2015.09.002

  238. 238.

    Yang S, Zhang J, Wang S, Zhao X, Shi J. SOCS2 overexpression alleviates diabetic nephropathy in rats by inhibiting the TLR4/NF‐κB pathway. Oncotarget. 2017;8:91185–91198.

    Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.20434

  239. 239.

    Aki T, Funakoshi T, Uemura K. Regulated necrosis and its implications in toxicology. Toxicology. 2015;333:118–126.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tox.2015.04.003

  240. 240.

    Vandanmagsar B, Youm YH, Ravussin A, et al. The NLRP3 inflammasome instigates obesity‐induced inflammation and insulin resistance. Nat Med. 2011;17:179–188.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm.2279

  241. 241.

    Horng T, Hotamisligil GS. Linking the inflammasome to obesity‐related disease. Nat Med. 2011;17:164–165.

    Not in our library10.1038/nm0211-164

  242. 242.

    Qian S, Pan J, Su Y, et al. BMPR2 promotes fatty acid oxidation and protects white adipocytes from cell death in mice. Commun Biol. 2020;3:200.

    Not in our library10.1038/s42003-020-0928-y

  243. 243.

    Giordano A, Murano I, Mondini E, et al. Obese adipocytes show ultrastructural features of stressed cells and die of pyroptosis. J Lipid Res. 2013;54:2423–2436.

    Not in our library10.1194/jlr.m038638

  244. 244.

    Pillon NJ, Chan KL, Zhang S, et al. Saturated fatty acids activate caspase‐4/5 in human monocytes, triggering IL‐1β and IL‐18 release. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2016;311:E825–e835.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpendo.00296.2016

  245. 245.

    Wang Y, Li C, Ali I, Li L, Wang G. N‐acetylcysteine modulates non‐esterified fatty acid‐induced pyroptosis and inflammation in granulosa cells. Mol Immunol. 2020;127:157–163.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2020.09.011

  246. 246.
  247. 247.

    Zasłona Z, Flis E, Wilk MM, et al. Caspase‐11 promotes allergic airway inflammation. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1055.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-020-14945-2

  248. 248.

    Galluzzi L, Buqué A, Kepp O, Zitvogel L, Kroemer G. Immunogenic cell death in cancer and infectious disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17:97–111.

    Not in our library10.1038/nri.2016.107

  249. 249.

    Ben‐Sasson SZ, Hogg A, Hu‐Li J, et al. IL‐1 enhances expansion, effector function, tissue localization, and memory response of antigen‐specific CD8 T cells. J Exp Med. 2013;210:491–502.

    Not in our library10.1084/jem.20122006

  250. 250.
  251. 251.
  252. 252.

    Dinarello CA. Overview of the IL‐1 family in innate inflammation and acquired immunity. Immunol Rev. 2018;281:8–27.

    Not in our library10.1111/imr.12621

  253. 253.

    Fisher DT, Appenheimer MM, Evans SS. The two faces of IL‐6 in the tumor microenvironment. Semin Immunol. 2014;26:38–47.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.smim.2014.01.008

  254. 254.

    Tanaka T, Narazaki M, Kishimoto T. IL‐6 in inflammation, immunity, and disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2014;6:a016295.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a016295

  255. 255.

    Mariathasan S, Weiss DS, Newton K, et al. Cryopyrin activates the inflammasome in response to toxins and ATP. Nature. 2006;440:228–232.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature04515

  256. 256.

    Wang Q, Imamura R, Motani K, Kushiyama H, Nagata S, Suda T. Pyroptotic cells externalize eat‐me and release find‐me signals and are efficiently engulfed by macrophages. Int Immunol. 2013;25:363–372.

    Not in our library10.1093/intimm/dxs161

  257. 257.

    Yu M, Wang H, Ding A, et al. HMGB1 signals through toll‐like receptor (TLR) 4 and TLR2. Shock. 2006;26:174–179.

    Not in our library10.1097/01.shk.0000225404.51320.82

  258. 258.

    Apetoh L, Ghiringhelli F, Tesniere A, et al. The interaction between HMGB1 and TLR4 dictates the outcome of anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Immunol Rev. 2007;220:47–59.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-065x.2007.00573.x

  259. 259.
  260. 260.

    Nagata S. Apoptosis and clearance of apoptotic cells. Annu Rev Immunol. 2018;36:489–517.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-042617-053010

  261. 261.

    Xi G, Gao J, Wan B, et al. GSDMD is required for effector CD8(+) T cell responses to lung cancer cells. Int Immunopharmacol. 2019;74:105713.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.intimp.2019.105713

  262. 262.

    Hage C, Hoves S, Strauss L, et al. Sorafenib induces pyroptosis in macrophages and triggers natural killer cell‐mediated cytotoxicity against hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2019;70:1280–1297.

    Not in our library10.1002/hep.30666

  263. 263.

    Wang Q, Ren M, Feng F, Chen K, Ju X. Treatment of colon cancer with liver X receptor agonists induces immunogenic cell death. Mol Carcinog. 2018;57:903–910.

    Not in our library10.1002/mc.22811

  264. 264.

    Lu H, Zhang S, Wu J, et al. Molecular targeted therapies elicit concurrent apoptotic and GSDME‐dependent pyroptotic tumor cell death. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:6066–6077.

    Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-1478

  265. 265.

    Gao Y, Zhang H, Zhou N, et al. Methotrexate‐loaded tumour‐cell‐derived microvesicles can relieve biliary obstruction in patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Biomed Eng. 2020;4:743–753.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41551-020-0583-0

  266. 266.

    Fan JX, Deng RH, Wang H, et al. Epigenetics‐based tumor cells pyroptosis for enhancing the immunological effect of chemotherapeutic nanocarriers. Nano Lett. 2019;19:8049–8058.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b03245

  267. 267.

    Lu C, Guo C, Chen H, et al. A novel chimeric PD1‐NKG2D‐41BB receptor enhances antitumor activity of NK92 cells against human lung cancer H1299 cells by triggering pyroptosis. Mol Immunol. 2020;122:200–206.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2020.04.016

  268. 268.

    Ostrand‐Rosenberg S, Beury DW, Parker KH, Horn LA. Survival of the fittest: how myeloid‐derived suppressor cells survive in the inhospitable tumor microenvironment. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2020;69:215–221.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00262-019-02388-8

  269. 269.

    Jin S, Yang Z, Hao X, Tang W, Ma W, Zong H. Roles of HMGB1 in regulating myeloid‐derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. Biomark Res. 2020;8:21.

    Not in our library10.1186/s40364-020-00201-8

  270. 270.

    Parker KH, Horn LA, Ostrand‐Rosenberg S. High‐mobility group box protein 1 promotes the survival of myeloid‐derived suppressor cells by inducing autophagy. J Leukoc Biol. 2016;100:463–470.

    Not in our library10.1189/jlb.3hi0715-305r

  271. 271.

    Parker KH, Sinha P, Horn LA, et al. HMGB1 enhances immune suppression by facilitating the differentiation and suppressive activity of myeloid‐derived suppressor cells. Cancer Res. 2014;74:5723–5733.

    Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-2347

  272. 272.

    Park S, Cheon S, Cho D. The dual effects of interleukin‐18 in tumor progression. Cell Mol Immunol. 2007;4:329–335.

    Not in our library

  273. 273.

    Zheng M, Kanneganti TD. The regulation of the ZBP1‐NLRP3 inflammasome and its implications in pyroptosis, apoptosis, and necroptosis (PANoptosis). Immunol Rev. 2020;297:26–38.

    Not in our library10.1111/imr.12909

  274. 274.

    Orning P, Lien E. Multiple roles of caspase‐8 in cell death, inflammation, and innate immunity. J Leukoc Biol. 2021;109:121–141.

    Not in our library10.1002/jlb.3mr0420-305r

  275. 275.

    Reina‐Campos M, Moscat J, Diaz‐Meco M. Metabolism shapes the tumor microenvironment. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2017;48:47–53.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ceb.2017.05.006

  276. 276.

    Dey P, Kimmelman AC, DePinho RA. Metabolic codependencies in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:1067–1081.

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-1211

  277. 277.

    Warburg O, Wind F, Negelein E. The metabolism of tumors in the body. J Gen Physiol. 1927;8:519–530.

    Not in our library10.1085/jgp.8.6.519

  278. 278.

    Scharping NE, Rivadeneira DB, Menk AV, et al. Mitochondrial stress induced by continuous stimulation under hypoxia rapidly drives T cell exhaustion. Nat Immunol. 2021;22:205–215.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41590-020-00834-9

  279. 279.

    Schreiber RD, Old LJ, Smyth MJ. Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity's roles in cancer suppression and promotion. Science. 2011;331:1565–1570.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1203486

  280. 280.

    Van Acker HH, Ma S, Scolaro T, Kaech SM, Mazzone M. How metabolism bridles cytotoxic CD8(+) T cells through epigenetic modifications. Trends Immunol. 2021;42:401–417.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2021.03.006

  281. 281.

    Poznanski SM, Singh K, Ritchie TM, et al. Metabolic flexibility determines human NK cell functional fate in the tumor microenvironment. Cell Metab 2021;;33:1205–1220.e5..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2021.03.023

  282. 282.

    Assmann N, O'Brien KL, Donnelly RP, et al. Srebp‐controlled glucose metabolism is essential for NK cell functional responses. Nat Immunol. 2017;18:1197–1206.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.3838

  283. 283.

    Liu X, Hartman CL, Li L, et al. Reprogramming lipid metabolism prevents effector T cell senescence and enhances tumor immunotherapy. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13:eaaz6314.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aaz6314

  284. 284.

    Ringel AE, Drijvers JM, Baker GJ, et al. Obesity shapes metabolism in the tumor microenvironment to suppress anti‐tumor immunity. Cell. 2020;183:1848–1866.e1826.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.009

  285. 285.

    Iyengar NM, Gucalp A, Dannenberg AJ, Hudis CA. Obesity and cancer mechanisms: tumor microenvironment and inflammation. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:4270–4276.

    Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.67.4283

  286. 286.

    Zitvogel L, Pietrocola F, Kroemer G. Nutrition, inflammation and cancer. Nat Immunol. 2017;18:843–850.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.3754

  287. 287.

    Masters SL, Dunne A, Subramanian SL, et al. Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome by islet amyloid polypeptide provides a mechanism for enhanced IL‐1β in type 2 diabetes. Nat Immunol. 2010;11:897–904.

    Not in our library10.1038/ni.1935

  288. 288.

    Rasheed A, Rayner KJ. Macrophage responses to environmental stimuli during homeostasis and disease. Endocr Rev. 2021..

    Not in our library10.1210/endrev/bnab004

  289. 289.

    Sade‐Feldman M, Yizhak K, Bjorgaard SL, et al. Defining T cell states associated with response to checkpoint immunotherapy in melanoma. Cell. 2018;175:998–1013.e1020.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.038

  290. 290.

    Madden MZ, Rathmell JC. The complex integration of T‐cell metabolism and immunotherapy. Cancer Discov..

    Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-0569

  291. 291.

    Steven A, Fisher SA, Robinson BW. Immunotherapy for lung cancer. Respirology. 2016;21:821–833.

    Not in our library10.1111/resp.12789

  292. 292.

    Iams WT, Porter J, Horn L. Immunotherapeutic approaches for small‐cell lung cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17:300–312.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41571-019-0316-z

  293. 293.

    Jiang P, Gu S, Pan D, et al. Signatures of T cell dysfunction and exclusion predict cancer immunotherapy response. Nat Med. 2018;24:1550–1558.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41591-018-0136-1

  294. 294.

    Liu Y, Fang Y, Chen X, et al. Gasdermin E‐mediated target cell pyroptosis by CAR T cells triggers cytokine release syndrome. Sci Immunol. 2020;5:eaax7969.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciimmunol.aax7969

  295. 295.

    Rotz SJ, Leino D, Szabo S, Mangino JL, Turpin BK, Pressey JG. Severe cytokine release syndrome in a patient receiving PD‐1‐directed therapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2017;64...

    Not in our library10.1002/pbc.26642

  296. 296.

    Kennedy LB, Salama AKS. A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:86–104.

    Not in our library10.3322/caac.21596

  297. 297.

    Hu J, Dong Y, Ding L, et al. Local delivery of arsenic trioxide nanoparticles for hepatocellular carcinoma treatment. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2019;4:28.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41392-019-0062-9

  298. 298.

    Serna N, Álamo P, Ramesh P, et al. Nanostructured toxins for the selective destruction of drug‐resistant human CXCR4(+) colorectal cancer stem cells. J Control Release. 2020;320:96–104.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.01.019

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.