No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.
Metabolism in tumor microenvironment: Implications for cancer immunotherapy
Rongchen Shi, Yi‐Quan Tang, Hongming Miao
MedComm · 2020 · Review · CC BY
Abstract
Tumor microenvironment is a special environment for tumor survival, which is characterized by hypoxia, acidity, nutrient deficiency, and immunosuppression. The environment consists of the vasculature, immune cells, extracellular matrix, and proteins or metabolic molecules. A large number of recent studies have shown that not only tumor cells but also the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment have undergone metabolic reprogramming, which is closely related to tumor drug resistance and malignant progression. Tumor immunotherapy based on T cells gives patients new hope, but faces the dilemma of low response rate. New strategies sensitizing cancer immunotherapy are urgently needed. Metabolic reprogramming can directly affect the biological activity of tumor cells and also regulate the differentiation and activation of immune cells. The authors aim to review the characteristics of tumor microenvironment, the metabolic changes of tumor‐associated immune cells, and the regulatory role of metabolic reprogramming in cancer immunotherapy.
Full text
From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.
INTRODUCTION
The transformation from normal cells to neoplastic cells is widely believed to be due to DNA mutations, which causes loss of susceptibility to the tumor immune microenvironment. Under normal circumstances, such cells are quickly cleared by the immune system. However, the failure of immunosurveillance leads to the progression from neoplasia to cancer.,, During this process, tumor cells evade the recognition and elimination of the immune system by regulating their own antigen processing and presentation machinery. Finally, cancerous cells continue to mutate in order to continuously escape immune surveillance, and eventually form tumors.
Actually, cancer cells do not simply evade the immune surveillance by themselves. Cancer cells can also create an immunosuppressive microenvironment to regulate surrounding cells, which not only facilitates tumor growth, but also further promotes tumor immune escape. This microenvironment also called “Tumor Microenvironment” (TME) (Figure 1). The TME refers to the networks of cells and structures that surround tumor cells. Apart from the tumor cells, the TME includes surrounding vasculature, the extracellular matrix, other nonmalignant cells (immune cells, cancer‐associated fibroblasts, etc), and signaling molecules (cytokines, growth factors, hormones, etc.). The TME is not only closely related to the occurrence, growth, and metastasis of tumors, but also has a great impact on the treatment of tumors.,, In this review, we focus on the characteristics and composition of the TME, and summarize the metabolic changes of immune cells in the TME and their effects on cancer immunotherapy.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT
The formation of the TME mainly depends on tumor metabolism. A common feature of tumor metabolism is in order to further consolidate their advantages, tumor cells competitively plunder the nutrients in the microenvironment, and finally promote the tumor malignant progression., In this perspective, we summarize the characteristics of the TME into the following four aspects: (a) poor nutrient, (b) high acidity, (c) hypoxia, and (d) immunosuppressive microenvironment (Figure 2). Almost all TME have the above four characteristics, and investigation of the antecedents and consequences of the formation of the TME under these features may advance tumor research and improve clinical treatment.
Poor nutrient
In order to maintain their energy requirements related to survival and progression, cancer cells must continuously acquire nutrients from the TME, including two basic nutrients for tumor survival: glucose and glutamine. German physiologist, Otto Heinrich Warburg, firstly discovered that cancer cells perform glycolysis to provide energy even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, also known as the Warburg effect. Detection of the uptake of a radioactive fluorine‐labeled glucose analog, 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose (18F‐FDG), by cells based on the Warburg effect has been successfully used in clinic. In the 1950s, American scientist Harry for the first time discovered the high demand of glutamine for the proliferation of cancer cells. Glutamine plays an important role in the biosynthesis of nucleotides, glucosamine‐6‐phosphate, and amino acids., And 18F‐labeled glutamine tracer has also recently be shown to be promising in preclinical and early clinical studies, especially for brain tumors in which the use of 18F‐FDG is not feasible., In addition, cancer cells have high demand for almost all nutriments, including lipids and amino acids in the TME, leading to a lack of sufficient nutrition for tumor interstitial cells. These changes may ultimately promote the malignant growth and proliferation of tumors. It has been demonstrated that insufficient glucose in the TME impairs T cell antitumor activity.,,,, Low‐glycemic tumor microenvironments have been found to decreased T cell viability, which are associated with the low expression of zeste methyltransferase enhancer homolog 2 (EZH2) and decreased glycolytic function. Researchers also found that the glycolytic rate of natural killer (NK) cells was low in the microenvironment of lung cancer, which further weakened its cytotoxicity and cytokine production.
High acidity
Tumor cells take up a large amount of glucose in the TME for aerobic glycolysis to generate energy for their own use. Meanwhile, it also secretes a large amount of lactic acid, resulting in a hypoglycemic and acidic TME., Low PH in the TME impairs the function of tumor mesenchymal cells, especially immune cells, leading to immunosuppression., For example, lactic acids promote tumor‐associated macrophage M2 polarization and tumor malignant progression through the lactate‐MCT‐HIF1α axis as a critical signaling cascade. The low‐pH condition of the TME prevents the regeneration of NAD+, which acts as an important reductive equivalent, in T cells, and push the mitochondrial tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA) forward to produce ATP, ultimately inhibiting the function of T cells and cytokines production. Recently, Gao et al proposed a novel intracellular/extracellular lactic acid depletion strategy, also called PMLR nanosystem. They constructed a hollow, MnO2‐catalyzed nanosystem loaded with the lactate oxidase and a glycolytic inhibitor, and coated with red blood cell membrane for lactate consumption and synergy antitumor metabolism and immunity therapy. PMLR nanosystem effectively inhibits tumor growth by blocking ATP production, and also significantly depletes lactic acid in TME, thus activating natural immunity and in situ cellular immunity. Importantly, this effective TME regulation strategy activates local tumor immunity to improve the therapeutic effect of checkpoint blocking therapy, and overcomes the systemic toxicity caused by immunoagonists.
Hypoxia
Oxygen is necessary for cell metabolism to regulate biochemical reactions within cells. The rapid and uncontrolled proliferation of tumors leads to inadequate blood supply and hypoxia in TME, a characteristic of almost all solid tumors.,, Hypoxia generally refers to the area with the oxygen levels less than 2%. Although the rapid proliferation of tumors stimulates angiogenesis, the irregular distribution of new tumor blood vessels causes imbalanced tissue oxygenation capacity of capillaries, eventually leading to the generation of permanent or temporary hypoxic areas of the tumor. As tumors growing, they gradually adapt to hypoxia by utilizing hypoxia‐inducible factor 1α (HIF‐1α) to resist chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or immunotherapy. In the meanwhile, tumors develop a more aggressive and treatment‐resistant phenotype, which is closely related to the poor prognosis of patients., In addition, hypoxia in the TME also affects the surrounding cells, especially the immune cells. Hypoxia not only promotes the death of immune effector cells and reduces the generation and release of cytokines (such as CD8+T cells and NK cells, ), but also supports the generation of immunosuppressive cells (including regulatory T [Treg] cells and M2‐like macrophages, ) and promotes the production and secretion of immunosuppressive cytokines. Studies have shown that reducing hypoxia by breathing high oxygen can promote the increase of T cell infiltration and the secretion of pro‐inflammatory cytokines, which can improve tumor regression and survival in mice. Recently, Wu et al found that hypoxia in the TME promotes the enrichment of triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells‐1 (TREM‐1)+ macrophages in tumors, recruits C‐C Motif Chemokine Receptor 6 (CCR6)+ Treg cells through C‐C Motif Chemokine Ligand 20 (CCL20), and indirectly leads to the dysfunction and apoptosis of CD8+T cells, ultimately resulting in the formation of immunosuppressive microenvironment and resistance of PD1 blockade.
Tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment
The formation of tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment depends on the coordination of multiple immune cells, including M2‐like tumor‐associated macrophages (TAMs), Treg cells myeloid‐derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and so on. The chemokine CCL2 released during tumor growth promotes the infiltration of a large number of monocytes into the tumor by acting on the monocyte surface receptor CCR2. Interleukin‐4 (IL‐4) secreted by tumor cells and CD4+ T cells polarizes TAMs to an M2 phenotype and enhances tumor cell growth, invasion, and metastasis. TAMs also express a series of immune suppressor molecules and promote the formation of an immunosuppressive microenvironment. For example, TAMs express the major histocompatibility complexes HLA‐E and HLA‐G, which bind to CD94 and Ig‐like transcript 2 (ILT2) on the surface of NK cells and T cells, respectively, and inhibit their activation. Additionally, TAMs secrete cytokines such as IL‐10 and transforming growth factor‐β (TGF‐β) to inhibit the activity of CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells and mediate the proliferation of Treg cells, and finally maintain the tumor immunosuppressive microenvironment. Moreover, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (GM‐CSF), TGF‐β, CCL2, interferon gamma (IFN‐γ), IL‐6, IL‐10, and IL‐1β in the TME also promote MDSC infiltration into tumors. MDSCs produce high levels of nitric oxide (NO), arginine (Arg)‐1, and IL‐10, which inhibit antigen‐specific and nonspecific T cell responses. The MDSCs also promote the recruitment of Treg cells by secreting CCL3, CCL4, and CCL5.,, Taken together, in the TME, along with the great suppression of immune killer cells, recruitment and activation of immunosuppressive cells is conducive to the immune escape of tumor cells and promotes tumor progression.
Tumor‐associated macrophages
TAMs account for the largest proportion (up to 50%) of myeloid infiltrate in most human solid malignancies. The high heterogeneity of TAMs is not only found in different cancer patients, but also in different malignant lesions and specific tumor lesions of the same patient. In the TME, especially in malignant tumors with a high degree of progression, most TAMs tend to be M2 polarized, which is closely related to tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis; the construction of an immunosuppressive microenvironment; and the poor prognosis of patients., However, little is known about how TME regulates metabolic changes in TAMs. Here, we review the metabolic changes of TAMs and their possible applications in the treatment of malignant tumors.
Glucose metabolism
To date, it is generally believed that proinflammatory M1 macrophages are mainly characterized by enhanced glycolysis and attenuated TCAs, and are generally considered to have strong antitumor activity. Anti‐inflammatory M2 macrophages, however, show complete TCA and enhanced fatty acid oxidation, which promote tumor progression. Interestingly, TAMs enhance aerobic glycolysis, and exhibit a mixed phenotype of M1 and M2, with increased expression of pro‐inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, Arg1, IL4Ra, and M2 macrophage‐associated cytokines, which may be mediated to some extent by tumor‐derived lactate via Akt/mTOR signaling. TAMs promote blood vessel formation, enhance tumor cell extravasation, and induce epithelial‐mesenchymal transition, ultimately causing tumor invasion and metastasis, which could be disrupted by the inhibition of glycolysis with 2‐deoxyglucose. However, mTOR inhibition as a therapeutic target in cancer weakens TAM glycolysis in the hypoxic area, causing abnormal vascular structure and further promoting metastasis, which limits the use of this therapy. In contrast, it's also reported that oxidative phosphorylation is elevated in thyroid carcinoma‐primed macrophages through measurement of oxygen consumption rates, suggesting that oxidative phosphorylation is still intact despite of a broken TCA. Given the high heterogeneity of glucose oxidation in TAMs, more specific studies on the TAM subsets are needed in future.
Lipid metabolism
Activated macrophages also exhibit changes in lipid metabolism. M2 macrophages usually show strong fatty acid oxidation, which may be driven by activation of signal sensors, such as transcriptional activator 6 and peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor gamma coactivator‐1 beta (PGC‐1β) in response to IL‐4 treatment. IL‐4‐activated macrophages exhibit increased triglyceride uptake through CD36 and enhanced FAO to supply cellular energy., In contrast, lipopolysaccharide‐stimulated macrophages show enhanced synthesis of fatty acid and triglyceride, with an induction of pro‐inflammatory cytokines. In addition, enhancement of FAS is required for the augment of phagocytosis in monocytes.
In the TME, TAMs also change their lipid metabolism to adapt to environmental changes. TAMs enhance the biosynthesis, uptake, or storage of fatty acids, and exert the pro‐ or antitumor effects depending on special lipid metabolism‐associated cytokine prodiction., For example, TAMs highly express epidermal fatty acid binding protein (E‐FABP), which promotes the formation of lipid droplets and IFN‐β production, thereby inhibiting tumor progression by enhancing the recruitment of tumoricidal effector cells, especially NK cells. However, TAMs also enhance the production of eicosanoids through 15‐lipoxygenase‐2, which promotes the massive production of CCL2 and IL10, eventually leading to immune tolerance.
We also systematically describe the regulation of TAM activity by the triglyceride hydrolysis pathway. Colorectal cancer‐associated TAMs have an increase of abhydrolase domain containing 5 (ABHD5), the cofactor of adipose triglyceride lipase, and a decrease of monoacylglycerol lipase (MGLL). ABHD5 in TAMs inhibited the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which in turn reduced the production of C/EBPɛ‐dependent spermidine, and ultimately promoted the growth of colorectal cancer. MGLL deficiency in TAMs promotes M2 polarization through the CB2/TLR4 signal axis, inhibits the function of CD8+ T cells, and promotes the malignant progression of tumors. Actually, TAMs are also heterogeneous in lipid metabolism. We demonstrate that ABHD5 was heterogeneously expressed in TAMs. ABHD5‐deficient TAMs facilitate cancer metastasis by promoting the production of matrix metalloproteinases. In short, lipid metabolism of TAMs in the TME is changeable, which in most cases contributes to tumor progression.
Amino acid metabolism
The most studied amino acid metabolism of macrophages is arginine metabolism. In macrophages, L‐arginine has two main destinations. One is to generate NO through inducible NO synthase (iNOS). NO can suppress the key enzymes between the TCA and electron transport chain to inhibit oxidative phosphorylation, thus promoting glycolysis, which is the key feature of M1 macrophages. On the other hand, Arg‐1 converts L‐arginine into L‐ornithine. L‐Ornithine is further involved in the synthesis of proline and polyamine,, which is helpful for wound healing. This metabolic conversion is an important characteristic of M2 macrophages. In TAMs, decreased iNOS expression results in reduced production of NO, and increased expression of Arg1 may be related to hypoxia and high acidity of the TEM., Although reduced NO leads to suppressed tumor cytotoxicity, Arg1‐primed TAMs promote M2 polarization and polyamine synthesis, thus enhancing tumor progression., Furthermore, glutamine and tryptophan (Trp) also play important roles in TAMs. The expression of glutamine transporter and metabolic enzymes are significantly increased in TAM, which is beneficial for M2 polarization., TAMs upregulate the indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase (IDO) and the rate limiting enzyme of Trp and inhibit the tumor immune response, thus promoting the malignant progression of tumors.
T cells
After activation, T cells undergo huge genetic changes in a short period, forming different subpopulations to perform different functions. According to the secretion of cytokines and the expression of related proteins, CD4+ T cells can be divided into Th1, Th2, Th17, follicular helper T (Tfh), and Treg cells., CD8+ T cells, once activated, are accompanied by a large amount of secretion of IFN‐γ and TNF‐a, and display strong cytotoxicity. However, persistent antigen exposure by tumors causes loss‐of‐function of T cells (eg, exhausted CD8+ T cells), resulting in tumor immune escape.,, The activation and function of T cells must be accompanied by metabolism changes. Here, we focus on studies that highlight links between metabolic and functional changes of T cells in the TME.
Glucose metabolism
Initially, T cells were thought to be prone to glycolysis after activation. For example, the differentiation of CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells is closely related to the activation of mTOR signaling, which is generally believed to promote glycolysis., Glycolysis also promotes the secretion of IFN‐γ from T cells and enhances the function of CD8+ T cells. Recently, CD4+ cells and CD8+ T cells were found to have varying degrees of dependence on glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation after activation. Whether pharmacological intervention of glycolysis or mitochondrial respiration inhibits the proliferation of CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells requires further studys., The TME lacking glucose limits the aerobic glycolysis of tumor‐infiltrating T cells, thereby suppressing the tumoricidal effect. For example, low glucose reduces glycolytic flux by inhibiting Akt activity, thereby activating pro‐apoptotic B‐cell lymphoma‐2 (Bcl‐2) family members and inducing T cell apoptosis., In ovarian cancer, cancer cells limit glucose metabolism by reducing the expression of T cell methyltransferase EZH2, thereby inhibiting T cell function and ultimately promoting tumor progression. In addition, tumor‐specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells increase phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) production by overexpressing phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase 1 (PCK1), thereby inhibiting sarco/ER Ca2+‐ATPase (SERCA) activity. PEP plays a new role in maintaining T cell receptor‐mediated Ca2+‐NFAT signaling and effector functions, and ultimately inhibits tumor growth. Moreover, acyl glycerol kinase (AGK) promotes glycolysis and antitumor activity of CD8+ T cells by inactivating PTEN and enhancing mTOR activity.
Lipid metabolism
Naive T cells use oxidative phosphorylation to produce energy. Once T cells are activated to become effector cells, they start aerobic glycolysis to maintain their functions. When they become memory cells, they mainly restart to use oxidative phosphorylation, which requires fatty acid oxidation to produce more ATP for their own use. Memory T cells have a larger mitochondrial reserve, also called spare breathing capacity, than the naive T cells. Memory CD8+ T cells showed greater oxygen consumption and significantly enhanced fatty acid oxidation. When CD8+ T cells lack TNF receptor‐associated factor 6, a downstream signaling molecule of the TNF cytokine receptor, memory T cells cannot be formed. Moreover, TRAF6‐deficient T cells show defects in lipid oxidation, as expression of fatty acid metabolism genes is reduced in these cells. Besides, cholesterol metabolism is also highly associated with T cell activity. Yang et al claim that modulation of cholesterol metabolism by targeting the key cholesterol esterification enzyme ACAT1 can largely potentiate the antitumor response of CD8+ T cells.
In the TME, increased Treg cells and exhausted CD8+ T cells cause the formation of an immunosuppressive microenvironment., It has been found that Treg cells depend on lipid metabolism for their survival and function. It has also been reported that two different metabolites of LCA (3‐oxolca and isoalloLCA) regulate T cell function in mice, suggesting that bile acid metabolites directly regulate TH17 and Treg cell balance and host immunity. Recently, Field et al showed that fatty acid‐binding protein‐5 activates the IFN signal in Treg cells, thereby reducing the production of the regulatory factor IL‐10, which ultimately leads to the weakening of the immunosuppressive effect in TME.
Amino acid metabolism
Amino acids play an important role in the maintenance of T cell phenotype and function. For example, IFNAR1, which is inherent in liver cells, inhibits the transcription of metabolic genes including Otc and Ass1, which in turn leads to a decrease in arginine concentration and an increase in ornithine concentration in the circulation, ultimately suppressing the activity of virus‐specific CD8+ T cell. In addition, a recent study found that amino acids enhance mTORC1 signal and Treg cells function through the small G proteins Rag and Rheb. In tumors, the availability of many amino acids is low in the TME, especially glutamine. Previous studies have found that ERK/MAPK‐coordinated regulation of glutamine uptake and metabolism is essential for T lymphocyte activation. Moreover, Trp is heavily utilized by tumor cells, thus resulting in the low concentration of Trp in the TME. However, activated T cell is extremely sensitive to the concentration of Trp in the peripheral environment, which triggers the effector T cell apoptosis. In addition, Kynurenic acid, a metabolite of Trp, acts as a ligand to activate arylhydrocarbon receptor and regulate CD8+ T cells, ultimately suppressing the antitumor immune response. The arginase in tumors and myeloid cells also causes extremely low arginine concentrations in the TME, inhibiting T cell activation and proliferation. For example, a latest study using proteomics, metabolomics, and other big data analysis shows that activated T cells consume large amounts of arginine and rapidly convert it into downstream products. L‐Arginine induces a metabolic shift from glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation by transcription factors BAZ1B, PSIP1, and TSN, and promotes the survival and proliferation of memory T cells, thus enhancing the tumoricidal effect.
NK cells
The NK cell is an important component of immune system. They are not only related to antitumor, antivirus infection, and immune regulation, but also in some cases participate in the occurrence of hypersensitivity and autoimmune diseases. In recent years, NK cells emerge as an important target for tumor immunotherapy because they kill tumor cells in different ways without the need for prior sensitization. However, hypoxia, high acidity, nutritional deficiencies, and immunosuppression of the TME change the balance between activation and inhibition of NK cells, ultimately limiting the function of NK cells. Moreover, the changes in glucose metabolism of NK cells play an important role in antitumor immunity., Next, we discuss the metabolic effects of the TME on NK cells and their functional changes.
Glucose metabolism
The activation of NK cells depends on a wide range of signals through a series of receptors. Activated NK cells rapidly produce IFN‐γ to exert its effector functions, which depends on glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation to supply energy.,, In addition, NK cells express three types of glucose transporters, GLUT1, GLUT3, and GLUT4, further illustrating the importance of glucose for NK cell activation., Among these three glucose transporters, the increased expression of GLUT1 promotes glucose uptake and affects NK cell function. Moreover, sterol regulatory element binding proteins (SREBPs) regulate glycolysis and function of NK cells. Therefore, the lack of nutrition, especially glucose, in the TME affects the metabolism of NK cells and their tumoricidal effect. For example, in a mouse lung cancer model, the TME induces glucose metabolism disorder in NK cells, thereby leading to the loss of antitumor activity. In contrast, inhibition of FBP1, which is a key enzyme in the gluconeogenesis pathway and displays abnormally high expression in tumors, restores glycolysis and function of NK cells, ultimately inhibiting tumor progression. In addition, a large amount of TGF‐β in the TME inhibits mTOR, a key molecule that regulates cell metabolism and growth, and suppresses NK cell activity by affecting glucose metabolism.,
Lipid metabolism
The changes in lipid metabolism are one of the most significant metabolic characters in both cancer cells and NK cells. SREBPs are a class of transcription factors that play central roles in lipid metabolism and control the expression of lipid synthesis‐associated genes. It has been found that the stimulation of cytokines (eg, IL‐2 and IL‐12) promoted the expression of SREBPs in NK cells, and might facilitate fatty acid and cholesterol synthesis through Fasn/Scd1 and Hmgcs1/Acat2, respectively. A recent study showed that high levels of cholesterol in the serum accelerate cholesterol accumulation in NK cells, resulting in the formation of lipid raft and the activation of immune signals. These changes ultimately enhance the cytotoxic activity of NK cells and inhibit the progression of liver cancer. Additionally, the metabolism of glycerol and phospholipids also play important roles in the activation of NK cells., For example, diglyceride kinases (DGKs) control the level of DAG in cells through phosphorylating DAG into phosphatidic acid (PA). And DGKζ‐deficient NK cells release more IFN‐γ and enhance the tumor killing effect through ERK1 signaling. Adiponectin is a highly abundant hormone secreted by adipose tissue, which is involved in the metabolism of glucose and FA, and acts on various types of cells, including NK cells, which express high levels of AdipoRs, through adiponectin receptors 1 and 2 (AdipoR 1 and 2) and T‐cadherin., Adiponectin might regulate the maturation and activation of NK cells. However, whether these effects are related to lipid metabolism and whether the TME can affect the activation of NK cells through this pathway require further investigation.
Amino acid metabolism
The utilization of amino acids in NK cells plays a key role in maintaining signaling pathways mediated by metabolic regulators (such as mTOR or cMyc)., For instance, arginine and glutamine affect mTOR signaling, and thus regulate the initial expression of cMyc. cMyc is a transcription factor, which is necessary in IL‐2/IL‐12‐induced metabolic and functional responses of NK cells in mice. In the TME, tumors and tumor‐related cells consume large amounts of amino acids such as arginine, Trp, and glutamine, leading to the accumulation of immunosuppressive metabolites. Among them, NO and L‐kynuric acid, respectively, inhibit the cytotoxic activity and proliferation of NK cells., Therefore, in order to develop new treatment strategies, further study of the amino acids metabolism of NK cells in the TME and investigation of the correlation between metabolic changes and functions of NK cells are needed.
Dendritic cells
Dendritic cells (DCs), named for their nerve cell‐like dendritic morphologies, can be divided into bone‐marrow‐derived DCs (BMDCs) and plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) according to their source, phenotype, and cytokine secretion. After dendritic cells sense pathogen‐associated molecular patterns or damage‐associated molecular patterns through pattern recognition receptors, they are activated from an immature tolerance status to mature immune stimulating phenotypes, and then use MHC Class I or II molecules to activate CD8+ or CD4+ T cells. This process is accompanied by changes in metabolic changes. It has been reported that immature resting BMDCs rely on fatty acid oxidation to perform oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondrial electron transport chain to meet their energy requirements. Once activated, DCs increase the expression of a variety of molecules involved in antigen presentation, such as MHC molecules, cytokines, etc, which is accompanied by a sudden increase in glycolysis. Here, we discuss recent studies about how tumors manipulate DCs to interfere their homeostasis, and evade immune control by molecular pathways and metabolic changes.
Glucose metabolism
Activated DCs require high levels of glucose metabolism to meet their substances and energy requirements., It has been reported that mouse BMDCs rapidly induce glycolysis through PI3k/AKT/mTOR/HIF‐1α signaling cascade after exposure to lipopolysaccharide, increasing the rate of glycolysis and lactic acid production., Moreover, inhibition of BMDCs using glucose‐deficient media or glycolysis inhibitor, 2‐deoxyglucose, affects their activation and metastasis, including the expression of CD80, CD86, and CCR7, and the secretion of proinflammatory cytokines., Importantly, the catabolism of prestored glycogen in mouse BMDCs is thought to be a key factor to drive TLR‐activated glycolysis. Thus, metabolic competition and glucose restriction in the TME affect the metabolism and function of DCs. For example, the low availability of glucose may interfere with glucose uptake or metabolism, thereby hindering protein glycosylation in the endoplasmic reticulum of tumor‐associated DCs (TADCs) and triggering an immunosuppressive endoplasmic reticulum stress response. Moreover, rapamycin‐mediated inhibition of mTOR can prolong the lifespan and mitochondrial activity of BMDCs stimulated by lipopolysaccharide, which may be involved in glucose metabolism.
Lipid metabolism
DC maturation mediated by TLR signal requires activation of downstream signal transduction and metabolic changes. De novo lipid biosynthesis is an important metabolic process after BMDCs activation. Early glycolytic bursts after TLR sensing in BMDCs promote the production of citrate and acetyl CoA through TCA, which is a substrate for lipid synthesis. Recent studies have also shown that p32 positively regulates the synthesis of citrate and lipid, ultimately facilitating the maturation and activation of DCs. In contrast, the DCs from solid tumors contain lots of cellular lipid droplets, with a defect in antigen presentation and subsequent T cell activation. A later study have shown that lipid bodies containing oxidatively truncated lipids, but not the lipid bodies in normal cells, block antigen cross‐presentation by DCs in cancer. Inhibition of fatty acid synthesis restore the function of DCs and T cells, thereby inhibiting tumor progression. Thus the regulation of DC activation is a complicated process, involving reprogramming of signal transduction and lipid metabolism. For example, the Wnt signaling can integrate PPARγ‐regulated fatty acid oxidation, driving DC tolerization, Treg recruitment, and immune evasion. Moreover, the retinoic acid derived from vitamin A metabolism also promoted Treg activation and tumor progression.
Amino acid metabolism
Amino acid metabolism is suggested as an important node of immune regulation., For example, IDO‐1, the rate‐limiting enzyme of kynurenine pathway, catalyzes an essential amino acid L‐tryptophan, leading to Trp depletion and the production of a series of immunoregulatory molecules collectively known as kynurenines. IFN‐γ‐stimulated DCs have an increase of IDO‐1 expression and activity. Thus the effector T cells activated by DCs might suppress DCs’ function as a negative feedback. Actually, IDO‐1 in DCs can be induced by multiple factors, such as TGF‐β, IL‐32, and other cytokines derived from tumor cells, other immune cells, or even the DCs themselves in the TME.,, Those findings integrate the cytokine signals with the Trp metabolism and immune suppression in the TME. Similarly, Arg‐1 is another immunoregulatory enzyme catalyzing the degradation of L‐arginine. A series of Th2 cytokines such as IL‐4, IL‐13, and TGF‐β can induce Arg‐1 expression in myeloid cells, including macrophages and DCs., Notably, TGF‐β can stimulate IDO‐1 and Arg‐1 expression simultaneously in DCs, indicative of an intensive immune suppression. Moreover, Arg1 activity is absolutely required for IDO1‐dependent signaling events as initiated by TGF‐β. DCs can be conditioned by Arg1+ MDSCs to express an IDO1‐dependent immunosuppressive phenotype. Consistently, arginine‐depleted TADCs inhibit CD8+ T cell proliferation and IFN‐γ secretion. Further investigation of amino acid metabolism in TADCs is extremely important for understanding TADCs activation and developing potential therapeutic strategies.
Cancer immunotherapy
Cancer immunotherapy is a type of tumor treatment that reactivates the body's antitumor immunity by regulating the immune system. It includes immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), T‐cell transfer therapy, monoclonal antibodies, cancer vaccines, and immune system modulators.,, Immunotherapy appears better than conventional chemotherapy at treating some forms of cancer in patients, especially advanced patients, so it has attracted intensive attentions from researchers in recent years. The positive response of immunotherapy usually relies on the interaction of tumor cells with immunomodulation in the TME. Therefore, the TME plays an important role in suppressing or enhancing the immune response. Understanding the interaction between immunotherapy and the TME is not only the key for analyzing the mechanisms of tumor progression, but it is also of great significance to provide new methods for improving the efficacy of current immunotherapy. Next, we focus on the current types of immunotherapy and their latest developments.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
ICIs are monoclonal antibodies that bind to immune checkpoints to stop tumors from inhibiting T cells, including anticytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen‐4 (CTLA‐4), antiprogramed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1), and anti‐PDL‐1. Under normal circumstances, CTLA‐4 and PD‐1 signals are strictly regulated to allow self‐tolerance; however, tumor cells can use these pathways to evade the immune response and establish a microenvironment conducive to tumor growth., ICIs can reactivate the immune system and prevent tumor immune escape. Currently, a variety of checkpoint inhibitors have been used in a variety of clinical oncology, and achieved good results, especially in melanoma and other malignant tumors.,,, However, a large proportion of patients are either insensitive to ICIs or are burdened by adverse side effects, including dermatologic toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity (diarrhea or colitis, hepatitis), endocrinopathies (thyroid toxicity, thyroid toxicity), pneumonitis, and rare immune‐related adverse events, during treatments, (Table 1).
In order to increase the responsive rate of ICIs, some combination therapies have been developed. Among them, combination of CTLA‐4 and PD‐1 blockers has already proved to be highly effective in clinical trials. In addition, many factors have been identified to cause the insensitivity to ICIs treatment. For example, macrophages are also important in targeting the PD‐1/PD‐L1 axis. Macrophages remove anti‐PD1 antibodies from T cells, attenuating the response of T cells, and meanwhile, express PD1 on their surface, thereby weakening their phagocytic activity. In response to the toxic side effects of ICIs, steroids and immune‐modulating therapy have been reported to have good effects. Tokunaga et al showed that early administration of corticosteroid, rather than late administration of corticosteroid, led to tumor regeneration, suggesting that early administration of corticosteroid inhibited memory CD8+ T cells, which is associated with persistent antitumor responses.
T cell transfer therapy
T cell transfer therapy is an immunotherapy that uses a patient's own immune cells to attack cancer cells. There are two main types: tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy and CAR‐T cells therapy., Both methods require collecting immune cells from cancer patients, culturing them in vitro, and then injecting them back into patients via intravenous injection. T cell transfer therapy is also called adoptive cell therapy, adoptive immunotherapy, and immune cell therapy.
In TIL therapy, researchers isolated special lymphocytes that can recognize tumor cells, and reinfused to patients to treat tumors after rapid and massive expansion of these cells. Although TIL therapy is effective in some patients with melanoma and has achieved good results in other cancers such as cervical squamous cell carcinoma and bile duct cancer, this treatment is still in the experimental stage., CAR‐T cell therapy is designed in vitro to make the obtained T cells produce a protein called CAR, also known as a chimeric antigen receptor. CAR can promote T cells to attach to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells, increasing their ability to attack cancer cells., CAR‐T is currently used to treat hematological malignancies.,
However, CAR‐T cells can induce a large number of adverse side effects. For example, the most common toxic reactions in hematological malignancies are cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and ICANS. Recently, it has been reported that NK cells modified to express anti‐CD19 CAR not only overcome the toxic effect of anti‐CD19 CAR‐T cells, but also respond well to treatment. In addition, Correia et al designed a chemically destroyable heterodimer (CDH), which can be inactivated by small molecule compounds, based on the binding of two human proteins on CAR‐T cells.
Monoclonal antibodies
Monoclonal antibodies are antibodies that bind to specific antigens on cancer cells so that they can be better detected and destroyed by the immune system. Some monoclonal antibodies also help the immune system to fight against cancer cells., Recently, Yang et al designed tri‐specific antibodies against CD38, CD28, and CD3, which could significantly enhance the activation of T cells and the recognition and killing of tumor cells, and have achieved good results in animal models. In addition to targeting T cells, macrophages are also good effector cells. CD24 has recently been identified to regulate macrophage phagocytic function through siglecl‐10 signaling, affecting tumor progression. CD47 also plays a role in regulating macrophage phagocytosis. Several monoclonal antibodies against CD47, including Hu5F9‐G4 and ALX148, have been shown encouraging data in preclinical trials.,
Others
Cancer vaccines are currently mainly divided into preventive vaccines and therapeutic vaccines. The former ones are used to prevent cancer by preventing and killing certain viral or bacterial infections. For example, cervical cancer vaccine can prevent HPV infection, thus preventing cervical cancer. The latter ones are used to control or kill tumor cells by activating body‐specific immune functions through cancer cell antigens. The first FDA‐approved cancer treatment vaccine is talimogene laherparepvec (T‐VEC), also known as oncolytic virus treatment. The virus can infect cancer cells and normal cells. Normal cells can kill the virus, whereas cancer cells cannot. Recently, Keskin et al have demonstrated that a multi‐epitope, personalized neoantigen vaccination strategy is feasible in the treatment of glioblastoma patients. This strategy has been tested in high‐risk melanoma patients.
Immunomodulator is an immunotherapy that enhances the body's immune response to cancer, including cytokines, Bacillus Calmette‐Guerin (BCG), immunomodulatory drugs, and so forth.,, It is generally used to assist other tumor treatments. For example, IL‐2, also known as T‐cell growth factor, increases the number of white blood cells such as NK and T cells in the body, and then causes an immune response to cancers. In a multicenter, randomized phase 3 clinical trial, dinutuximab beta combined with IL‐2 was found to be more effective in treating neuroblastoma than dinutuximab beta alone.
METABOLISM AND CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY
Although a large number of clinical trials of tumor immunotherapy have achieved great success by enhancing host immunity, this is limited to a small number of patients. Increasing evidence indicates that tumor and its interstitial cell metabolic reprogramming plays an important role in tumor immunosuppressive response and resistance to immunotherapy. In the TME, the metabolism of immune interstitial cells is at a disadvantage because tumor cells consume a large amount of nutrients and increase inhibitory signals. At the same time, nutritional deficiencies and metabolic wastes accumulate in TME, leading to metabolic conversion of immune interstitial cells, which impairs their proliferation and function. Therefore, an in‐depth understanding of the metabolic changes in TME and their impact on immune cell metabolism may help to find new and promising ways to rebuild the metabolism of immune cells and thus promote existing immunotherapy. Based on aforementioned introductions, we summarized the main metabolic changes of tumor‐associated macrophages, T cells, dendritic cells, and NK cells (Figure 3). Next, we would conclude the effects of metabolic intervention on tumor cells and immune cells, especially on T cell‐based immunotherapy.
Tumor metabolism and cancer immunotherapy
As we mentioned earlier, in tumors, despite the presence of oxygen, cancer cells still show more glycolysis, because glycolysis is much faster than OXPHOS, which provides cancer cells with a competitive advantage and makes them consume more glucose than surrounding slowly dividing cells and grows under conditions of hypoxia and nutritional deficiencies. Therefore, there have been several drugs targeted at tumor aerobic glycolysis for cancer treatment, including 2‐Deoxyglucose (the inhibitor of GLUT1 and HK), Dichloroacetate (inducing a shift from glycolysis to OXPHOS), and the inhibitor of phosphofructokinase 1. However, these drugs also significantly inhibit T cell function and promote immunosuppression. Therefore, targeting tumors is important for the application of glycolysis inhibitors in tumor therapy. In addition, because a large amount of lactic acid secreted by aerobic glycolysis of cancer cells leads to the formation of acidic immunosuppressive TME, some drugs targeting lactic acid to treat tumors are also being developed, including targeting lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), monocarboxylate transporter (MCT) inhibitors, and oral bicarbonate supplementation. Lenalidomide, a new MCT disruptor, has been found to enhance T cell IL‐2 and IFN‐γ secretion while inhibiting tumor cell proliferation. Diclofenac, a nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug, can inhibit glioma growth, Treg infiltration, and lactic acid secretion. Oral bicarbonate neutralizing lactic acid combined with anti‐PD‐1 immunotherapy can inhibit tumor growth in melanoma model, and combined with adoptive T cell transfer can prolong mouse survival. Recently, Professor Liu and his colleagues proposed a novel intracellular/extracellular lactic acid depletion strategy that can be used in conjunction with immunotherapy to combat tumors. Therefore, the application of targeting lactate should be feasible to improve the effect of immunotherapies.
In addition to glucose metabolism, tumor cells also consume large amounts of amino acids for their own advantage. Therefore, targeting these amino acids (such as L‐arginine, Trp, and glutamine) has broad application prospects in tumor treatment. It has been reported that some malignant tumors lack the arginine succinate synthase, a key enzyme of the urea cycle, causing them to use in vitro amino acids to meet their own growth needs. Therefore, arginine deprivation therapy has been invented and has been used in a variety of tumor treatments, including advanced melanoma, pancreatic tumor, prostate cancer, stromal tumor, hepatocellular carcinoma, and lymphoma. Notably, CB‐1158, an ARG inhibitor, in combination with immunotherapy has achieved good results in clinical trials and can block myeloid‐mediated immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. In addition, eliminating IDO to eliminate the role of Trp in tumor promotion and immunosuppression is also a key target for tumor immunotherapy, such as epacadostat and indoximod. The inhibitors of IDO, which can directly inhibit IDO activity to inhibit Trp degradation, enhance cytotoxic T cell function and reduce the number of Tregs, or interfere with Trp degradation signals, and avoiding T cells immunosuppression. Therefore, IDO may also be one of the key targets for immunotherapy. Glutamine is one of the main sources of energy for tumor cells. Glutamine analogs (6‐diazo‐5‐oxo‐L‐norleucine, azaserine, and acivicin) and glutamine transporter inhibitors (gamma‐lglutamyl‐p‐nitroanilide and benzylserine [H‐Ser (Bzl) ‐OH]) have been found to suppress tumor progression in pre‐ and clinical trials. Interestingly, Leone et al found that JHU083, a precursor of DON (the inhibitor of glutaminase), can affect cancer cells without affecting normal cells, making it unable to use glutamine and inhibit tumor progression. At the same time, JHU083 can also enhance antitumor immunity by infiltrating CD8+ T cells, and combined with anti‐PD‐1 treatment showed more significant antitumor effects. In addition to the above mentioned, there are several metabolic interventions in combination with immunotherapy to treat tumors (Table 2)
T cell metabolism and cancer immunotherapy
Immunotherapy‐mediated enhancement of tumor‐specific T effector cells mostly has transient antitumor effects. Because metabolism plays an important role in homeostasis and adaptation under intracellular and extracellular stimulation, the combination of metabolism‐targeting drugs with immunotherapy may form a more promising treatment. This may promote the production of T memory cells with enhanced activity and plasticity in order to differentiate the effector cells when re‐exposed to cancer antigen.
Recent evidence suggests that both checkpoint ligation and inhibition may directly alter the metabolism and characteristics of T cells and cancer cells. For example, the binding of PD‐1 to its ligand can affect TIL metabolism by inhibiting glycolysis and upregulating FAO. Similarly, the signals received by CTLA‐4 and B7 can inhibit glycolysis. In addition, purely targeted metabolism may affect multiple immune cell populations and may have unpredictable results on systemic antitumor effects. For example, effector T cell proliferation and differentiation depend on FAS, and FAO is essential for the development of CD8+ T cell memory cells and the differentiation of CD4+ Treg cells., Therefore, it is extremely important to explore more reasonable therapeutic methods of targeted metabolism combined with immunotherapy. It has been reported that targeting AGK in CD8+ T cells can enhance glycolytic metabolism levels to promote antitumor activity of CD8+ T cells. Similarly, Zhang et al also found that in the face of TME with low oxygen and low glucose, T cells lack glucose supply and mainly carry out fatty acid metabolism capacity. Moreover, the use of PPARα agonists not only enhances the fatty acid metabolism and anti‐tumor function of T cells, but also enhances the therapeutic effect in combination with PD‐1 inhibitors. These all provide new ideas for how to target T cell metabolism and regulate its antitumor function.
In addition to the abovementioned, adenosine 5′‐monophosphate‐activated protein kinase (AMPK), as a key molecule in the regulation of biological energy metabolism, is also a key target molecule in the regulation of tumor immune metabolism. Metformin, an AMPK activator, can promote the differentiation of CD8+ memory T cells and may protect cell apoptosis and enhance antitumor effects. At the same time, metformin can also enhance the antitumor effect of PD1/CTLA‐4 blockade by reducing tumor hypoxia., However, similar studies have found that metformin can promote the formation of Treg cells and inhibit Th1 and Th17, reducing the effect of tumor treatment. Therefore, because of the characteristics of cancer and the type of immune cells that dominate TME in each cancer type, the therapeutic effects obtained by targeting AMPK are also different. Solving this problem may also be a good immune metabolic target for tumor treatment point.
Similarly, improving metabolic impairment caused by immunotherapy through metabolic regulation is also a method. PD1/PDL‐1 can inhibit mitochondrial function of T cells, and then affect its activity. Moreover, mitochondrial metabolites ROS have also been shown to activate CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. And it has been found that mitochondrial activating chemicals (ROS precursors or mitochondrial uncouplers) and PD‐1 block synergistically enhance T cell‐dependent antitumor activity. However, because targeting mitochondria often leads to strong toxic and side effects, this requires further investigation.
Others
We mentioned above that not only exhausted CD8+ T cells and Treg cells, but M2 TAM, TADC, and NK cells also participate in the formation of immunosuppressed TME. Therefore, it is important to explore these metabolic changes in immune cells and their impact on immunotherapy. TAMs account for the largest proportion of tumor interstitial immune cells and must undergo certain metabolic reprogramming to survive in the tumor microenvironment. At present, metabolic reprograming of TAMs to promote their transition to M1 type has become an important antitumor strategy for targeting macrophages. Our previous research has found that the key molecules that regulate the fatty acid metabolism of macrophages can promote their M1 polarization, maintain the activity of CD8 + T cells, and then inhibit tumor progression., The enzyme PI3Kγ, important for targeted phospholipid metabolism, can promote macrophage reprogramming and enhance T cell response, which can be used as a single drug or combined with T cell checkpoint blockade to inhibit tumor progression., In DCs, the combination of FAO inhibition and anti‐PD‐1 blockade indicates that host survival has been significantly improved, driven by enhanced antitumor immunity. In addition, aspirin, a nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drug that blocks the COX‐1/2 pathway, and celecoxib, a COX‐2 inhibitor, can limit the production of PGE2 and interfere with lipid metabolism, and combine anti‐PD‐1 therapy can further enhance the antitumor effect. NK cells regulate T cell activity through the PD1/PDL1 axis, and NK cells in TME also undergo large tumor‐promoting metabolic changes, so targeting NK cell metabolism may also provide new ideas for tumor immunotherapy.
CONCLUSION
This review introduces the characteristics of TME, the metabolic characteristics of immune cells, and the progress of tumor immunotherapy. Facing the dilemma of tumor treatment, immunotherapy gives new hope to tumor patients. However, current immunotherapies, such as CAR‐T, are only effective in a small number of patients with solid tumors. This phenomenon suggests that comprehensive treatment may be the way to deal with tumors. A large number of previous studies have confirmed that the TME plays a key role in the tumor progression and treatment response. Metabolic reprograming is a main feature of tumor microenvironment. From the perspective of metabolic intervention, improving the immune status of tumor microenvironment is expected to provide promising strategies for enhancing the therapeutic effect of tumors. However, up to now, the understanding of tumor microenvironment is still in a relatively preliminary stage. Future studies need to focus on the original driving forces for the formation of TME, variation of TME between different tumor types, ontogeny of the immune cells in TME, the metabolism and immune heterogeneity of tumor‐related immune cells, the crosstalk between immune cells and tumor cells, and the effects of metabolic reprogramming on T cell therapies.
Of course, some problems need to be solved quickly. First of all, exploring the overlapping mechanisms of primary and secondary immune escape may be in dire need. As mentioned above, although some tumor patients respond well to tumor immunotherapy, a large number of patients are not sensitive to treatment. Importantly, some patients will eventually see their tumors return even if they respond to treatment. The former is called primary immune escape and the latter is called secondary immune escape. The two immune escape mechanisms overlap and immune metabolic changes are likely to be involved. Exploring this overlapping mechanism is crucial to rapidly improve the effect of cancer immunotherapy and improve the patients’ quality of life, which may be one of the important directions of tumor immunotherapy in the future. Moreover, targeting the role of immunometabolism in therapy resistance is also an urgent and interesting direction. Many studies have found that drug resistance induced by traditional tumor therapy is closely related to changes in tumor immunometabolism, and reprogramming tumor immunometabolism is crucial to restore the therapeutic effect. Clarifying these questions will help us to identify key pathways and targets that will ultimately serve the cancer therapy in the clinic.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References 288
- 1.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646‐674.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
- 2.
Dunn GP, Bruce AT, Ikeda H, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol. 2002;3(11):991‐998.
Not in our library10.1038/ni1102-991
- 3.
Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity. 2004;21(2):137‐148.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2004.07.017
- 4.
Mittal D, Gubin MM, Schreiber RD, Smyth MJ. New insights into cancer immunoediting and its three component phases–elimination, equilibrium and escape. Curr Opin Immunol. 2014;27:16‐25.
Not in our library10.1016/j.coi.2014.01.004
- 5.
Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. The three Es of cancer immunoediting. Annu Rev Immunol. 2004;22:329‐360.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.immunol.22.012703.104803
- 6.
Quail DF, Joyce JA. Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis. Nat Med. 2013;19(11):1423‐1437.
Not in our library10.1038/nm.3394
- 7.
Hanahan D, Coussens LM. Accessories to the crime: functions of cells recruited to the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Cell. 2012;21(3):309‐322.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.022
- 8.
Junttila MR, de Sauvage FJ. Influence of tumour micro‐environment heterogeneity on therapeutic response. Nature. 2013;501(7467):346‐354.
Not in our library10.1038/nature12626
- 9.
Wu T, Dai Y. Tumor microenvironment and therapeutic response. Cancer Lett. 2017;387:61‐68.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2016.01.043
- 10.
Lyssiotis CA, Kimmelman AC. Metabolic interactions in the tumor microenvironment. Trends Cell Biol. 2017;27(11):863‐875.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tcb.2017.06.003
- 11.
Linehan WM, Schmidt LS, Crooks DR, et al. The metabolic basis of kidney cancer. Cancer Discov. 2019;9(8):1006‐1021.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-1354
- 12.
Kimmelman AC, White E. Autophagy and tumor metabolism. Cell Metab. 2017;25(5):1037‐1043.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2017.04.004
- 13.
Pavlova NN, Thompson CB. The emerging hallmarks of cancer metabolism. Cell Metab. 2016;23(1):27‐47.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2015.12.006
- 14.
WARBURG O. On the origin of cancer cells. Science. 1956;123(3191):309‐314.
Not in our library10.1126/science.123.3191.309
- 15.
Arslan E, Aksoy T, Gursu RU, et al. The prognostic value of (18)F‐FDG PET/CT and KRAS mutation in colorectal cancers. Mol Imaging Radionucl Ther. 2020;29(1):17‐24.
Not in our library10.4274/mirt.galenos.2019.33866
- 16.
EAGLE H. The minimum vitamin requirements of the L and HeLa cells in tissue culture, the production of specific vitamin deficiencies, and their cure. J Exp Med. 1955;102(5):595‐600.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.102.5.595
- 17.
Altman BJ, Stine ZE, Dang CV. From Krebs to clinic: glutamine metabolism to cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(11):749.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2016.114
- 18.
Kovacevic Z, McGivan JD. Mitochondrial metabolism of glutamine and glutamate and its physiological significance. Physiol Rev. 1983;63(2):547‐605.
Not in our library10.1152/physrev.1983.63.2.547
- 19.
Lieberman BP, Ploessl K, Wang L, et al. PET imaging of glutaminolysis in tumors by 18F‐(2S,4R)4‐fluoroglutamine. J Nucl Med. 2011;52(12):1947‐1955.
Not in our library10.2967/jnumed.111.093815
- 20.
Venneti S, Dunphy MP, Zhang H, et al. Glutamine‐based PET imaging facilitates enhanced metabolic evaluation of gliomas in vivo. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(274):217r‐274r.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa1009
- 21.
Hoxhaj G, Manning BD. The PI3K‐AKT network at the interface of oncogenic signalling and cancer metabolism. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20(2):74‐88.
Not in our library10.1038/s41568-019-0216-7
- 22.
Vander HM, Plas DR, Rathmell JC, et al. Growth factors can influence cell growth and survival through effects on glucose metabolism. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21(17):5899‐5912.
Not in our library10.1128/mcb.21.17.5899-5912.2001
- 23.
Rathmell JC, Fox CJ, Plas DR, et al. Akt‐directed glucose metabolism can prevent Bax conformation change and promote growth factor‐independent survival. Mol Cell Biol. 2003;23(20):7315‐7328.
Not in our library10.1128/mcb.23.20.7315-7328.2003
- 24.
Ho PC, Bihuniak JD, Macintyre AN, et al. Phosphoenolpyruvate is a metabolic checkpoint of anti‐tumor T cell responses. Cell. 2015;162(6):1217‐1228.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.012
- 25.
Chang CH, Qiu J, O'Sullivan D, et al. Metabolic Competition in the tumor microenvironment is a driver of cancer progression. Cell. 2015;162(6):1229‐1241.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.016
- 26.
Gemta LF, Siska PJ, Nelson ME, et al. Impaired enolase 1 glycolytic activity restrains effector functions of tumor‐infiltrating CD8(+) T cells. Sci Immunol. 2019;4(31):eaap9520.
Not in our library10.1126/sciimmunol.aap9520
- 27.
Zhao E, Maj T, Kryczek I, et al. Cancer mediates effector T cell dysfunction by targeting microRNAs and EZH2 via glycolysis restriction. Nat Immunol. 2016;17(1):95‐103.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.3313
- 28.
Cong J, Wang X, Zheng X, et al. Dysfunction of natural killer cells by FBP1‐Induced inhibition of glycolysis during lung cancer progression. Cell Metab. 2018;28(2):243‐255.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2018.06.021
- 29.
Hatzivassiliou G, Zhao F, Bauer DE, et al. ATP citrate lyase inhibition can suppress tumor cell growth. Cancer Cell. 2005;8(4):311‐321.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2005.09.008
- 30.
Corbet C, FeronO. Tumour acidosis: from the passenger to the driver's seat. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(10):577‐593.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2017.77
- 31.
- 32.
Parks SK, Chiche J, Pouyssegur J. Disrupting proton dynamics and energy metabolism for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13(9):611‐623.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3579
- 33.
Ippolito L, Morandi A, Giannoni E, Chiarugi P. Lactate: a metabolic driver in the tumour landscape. Trends Biochem Sci. 2019;44(2):153‐166.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tibs.2018.10.011
- 34.
Colegio OR, Chu NQ, Szabo AL, et al. Functional polarization of tumour‐associated macrophages by tumour‐derived lactic acid. Nature. 2014;513(7519):559‐563.
Not in our library10.1038/nature13490
- 35.
Gao F, Tang Y, Liu WL, et al. Intra/Extracellular lactic acid exhaustion for synergistic metabolic therapy and immunotherapy of tumors. Adv Mater. 2019;31(51):e1904639.
Not in our library10.1002/adma.201904639
- 36.
- 37.
Wilson WR, Hay MP. Targeting hypoxia in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11(6):393‐410.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3064
- 38.
- 39.
- 40.
Weis SM, Cheresh DA. Tumor angiogenesis: molecular pathways and therapeutic targets. Nat Med. 2011;17(11):1359‐1370.
Not in our library10.1038/nm.2537
- 41.
Keith B, Johnson RS, Simon MC. HIF1alpha and HIF2alpha: sibling rivalry in hypoxic tumour growth and progression. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;12(1):9‐22.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3183
- 42.
Qiu GZ, Jin MZ, Dai JX, et al. Reprogramming of the tumor in the hypoxic niche: the emerging concept and associated therapeutic strategies. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2017;38(8):669‐686.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tips.2017.05.002
- 43.
Multhoff G, Vaupel P. Hypoxia compromises anti‐cancer immune responses. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1232:131‐143.
Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-34461-0_18
- 44.
Hatfield SM, Kjaergaard J, Lukashev D, et al. Immunological mechanisms of the antitumor effects of supplemental oxygenation. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(277):230r‐277r.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa1260
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
Lee JH, Elly C, Park Y, Liu YC. E3 ubiquitin ligase VHL regulates hypoxia‐inducible factor‐1alpha to maintain regulatory T cell stability and suppressive capacity. Immunity. 2015;42(6):1062‐1074.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2015.05.016
- 48.
McNamee EN, Korns JD, Homann D, Clambey ET. Hypoxia and hypoxia‐inducible factors as regulators of T cell development, differentiation, and function. Immunol Res. 2013;55(1‐3):58‐70.
Not in our library10.1007/s12026-012-8349-8
- 49.
Wu Q, Zhou W, Yin S, et al. Blocking triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells‐1‐positive tumor‐associated macrophages induced by hypoxia reverses immunosuppression and anti‐programmed cell death ligand 1 resistance in liver cancer. Hepatology. 2019;70(1):198‐214.
Not in our library10.1002/hep.30593
- 50.
Vitale I, Manic G, Coussens LM, Kroemer G, Galluzzi L. Macrophages and metabolism in the tumor microenvironment. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):36‐50.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2019.06.001
- 51.
Liu C, Chikina M, Deshpande R, et al. Treg cells promote the SREBP1‐dependent metabolic fitness of tumor‐promoting macrophages via repression of CD8(+) T cell‐derived interferon‐gamma. Immunity. 2019;51(2):381‐397.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2019.06.017
- 52.
Veglia F, Perego M, Gabrilovich D. Myeloid‐derived suppressor cells coming of age. Nat Immunol. 2018;19(2):108‐119.
Not in our library10.1038/s41590-017-0022-x
- 53.
Zhang J, Lu Y, Pienta KJ. Multiple roles of chemokine (C‐C motif) ligand 2 in promoting prostate cancer growth. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(8):522‐528.
Not in our library10.1093/jnci/djq044
- 54.
Kren L, Muckova K, Lzicarova E, et al. Production of Immune‐modulatory nonclassical molecules HLA‐G and HLA‐E by tumor infiltrating ameboid microglia/macrophages in glioblastomas: a role in innate immunity. J Neuroimmunol. 2010;220(1‐2):131‐135.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jneuroim.2010.01.014
- 55.
Brown D, Trowsdale J, Allen R. The LILR family: modulators of innate and adaptive immune pathways in health and disease. Tissue Antigens. 2004;64(3):215‐225.
Not in our library10.1111/j.0001-2815.2004.00290.x
- 56.
Talmadge JE, Gabrilovich DI. History of myeloid‐derived suppressor cells. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13(10):739‐752.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3581
- 57.
Parker KH, Beury DW, Ostrand‐Rosenberg S. Myeloid‐derived suppressor cells: critical cells driving immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment. Adv Cancer Res. 2015;128:95‐139.
Not in our library10.1016/bs.acr.2015.04.002
- 58.
Cassetta L, Pollard JW. Targeting macrophages: therapeutic approaches in cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2018;17(12):887‐904.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2018.169
- 59.
Gentles AJ, Newman AM, Liu CL, et al. The prognostic landscape of genes and infiltrating immune cells across human cancers. Nat Med. 2015;21(8):938‐945.
Not in our library10.1038/nm.3909
- 60.
Mantovani A, Marchesi F, Malesci A, Laghi L, Allavena P. Tumour‐associated macrophages as treatment targets in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(7):399‐416.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.217
- 61.
Rabold K, Netea MG, Adema GJ, Netea‐Maier RT. Cellular metabolism of tumor‐associated macrophages ‐ functional impact and consequences. FEBS Lett. 2017;591(19):3022‐3041.
Not in our library10.1002/1873-3468.12771
- 62.
Allavena P, Sica A, Garlanda C, Mantovani A. The Yin‐Yang of tumor‐associated macrophages in neoplastic progression and immune surveillance. Immunol Rev. 2008;222:155‐161.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-065x.2008.00607.x
- 63.
Arts RJ, Plantinga TS, Tuit S, et al. Transcriptional and metabolic reprogramming induce an inflammatory phenotype in non‐medullary thyroid carcinoma‐induced macrophages. Oncoimmunology. 2016;5(12):e1229725.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2016.1229725
- 64.
Lachmandas E, Boutens L, Ratter JM, et al. Microbial stimulation of different toll‐like receptor signalling pathways induces diverse metabolic programmes in human monocytes. Nat Microbiol. 2016;2:16246.
Not in our library10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.246
- 65.
Vats D, Mukundan L, Odegaard JI, et al. Oxidative metabolism and PGC‐1beta attenuate macrophage‐mediated inflammation. Cell Metab. 2006;4(1):13‐24.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2006.05.011
- 66.
Odegaard JI, Chawla A. Alternative macrophage activation and metabolism. Annu Rev Pathol. 2011;6:275‐297.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-pathol-011110-130138
- 67.
Huang SC, Everts B, Ivanova Y, et al. Cell‐Intrinsic lysosomal lipolysis is essential for alternative activation of macrophages. Nat Immunol. 2014;15(9):846‐855.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2956
- 68.
Posokhova EN, Khoshchenko OM, Chasovskikh MI, Pivovarova EN, Dushkin MI. Lipid synthesis in macrophages during inflammation in vivo: effect of agonists of peroxisome proliferator activated receptors alpha and gamma and of retinoid X receptors. Biochemistry. 2008;73(3):296‐304.
Not in our library10.1134/s0006297908030097
- 69.
Ecker J, Liebisch G, Englmaier M, et al. Induction of fatty acid synthesis is a key requirement for phagocytic differentiation of human monocytes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(17):7817‐7822.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0912059107
- 70.
Crucet M, Wust SJ, Spielmann P, et al. Hypoxia enhances lipid uptake in macrophages: role of the scavenger receptors Lox1, SRA, and CD36. Atherosclerosis. 2013;229(1):110‐117.
Not in our library10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2013.04.034
- 71.
Schlager SI, Madden LD, Meltzer MS, Bara S, Mamula MJ. Role of macrophage lipids in regulating tumoricidal activity. Cell Immunol. 1983;77(1):52‐68.
Not in our library10.1016/0008-8749(83)90006-0
- 72.
Zhang Y, Sun Y, Rao E, et al. Fatty acid‐binding protein E‐FABP restricts tumor growth by promoting IFN‐beta responses in tumor‐associated macrophages. Cancer Res. 2014;74(11):2986‐2998.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-2689
- 73.
Daurkin I, Eruslanov E, Stoffs T, et al. Tumor‐associated macrophages mediate immunosuppression in the renal cancer microenvironment by activating the 15‐Lipoxygenase‐2 pathway. Cancer Res. 2011;71(20):6400‐6409.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-1261
- 74.
- 75.
- 76.
Shang S, Ji X, Zhang L, et al. Macrophage ABHD5 suppresses NFkappaB‐dependent matrix metalloproteinase expression and cancer metastasis. Cancer Res. 2019;79(21):5513‐5526.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-19-1059
- 77.
- 78.
Wessagowit V, Mallipeddi R, McGrath JA, South AP. Altered expression of L‐arginine metabolism pathway genes in chronic wounds in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2004;29(6):664‐668.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2230.2004.01627.x
- 79.
MacMicking J, Xie QW, Nathan C. Nitric oxide and macrophage function. Annu Rev Immunol. 1997;15:323‐350.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.immunol.15.1.323
- 80.
Albina JE, Mills CD, Barbul A, et al. Arginine metabolism in wounds. Am J Physiol. 1988;254(4 Pt 1):E459‐E467.
Not in our library10.1152/ajpendo.1988.254.4.e459
- 81.
Klimp AH, Hollema H, Kempinga C, et al. Expression of cyclooxygenase‐2 and inducible nitric oxide synthase in human ovarian tumors and tumor‐associated macrophages. Cancer Res. 2001;61(19):7305‐7309.
Not in our library
- 82.
Sharda DR, Yu S, Ray M, et al. Regulation of macrophage arginase expression and tumor growth by the ron receptor tyrosine kinase. J Immunol. 2011;187(5):2181‐2192.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1003460
- 83.
Biswas SK, Gangi L, Paul S, et al. A distinct and unique transcriptional program expressed by tumor‐associated macrophages (defective NF‐kappaB and enhanced IRF‐3/STAT1 activation). Blood. 2006;107(5):2112‐2122.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2005-01-0428
- 84.
Chang CI, Liao JC, Kuo L. Macrophage arginase promotes tumor cell growth and suppresses nitric oxide‐mediated tumor cytotoxicity. Cancer Res. 2001;61(3):1100‐1106.
Not in our library
- 85.
Mills CD, Shearer J, Evans R, Caldwell MD. Macrophage arginine metabolism and the inhibition or stimulation of cancer. J Immunol. 1992;149(8):2709‐2714.
Not in our library
- 86.
Choi J, Stradmann‐Bellinghausen B, Yakubov E, Savaskan NE, Regnier‐Vigouroux A. Glioblastoma cells induce differential glutamatergic gene expressions in human tumor‐associated microglia/macrophages and monocyte‐derived macrophages. Cancer Biol Ther. 2015;16(8):1205‐1213.
Not in our library10.1080/15384047.2015.1056406
- 87.
Zhao Q, Kuang DM, Wu Y, et al. Activated CD69+ T cells foster immune privilege by regulating IDO expression in tumor‐associated macrophages. J Immunol. 2012;188(3):1117‐1124.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1100164
- 88.
Zhu J, Yamane H, Paul WE. Differentiation of effector CD4 T cell populations (*). Annu Rev Immunol. 2010;28:445‐489.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-030409-101212
- 89.
Weaver CT, Hatton RD, Mangan PR, Harrington LE. IL‐17 family cytokines and the expanding diversity of effector T cell lineages. Annu Rev Immunol. 2007;25:821‐852.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.immunol.25.022106.141557
- 90.
Gajewski TF, Schreiber H, Fu YX. Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nat Immunol. 2013;14(10):1014‐1022.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2703
- 91.
Zarour HM. Reversing T‐Cell dysfunction and exhaustion in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(8):1856‐1864.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-1849
- 92.
- 93.
Wherry EJ. T cell exhaustion. Nat Immunol. 2011;12(6):492‐499.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2035
- 94.
Verbist KC, Guy CS, Milasta S, et al. Metabolic maintenance of cell asymmetry following division in activated t lymphocytes. Nature. 2016;532(7599):389‐393.
Not in our library10.1038/nature17442
- 95.
Fox CJ, Hammerman PS, Thompson CB. Fuel feeds function: energy metabolism and the t‐cell response. Nat Rev Immunol. 2005;5(11):844‐852.
Not in our library10.1038/nri1710
- 96.
Delgoffe GM, Kole TP, Zheng Y, et al. The mTOR kinase differentially regulates effector and regulatory T cell lineage commitment. Immunity. 2009;30(6):832‐844.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2009.04.014
- 97.
Araki K, Turner AP, Shaffer VO, et al. MTOR regulates memory CD8 T‐cell differentiation. Nature. 2009;460(7251):108‐112.
Not in our library10.1038/nature08155
- 98.
Chang CH, Curtis JD, Maggi LJ, et al. Posttranscriptional control of T cell effector function by aerobic glycolysis. Cell. 2013;153(6):1239‐1251.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.016
- 99.
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(10):1064‐1072.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2687
- 100.
De Rosa V, Galgani M, Porcellini A, et al. Glycolysis controls the induction of human regulatory T cells by modulating the expression of foxp3 exon 2 splicing variants. Nat Immunol. 2015;16(11):1174‐1184.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.3269
- 101.
- 102.
Maciver NJ, Jacobs SR, Wieman HL, et al. Glucose metabolism in lymphocytes is a regulated process with significant effects on immune cell function and survival. J Leukoc Biol. 2008;84(4):949‐957.
Not in our library10.1189/jlb.0108024
- 103.
Hu Z, Qu G, Yu X, et al. Acylglycerol kinase maintains metabolic state and immune responses of CD8(+) T cells. Cell Metab. 2019;30(2):290‐302.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.016
- 104.
van der Windt GJ, Everts B, Chang CH, et al. Mitochondrial respiratory capacity is a critical regulator of CD8+ T cell memory development. Immunity. 2012;36(1):68‐78.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2011.12.007
- 105.
Phan AT, Goldrath AW, Glass CK. Metabolic and epigenetic coordination of T cell and macrophage immunity. Immunity. 2017;46(5):714‐729.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2017.04.016
- 106.
Zhang H, Tang K, Ma J, et al. Ketogenesis‐generated beta‐hydroxybutyrate is an epigenetic regulator of CD8(+) T‐cell memory development. Nat Cell Biol. 2020;22(1):18‐25.
Not in our library10.1038/s41556-019-0440-0
- 107.
Pearce EL, Walsh MC, Cejas PJ, et al. Enhancing CD8 T‐cell memory by modulating fatty acid metabolism. Nature. 2009;460(7251):103‐107.
Not in our library10.1038/nature08097
- 108.
Yang W, Bai Y, Xiong Y, et al. Potentiating the antitumour response of CD8(+) T cells by modulating cholesterol metabolism. Nature. 2016;531(7596):651‐655.
Not in our library10.1038/nature17412
- 109.
Tanaka A, Sakaguchi S. Regulatory T cells in cancer immunotherapy. Cell Res. 2017;27(1):109‐118.
Not in our library10.1038/cr.2016.151
- 110.
Wherry EJ, KurachiM. Molecular and cellular insights into T cell exhaustion. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15(8):486‐499.
Not in our library10.1038/nri3862
- 111.
Field CS, Baixauli F, Kyle RL, et al. Mitochondrial integrity regulated by lipid metabolism is a cell‐intrinsic checkpoint for Treg suppressive function. Cell Metab. 2020;31(2):422‐437.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2019.11.021
- 112.
Hang S, Paik D, Yao L, et al. Bile acid metabolites control TH17 and Treg cell differentiation. Nature. 2019;576(7785):143‐148.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1785-z
- 113.
- 114.
Shi H, Chapman NM, Wen J, et al. Amino acids license kinase mTORC1 activity and Treg cell function via small G proteins Rag and Rheb. Immunity. 2019;51(6):1012‐1027.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2019.10.001
- 115.
Carr EL, Kelman A, Wu GS, et al. Glutamine uptake and metabolism are coordinately regulated by ERK/MAPK during T lymphocyte activation. J Immunol. 2010;185(2):1037‐1044.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.0903586
- 116.
Platten M, Wick W, Van den Eynde BJ. Tryptophan catabolism in cancer: beyond IDO and tryptophan depletion. Cancer Res. 2012;72(21):5435‐5440.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-0569
- 117.
Lee GK, Park HJ, Macleod M, et al. Tryptophan deprivation sensitizes activated T cells to apoptosis prior to cell division. Immunology. 2002;107(4):452‐460.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2567.2002.01526.x
- 118.
Liu Y, Liang X, Dong W, et al. Tumor‐repopulating cells induce PD‐1 expression in CD8(+) T cells by transferring kynurenine and AhR activation. Cancer Cell. 2018;33(3):480‐494.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2018.02.005
- 119.
Lind DS. Arginine and cancer. J Nutr. 2004;134(10 Suppl):2837S‐2841S, 2853S.
Not in our library10.1093/jn/134.10.2837s
- 120.
Geiger R, Rieckmann JC, Wolf T, et al. L‐Arginine modulates T cell metabolism and enhances survival and anti‐tumor activity. Cell. 2016;167(3):829‐842.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2016.09.031
- 121.
Vivier E, Tomasello E, Baratin M, Walzer T, Ugolini S. Functions of natural killer cells. Nat Immunol. 2008;9(5):503‐510.
Not in our library10.1038/ni1582
- 122.
Stojanovic A, Correia MP, Cerwenka A. Shaping of NK cell responses by the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Microenviron. 2013;6(2):135‐146.
Not in our library10.1007/s12307-012-0125-8
- 123.
Michelet X, Dyck L, Hogan A, et al. Metabolic reprogramming of natural killer cells in obesity limits antitumor responses. Nat Immunol. 2018;19(12):1330‐1340.
Not in our library10.1038/s41590-018-0251-7
- 124.
- 125.
Keppel MP, Saucier N, Mah AY, Vogel TP, Cooper MA. Activation‐specific metabolic requirements for NK cell IFN‐gamma production. J Immunol. 2015;194(4):1954‐1962.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1402099
- 126.
Donnelly RP, Loftus RM, Keating SE, et al. MTORC1‐dependent metabolic reprogramming is a prerequisite for NK cell effector function. J Immunol. 2014;193(9):4477‐4484.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1401558
- 127.
Keating SE, Zaiatz‐Bittencourt V, Loftus RM, et al. Metabolic reprogramming supports IFN‐gamma production by CD56bright NK cells. J Immunol. 2016;196(6):2552‐2560.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1501783
- 128.
Salzberger W, Martrus G, Bachmann K, et al. Tissue‐resident NK cells differ in their expression profile of the nutrient transporters Glut1, CD98 and CD71. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e201170.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0201170
- 129.
Maratou E, Dimitriadis G, Kollias A, et al. Glucose transporter expression on the plasma membrane of resting and activated white blood cells. Eur J Clin Invest. 2007;37(4):282‐290.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2362.2007.01786.x
- 130.
Marcais A, Cherfils‐Vicini J, Viant C, et al. The metabolic checkpoint kinase mTOR is essential for IL‐15 signaling during the development and activation of NK cells. Nat Immunol. 2014;15(8):749‐757.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2936
- 131.
Assmann N, O'Brien KL, Donnelly RP, et al. Srebp‐controlled glucose metabolism is essential for NK cell functional responses. Nat Immunol. 2017;18(11):1197‐1206.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.3838
- 132.
Zaiatz‐Bittencourt V, Finlay DK, Gardiner CM. Canonical TGF‐beta signaling pathway represses human NK cell metabolism.J Immunol. 2018;200(12):3934‐3941.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1701461
- 133.
Viel S, Besson L, Marotel M, Walzer T, Marcais A. Regulation of mTOR, metabolic fitness, and effector functions by cytokines in natural killer cells. Cancers. 2017;9(10):E132.
Not in our library10.3390/cancers9100132
- 134.
Shimano H, Sato R. SREBP‐regulated lipid metabolism: convergent physiology ‐ divergent pathophysiology. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017;13(12):710‐730.
Not in our library10.1038/nrendo.2017.91
- 135.
Qin WH, Yang ZS, Li M, et al. High serum levels of cholesterol increase anti‐tumor functions of nature killer cells and reduce growth of liver tumors in mice. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):1713‐1727.
Not in our library10.1053/j.gastro.2020.01.028
- 136.
- 137.
Yang E, Singh BK, Paustian AM, Kambayashi T. Diacylglycerol kinase zeta is a target to enhance NK cell function. J Immunol. 2016;197(3):934‐941.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1600581
- 138.
Yamauchi T, Kamon J, Ito Y, et al. Cloning of adiponectin receptors that mediate antidiabetic metabolic effects. Nature. 2003;423(6941):762‐769.
Not in our library10.1038/nature01705
- 139.
Takeuchi T, Adachi Y, Ohtsuki Y, Furihata M. Adiponectin receptors, with special focus on the role of the third receptor, T‐cadherin, in vascular disease. Med Mol Morphol. 2007;40(3):115‐120.
Not in our library10.1007/s00795-007-0364-9
- 140.
- 141.
Almutairi SM, Ali AK, He W, et al. Interleukin‐18 up‐regulates amino acid transporters and facilitates amino acid‐induced mTORC1 activation in natural killer cells. J Biol Chem. 2019;294(12):4644‐4655.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.ra118.005892
- 142.
Li X, Wenes M, Romero P, et al. Navigating metabolic pathways to enhance antitumour immunity and immunotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(7):425‐441.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-019-0203-7
- 143.
Stiff A, Trikha P, Mundy‐Bosse B, et al. Nitric oxide production by myeloid‐derived suppressor cells plays a role in impairing Fc receptor‐mediated natural killer cell function. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(8):1891‐1904.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-0691
- 144.
Liu X, Shin N, Koblish HK, et al. Selective inhibition of IDO1 effectively regulates mediators of antitumor immunity. Blood. 2010;115(17):3520‐3530.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2009-09-246124
- 145.
Merad M, Sathe P, Helft J, Miller J, Mortha A. The dendritic cell lineage: ontogeny and function of dendritic cells and their subsets in the steady state and the inflamed setting. Annu Rev Immunol. 2013;31:563‐604.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-020711-074950
- 146.
Murphy TL, Grajales‐Reyes GE, Wu X, et al. Transcriptional control of dendritic cell development. Annu Rev Immunol. 2016;34:93‐119.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-032713-120204
- 147.
Du X, Chapman NM, Chi H. Emerging roles of cellular metabolism in regulating dendritic cell subsets and function. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2018;6:152.
Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2018.00152
- 148.
Krawczyk CM, Holowka T, Sun J, et al. Toll‐Like receptor‐induced changes in glycolytic metabolism regulate dendritic cell activation. Blood. 2010;115(23):4742‐4749.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2009-10-249540
- 149.
Giovanelli P, Sandoval TA, Cubillos‐Ruiz JR. Dendritic cell metabolism and function in tumors. Trends Immunol. 2019;40(8):699‐718.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2019.06.004
- 150.
Everts B, Amiel E, Huang SC, et al. TLR‐driven early glycolytic reprogramming via the kinases TBK1‐IKKvarepsilon supports the anabolic demands of dendritic cell activation. Nat Immunol. 2014;15(4):323‐332.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2833
- 151.
- 152.
- 153.
Snyder JP, Amiel E. Regulation of dendritic cell immune function and metabolism by cellular nutrient sensor mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR). Front Immunol. 2018;9:3145.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2018.03145
- 154.
Thwe PM, Pelgrom LR, Cooper R, et al. Cell‐intrinsic glycogen metabolism supports early glycolytic reprogramming required for dendritic cell immune responses. Cell Metab. 2019;30(1):225.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.017
- 155.
Song M, Cubillos‐Ruiz JR. Endoplasmic reticulum stress responses in intratumoral immune cells: implications for cancer immunotherapy. Trends Immunol. 2019;40(2):128‐141.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2018.12.001
- 156.
Danova K, Klapetkova A, Kayserova J, et al. NF‐kappaB, P38 MAPK, ERK1/2, mTOR, STAT3 and increased glycolysis regulate stability of paricalcitol/dexamethasone‐generated tolerogenic dendritic cells in the inflammatory environment. Oncotarget. 2015;6(16):14123‐14138.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.4234
- 157.
Pearce EJ, Everts B. Dendritic cell metabolism. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15(1):18‐29.
Not in our library10.1038/nri3771
- 158.
Gotoh K, Morisaki T, Setoyama D, et al. Mitochondrial p32/C1qbp is a critical regulator of dendritic cell metabolism and maturation. Cell Rep. 2018;25(7):1800‐1815.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.057
- 159.
Herber DL, Cao W, Nefedova Y, et al. Lipid accumulation and dendritic cell dysfunction in cancer. Nat Med. 2010;16(8):880‐886.
Not in our library10.1038/nm.2172
- 160.
- 161.
Zhao F, Xiao C, Evans KS, et al. Paracrine Wnt5a‐beta‐catenin signaling triggers a metabolic program that drives dendritic cell tolerization. Immunity. 2018;48(1):147‐160.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2017.12.004
- 162.
Villablanca EJ. Retinoic acid‐producing DCs and gut‐tropic FOXP3(+) regulatory T cells in the induction of oral tolerance. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2(2):e22987.
Not in our library10.4161/onci.22987
- 163.
Murray PJ. Amino acid auxotrophy as a system of immunological control nodes. Nat Immunol. 2016;17(2):132‐139.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.3323
- 164.
Grohmann U, Bronte V. Control of immune response by amino acid metabolism. Immunol Rev. 2010;236:243‐264.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-065x.2010.00915.x
- 165.
Grohmann U, Fallarino F, Puccetti P. Tolerance, DCs and tryptophan: much ado about IDO. Trends Immunol. 2003;24(5):242‐248.
Not in our library10.1016/s1471-4906(03)00072-3
- 166.
Pallotta MT, Orabona C, Volpi C, et al. Indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase is a signaling protein in long‐term tolerance by dendritic cells. Nat Immunol. 2011;12(9):870‐878.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2077
- 167.
Ohmatsu H, Humme D, Gonzalez J, et al. IL‐32 induces indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase(+)CD1c(+) dendritic cells and indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase(+)CD163(+) macrophages: relevance to mycosis fungoides progression. Oncoimmunology. 2017;6(2):e1181237.
Not in our library10.1080/2162402x.2016.1181237
- 168.
Munn DH, Mellor AL. IDO in the tumor microenvironment: inflammation, counter‐regulation, and tolerance. Trends Immunol. 2016;37(3):193‐207.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2016.01.002
- 169.
Bronte V, Serafini P, Mazzoni A, Segal DM, Zanovello P. L‐Arginine metabolism in myeloid cells controls T‐lymphocyte functions. Trends Immunol. 2003;24(6):302‐306.
Not in our library10.1016/s1471-4906(03)00132-7
- 170.
Munder M, Eichmann K, Moran JM, et al. Th1/Th2‐regulated expression of arginase isoforms in murine macrophages and dendritic cells. J Immunol. 1999;163(7):3771‐3777.
Not in our library
- 171.
Mondanelli G, Bianchi R, Pallotta MT, et al. A relay pathway between arginine and tryptophan metabolism confers immunosuppressive properties on dendritic cells. Immunity. 2017;46(2):233‐244.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2017.01.005
- 172.
Norian LA, Rodriguez PC, O'Mara LA, et al. Tumor‐Infiltrating regulatory dendritic cells inhibit CD8+ T cell function via L‐arginine metabolism. Cancer Res. 2009;69(7):3086‐3094.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-08-2826
- 173.
Topalian SL, Taube JM, Pardoll DM. Neoadjuvant checkpoint blockade for cancer immunotherapy. Science. 2020;367(6477).
Not in our library10.1126/science.aax0182
- 174.
Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP, Yang JC, Morgan RA, Dudley ME. Adoptive cell transfer: a clinical path to effective cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2008;8(4):299‐308.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc2355
- 175.
Dougan M, Dranoff G. Immune therapy for cancer. Annu Rev Immunol. 2009;27:83‐117.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.immunol.021908.132544
- 176.
Postow MA, Callahan MK, Wolchok JD. Immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(17):1974‐1982.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.59.4358
- 177.
Bhatia A, Kumar Y. Cellular and molecular mechanisms in cancer immune escape: a comprehensive review. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2014;10(1):41‐62.
Not in our library10.1586/1744666x.2014.865519
- 178.
Tumeh PC, Harview CL, Yearley JH, et al. PD‐1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance. Nature. 2014;515(7528):568‐571.
Not in our library10.1038/nature13954
- 179.
Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(4):252‐264.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3239
- 180.
Sullivan RJ, Hamid O, Gonzalez R, et al. Atezolizumab plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib in BRAF‐mutated melanoma patients. Nat Med. 2019;25(6):929‐935.
Not in our library10.1038/s41591-019-0474-7
- 181.
Cortese I, Muranski P, Enose‐Akahata Y, et al. Pembrolizumab treatment for progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(17):1597‐1605.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1815039
- 182.
Hernandez‐Guerrero T, Doger B, Moreno V. Cemiplimab for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Drugs Today. 2019;55(8):485‐494.
Not in our library10.1358/dot.2019.55.8.3005176
- 183.
Garassino MC, Cho BC, Kim JH, et al. Durvalumab as third‐line or later treatment for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (ATLANTIC): an open‐label, single‐arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(4):521‐536.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30144-x
- 184.
Kennedy LB, Salama A. A review of cancer immunotherapy toxicity. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020.
Not in our library10.3322/caac.21596
- 185.
Mantia CM, Buchbinder EI. Immunotherapy toxicity. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2019;33(2):275‐290.
Not in our library10.1016/j.hoc.2018.12.008
- 186.
Wang DY, Salem JE, Cohen JV, et al. Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(12):1721‐1728.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.3923
- 187.
Arlauckas SP, Garris CS, Kohler RH, et al. In vivo imaging reveals a tumor‐associated macrophage‐mediated resistance pathway in anti‐PD‐1 therapy. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9(389).
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aal3604
- 188.
Gordon SR, Maute RL, Dulken BW, et al. PD‐1 expression by tumour‐associated macrophages inhibits phagocytosis and tumour immunity. Nature. 2017;545(7655):495‐499.
Not in our library10.1038/nature22396
- 189.
Thompson JA. New NCCN guidelines: recognition and management of immunotherapy‐related toxicity. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018;16(5S):594‐596.
Not in our library10.6004/jnccn.2018.0047
- 190.
Tokunaga A, Sugiyama D, Maeda Y, et al. Selective inhibition of low‐affinity memory CD8(+) T cells by corticosteroids. J Exp Med. 2019;216(12):2701‐2713.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20190738
- 191.
Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2015;348(6230):62‐68.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa4967
- 192.
Rosenberg SA, Spiess P, Lafreniere R. A new approach to the adoptive immunotherapy of cancer with tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes. Science. 1986;233(4770):1318‐1321.
Not in our library10.1126/science.3489291
- 193.
Fesnak AD, June CH, Levine BL. Engineered T cells: the promise and challenges of cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16(9):566‐581.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2016.97
- 194.
June CH, O'Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2018;359(6382):1361‐1365.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aar6711
- 195.
Dudley ME, Rosenberg SA. Adoptive‐cell‐transfer therapy for the treatment of patients with cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3(9):666‐675.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc1167
- 196.
Kalos M, June CH. Adoptive T cell transfer for cancer immunotherapy in the era of synthetic biology. Immunity. 2013;39(1):49‐60.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.002
- 197.
Landsberg J, Kohlmeyer J, Renn M, et al. Melanomas resist T‐cell therapy through inflammation‐induced reversible dedifferentiation. Nature. 2012;490(7420):412‐416.
Not in our library10.1038/nature11538
- 198.
Gisselbrecht C, Van Den Neste E. How I manage patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2018;182(5):633‐643.
Not in our library10.1111/bjh.15412
- 199.
Fraietta JA, Lacey SF, Orlando EJ, et al. Determinants of response and resistance to CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nat Med. 2018;24(5):563‐571.
Not in our library10.1038/s41591-018-0010-1
- 200.
Schuster SJ, Svoboda J, Chong EA, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells in refractory B‐cell lymphomas. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(26):2545‐2554.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1708566
- 201.
Ying Z, Huang XF, Xiang X, et al. A safe and potent anti‐CD19 CAR T cell therapy. Nat Med. 2019;25(6):947‐953.
Not in our library10.1038/s41591-019-0421-7
- 202.
Brudno JN, Kochenderfer JN. Chimeric antigen receptor T‐cell therapies for lymphoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(1):31‐46.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.128
- 203.
Liu E, Marin D, Banerjee P, et al. Use of CAR‐Transduced natural killer cells in CD19‐Positive lymphoid tumors. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):545‐553.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1910607
- 204.
Giordano‐Attianese G, Gainza P, Gray‐Gaillard E, et al. A computationally designed chimeric antigen receptor provides a small‐molecule safety switch for T‐cell therapy. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38:426‐432.
Not in our library10.1038/s41587-019-0403-9
- 205.
Weiner LM, Surana R, Wang S. Monoclonal antibodies: versatile platforms for cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2010;10(5):317‐327.
Not in our library10.1038/nri2744
- 206.
Weiner LM, Dhodapkar MV, Ferrone S. Monoclonal antibodies for cancer immunotherapy. Lancet. 2009;373(9668):1033‐1040.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60251-8
- 207.
Melero I, Hervas‐Stubbs S, Glennie M, Pardoll DM, Chen L. Immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7(2):95‐106.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc2051
- 208.
Garfall AL, June CH. Trispecific antibodies offer a third way forward for anticancer immunotherapy. Nature. 2019;575(7783):450‐451.
Not in our library10.1038/d41586-019-03495-3
- 209.
Barkal AA, Brewer RE, Markovic M, et al. CD24 signalling through macrophage siglec‐10 is a target for cancer immunotherapy. Nature. 2019;572(7769):392‐396.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1456-0
- 210.
Jaiswal S, Jamieson CH, Pang WW, et al. CD47 is upregulated on circulating hematopoietic stem cells and leukemia cells to avoid phagocytosis. Cell. 2009;138(2):271‐285.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2009.05.046
- 211.
Advani R, Flinn I, Popplewell L, et al. CD47 blockade by Hu5F9‐G4 and rituximab in non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(18):1711‐1721.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1807315
- 212.
- 213.
Ott PA, Wu CJ. Cancer vaccines: steering T cells down the right path to eradicate tumors. Cancer Discov. 2019;9(4):476‐481.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-1357
- 214.
Zhao KN, Zhang L, Qu J. Dr. Jian Zhou: the great inventor of cervical cancer vaccine. Protein Cell. 2017;8(2):79‐82.
Not in our library10.1007/s13238-016-0358-2
- 215.
Lalu M, Leung GJ, Dong YY, et al. Mapping the preclinical to clinical evidence and development trajectory of the oncolytic virus talimogene laherparepvec (T‐VEC): a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e29475.
Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029475
- 216.
Chesney J, Puzanov I, Collichio F, et al. Randomized, open‐label phase II study evaluating the efficacy and safety of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with ipilimumab versus ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced, unresectable melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(17):1658‐1667.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2017.73.7379
- 217.
Keskin DB, Anandappa AJ, Sun J, et al. Neoantigen vaccine generates intratumoral T cell responses in phase Ib glioblastoma trial. Nature. 2019;565(7738):234‐239.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-018-0792-9
- 218.
Borden EC. Interferons alpha and beta in cancer: therapeutic opportunities from new insights. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(3):219‐234.
Not in our library10.1038/s41573-018-0011-2
- 219.
Morillon YN, Su Z, Schlom J, Greiner JW. Temporal changes within the (Bladder) tumor microenvironment that accompany the therapeutic effects of the immunocytokine NHS‐IL12.J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7(1):150.
Not in our library10.1186/s40425-019-0620-2
- 220.
Conesa‐Milian L, Falomir E, Murga J, Carda M, Marco JA. Novel multitarget inhibitors with antiangiogenic and immunomodulator properties. Eur J Med Chem. 2019;170:87‐98.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.03.012
- 221.
- 222.
Ladenstein R, Potschger U, Valteau‐Couanet D, et al. Interleukin 2 with anti‐GD2 antibody Ch14.18/CHO (dinutuximab beta) in patients with high‐risk neuroblastoma (HR‐NBL1/SIOPEN): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(12):1617‐1629.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30578-3
- 223.
- 224.
Martinez‐Outschoorn UE, Peiris‐Pages M, Pestell RG, Sotgia F, Lisanti MP. Cancer metabolism: a therapeutic perspective. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(2):113.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.1
- 225.
Gu L, Yi Z, Zhang Y, et al. Low dose of 2‐deoxy‐D‐glucose kills acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells and reverses glucocorticoid resistance via N‐linked glycosylation inhibition under normoxia. Oncotarget. 2017;8(19):30978‐30991.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.16046
- 226.
Zheng MF, Shen SY, Huang WD. DCA increases the antitumor effects of capecitabine in a mouse B16 melanoma allograft and a human non‐small cell lung cancer A549 xenograft. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;72(5):1031‐1041.
Not in our library10.1007/s00280-013-2281-z
- 227.
Wang Y, Tang S, Wu Y, et al. Upregulation of 6‐phosphofructo‐2‐kinase (PFKFB3) by hyperactivated mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 is critical for tumor growth in tuberous sclerosis complex. IUBMB Life. 2020;72(5):965‐977.
Not in our library10.1002/iub.2232
- 228.
Sukumar M, Liu J, Ji Y, et al. Inhibiting glycolytic metabolism enhances CD8+ T cell memory and antitumor function. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(10):4479‐4488.
Not in our library10.1172/jci69589
- 229.
Peppicelli S, Bianchini F, Calorini L. Extracellular acidity, a “Reappreciated” trait of tumor environment driving malignancy: perspectives in diagnosis and therapy. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2014;33(2‐3):823‐832.
Not in our library10.1007/s10555-014-9506-4
- 230.
Gorgun G, Calabrese E, Soydan E, et al. Immunomodulatory effects of lenalidomide and pomalidomide on interaction of tumor and bone marrow accessory cells in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2010;116(17):3227‐3237.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2010-04-279893
- 231.
Chirasani SR, Leukel P, Gottfried E, et al. Diclofenac inhibits lactate formation and efficiently counteracts local immune suppression in a murine glioma model. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(4):843‐853.
Not in our library10.1002/ijc.27712
- 232.
Pilon‐Thomas S, Kodumudi KN, El‐Kenawi AE, et al. Neutralization of tumor acidity improves antitumor responses to immunotherapy. Cancer Res. 2016;76(6):1381‐1390.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-15-1743
- 233.
Feun L, You M, Wu CJ, et al. Arginine deprivation as a targeted therapy for cancer. Curr Pharm Des. 2008;14(11):1049‐1057.
Not in our library10.2174/138161208784246199
- 234.
Stasyk OV, Boretsky YR, Gonchar MV, Sibirny AA. Recombinant arginine‐degrading enzymes in metabolic anticancer therapy and bioanalytics. Cell Biol Int. 2015;39(3):246‐252.
Not in our library10.1002/cbin.10383
- 235.
- 236.
Hellmann MD, Gettinger S, Chow L, et al. Phase 1 study of epacadostat in combination with atezolizumab for patients with previously treated advanced non‐small Cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2020.
Not in our library10.1002/ijc.32951
- 237.
Watanabe T, Gaedicke S, Guffart E, Firat E, Niedermann G. Adding indoximod to hypofractionated radiotherapy with anti‐PD‐1 checkpoint blockade enhances early NK and CD8(+) T‐cell‐dependent tumor activity. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(4):945‐956.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-0476
- 238.
Lob S, Konigsrainer A, Rammensee HG, Opelz G, Terness P. Inhibitors of indoleamine‐2,3‐dioxygenase for cancer therapy: can we see the wood for the trees. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(6):445‐452.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc2639
- 239.
Ahluwalia GS, Grem JL, Hao Z, Cooney DA. Metabolism and action of amino acid analog anti‐cancer agents. Pharmacol Ther. 1990;46(2):243‐271.
Not in our library10.1016/0163-7258(90)90094-i
- 240.
Hassanein M, Qian J, Hoeksema MD, et al. Targeting SLC1a5‐mediated glutamine dependence in non‐small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2015;137(7):1587‐1597.
Not in our library10.1002/ijc.29535
- 241.
Leone RD, Zhao L, Englert JM, et al. Glutamine blockade induces divergent metabolic programs to overcome tumor immune evasion. Science. 2019;366(6468):1013‐1021.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aav2588
- 242.
- 243.
O'Sullivan D, van der Windt GJ, Huang SC, et al. Memory CD8(+) T cells use cell‐intrinsic lipolysis to support the metabolic programming necessary for development. Immunity. 2014;41(1):75‐88.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2014.06.005
- 244.
Michalek RD, Gerriets VA, Jacobs SR, et al. Cutting edge: distinct glycolytic and lipid oxidative metabolic programs are essential for effector and regulatory CD4+ T cell subsets. J Immunol. 2011;186(6):3299‐3303.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1003613
- 245.
Zhang Y, Kurupati R, Liu L, et al. Enhancing CD8(+) T cell fatty acid catabolism within a metabolically challenging tumor microenvironment increases the efficacy of melanoma immunotherapy. Cancer Cell. 2017;32(3):377‐391.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2017.08.004
- 246.
Blagih J, Coulombe F, Vincent EE, et al. The energy sensor AMPK regulates T cell metabolic adaptation and effector responses in vivo. Immunity. 2015;42(1):41‐54.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2014.12.030
- 247.
Eikawa S, Nishida M, Mizukami S, et al. Immune‐Mediated antitumor effect by type 2 diabetes drug, metformin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(6):1809‐1814.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1417636112
- 248.
Scharping NE, Menk AV, Whetstone RD, Zeng X, Delgoffe GM. Efficacy of PD‐1 blockade is potentiated by metformin‐induced reduction of tumor hypoxia. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5(1):9‐16.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-16-0103
- 249.
- 250.
Patsoukis N, Weaver JD, Strauss L, et al. Immunometabolic regulations mediated by coinhibitory receptors and their impact on T cell immune responses. Front Immunol. 2017;8:330.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2017.00330
- 251.
Sena LA, Li S, Jairaman A, et al. Mitochondria are required for antigen‐specific T cell activation through reactive oxygen species signaling. Immunity. 2013;38(2):225‐236.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2012.10.020
- 252.
Chamoto K, Chowdhury PS, Kumar A, et al. Mitochondrial activation chemicals synergize with surface receptor PD‐1 blockade for T cell‐dependent antitumor activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114(5):E761‐E770.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1620433114
- 253.
Sai J, Owens P, Novitskiy SV, et al. PI3K inhibition reduces mammary tumor growth and facilitates antitumor immunity and anti‐PD1 responses. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(13):3371‐3384.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-2142
- 254.
De Henau O, Rausch M, Winkler D, et al. Overcoming resistance to checkpoint blockade therapy by targeting PI3Kgamma in myeloid cells. Nature. 2016;539(7629):443‐447.
Not in our library10.1038/nature20554
- 255.
- 256.
Zhou J, Peng H, Li K, et al. Liver‐resident NK cells control antiviral activity of hepatic T Cells via the PD‐1‐PD‐L1 axis. Immunity. 2019;50(2):403‐417.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2018.12.024
- 257.
Larkin J, Hodi FS, Wolchok JD. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(13):1270‐1271.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmc1509660
- 258.
Robert C, Long GV, Brady B, et al. Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):320‐330.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1412082
- 259.
Weber JS, D'Angelo SP, Minor D, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti‐CTLA‐4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open‐label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(4):375‐384.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(15)70076-8
- 260.
Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2521‐2532.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1503093
- 261.
Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator‐choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab‐refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE‐002): a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(8):908‐918.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(15)00083-2
- 262.
Ansell SM, Lesokhin AM, Borrello I, et al. PD‐1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(4):311‐319.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1411087
- 263.
Chen R, Zinzani PL, Fanale MA, et al. Phase II Study of the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(19):2125‐2132.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.72.1316
- 264.
Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, et al. Nivolumab Versus docetaxel in advanced squamous‐cell non‐small‐cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2015;373(2):123‐135.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1504627
- 265.
Borghaei H, Paz‐Ares L, Horn L, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer.N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1627‐1639.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1507643
- 266.
Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD‐L1‐positive, advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE‐010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10027):1540‐1550.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01281-7
- 267.
Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, et al. Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non‐squamous non‐small‐cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open‐label KEYNOTE‐021 Study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(11):1497‐1508.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30498-3
- 268.
Reck M, Rodriguez‐Abreu D, Robinson AG, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD‐L1‐Positive non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1823‐1833.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1606774
- 269.
Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non‐small‐cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open‐label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10030):1837‐1846.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00587-0
- 270.
Antonia SJ, Villegas A, Daniel D, et al. Durvalumab after chemoradiotherapy in stage III non‐small‐cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(20):1919‐1929.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1709937
- 271.
Overman MJ, McDermott R, Leach JL, et al. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair‐deficient or microsatellite instability‐high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open‐label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1182‐1191.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30422-9
- 272.
Fuchs CS, Niedzwiecki D, Mamon HJ, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil compared with adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil and leucovorin after curative resection of gastric cancer: results from CALGB 80101 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(32):3671‐3677.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2017.74.2130
- 273.
Petrillo A, Tirino G, Zito MF, et al. Nivolumab in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer patients: real‐life data from a western population. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:867‐876.
Not in our library10.2147/ott.s229813
- 274.
Makker V, Taylor MH, Aghajanian C, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2020.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.19.02627
- 275.
Ferris RL, Blumenschein GJ, Fayette J, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous‐cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1856‐1867.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1602252
- 276.
Seiwert TY, Burtness B, Mehra R, et al. Safety and clinical activity of pembrolizumab for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (KEYNOTE‐012): an open‐label, multicentre, phase 1B trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(7):956‐965.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30066-3
- 277.
Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker‐Radtke A, et al. Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single‐arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(3):312‐322.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30065-7
- 278.
Bellmunt J, de Wit R, Vaughn DJ, et al. Pembrolizumab as second‐line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(11):1015‐1026.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1613683
- 279.
Balar AV, Castellano D, O'Donnell PH, et al. First‐Line pembrolizumab in cisplatin‐ineligible patients with locally advanced and unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer (KEYNOTE‐052): a multicentre, single‐arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):1483‐1492.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30616-2
- 280.
Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE, et al. Atezolizumab as first‐line treatment in cisplatin‐ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single‐arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):67‐76.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32455-2
- 281.
Rosenberg JE, Hoffman‐Censits J, Powles T, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum‐based chemotherapy: a single‐arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10031):1909‐1920.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00561-4
- 282.
Powles T, O'Donnell PH, Massard C, et al. Efficacy and safety of durvalumab in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: updated results from a phase 1/2 open‐label study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(9):e172411.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.2411
- 283.
Patel MR, Ellerton J, Infante JR, et al. Avelumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum failure (JAVELIN solid tumor):pooled results from two expansion cohorts of an open‐label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(1):51‐64.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30900-2
- 284.
Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid O, et al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy‐refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single‐group, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(10):1374‐1385.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30364-3
- 285.
Rogers JE, Xiao L, Trail A, et al. Nivolumab in combination with irinotecan and 5‐fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) for refractory advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Oncology. 2020;98(5):289‐294.
Not in our library10.1159/000505974
- 286.
Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD‐1 blockade in tumors with mismatch‐repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2509‐2520.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1500596
- 287.
El‐Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open‐label, non‐comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10088):2492‐2502.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31046-2
- 288.
Chahoud J, Msaouel P, Campbell MT, et al. Nivolumab for the treatment of patients with metastatic non‐clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC): a single‐institutional experience and literature meta‐analysis. Oncologist. 2020;25(3):252‐258.
Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0372
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.